HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:07:48 GMT

William C. Barwell (popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com) wrote:
: Thrown out?!!!!  thrown out of an unmoderated group?  Do you mean perhaps 
: we all put you in our kill files, perhaps?  (I have access thru a Waffle 
: BBS and don't have a kill file.)  Tell us.  How does one throw somebody 
: out of an unmoderated group?  I have some other candidates if it can be 
: done.  Thrown out?  BWAHAHAHAHAH!  Silly boy!
:

It is eminently possible to censor a group with the effect of throwing
a person out of it.  I've seen this happen, more than once, in the
comp.binaries or comp.sources newsgroups:  someone posts something that
is commercial or not public domain...  In order to keep the post from
going out to the entire universe, someone kills the article(s) before
they get passed on to the next site.  Just as you can kill an article
that you post, after posting it...  No reason this couldn't be automated
with software.  Food for thought?

 
: Pope Charles.    Subgenius Pope Of Houston.   An Alt.fan.dan-quayle 
: regular and damned proud of it.
: 
: 
: --
: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
: After December 31, (713) 481-3763
: 1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh
Date: 4 Jan 1993 01:17:22 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorba7.larc.nasa.gov

In article <C01GJC.3CE@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don 
Wiggins) writes:

> 
> Actually I don't have anything to say, but thought it might be
> interesting to write something that 1) wasn't cross-posted to a dozen
> different boards and 2) didn't contain any comments on homosexuality,
> religion, or abortion.
> 
> 
MY GOD!  There's hope!  If you get a chance, read the post I made on
Debate in a Vacuum on this newsgroup.  It's about some educational
books I just read...very interesting.  I'd Love to get this group
talking about other stuff!

Mike

Mike Rowland (Contractor),  MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: A scary thought
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:37:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.062952.6046@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>The thought that alt.fan.rush-limbaugh = alt.human-sexuality is truly
>a scary thought
>


So is a Democrat in the White House! :-)

Simon
From: lsa@ll.mit.edu (lisa s anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush on Donahue
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:53:07 GMT
Reply-To: lsa@ll.mit.edu (lisa s anderson)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <nate.978@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

|>
|>    I didn't see that show but I saw some clips on last night's RL the TV 
|>show. I'm not sure it's the same Donahue show, though. Is this the one in 
|>which they took a call from a girl who said repeatedly that she thought 
|>Rush was a pig and got a rousing ovation from Phil's audience? I know 
|>that she's entitled to her opinion and she doesn't have to love Rush, but 
|>the fact that the audience gave such a positive response to such a weak, 
|>non-substantive personal attack makes me really question the intelligence 
|>of the people Phil had in his audience. I don't think it's in my or any 
|>liberal's interest to waste time subjecting Rush to that sort of empty 
|>ad hominien stuff. 


|>--
|>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
|>Psychology Department               Indiana University
|>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
|>


Though I rarely watch Donahue's show, my perception has always been that his
audience is obviously "stacked" (as is Rush's I'd assume).  After all, they
are there to make the host look good.  It doesn't work - for me anyway...


-lisa
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Debate in a Vacuum!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:27:04 GMT

In article <1i7qhrINNbjs@rave.larc.nasa.gov> rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland) writes:
>(the next line for hotheads only)
>READ THE WHOLE THING BEFORE YOU FLAME

	Flame on:

	Look, idiot, are you posting this to EVERY SINGLE NEWSGROUP?
	I've seen it in
	alt.feminism
	soc.feminism (not sure)
	soc.men
	all of the rush limbaugh groups
	alt.politics.homosexuality
	alt.politics.clinton (might havebeen bush)

	I'm proud that you can read.  If you had a point to make, 
	I missed it. 

	flameoff.

-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Alternative Families
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:07:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec19.222818.18742@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
|> In article <17DEC199211424690@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
|> >In article <1992Dec17.160646.20839@Arco.COM>, dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham) writes...
|> >
|> >|It is important to portray families based on sexual practices because the
|> >|sexual activities of the parents matter to the children.  It matters a
|> >|great deal to them.
|> >
|> >	I have not found young children to be aware of sexual practises between 
|> >their parents or anyone, with the exception of kissing, perhaps.  They 
|> >know mommy and daddy sleep together, but usually no more than that.
|> 
|> Do you have any children?  I have a 10-year-old and a 5-year-old, and there 
|> is not really any way we can keep our sexual practices out of their attention.  
|> Without getting into any personal practices here, I would say that IMO, any 
|> couple who believes that their children are unaware that activities beyond 
|> kissing are going on, either is naive or very discrete.  Children, at least 
|> mine, are well aware that other activies occur "beyond the locked door."


First, I think that claims based on one family are pretty shaky.

Second, if children are so aware of sexual activity as Mr Krueger suggests,
then why do we need to be so careful not to allow any notion of sexuality 
to enter their innocent little minds?

You can't have it both ways.

jon.
Newsgroups: mdc.talk,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: "In Bed" Returns
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:51:29 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

I sincerely doubt that Rush came up with this.

I've heard this many times in several different
parts of the country.

Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
From: kieran@world.std.com (Aaron L Dickey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: the rabid Bob Dornan
Date: 27 Dec 92 19:14:52 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

>Anyone else thing that Rush has Dornan on as sort of a "good cop-bad
>cop" game?  After a week of Dornan, when Rush comes back, people say,
>"Hey, Rush isn't all that right-wing.  He's really kind of moderate."

I dunno...I think if Rush REALLY wanted to play good-cop/bad-cop, he'd let
Bob Grant do all guest-hosts, and let him be the obnoxious, outright
bastard he usually is on the air, rather than the tamed-down version that
gets out during Rush's time.

--Aaron, who thinks seven straight hours of Bob Grant is great no matter
how angry he's allowed to be
From: Lyn.Perez@f157.n363.z1.fidonet.org (Lyn Perez)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwi
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 00:48:12 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:363/157 - Compu-Link II, Orlando FL

You asked, " If mainstream christianity believes homosexuality is wrong, how can there ever be reconcilliation with the gay community? and teh answer to that is obviously - " It can't".  But just because homosexuality is morally wrong, does not mean that the christian community does not have a responsibility to attempt to minister to the needs of the gay community.  We are to hate the "sin" but love the "sinner" and through encouraging support and empathy, we hope that the gay community will see the bankru

ptcy of their lifestyle.
A gay has not a problem with women, his problem is his relationship with men.  He has never had a supportive, normal relationship with a male.  By ugly vehement responses to them, you do nothing to win them to the love Christ.
You would do well to couch you language in a more appropriate manner.

--  
        Lyn Perez  -  via FidoNet Node: 1:363/42
             UUCP:  -  ...tarpit!tous!business!157!Lyn.Perez
             ARPA:  -  Lyn.Perez@f157.n363.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Yo! DraftBait....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:07:31 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
]
] >"napalm, napalm, sticks like glue.... "
] 
] Actually white phosphorus is just as effective.........
] 
] (doesn't stick but will burn even under water)

I understand that being a WimpLiberalDraftBaitType
is mentally Challenging..... But what was the
Primary Product Upgrade to Napalm?????

Brought to you by DOW Chemical....

'better living through chemistry....'


And again, thank you for establishing that the
value of human life is contingent and not intrinsic.


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 06:45:37 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

larry@cs.com (Larry Spence) writes:

> In article <BzxK6I.55z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu 
> >
> >"Show me just one definitive example that shows or proves Rush to be
> >a bigot, racist, or sexist".
> >
> >I have yet to receive an answer.
> >
> >If you really want to put this thread to rest (at least my participation
> >in it), then answer my question, definitively, not with some dictionary
> >definition and the assumption that I will judge the man based on what the
> >dictionary says instead of the _facts_.
> 
> I don't know about others, but I haven't answered simply because the
> usual "defense" is "oh, he was just _joking_! lighten up!"  No matter how
> offensive a statement Rush makes, he can always back out by saying "it was
> a joke, gosh you've got a poor sense of humor."  So unless Rush signs a
> statement that he thinks women are inferior to men, no one here is going to
> accept anything as "proof."  Having said that... %)
> 
> Recall the time on the tv show when Rush had a "messenger" woman who was
> dressed in ultra-short shorts, tight outfit, etc., who delivered the poor,
> shaking, terrified dog to the set (his name was Jeb, I think)?  Do you
> recall Rush's comments when he called to the "messenger" to come back?  He
> said she looked back, and then kept on going (off the set).  Rush then made
> a comment to the effect of (I don't archive this stuff, look it up) how
> women were like cats, giving you "go to hell" looks when you call for them,
> unlike dogs, which are nice and loyal and loving.  This is _not_ the exact 
> wording, but (some of) you get the idea.  Taken in isolation, you could try
> to claim it was a joke (really funny, hoo boy), but consider that Rush is
> constantly making feeble "jokes" about wives not letting their husbands
> watch football, etc.  Rush's attitude toward women seems to be stuck at 
> the "girls, yuck, I'd rather hang out with the guys" stage.  I expect this
> attitude to change as soon as Rush can convince a woman to have sex with 
> him.
> 
> -- 
> Larry Spence
> larry@cs.com
> uunet!csccat!larry 



Reminds me of the early days of punk rock.  When a few skinhead bands, 
(such as the Cromagnons) got established, these groups did songs with 
racist and sexist garbage in it.  When other punks would jump on the 
Skins about it, the skins would reply, "it's just humor."
  There were inumerable letters of this ilk in such Mags as Maximum rock 
And Roll, expressing this view.  I have always called this humor thing, 
"The Skinhead Gambit".  Gee, Rush makes it fell like 1982 again.

Naw, it ain't racism.  It's just a joke.
Skinheads!

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
Subject: Howard Stern and Snapple
Date: 24 Dec 1992 17:28:38 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorba7.larc.nasa.gov

Howard Stern is now advertising Snapple--
COULD THERE BE HOPE?

Mike

Mike Rowland (Contractor),  MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
From: gary@maestro.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Reply-To: gary@maestro.mitre.org
Organization: None
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:47:21 GMT


In article <1hncfjINN5ir@meaddata.meaddata.com>, johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>If you wish to nit-pick, be consistent yourself and recognize both "Pro-Choice"
>and "Pro-Life" for the euphemisms they are and use the more accurate labels
>"pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" instead.
This just shows how little so-called pro-lifers understand their enemies,
the pro-choicers.  This makes about as much sense as President Bush's
comment on the Murphy Brown unwed motherhood incident "Well, at least
she made the 'pro-life' choice."  Sheesh.

If you really want to be honest, try "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion."
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: eng10436@nusunix1.nus.sg (QUEK CHIN MING)
Subject: test
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 06:12:54 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush on Donahue
Date: 25 Dec 92 03:43:27 GMT
Organization: Spaceley Sprockets, Inc.

thatcher@vcd.hp.com (Garen Thatcher) writes:

> One funny thing, Phil started talking about how evil the 80's were
> and how only the rich got richer and how bad that was. Rush brought
> up the fact that the 80's had been very good to Phil Donahue and since
> the 80's were this evil thing, that Phil should give back all the money
> that he had made. Phil became rich on during the 1980's and was lambasting
> the very decade that made him this way.

I'm sure Phil justifies it by thinking that by having all that money
he's really helping all the Downtrodden Masses of the world be
enlightened. It's really amazing, the twists the liberal mind can make
to justify exempting ones self from the rules one wishes to impose on
everyone else. Hey, just look at Congress!


--
Socialized medicine: Health care with the compassion of an IRS auditor, the
intelligence of a DMV employee, and the cost control of the Pentagon.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: The "L" word
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:19:10 GMT

Economically speaking, a liberal is someone who thinks that it is the 
governments role to allow for the greatest median standard of living,
while a conservative feels that it is the governments role to allow for 
the greatest mean standard of living

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: the rabid Bob Dornan
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 19:00:21 GMT

dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>> Dornan resorted to the major New Right tactic - simply project your target
>> subject to the wildest possible extreme, even far beyond any reachable
>> connection or relevance, generalize again, and continue by ranting on
>> about the developed extreme. Then stand back and hope some of your manure
>> stuck.

>Hate to let you down, but that's hardly a new trick; the left side of
>the aisle has been doing it for years.

    I believe that both sides of the aisle are guilty. The only ones I 
would absolve of blame in this area are moderates who're more interested 
in finding members of the opposition they can work with than they are in 
pointing fingers.

> Remember People For the American
>Way screaming that Bork would "Force mandatory sterilization of female
>workers!!!"? It's a standard attack technique of any group or person
>that's short on actual reason and logic.

    Right. In all fairness I have to say that I found some of Dornan's 
comments very interesting; for example, his line-by-line comparison 
between Bill Clinton's letter to that ROTC officer and the letter from 
Sullivan Ballou that was quoted in Ken Burn's PBS _Civil_War_ series.

    After about 5 minutes of analysis there was no question in my mind 
that it was a pity we didn't have Sullivan Ballou on the ballot in November. 
I have to admit, however, that my reaction to Ballou's letter is somewhat 
less enthusiastic than Congressman Dornan's; perhaps I'm blinded by 
hindsight and cynicism, but my reaction when I hear his words of selfless 
devotion and simple piety is not that he was a magnificent hero but rather 
just a poor bloody fool.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10554 alt.rush-limbaugh:12064 alt.fan.dan-quayle:7740
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Ted Krueger ostracized (was: New group proposal)
Summary: More whining from Ted
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:57:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Dec19.220755.18545@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu sez:

>. . . you should spend some 
>time over on alt.fan.dan.quayle.  I got kicked out of that group because I 
>didn't think that dan is as dumb as the media portrays him.

Pray tell, Ted, how exactly were you "kicked out"?  Or did you mean to
say that you were merely laughed to scorn and had in derision?


-- 
	     Every time you think, you weaken the nation.
				- attributed to Moe Howard

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: Tom.Snyder@f157.n363.z1.fidonet.org (Tom Snyder)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The CFR
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 17:51:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:363/157 - Compu-Link II, Orlando FL

I've listened for several weeks with great interest and general agreement.  But I have yet to hear anything about the menace of the "Invisable Government" the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.  I have a problem believing that Rush is really aturned to the real root problems we have as a Republic if he does nothing to reveal this great conspiracy????????

--  
        Tom Snyder  -  via FidoNet Node: 1:363/42
             UUCP:  -  ...tarpit!tous!business!157!Tom.Snyder
             ARPA:  -  Tom.Snyder@f157.n363.z1.fidonet.org
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: So, anyone want to talk about Rush Limbaugh around here?
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:55:25 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <C0B0xM.GBq@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
>
>>In article <nate.1008@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes...
>>>mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>>>>...my killfile is huge.
>>> 
>>>    Mine is not, but this morning I really kind of regret it.
>>> 
>>>    I've paged through almost 200 articles and this is the first one to 
>>>even make a token attempt to talk about Rush (Yeah, Michael!).
>>> 
>>>    Just for the record, let me state that I'm really, really bored with 
>>>        1) the "Gays in the Military" thread
>>>        2) the "Sexuality/Lifestyles" thread
>>>    and 3) everything to do with Steve Chaney (the new cross-post king)
>>> 
>>>    At this point I can only hope against hope that the people who have 
>>>been sustaining those tired old topics will find new interests once the 
>>>new semester starts. Thank heavens Rush will be back on the air in 24 hours 
>>>and 15 minutes.
>>> 

[.sig file deleted]

>
>>I'll second all of the above, Nathan. :-)
>
>>Jim Graham 
>

[more .sig deleted]

>
>This is what happens when Rush goes on vacation :)
>
>Steve

What happens? Conservatives forget how to use an editor?
I didn't realize you need Rush that badly.

Robert Johnston
From: ryanm@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Date: 30 Dec 1992 20:58:00 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

In article <DOEL.92Dec30130850@bbq.bae.bellcore.com> doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>
>Ryan Mcneilly writes:
>
>> You are correct.  I am not the original poster but am a Christian.  The
>> original poster needs to look at his posts and evaluate to see if it is
>> what Jesus would be saying in a forum like this.  I think testing to see
>> if is what Jesus would see is a good test as to whether or not it should
>> be posted.
>
>I too strive to be a Christian, but somehow I've got to believe Jesus would
>have better things to do with his time than post to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.
>But then again, maybe Rush is more popular than we think :-)
>
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Mike Doel				<doel@bae.bellcore.com>
>444 Hoes Lane RRC 1B-209
>Piscataway, NJ 08854
>
>"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
> and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You are right, Jesus probably wouldn't look at this forum.  However, I
ment that the tone and content should be like what Jesus would say when he
would here a comment like these (forum wide, not yours).  --Ryan

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  Ryan McNeilly                    Internet: ryanm@u.washington.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"You can't deal from a position of weakness"  --Alfred Thayer Mahan
Moral:  Protect the 2nd Amendment!

My comments and opinions are my own and nobody elses!!!!!

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh