HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:48:57 PST
Distribution: usa
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield
Summary: Interesting idea.  How do you think it would have turned out, then?

MY QUESTIONS IN THIS POST ARE OPEN TO ANYONE, NOT JUST BRIAN.
In article <1992Nov5.085041.13736@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu
 (brian h. harper) writes:
>Top 2 IF NO ONE GETS A MAJORITY. You're assuming that the top 2 will always
>be Republican or Democrat. Bad assumption. The main reason to switch is so
>that there will be an end to "strategic voting". People who supported Perot
>could have voted for him without fear of having their vote "wasted".
This is interesting.  Just out of curiosity, if we didn't have an electoral
college, then how long do you think the standoff 
between three parties could go on?  Would it be 34% of the vote is majority,
and when the third party is out make it 50% for the remaining two?  What
would we do for a President if we went for months without electing anyone by
majority vote?

>Many polls have shown that Perot would have gotten much more support had 
>people thought he could win.
In light of this, who do you think would have won a majority?

>-Brian Harper
>
Jennifer, proud originator of the "President Clinton" thread on alt.rush-l.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Forget Rush and the Comedy Channel!  What's DOONESBURY (Trudeau) going to do?
I'd prefer he go on the lecture circuit, instead of more stupid cartoons
about that quintabizillionaire that lives on an island with his plain assist-
ant.  Wouldn't it figure I'd have to join alt.poltics.flame.flame.flame. to
spawn my first thread?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 18 Nov 92 12:29:19 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <YOUNG.92Nov17132105@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>In article <Bxtz1o.8DE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>
>>   Let me make sure I hear you right. Are you saying that judges and legislators
>>   who make decisions that, in some manner, infringe on someone's religious
>>   rights are wrong?
>>
>>   Like court decisions to restrict prayer in public places?
>>
>>						   - greg
>
>Now there you go again.  I have never heard of a decision to restrict
>prayer in public places.

Review recent SCOTUS decisions to restrict prayer at football games.

					- greg
-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:25:49 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

>It is *not* an issue for the government.  It is only those people who propose
>PUBLIC POLICY based on religion-based morality who are in the wrong.
>
Many things are declared immoral by the government, from murder to theft to
denial of civil rights.  If religions also see these things as immoral are
the laws wrong?  Alternatively, if religions see these things as acceptable,
are the laws then OK?  What it comes down to is, what basis does a government
then have to declare this or that action immoral?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:49:28 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Nov20.112351.859@blurt.oswego.edu>, ebcs1011@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Nov17.230140.18099@tellab5.tellabs.com>, linda@tellabs.com (Linda Jensen) writes:
|> > 
|> > 
|> > 
|> > 	RE: the alleged 'mistake' where photos of Celsea Clinton
|> > 	and Millie the dog were switched...
[stuff deleted]
|> > 	Rush is not only willing to pick on a little girl, but
|> > 	then doesn't even have gonads to stand up to what he did.
|> > 	Instead, he offers up some very lame backpeddling.  Gutless
|> > 	bully in my book......
|> > 
|> > 	
|> What is this?
|> 
|> 	Lighten up a little.  You can't tell me that you wouldn't have laughed
|> if that was Dan Quayle instead of Chelsea Clinton.

I would have laughed if it had been a 40+ knuckle-head.
JDQ can take care of himself(maybe).

But attacking a child?  How would you have liked to been
called a dog at that age on national television?

I don't care whose kid she is, it is a cheap-shot.  Just
proves ALL my earlier points about Rush.


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Don't forget the cheese Re: the daily whine
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 14:12:07 GMT

In article <7075@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
writes:

>Rush is definitely discriminated against; perhaps not because he's
>white, or because he's fat (rotund), or because he's male, but because
>he's a CONSERVATIVE.

This is nuts. The whole basis of his commerical success is that he is
a conservative.  Where are all the left-wingers with comperable shows,
by the way?

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Subject: Re: CHRONICLE editorial: Wed Nov 18 92
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:45:35 GMT


Was this some recycled freshman lit paper?

Clinton AND Dostoevsky.  How original.

-- 
ssc@nwu.edu | Mentula conatur Pipleium scandere montem:
            |  Musae furcillis praecipitem eiciunt. (Catullus CV)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jpsb@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/JSC
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:15:34 GMT

Greg Bradt writes


By George, I think he's got it!

Now, repeat after me....

     Feminist = Feminazi
     Environmentalist = Whacko
     Democrat = Liberal
     Liberal = Socialist
     Socialist = Communist

jps respondes

The poster orginal point that any public reference to religious believes or
to moral values is equalated with being some kind of religious fanatic, is not 
lessened by demeaning comments such as yours. 

jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself!


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
XXXDate: Fri, 20 Nov 92 23:40:40 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A732C588C4050642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Distribution: usa
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:52:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.155459.6850@nas.nasa.gov> Dan King,
dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:
>>Sure, sex may be fun, but be prepared to deal with all that it entails 
>>No Sex is Safe Sex. 
>>Everybody knows that there isn't any condom that guarantees no pregnancy
>>will result.  And they don't prevent the horrible diseases that can
>>result from sex, either. 
> 
>Then don't have sex.  Some of us feel the rewards from sex are 
>worth the risk.  Some of us are willing to leave our houses 
>knowing that it could result in harm, but knowing the reward 
>is worth the risk.  If you feel safer staying in your house 
>and avoiding all outside risk, hey I would never pass legislation
>forcing you to leave your house.

I'm sorry, what risk are you referring to? Since you feel no 
responsibility towards an unborn child and you can talk so callously
about killing such an infant, it is apparent that you aren't taking
any risks at all. Unless you mean the risk of having to pay for someone
elses abortion!

I guess I hadn't realized that I had become so out of touch and that
I wasn't aware that so many people are using abortion as casual
birth control. Naturally if you don't have even the morals to consider
that you may be killing another human being, then you won't feel much
compelled to consider taking responsible action to keep the pregnancy
from happening in the first place.

Thank you for making me aware how morally low people in this nation
have sunk. I think I have just become much clearer in my stance on
abortion.

Elizabeth, don't let these hypocrites twist your thoughts about the
subject. It is refreshing to find young people who use their brains
rather than their genitals to make important decisions in their lives.

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
From: mark.stevens@spacebbs.com (Mark Stevens) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: FAQ: Rush Limbaugh Newsgr
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:04:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: mark.stevens@spacebbs.com (Mark Stevens) 


To: attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu

AE>CA  San Francisco    KNBR    680      9a-12n  12m-3a

KNBR has dropped the midnight replay.

I noticed that a lot of stations no longer do a Rush replay.  Are
ratings down?
---
 . DeLuxe./386 1.25 #42 . 
               
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:47:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In <1ejn23INN6vd@agate.berkeley.edu> don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley) writes:
>>[followups to talk.abortion]
>
>>Do you really think it's reasonable to ask all the married
>>couples in the world to refrain from having sex if they don't
>>want any more children?  Do you really think you will succeed in
>>convincing people not to have sex?  Or could it be that you're
>>recommending a course that is totally unworkable & unrealistic,
>>and therefore ridiculous?
>
>  This is classic liberal intellectual dishonesty. What fraction of
>  women who get abortions are married?  Maybe 1%??

This is classic ignorant stupidity.  More like 20 - 30%, depending on
what year you look at.  And of what relevance is that, anyway?  Saying
that people who don't want to have [any more] children should refrain from
sex *is* including *all* the married couples who don't want [more] kids.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Environment
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:09:35 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <1992Nov9.015723.1916@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C
. Sessions) writes:
>jtinkle@sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>
>>>Bush broke his word and Clinton lied.
>>That's right.  Bush broke ONE campaign promise.  So sue him.  That's
>>probably an all-time LOW for a politician!
>
>Huh? One lie? What planet have you been on for the last four years. I
>can refer to several lies Bush has made in the past. He claimed
>he wanted to be the Educational President. Based on his actions, he lied.
>He claimed he wanted to be the Environmental President. Again, by his 
>very own actions, he lied. He also lied about Iran-Contra and Iraq-gate.
I'll give you that, ok, 1.5 lies.			       ^^^^^^^^^

You know for certain that none of Bush's plans on the Environment or
Education were thwarted by the Liberal Congress?
>-- 
>Zack Sessions
>sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
>University of North Carolina at Wilmington
>"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Date: 21 Nov 92 06:25:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1480@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>
>Funny; I was under the impression that both Bill Clinton and Al
>Gore were Southern Baptists.  Are they part of the Religious Right?
>
>Bill Anderson

At least not in good standing.  Bill's pastor said that he could not, in 
good conscience, support the candidacy of Mr. Clinton.

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:28:46 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

ebcs1011@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
: In article <1992Nov17.230140.18099@tellab5.tellabs.com>, linda@tellabs.com (Linda Jensen) writes:
: > 
: > 
: > 
: > 	RE: the alleged 'mistake' where photos of Celsea Clinton
: > 	and Millie the dog were switched...
: > 
: > 	Isn't that show taped?  So couldn't the 'mistake' have
: > 	been corrected before air time?  Didn't those involved in
: > 	the show recognize tastelessness and cruelty?
: > 
: > 	Nice  apology that followed.  The 'audience' gaffawing 
: > 	and giggling as Rush explains how 'Chelsea Clinton can't 
: > 	help what she looks like'.  Nice guy. Nice audience.  Nice
: > 	show.
: > 
: > 	Rush is not only willing to pick on a little girl, but
: > 	then doesn't even have gonads to stand up to what he did.
: > 	Instead, he offers up some very lame backpeddling.  Gutless
: > 	bully in my book......
: > 
: > 	
: What is this?
: 
: 	Lighten up a little.  You can't tell me that you wouldn't have laughed
: if that was Dan Quayle instead of Chelsea Clinton.      

Dan Quayle, all appearances aside, is a fully-grown adult who has
voluntarily entered the public sphere; he has to expect a bit of
abuse.  Chelsea Clinton is a child, for godsake.  
Bill   
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Bill Bennett/Religious Right
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:57:00 GMT

jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>I finally heard a commercial done by Bill Bennett.  Just out of curiosity,
>is he considered a member of the religious right by the Liberals out there?

    Well, insofar as he's a religious conservative, wouldn't you say that 
he meets the 2 basic criteria?

>I am an Episcopalian, am I a member of the religious right?

    You're a "Republican Extraordinaire" and you have to ask that question?

>Is everyone who has a religion a member of the relgious right?

    Not me. But it seems like nobody bothers come up with names for 
moderate left-wing Taoists, so I slip through the cracks (a typical Taoist 
type of thing to do).

>At times, it seems so.

    And at other times not. Honestly, (IMHO of course) I don't believe that 
the term "religious right" is very meaningful since it obviously includes 
a lot of people of whom the only thing they can all be said to hold in 
common is that they believe in some sort of diety.

>Jennifer, "let's get a LITTLE more accurate with those Subject: lines, eh?"

    You seem to have gotten the impression that Subject: lines are supposed 
to have something to do with the contents of the articles to which they're 
attached. Wrongo. In actual fact they're intended to allow incessant 
abortion-related posts to continue to slip past everyone's kill files.
Sorry I had to be the one to tell you...

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 16:53:58 GMT

In <1992Nov15.064308.18510@eskimo.com>, Dennis Wicks writes:

>In article <BxnyFv.4nD@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
>>In article <Bxn8ox.KKz@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Danie
>>...
>>>But, as Michael Kinsley has pointed out, the whole idea of enterprise zones
>>>is inherently unconservative. The government is trying to get capital to go
>>>where it doesn't want to. This sounds like-industrial policy! ...
>>
>>    "Economist" called enterprise zones "the Republican version of big
>>    goverment waste".  I tend to agree.
>>
>Sound like a good description to me.  The people that live in the
>"enterprise zones" don't have the skills needed  to get many of
>the new jobs.  Oh, a janitor or two, and maybe some jobs on the
>loading dock.  But the best jobs will be taken by people
>commuting _in_ from the suburbs!  The people that need the jobs
>and the training will not benefit much, if at all.  But we
>will be subsidizing some very nice new facilities for a few
>businesses.

The concept is a good one; practical implementation is probably quite another.
The government *might* be better off using the money for educating inner city
youths; I'm not sure.

There are ripple effects to "enterprise zones," even if the suburbanites take
most of the skilled jobs.  There will still be a growing sector to support
these people (restaurants for the lunch crowd, for example) that could employ
people who actually *live* in the zone.  There would also be new construction.
Construction jobs pay reasonably well and don't exactly require a Ph.D. from
Ivy League U.  I'm not sure that I like the "set aside" quotas for "disad-
vantaged contractors," but if ever there was a time and place for it, this
would be it--especially if the contractor hired (say) 50% or more from the
"enterprise zip code."

I see some merit to enterprise zones, but they need to be done in a way that
would *work*.  I'm not a fan of Big Government, but I'm not opposed to reason-
able plans that will work.  In a perfect world, these zones would be created
at a state level, but perhaps *federal* tax breaks are needed if the zones will
ever be attractive to business.  If the government gives the business a tax
break, then it has the right to determine how the business has to *earn* the
tax break--after all, no one is *forcing* the business to accept the tax break,
are they?

Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch Day 17
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:34:25 GMT

In <1992Nov20.140810.25756@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:

>In article <41298@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> Pim van Meurs, pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu
>writes:
>>instance. I admire Rush for his ability to mislead so many people
>>into believing he is something more than just an entertainer who is
>>often more wrong than right but says what people want to hear or
>>believe.
>>Sure, Rush will be around as long as people need to be told what to
>>believe. Guess that's why there is no liberal equivalent of Rush.

>You mean like Phil Donahue, Geraldo Rivera, Dan Blather, Tom Brokaw, 
>Vlademir Pozner, Arsenio Hall, Jay Leno, Whoopi Goldberg? 
>That is all I could think of in about 10 seconds.

Took you 10 seconds?  It shows.

Rivera a liberal?  Give me a break.  He's about as liberal as Charles
Bronson.  And explain, please, how Leno is a liberal.  What, he makes
Quayle jokes?  So does everybody except you.  They're entitled.  It's
time to realize that the media is not biased against _conservatives_,
but against _power_.

And anyway, none of the people you mentioned are liberal equivalents of
Rush.  Rather and Brokaw are newscasters, not talk radio deejays.  Goldberg
is principally an actress.  And Donahue, Hall and Leno host talk shows,
usually with figures in the world of entertainment, and are not politically
oriented.  Rush Limbaugh is an ideologue.  He is an openly conservative
commentator who admittedly relies on opinion, not fact.  There is still
no equivalent to him in the media, despite your conspiracy theory.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10004 alt.politics.bush:13951 alt.politics.clinton:17436 talk.politics.misc:60831
From: kinne@netcom.com (Kinne Strong)
Subject: Re: Religious Right (Was: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Organization: Foxglove Associates
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:00:45 GMT

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> 
> I agree that the call to return to some moral center cannot be coerced
> or programmed into the populace. On the other hand, many things that
> Christians do that are not intended to be coercive are being prohibited
> or censored because of the perception that we are forcing our views on
> others. 

Could you give some examples? I suspect that most such events are easily
explained, but since I really don't know what you are talking about I'd
rather have you tell me, rather than explaining away my guesses.
-- 
Kinne Strong
kinne@netcom.com
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:23:48 GMT

In <1992Nov17.221708.3249@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:

>In article <grendel.721285610@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bou
>rgea) writes:
>>He'd be a hell of a lot better choice than Thomas was.  The Court is supposed
>>to be balanced.  Cuomo, a liberal, would do better than Thomas to balance out
>>the ideology of the Court.

>Just out of curiosity, no politicking intended, how can you have a truly
>balanced court with nine people?

You can't have a truly balanced court; you can only aim at the ideal.  The
ideal would be four conservatives, four liberals, and a swing justice; or,
alternately, nine swing justices.  I'm not saying either of these scenarios
will ever be achieved.  However, the present state of the Court is conservative
and unbalanced.  To swing it back toward the middle, we need to replace some
justices with liberals.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: psybut@next08cville.wam.umd.edu (Bruce Moser)
Subject: re:Rush v. facts
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: alt,usa
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:48:50 GMT

Alex Crain of UMBC writes: " Rush announced last week that durable goods  
were up in both the 2nd and 3rd quarter. In contrast, the Times business  
section (Thursday, Oct 29), has a detailed article on how durable goods  
orders have fallen for the third month in a row."

It is possible, and I dare say likely, that both statistics are true.  As  
Mr. Crain writes later in the article, " After all - if you have to verify  
everything somewhere else, why not get it somewhere else to start with?"

A person could get two different stories/facts from different statistics  
on the same subject, and both stories could be correct in their contexts;   
that's apparently what happened here.

I don't claim anything about the economy and its apparent health.  I only  
say that I could match anyone statistic for statistic on _any_ subject in  
the universe given the right knowledge and ammunition.  That's the power  
of statistics.

-psybut@wam.umd.edu, 11/15/92