HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:32:58 GMT
 <1992Oct7.165702.18719@nwnexus.WA.COM> 
 <1992Oct8.211540.23545@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1b2l0cINN2bh@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1b2l0cINN2bh@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

> And if my mother, when she was pregnant with me, decided that pregnancy
> and childraising was too much of a burden, and was FORCED to have me,
> I'd have a lifetime of apologizing to do.

This is why all of you liberals are so whacked-out. Allow me to give
y'all a lesson in Biology 101. When a baby is conceived, his/her
genetic blueprint is formed. He (or she) is unique, and so are his/her
characteristics -- big feet, blue eyes, brown hair, pug nose, et
cetera. Before conception, that doesn't exist. Millions of sperm with
millions of blueprints and millions of ovums with millions of
blueprints are floating in their respective ovaries and vesicles. When
the two are brought together, they form the blueprint for an
INDIVIDUAL. When that individual is aborted, that blueprint for life is
terminated. A baby that may have been a genius. The baby that may have
the found the cure for AIDS, or the cure for cancer, now lying in a
dumpster outside an abortion clinic. No, excuse me... following in the
words of others on the net, that PARASITE is in the dumpster. Sorry.
Excuse me.

When you PREVENT pregnancy, an individual blueprint for life is not
terminated... because one was never made in the first place!

Geez. I don't know how people can't understand simple logic.

---------------------------------------------
William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
-- Ronald Reagan
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush: Buffoon
Date: 12 Oct 92 06:15:26 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

tem1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Miller) writes:
> 
> By the way, has anyone ever asked Rush why he hasn't run for President?
> :)
> 

He's having too much fun doing what he's doing now; and besides, more
people listen to Rush Limbaugh than to the President. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6763 alt.politics.elections:15474 alt.politics.bush:8030 alt.politics.clinton:8882 talk.politics.misc:50042
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: List of speeches
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:53:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

So far this is my "election 92 texts" directory listing:
Saved from posts on the above newsgroups. Credit is given to submitters
in appropriate speeches.

Barbara Bush RNC speech
William Bennett RNC speech (nominates Quayle)
Pat Buchanan RNC speech
George Bush 1988 RNC speech
George Bush Good Morning America interview
George Bush Knights of Columbus speech
George Bush Larry King interview (10/04/92)
George Bush RNC arrival speech
George Bush education plan
George Bush 1992 RNC acceptance speech
Clinton/Gore Good Morning America interview
Clinton/Gore CBS This Morning interview
Clinton/Gore education plan
Clinton/Gore health plan and news release
Bill Clinton Portland, ME speech
Bill Clinton 1992 DNC acceptance speech
Mario Cuomo DNC speech (nominates Clinton)
Dan Quayle RNC acceptance speech
Mary Fisher RNC speech (AIDS)
President Gerald Ford RNC speech
Barbara Franklin RNC speech (Sect of Commerce)
George Will on Albert Gore's environmental stance
Newt Gingrich RNC speech
Elizabeth Glazer DNC speech (AIDS)
Albert Gore abortion flip-flop? (American Caucus article)
Albert Gore DNC acceptance speech
Phil Gramm RNC speech
Mark Hattoy DNC speech (AIDS)
Carla Hills RNC speech (Trade Rep)
Comparing Dem, Rep, and Lib platforms
Jesse Jackson DNC speech
Jack Kemp RNC speech
Marilyn Quayle RNC speech
Lynn Martin RNC speech (nominating Bush)
Military Records of candidates (Washington Post)
Dan Quayle "Family Values/Murphy Brown" speech
President Ronald Reagan RNC speech
Pat Robertson RNC speech

I probably have other "texts" in other directories. Requests should be
sent by email, and additions are always welcome.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: rdosser@utkux1.utk.edu (rdosser)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush: Buffoon
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:40:47 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center

I tuned in to Rush Limbaugh for the first time this afternoon. In ten
minutes, I heard four straw men set up and knocked down, a hideous
racial slur and a fat buffoon giggling to himself. 
This is the conservative version of a thinking man?

*********************************************************************
Your intellect is truly dizzying.

Wesley, in "The Princess Bride"
*********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 08:57:49 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <1992Oct9.210851.21085@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.211540.23545@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dart
> >
> >That's the biggest reason why abortion should be banned. People are
> >*resources*, not "parasites" or "endless stomachs," as some of you on
> >the net have claimed. If you don't agree with that statement, throw
> >yourself off a roof right now -- human life is, in your opinion,
> >worthless.

This is inane; it doesn't distinguish between a one-celled zygote and
a living, breathing, person.

> Yes--perfect!!!  Abortion does indeed cheapen life.

Failing to distinguish between a zygote and a person cheapens personhood.

> Now don't give me that BS about the death penalty and warfare,
> because everyone knows that is totally unrelated.

Exactly - those involve killing *people*.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:10:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.180459.21075@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>Especially if the Operation Rescue people carried the appropriate hardware.
>>Try to squash someone who is armed...
>>
>>As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
>>future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
>>and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
>>then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
>>against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....
>
>
>Simon here illustrates why so many pro-choicer's are cynical of
>pro-lifer's claim to value human life and rights.  Perhaps the value of
>life and rights applies only to the unborn?
>
>If being disgusted and revolted by someone's wet dream of using armed
>might to deal with an opposing side is PC, then so be it.
>
You're afraid of a science fiction story?? Just wait till you read the
part about the riot police attacking the pro-abortion people with white-
posphorus instead of teargas, and how anyone escaping the WP attack will
face swift and certain execution.  The good news, lethal injection is
outlawed, the bad news (for criminals) is that firing squads and the gas
chamber using cholrine gas are the order of the day.  Executions will be
televised, in order to make an example of the criminals.  But then, it's
only a story....                                     for now :)
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:23:40 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: news@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <YOUNG.92Oct15132929@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.214550.14858@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>
>>   When we were *told* she told friends. Listen, only a handful of people
>>   claim that they were told.
>
>If she were concerned for her job, and felt that she couldn't go
>public, yet was driven to tell someone, it is entirely consistent that
>only a handful of people (most folks would probably only tell one best
>friend) were told.

Then again, if she was making the whole thing up, it would make sense to
find a handful of people whom she used to work with to concoct this story.

I'm not saying she did make it up. What I am saying is that there is exactly
the same evidence that she is lying as opposed to her telling the truth.

Anyway, I'm not here to debate the truthfullness of her allegations. If she's
lying, only her, Thomas and God know. Heck, if she's telling the truth,
only her, Thomas and God know what *really* happened. Contrary to what some
may post, there were no eyewitnesses -- none of the "witnesses" actually
saw anything.

>>   If Anita Hill had brought her claims to a Grand Jury today or 10 years
>>   ago, it would never have seen trial. Her word against his. Innocent
>>   until PROVEN (*not alleged) guilty is still the docturing in the USA.
>
>You mean all those folks under indictment by grand juries never should
>have been indicted, since they are by docturing [sic] innocent?  Why
>do we bother with grand juries, then?

Reread what I just said.

For the intellectually challenged: I said that a Grand Jury would not have
indicted Thomas (IMHO), because there was not enough evidence. Peter has
attempted to equate that with everyone indicted by a Grand Jury should not
have been, regardless of circumstance.

						- greg
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: what did Rush do in the 60's and 70's??????
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:54:02 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct05.215326.4453@gator.rn.com> Ted.Schafer@bbs.rn.com (Ted Schafer) writes:
>    my real point after all that b.s. is that if was as brave as he
>seem to think other should be why didn't join back then.I guess like
>so many people of that age he justed didn't want to spend two of the 
>most productive years of life in the service.And let me tell you next

He also (conveniently, pehaps) was 4F for some physical reason (I think).
On the other hand, he doesn't claim to have been brave, and he also
didn't participate in the anti-war movement.

>to prison (i guess)the service is not a nice place to spend your time.

No kidding!
>                             Ted Schafer u.s.m.c (72 - 76)
John Moore u.s.n. (66-1968)
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:30:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.194649.4134@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>dash@skyy.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (O.P.P) writes:
>
>>> There is absolutely no proof of [Flowers] charges whatsoever.
>>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, merely one person's word against another.  So why do liberals believe
Anita Hill and do not believe Jennifer Flowers?  Also, the tape she (Flowers)
played with what sounded like Clinton's voice on it is not proof but it is
a damn sight closer to proof than anything Anita Hill came up with.

>You place too high a standard for a mere President. Clinton's marital status
>and whether or not he cheated on his wife in the past is totally irrelevant.

You are in total disagreement with the Founders on this, they spoke of the
importance of electing Presidents with good character.  Even the much
misunderstood electoral college serves the purpose of electing moderate
Presidents.  The type of man elected was of interest to them, not just his
capabilities, for obvious reasons.

Now, explain to us why the past is irrelevant when considering the election
to the highest and most powerful office in the _world_ when it was considered
completely relevant to delve into the past when the liberals were blocking
the Presidents Supreme Court appointees such as Bork?  The rules you are
playing by are not fair - strange to think that this would be the case from
the side which champions fairness.

>This crud is more evidence of the type of continual smokescreen put forth by
>the RNC in order to take the interest off of the more important issues, like
>the economy.

Character mattered a great deal to liberals when Nixon was stepping all over
the law, your hypocrisy is showing.  If it had been Bush who had protested
the government while his fellow citizens were dying in the fields do you
honestly believe that the democrats would be suggesting that it doesn't 
matter?  

Speaking of the economy, it would be interesting to see what the stock
market would do if Clinton was elected.  

Mike Best


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6921 talk.abortion:41496
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:42:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct7.220014.12849@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
|> >An individual of a given species will, if it does not die somewhere along
|> >the way, eventually develop into an adult of that species.  Simple.  Not
|> >circular.  (Well, I suppose all definitions are ultimately circular...)
|> 
|> Not bad at all.  Not without a couple problems, but a surprisingly
|> good definition.  Does an unfertilized egg meet this definition?
|> If fertilized and it does not die, it will grow into an adult.  If not
|> fertilized it will die.  Seems to fit.

	Thank you.  Just to show you how biased I am, now that you agree with me,
you seem like a pretty perceptive guy...

Steve

Why settle for the lesser evil?
	Cthulhu in '92
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:49:45 GMT

jane@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (wayne tvedt) writes:
>  The issue as I understand it, is that the GOP Oppositional Research machine 
>is starting to sputter and spew itself to death like a faulty robot on the
>old Star Trek when confronted with its own illogical behavior.

Illogical... illogical... Darman... coordinate... analyze... Dan-o...
sterilize... must ster-i-lizzzzzze... <phffft>

---
Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:42:38 GMT

William Everett writes:
>Eric Rescorla writes:
>>William Hall writes:
>>>"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
>>>-- Ronald Reagan
>>Similarly adoption and abstinence. How unsurprising to see such
>>vacuity from Reagan.
>
>	Hardly vacuity, you missed the point. He's suggesting that these
>people are advocating something that they would not have wanted done to 
>themselves.

Yes, but I also wouldn't have wanted my parents to practice abstinence
either, or else I would never have come to be (especially if they were
abstaining at precisely the time that the sperm and egg were alive
that made me!), nor put me up for adoption (because then I'd
doubtlessly have experienced a completely different environment as I
grew up, and would have developed into a completely different person).

If you're implying something about the supposed "pain" involved in
being aborted, then don't; if I had been aborted before I'd developed
a brain, then I wouldn't have cared one whit.  And if my mother had
had cause to abort me, then I would rather she have gone through with
it than bring me to term and harbor some regret in the back of her
mind (and there have even been people whose parents expect them to
feel guilty for not having been aborted).

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:16:31 GMT

best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>I don't remember him being forthright about this or several other issues.
>Am I mistaken or was he asked the question had he ever broken the law and
>he said no.  Later the question was reposed, had he ever broken the laws 
>of _this_ country and he then said yes.  I am honestly vague here, no 
>sarcasm, but wasn't this about the smoking stuff?

Clinton answered the questions posed to him honestly. Can he be faulted
that the interviewer asked vague questions? When asked directly if he
had tried marijuana, he answered truthfully and compeltely. And is still
ridiculed by the RNC for not coming clean. I just don't get it.

>Perhaps it is just me but it has seemed to me that to get a straight answer
>out of Clinton has been like pulling teeth.

Perhaps you have a perception problem?

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
From: rovero@wake.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER JOSEPH McCARTHY BUSH
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:45:28 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

There's only one problem with this.  McCarthy went around accurately
calling people communists and making a big deal about it BECAUSE:

Communism, especially the brand of Marxist-Leninism actually in
practice during the 20th century, IS and WAS EVIL!  It was WRONG.
It was the greatest threat to freedom and real national independence
ever seen on the earth. 

What really pisses the liberals off:  Joe McCarthy was RIGHT!

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:08:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.043701.28553@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
 
>In article <1687E86A2.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.024125.7749@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>>"Intelligent Liberal" is an oxymoron, and a liberal is just a moron.
>>>
>>>:)
>>>Simon
>>
>>Simon...until now, I respected you, because you seemed to be trying to
>>have a serious debate.  Now, you have sunk to silly name-calling, and
>>you have lost my respect.  And *NO*, the smiley does not change that.
>>
>>I am quite a bit more liberal than you, although I do not find myself
>>in agreement with all "liberal" positions.  I am considered intelligent
>>by everyone who knows me.  You just insulted me with your silly
>>comments.  If you want to have a serious discussion with people, that
>>is not the right way to proceed.
>>
>I got equally "silly" flames in e-mail.  So now my side of the debate
>is invalid because I told a joke??  I'll keep up this debate, in a serious
>manner, what you saw is posted in measured amounts, not indiscriminately.
 
Simon....If you thought that was a "flame", you don't know the meaning
of the word.  The point is, your insensitive "joke" insulted me.  This
lowered my opinion of you, and made me lose respect for your "side" of
the "debate".  You do not win debating points or advance your position
in a real debate.  You have the show some well thought-out positions,
which so far, you have not, other than a "belief" that whatever you say
is right.
 
Perhaps you got a wrong impression of what constitutes a "debate" from
the farce on Sunday night.  Ross Perot scored "points" and even "won"
the debate through wisecracks without saying anything of substance.  In
a real debate, you get graded on what you say, not on your one-liners.
My original comments stand.
 
Jim McMaster
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: SPEECH: Barbara Franklin at RNC 92
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:32:41 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> Do we turn our lives over
> to a smooth-talking, slick-looking dandy with no experience?

HELL, NO! VOTE FOR DEWEY!

John
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: I am SICKENED!
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:26:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
# As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
# future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
# and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
# then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
# against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....

This quote horrified me.  Someone, *please*, tell me he's just trying
to get a rise.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:08:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.010811.23713@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>Uh, folks, I'm 22, you're way off on my age again!!
>
>Simon

Is that in, you know, like... _human years_?

;-)
Alan