HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: "Requiem" for the Common Man
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:26:17 GMT

In <1993Jan25.192130.5868@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu sez:
>gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller) writes:
>>Apparently the half of Rush's brain that is tied behind his back contains
>>the correct title for the Aaron Copland piece used for the Clinton
>>whoop-de-doos. RL has repeatedly and without any evident sarcasm or other
>>overt reference referred to it as "Requiem for the Common Man." It is
>>"Fanfare for..."
>
>I normally don't believe in spelling flames,

Nor do I . . .

> but this one seemed quite 
>appropriate.  While Gene finds it strange that someone as "smart" as 
>Rush might get a word in the title of a song wrong, he spells the name 
>of the composer wrong.  It is Aaron Copeland.

No, it's Copland.  Next time, go to the enormous trouble of consulting
some rare reference work -- like a Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary, or even Books In Print -- before you decide to impress us
with your command of complex facts like this, Ted.

Oh, wait, I forgot: this is alt.rush-limbaugh, where entertainment
reigns supreme over all else.  Carry on.


-- 
        "Maybe I'm mistaken, maybe I'm not.  Frankly, I really don't
         give a damn . . . ."    - Paul Havemann (paul@hsh.com)
                                   in <1993Jan25.190648.548@hsh.com>
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rush and george
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:08:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article Nathan Engle writes:
>every time Rush gets on a roll about the heinousness of liberalism or 
>the moral cowardice of centerists it makes the Democrats look that 
>much better.

Yes, tell us how Saturday Night Live parodies made Bush and Quayle
"look that much better".
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14694 alt.politics.bush:16202 alt.president.clinton:1671 alt.fan.dan-quayle:8021
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: It's all Clinton's Fault!  It's all Clinton's Fault!
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:02:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
=Damn straight!  He got that stupid Fleetwood Mac song running through
=my head now!  Arghhh!
=--
=<Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
=President."
=			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL

What was really funny was on last night's Late Night w/CBS
millionaire... when he patched a satellite feed to Larry "Bud" Melman
who was in DC. The one time when I was watching the show (I was also
watching an old episode of Star Trek on a different channel), he
switched to Larry who basically declaimed the words to Dave. (Of course
it's the way he says it that's hilarious.)
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & the Press
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:25:45 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1993Jan21.145331.24029@hubcap.clemson.edu>, tendico@hubcap.clemson.edu (Todd Endicott) writes:
> Hi there. I'm just curious about how the conservatives view the recent
> ragging of Clinton in the press; seems to me this kind of weakens their
> standby complaint about the "liberal media". Comments anyone?
> 
> Disclaimer: I'm no Clinton fan; I voted for Marrou.

Yeah, you'll get the usual crowd which says, "But NOW, they're beating up on 
poor Bill!"  Well, there are at least two reasons for this:

-- There IS no one else to beat up on! 
   And when they get hungry, even piranha eat their own.
-- Hell hath no fury like the media scorned; after uncritically stumping for
   Bill's infamous campaign promises, they (like most people) are pissed
   that he shafted them.

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14731 alt.politics.clinton:20831 alt.politics.bush:16218 alt.politics.homosexuality:9973
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:38:12 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

KENH@YaleADS.CIS.Yale.Edu (Ken Hudson) writes:
>  
> To one who reads Christ's words closely, it would not be surprising if
> He gathers up a greater percentage of Gays and Lesbians as purified in
> heart while rejecting outright the fundamentalists who spent more
> time judging and persecuting others than tending to personal growth...
> and this includes many who denounce Gays and Lesbians from the pulpit,
> presenting a facade of righteousness, while their hearts are black with
> spiritual sin...

Ken,  you wrote a good post on the importance of self-reflection and not 
judging others, and then ended it by looking into the hearts of others 
and judging them as having hearts that are "black with spiritual sin". 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:18:15 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
] 
] [Wonderful tirade by Drieux deleted]
] 
[ Interesting simmonds Avoidance Tactic deleted] 
] 
] Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers
 

Come On Edward, 

Feel Free to resolve your Conflict on your
Stand on 'murder' in your Abortion posts, with
your position on Killing Gays, with your alledged
support of WarMongerBabyKillers[tm].....

ciao
drieux




-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: "david meadows" <david.meadows@canrem.com>
Subject: god is intolerant of sin!
Reply-To: "david meadows" <david.meadows@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: alt
Date: 23 Jan 93 04:22:09 EST

Jeffrey Shallit suggested:

JS>Modern Western civilization originated with the Greeks.  The Greeks tolerated,
  >and even celebrated, homosexuality.

This is one of those myths that homosexuals just love to propagate. 
Perhaps `the Greeks' did tolerate homosexuality ... but which Greeks? 
The Athenians? The Spartans? The Boeotians? You are using the word 
`Greek' very loosely. Specifically, the Spartans encouraged 
homosexuality, but not for the purposes that our gay rights types 
would have us believe: the Spartans encouraged homosexuality 
specifically in the military (hmmm) because the phalanx-style of 
warfare was very much dependent on holding one's place in line and the 
theory was that if the guy standing next to you was also your lover, 
you would be more likely to fight harder. Even so, every Spartan male 
was expected to be married and have children by the age of 30. So 
homosexuality wasn't a `lifestyle' to the Spartans.  As for other 
`Greeks', if you bother to examine the ancient sources, people who 
were openly homosexual were regarded much as they are today.

As for them `celebrating' homosexuality, I presume you are talking 
about all those wonderful poems about homosexual shepherds. If there 
were no women around, who would you be writing poems to: your fellow 
shepherd, or your sheep?



David Meadows
---
  1st 1.02b #813  Stercum longe aufer, ne malum habeas -- CIL 6.31615
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14697 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13338 alt.politics.clinton:20804 alt.politics.bush:16204 alt.politics.homosexuality:9957 alt.sex:42745
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 19:32:28 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> 
> Here's an oft-mentioned experiment:  try wearing a t-shirt
> that implies that you're gay.  Don't commit any homosexual
> acts, just try to suggest that you might be homosexual.
> See how you're treated.  Did you get harassed on the street?
> Did you get beaten up?  Did your coworkers treat you 
> differently?  Is this difference in treatment due to your
> having committed any affront against God, or because
> those around you think that you might have feelings (acted
> upon or not) towards someone of the same gender?

The type that would harass on the street are probobly the type 
that don't care one way or the other; they're just looking for 
an excuse.  As for co-workers looking at you funny, a lot of 
that might have nothing to do with "committing an affront 
against God"; they just might find the whole notion of 
homosexuality unnatural and gross.  In those circumstances, 
it isn't likely to matter to them if you're a gay virgin or 
sexually active; for that matter, how would they even know? 
If the person trying your experiment is female, she's likely 
to get odd looks and stand-offishness from most of the women 
in the office; and the reverse case true for men.  Also, 
most people at work don't find a sexual/political tshirt 
apprpriate for the office anyways.   

Walter
From: duane@mothra.rose.hp.com (Duane)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & millionaires
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:25:52 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8.4]

Dave Bernard (dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM) wrote:
: Just heard on the morning news that Clinton has more millionaires
: among his top advisors (9) than did either Reagan (7) or Bush (6).

: 	Dave


Greetings,


           Who are they ... and what are their names ... and how much are
they worth ... this can be useful information when I am talking to my 
LIBERAL friends ... and when they start bashing Reagan & Bush.


Duane
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Atlas Shrugged
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:14:32 GMT

car@access.digex.com (Mr. Blue) writes:

]May I suggest this book as good reading. It is by Ayn Rand. It is a novel
]that explores the basic liberal and conservative philosophies through its
]characters. Basically a study in contrast between the "movers and shakers"
]in the world vs. those who benefit from such people...                

I would say that it is more accurately a screed of perfect selfishness!
Ayn Rand does indeed dislike government coercion, and she celebrates
those who produce, but she also seems to want people to be machines
who coldly calculate their self interest in every action. It is
popular with libertarians and Mensans who are looking for philosophical
justification to do whatever feels good without having to worry about
guilt or moral consequence.

-- 
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
 - - Comment too controversial for management - Deleted :-) -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: control
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:36:32 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1993Jan17.225747.26775@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan17.164624.8292@news.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>>
>>    So it's ok, then, for a mother to abandon her newborn if she doesn't
>>want to take care of it?
>
>The infant is not violating the mother's bodily autonomy.  It's *outside* her
>body.  Anyone can take care of it.  If the mother wants to abandon support,
>then adoption is an alternative.
>
>>What's your basis for your claim?  It seems like a mere postulate,
>
>Can you point to any laws in our society which permit a person's bodily
>resources to be taken away without their consent?

Easily.  Forced fatherhood and child support without the consent of the 
father to the birth.

Unless, of course, you don't consider a person's mind and body (muscle
power) to be a bodily resource.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: Opinions unsubstantiated!  (formerly Re: GayBashing question
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:12:23 GMT

>>>
>>>Of course you can't.  You couldn't substantiate the existence of your
>>>navel, contemplate it though you may.
>>
>>From the "navel" remark, are we to assume that your opinion differs with _his_
>>opinion.  He offered to wager...take him up on it.
>
>If I thought that anyone was keeping statistics on the number of
>straight white men who are the victims of hate murders, I probably
>would.  Now why don't you suppose anyone's doing this?
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

                 I _do_ suppose the stats exist!  But you're the one with
                 the point to prove.


you say, "If I thought...."

Good start.

I'm pretty sure why you _don't think_ anyone's keeping statistics:
because "if you thought..." you'd not be able to 'cop out' on the earlier
writer's challenge.   It's so easy to just say, "I don't think it's done."

And easy shots seem to be your specialty.

>
>--
>____ Tim Pierce                /
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /

David


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Summary: rhetorical comment 
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:16:23 GMT

In article <C19CL1.60s@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>>This is a typical example of the circularity we so often see in such
>>arguments, in fact.  How do we know the prohibition belongs to the
>>"moral" rather than the "ceremonial" law?  Why, because we *already
>>know* that homosexuality is immoral.  

>Sorry...that last sentence hit me funny....

Irony is *supposed* to affect readers that way ...

-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14866 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13513 alt.politics.clinton:20975
From: pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: America Held Hostage:  Day 1
Date: 20 Jan 93 18:52:21 GMT
Organization: The Missing Link BBS, Santa Maria, CA  805-925-1129

It's getting a bit tiring listening to speach after speach which sounds 
like America has been 'liberated' by the evil tirants.

I was glad to hear Rush verbalize some of my disdain?sp and placing real 
meaning to the words in speaches

If President Slick-Willie Blythe (hey Jim, isn't that Step-Cousin? or was 
he actually adopted?  I heard that he CHANGED his name, hardly a cousin
unless you are related to the Blythe's)...  If President Slick-Willie
Blythe-Clinton continues to BREAK promises and WAFFLE on his campaign 
PROMISES (not goals, not proposals but PROMISES) then America will really 
be more like HOSTAGES since they didn't elect the man that they ended up 
with...  or at least the one that they THOUGHT... some of us were 
pointing to his CHARACTER throughout the election.

Pete

--
pete@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)  {SYStem OPerator}
The Missing Link BBS, (805) 925-1129
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15390 alt.sex:43433 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14091 alt.politics.correct:6405 alt.politics.equality:188 alt.politics.homosexuality:10428
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Date: 28 Jan 1993 00:09:43 GMT
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov


In article <C1JA1B.33o@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:


|>Tim, one of the main initiation rituals in gangs is to go FIND a
|>white guy and kill/rob/beat him.
|>
|>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  
|>

Such a bigoted generalization.  Do you have any documentation supporting
this statement ?   What is the main initiation ritual for white gangs ?
We do have them here in LA, you know.  I have friends who were in (latino) 
gangs while they were adolecents.  None of these friends committed felonies
while in the gangs.  The worst they thing they ever did is get these really
ugly big tatoes. (sp)

--
Tim Fogarty (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2
SRL-1:  STS-59, launch date April 14, 1994
SRL-2:  STS-68, launch date December 1, 1994
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Summary:  but fond of love
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:58:37 GMT

In article <1jpbfqINNbig@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
writes:

>Then I guess it is fortunate that the NT clears up the issue, by 
>saying that Christians are not under the letter of the Mosaic 
>Law, and that it re-states which things Christians should follow. 
>What does "sexual immorality" mean to you?  

Approximately the same for homosexual and heterosexual persons.
How else could it be if "in Christ there is neither male nor
female?"
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15025 alt.sex:43020 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13687 alt.politics.correct:6342 alt.politics.equality:148 alt.politics.homosexuality:10201 talk.abortion:57669 alt.politics.clinton:21094
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:25:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <C1722E.MtA@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.060221.18670@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:
>
>>When sentencing time comes for the culprits, the sentence
>>should reflect what they did, not who they did it to..
>
>Boy, that's tellin' em!  Like these ridiculous laws about the
>sentencing of people who attempt to kill the President.  I mean, why
>should *his* lifestyle choice be considered more important than
>*mine*?  Let's judge people on the basis of who they are, not what
>they do!  etc., etc.

That's right!  Doesn't matter if the president is straight or gay, 
treat the assasin the same.

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14840 alt.politics.clinton:20949 alt.politics.bush:16258 alt.politics.homosexuality:10039
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:14:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: eomer.hw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan21.220123.1605@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>I think it's perfectly okay for someone to quote Leviticus about
>homosexuality, as long as s/he follows it himself/herself.  So has s/he
>given up:

Evelyn: You are amazing ignorant on the Bible as a whole.  There were 
people known as Pharisees who attempted to keep the letter of the law
while missing the intent.  Jesus condemned them for this.  You seem
surprisingly able to quote a verse without a single iota of 
understanding about what it means and what the rest of the Bible says about
these things.  Even Satan can quote scripture for his own purposes.
mc
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Clinton break tax (and other) promise(s)
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:52:48 GMT

>From: paul@hsh.com
>Subject: RE: Clinton break tax (and other) promise(s)

>> Wrong. Bill Clinton has not said word one on either the middle class
>> tax cut or his plan to reduce the deficit. What has been said was said
>> by Clinton STAFFERS and they themselves did not say either "NO MIDDLE
>> CLASS TAX CUT" or "TO HELL WITH THE DEFICIT". 
>
>Yo -- Get some _facts_, Zack.
>
>The New York Times, January 7, 1993: "Bill Clinton [NOT his "staffers"] 
>appeared today to back off his campaign pledge to cut the Federal budget 
 ^^^^^^^^
>deficit in half in four years."  

Ahhh, he APPEARED to back off of his pledge, eh? In whose opinion? Apparently
he didn't exactly say, "Sorry, people, I have decided to back down from my
campaign promise of a middle class tax cut." What he actually said that he
would have to re-think the situation. And the reason is perfectly plausible.

>> No, Clinton did NOT say that he will "send all Haitian refugees back to
>> their country". No refugees already in this country will be sent back by
>> Clinton. 
>
>More _facts_, Zack:
>
>The New York Times, January 15, 1993:  "President-elect Bill Clinton 
>announced today that he would at least temporarily abandon a campaign pledge 
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^
>and WOULD CONTINUE the Bush administration's policy of FORCIBLY RETURNING 
>HAITIANS who try to emigrate to the United States."

As your quote indicates, it is a TEMPORARY situation so he can transition
in his policy without causing a mass exodus of refugees. And the policy he
is keeping is that where ships at sea are turned back. I seriously doubt
that he will continue efforts to return emigrees already in this country.
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
They say money talks, but all mine ever says is Goodbye.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh