HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfw@jfwhome.FUNHOUSE.COM (John F. Woods)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Organization: Misanthropes-R-Us
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 11:47:39 GMT

In <1992Oct8.050742.12207@news.unomaha.edu> kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu
(Kurt Krueger) writes:
>drieux@wetware.com  writes:
>> ps: a right to bear arms is constitutionally guranteed right.
>> So also is a woman's right NOT to bear arms, legs, feetsies,
>> or WarmCuteFuzzies merely as some AntiChristianDogma has been
>> generated to the opposite....
>I'm not on drugs, and it's not that late in the night.  Plus, I know I'm not
>stupid because I made it through graduate school with honors.

Never mind that.  Do you wipe with your SAT scores or with your GREs?

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41801 alt.politics.clinton:9547
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:48:57 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <BvvCzy.9v7@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.180154.15941@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.205902.7543@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes ...
>>>> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>>>> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>>
>>>>>>I'm allowed, I'm not Christian.  :-)
>>
>>>>>Not if the fundies get their way. Then you won't be allowed to enjoy
>>>>>sex because your enjoying sex gets in the way of their practicing
>>>>>their religion. :-)
>>
>>>>Agreed!  Have you noticed how the "fundies" have avoided this line?
>>>>Seems it hits all too close for them.                           
>>
>>>Either that or the concept of a woman ejoying sex has so wigged them
>>>out that they are unable to comment.
>>
>>Nah. I think their WIVES read this and want to know what non-fundie men
>>do differently. :-)
>> 
>
>Maybe we could recomend some good "pillow book"...at least let them know
>that there is more than one position.
>
It would have to be Persian or Japanese...one where the lady is still
wearing LOTS of clothes... and the penis can't be seen. The ones from
India usually show the penis at some point, and gasp! shudder! the
lotus...


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Child (was: Walking down to the student center last night)
Summary: I'm probably wrong about this, but here goes... 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 23:54:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.164406.26038@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>
>> Goody. Does this mean that a sperm cell or an ovum qualifies as a child
>> if it might be fertilized in the future?
>
>> (I'm going to claim tax exemptions for each and every one of my ova.)
>
>I'm thinking about claiming tax exemptions for each and every one
>of my spermatazoa.  Zowie!!!

Don't you have to have Social Security Numbers for anybody you want
to claim as a dependent nowadays?

Or am I confused again?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Summary: It figures.
Organization: The Sharpstown Liberation Army
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:45:54 GMT

In article <7041@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.024829.24681@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>> 
>>Sure seems like your in pain little guy.
>> 
>How can you not be in pain, knowing that uncounted MILLIONS of children
>were murdered since RvW
>MS

How can *you* not be in pain, knowing of the thousands who die from
starvation *every day*?  (Oops -- I guess they don't matter to you, since
they've already been born...)

--PLH (better pluck the log outta *your* eye first, kid...)

-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos 
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:59:39 GMT

In <39vzp!#@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
(Susan Garvin) writes: >>>

>>> What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
>>> about a dead young woman?  
>
>>Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
>>crusade.  
>
> please list the criteria that you relied on to conclude
> that her parents were being malicious in any way
> whatsoever.

I've already done so. 

>>> I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  
>
>>I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...
>
>please list the criteria that you relied on to conclude
>that ms. garvin tends to see misogyny around every
>corner.

It was right there in her post, obvious for everyone to see.

>if you're uncomfortable answering either of these
>questions, bill, just say so.

Not at all.

Bill


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Is is Logic or Set Theory?
Summary: I just had 6 teeth removed, so pardon me if I mumble... 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 17:55:41 GMT

In article <nyikos.718487093@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <zlsiida.149@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>
>>>>>>they are ripped limb from limb via abortion.
>
>>I'm not very well informed on the actual physical process involved in 
>>abortion: is 'ripped limb from limb' strictly accurate? 
>
>My understanding is that this is exactly what happens in the overwhelming
[Delete.  Delete.  Delete.]

Peter, if your understanding of this is anything like what you've shown us
of your understanding of Logic and Set Theory, I would suggest you re-enroll
in school.

First grade would seem to be about your level...

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Atheist for Christ  (WAS Re: Biblical Authority for Law)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 17:13:27 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Oct15.044155.9064@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
 
>Not to endorse a Theocracy, but...
 
Honesty time Inturdgent.  You'd love a theocracy, wouldn't ya?
 
>We, by citing the Pledge of Allegiance in school, are forcing Atheists
>to endorse a God...
 
And that is why we should force nobody to say the pledge.
 
>Atheists, in order to buy anything, must use MONEY with "In God We
>Trust" written on it. 
 
And that is why it should be removed from money.
 
>What do you think about that? 
 
I just told ya.
 
>If you're consistent, you will push hard to eliminate the Pledge of
>Allegiance (as it was revised by Roosevelt - a DEMOCRAT who put God
>into the Pledge), and you'll have the Dollar Bill changed to eliminate
>"In God We Trust." 
 
Why don't you tell us what you think.  You claim to be a 
democrat.  What do you think of what FDR did?
 
>To say nothing of the Billions of $$$ necessary to take "God" off of
>all the monuments and government buildings, including Mount Rushmore. 
  
Is God really on Mt. Rushmore? 
 
>Otherwise, your point has no consistently. 
 
We have fetus fanatics in the name of their religion fighting to 
take away a right from women, resulting in women never being 
able to gain equality.  We have "In God we Trust" printed on 
money upsetting some number of atheists.  Sure I disagree with
both injustices pushed by your religious fanatic buddies, but
I recognize the greater danger in the abortion debate.  I spend
more time fighting you and your religious zealot buddies on
abortion than on some of other causes.  I see no inconsistency.
I think you need to find a better argument Dennis.  Though this
probably one of your best to date, it is still a very feeble
argument for someone at your Jr. High level.

>-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0------

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 02:11:41 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


P>In article <1asb31INNcmg@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>  psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:
mk>In article <1asb31INNcmg@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
 
mk>   There is absolutely no validity to this self-labeling of these
mk>women as feminists.  The name is a joke.  It makes no sense.  The
mk>name is a contradiction.  This organization exists to take away a
mk>freedom that is important to every woman of childbearing age.  It
mk>is more accurate to call them FAUXminists against Choice!
 
P>     Its unfortunate that to make sense of the world, you have to first DEFINE
P>it under you own limited terms, and then throw a tantrum when reality doesn't
P>quite fit.

So why don't you explain to us how a group that claims to be pro-women 
has an agenda that will use force of law to prevent women from exercising 
a right they currently have.  This is a right that currently 1.5 Million
U.S. Women choose to exercise every year.  While some of their points
are indeed valid about abortion, I fail to understand why they insist
on using the force of government to attempt to eliminate that option.
It at least seems to me that there are many other ways to reduce 
abortion that would not require harming so many women.  How is forcing
1.5 million women every year to do continue pregnancy's against
their will, pro-women?  I have asked people who claim to represent
FFLA, and I have yet to see and answer.

P>Paul

Dan King
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:48:20 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Martin writes:
>Ray writes:
>>Nobody (nobody) wants to
>>kill embryos or fetuses, and to imply otherwise betrays your
>>prejudices.
>
>If nobody wants abortion, then why do so many people have abortions?

You're missing a crucial point here, Martin.  There's a difference
between "wanting to cut off bodily support to the fetus" and "wanting
to kill the fetus".  If the law allowed a woman to cut off support to
a fetus and have it removed from her body and kept alive by hospital
staff, but not killed, I don't think many women would have a very big
problem with this.

That being said, how do you propose to allow a woman to cut off
support to the fetus without killing it?  Can you think of any way for
a woman to end her pregnancy before birth and have no further legal
ties to the fetus, without killing the fetus?  If you think of a way,
we'll be more than happy to consider it.

Another consideration is: who will pay to keep the fetus alive?  It'll
be pretty expensive to incubate an eight-week fetus until it can
survive on its own and be given to an adoption agency.

So what it comes down to is that I feel a woman has as much right to
refuse to use her body to support a fetus as you have a right to
refuse to use your body to support a dying man.  It's unfortunate that
the fetus has to be killed in the process, but since the fetus goes
through half a year of development without having even a working
brain, I find it impossible to justify forcing a woman to carry it to term.

-- 
_/_/_/  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.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 09:30:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.010612.12728@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
># ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
># >Rest assured that making abortion illegal _will_ kill women.  
># 
># Huh?   Let me get this straight.  Abortion will kill women?  I didn't
># know abortion killed women.  Oh, I take that back.  Abortion does kill
># unborn females directly.
>
>Mr. Guerrero, did you have to practice to be such a loser?  Or are you
>an idiot savant?  You most certainly did *NOT* get it straight.  Mr.
>Fischer clearly wrote that making abortion *ILLEGAL* will kill women,
>not that abortion itself will kill women.
>

I believe your reasoning goes like this:
   1) Abortion is made illegal
   2) Woman wants an abortion
   3) Woman has to go to some strange place to get an abortion
   4) Woman may die as a consequence of an abortion because of the
	difference in quality.  

Notice that one of the ends of this reasoning results in the the possible
death of the mother and the possible death of the unborn child (some
of the aborted manage to survive).  An abortion must first be taking place
in order for the woman to have a chance to die.  So it would be safe
to say that even if abortion were illegalized, abortion still kills
the female unborn. 

Whether or not Ray Fisher meant this doesn't matter.  I wanted to make a
point, so I did.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:45:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.000247.158318@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct13.193154.14058@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13.031044.109193@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In  <1992Oct12.200431.14455@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Oct12.034034.23325@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (
>>>> >In article <1992Oct12.023459.7473@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu
>>>> >>In article <1992Oct10.232122.13523@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
>>>> >>>In article <1992Oct8.073626.1003@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>Let me rephrase that--I should have said "Perhaps there are extreme
>>>> >>>>circumstances where abortion might be an option, but I am still against it..
>>>> >
>>>> >******************************************************************************
>>>> >* SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!! SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!! SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!!    *
>>>> >******************************************************************************
>>>> >>>Ok, Simon, let's get to the "extreme" circumstances.  If my Aunt Ann gets
>>>> >>>pregnant and tries to carry to term, she *WILL* have her spinal column snap,
>>>> >>>and wind up being paralyzed and in a wheelchair for the rest of her life.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>She's on the pill.  Ed (her husband) uses a condom every time they have
>>>> >>>sex.  They don't want to go in for steralization on the hopes that they
>>>> >>>will come up with some sort of precedure that will fix Ann's back, in which
>>>> >>>case they'd love to have another child.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>She gets pregnant.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Would you let her have an abortion?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Why should she have to ask you?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >*****************************************************************************
>>>> >* DID YOU READ THAT, SIMON? DID YOU READ THAT, SIMON? DID YOU READ THAT???? *
>>>> >*****************************************************************************
>>>> >
>>>> >Simon's response so far:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>About my River Styx comment: Anyone familiar with Greek mythology will know
>>>> >>where that River is supposed to be, and will understand that remark.
>>>> >
>>>> >I'd say he's six years old.  Or maybe a really bright five year old.
>>>>
>>>> Well, actually you're way off--I'm 22.  A five or six year old would only
>>>> spout the liberal junk taught in schools today.
>>>
>>>Does this mean that you're not going to answer Keith's questions?
>>>(The ones bracketed by SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!! and SIMON? DID YOU READ THAT????)
>>>
>>So what you're saying is that since this single case might exist, abortion
>>across the board is OK??
>
>So what you're saying is that you're not going to answer either question?
>
I thought I had.  You know this is a catch-22, and that this particular
case doesn't happen all the time.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:23:01 GMT

In <26300@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil 
   (Ron Bense) writes: > 
In talk.abortion, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>Many of us think that occurred when Roe was decided.  Who are you
>
> What was forced upon you?

A set of a beliefs that endorse the notion that abortion is a
perfectly fine option.

>>to decide what constitutes "irrational beliefs"?  Your opinion may
>
>Irrational in the sense that you wish to force a belief and moral system
>on others through law. It hasn't worked in any society at anytime in
>the world, as it always leads to its downfall.

Roe did the same thing, Ron.  You simply see the concept of "individual
choice" as a value that supersedes all others.  I don't. 

>>carry as much weight as the next guy's, but that has little to do
>>with objective reality.
>
>Granted, it may be my opinion, but one that is more difficult to refute
>than the first one.

I don't see any difference.  All law endorses a value or set of values.

Bill
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center with Will Hall
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:45:56 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


My mother's dead now, but when she was alive, if anyone had asked
me if I cared enough for her to die for her, I would have said
yes.  I guess the pro-forcers would answer differently about their
mothers.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:39:33 GMT


In article <1992Oct7.014858.14831@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>the term of pregnancy.  

[text deleted]

Doug Holtsinger is an egregious liar.  His claims about Roe have
been refuted countless times in talk.abortion.  He continues
to repeat these lies, hoping that some new sucker will believe
him.


Anyone can verify that Roe does not guarantee "abortion-on-demand
throughout the term of pregnancy" simply be reading the
decision itself.


Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41820 talk.politics.misc:50720 alt.sex:32525 alt.rush-limbaugh:7032 alt.politics.elections:15973 alt.politics.clinton:9550 alt.politics.bush:8522
From: jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 10 Oct 1992 06:11:03 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Oct9.155924.8972@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>>> = (Bruce Varney) writes:
>>>> = (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>>>abortion murder? Tough shit. Truth hurts, doesn't it??
>
>>No guts to post this on soc.women, soc.feminism and alt.feminism eh?
>
>No guts, period.  No logic either.

Such is the life of a conservative...

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41379 talk.religion.misc:17867 alt.atheism:18624
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:33:38 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>The whole point of his coming was to share EVERYTHING, 

I thought it was to make a woman pregnant. What do I know? She keeps
changing terminology on me. :)

>including death, with the rest of mankind.


Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Pro-aborts raising the issue of religion AGAIN (was Re: Authority 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:51:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.224031.18671@netcom.com> 
gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):

>> So once again, it is the pro-aborts who are the first to raise the issue
>> of religion. 

> First, shmurst.  See my repost of Suzanne's article where she states that
> she believes that *SATAN* causes miscarriages.  If that's not "raising the
> issue of religion" I don't know what is.

Ms. Forgach did not raise the issue of religion in that post. 
She was responding to Ms. Kathi Mills, who argued that "[if] god 
kills babies by causing miscarriages...", and Ms. Forgach responded
to that statement.  


>Gordon


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41566 talk.politics.guns:21928 alt.conspiracy:11097 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5159 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6546