HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Clayton's mistakes about gays
Date: 15 Sep 1992 20:24:44 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <vanyel.716612027@camelot> 
vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alan Williams) writes:

> I find it continually amazing that some morons around here would rather
> keep throwing stones when they have nothing more interesting to say.

You should be thankful I throw like a girl.

> But then, I haven't seen anything substantial on here in some time.  This
> newsgroup seems haunted primarily by people who have little more to do than
> whine when they don't get first dibs on ripping someone apart.

You know, this must be the, oh, hundredth time you've whined
about being ripped apart here.  And I'd check with your system
administrator about your news feed -- *I've* seen lots of 
substantial postings here recently.

> Bob at least offered commentary.  I'd love to see the same done by those of
> you who prefer to flame instead of communicate.

Communication with Cl*yt*n Cr*m*r is impossible.  Nothing 
anyone could possibly say to him would convince him to get 
down from his hobbyhorse (ooooh! a literary allusion!), which 
is why he's ignored by most of us.  He's a monomaniac.  And 
I certainly don't look forward to a Sargon-Cr*m*r thread.

Now why don't you stop your whining and post something interesting?

Arne
From: joelp@cs.man.ac.uk (Joel Parthemore || Pharos Project)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: adoption
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:00:54 GMT

John (J.D.) (thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu) (Mr. J. Dorrance) writes:

>jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:

>>pmele@ldgo.columbia.edu (phil mele):
>>> one of the points being that as an unmarried couple
>>> living apart who were allowed to adopt children, a president is set that
>>> should make it easier for gay people to adopt.

>>i knew i liked bill clinton... :-)

>Clinton? Ooh. I got Carter. Doesn't he look *swell*? Just had him done
>today. He says it didn't hurt at all when they curled him. Amazing.
>His eyes *did* water a lot when they put on the president-spray, but
>he's recovered nicely. He's still really heavy, and none of my hats
>fit over him, but that's the price you pay. And I got a free child, to
>boot! I think next month I'm going to get a Lincoln; so retro...

This is utterly bizarre.  I've read and re-read this, and I still have *no*
idea what you've done with Jimmy; though if you're thinking about trying it
with Lincoln, I'd suggest you go for Andrew Johnson instead (who's my
candidate for favourite president).

The free child you got is, I assume, human?  Has it a gender?  Have you given
it a name (or did it come with one)?  Are you *sure* you're prepared for being
a parent?  For God's sakes man, how are you going to handle having a second
one, so fast?  Have you sat down and talked with *anyone* about responsibility
and welfare, and whether you *really* have the budget to support a family?

Oh piddle.

Joel,
	   hurrying off to make Jules a cup of coffee (with milk, no sugar)

>--
>John Dorrance  * Don't fuck with Ms. Congeniality *  thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu

>	Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders
>	     what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of
From: Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: World's First Known Bottom Found in Alps
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 19:58:51 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <BuKuEG.Mzt@world.std.com>

Randall L Paylor writes:
>"But I'll get mud in my beard!" -- J. Patton

This is something to *object* to???   ;-{)##]

As long as it's due to some mud-rasslin' or getting whumped down
in the muck to get vigorously boinked, that is.  
 
() Even if you're on the right track, you'll still get run
() over if you just sit there.
()      -- Will Rogers
-----
[> George D. Madison | NBCS: B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv | Just say NO to razors! <]
[> It's a BEAR thing -- you wouldn't understand. <|> furr@cup.portal.com <]
From: tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: At The Limoncelli Family Picnic: "The Bocci Story"
Organization: Tom's Box of Ahedonia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:06:56 GMT

Well, since I posted the other story, I might as well post this
too.  I should add that Laura gave me the inspiration for this joke

(You might not get that joke if you don't know Italian, bocci, and
queer culture)

My (straight) cousin was really showboating during the bocci game to
the point of being obnoxious.  Ever see the movie "White Men Can't
Jump"?  We're the same age.  This is the guy who always beat on me at
the picnic when we were age 5 until 14.  He had a shot-gun wedding
since the last time I saw him and his wife and child were there.

Anyway...

Despite his showboating my team was doing better than him.  At one
point he was trying to distract me by asking "hey, what's that thing on
the back of your head" (and he tugged on my tail).  I threw the ball
really well and brought out team "in".  He was next and threw a really
bad shot.

I yelled, "Hey, maybe you need to have one of those 'tings on the back
of yo hed."  After his next bad shot I grabbed my tail and said, "you
got a year to grow one before the next picnic."

Later, I threw one shot that put my ball touching the pill (always wins
your round if it's like that by the end) and I had to work *really*
*hard* to not yell, "It takes a real man to bocci a ball."

Tom

-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.uucp (home) -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work)
"Families should be more like the Waltons instead of the Simpsons" -G. Bush;
"But we *are* like the Waltons: we're waiting for the Depression to end,
too!" -B. Simpson 8/20;    S7/2 b+ g l+ y z- n++ o++ x++ a-- u+ v+ j+ PIG8/5
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: coren@osf.org (Robert Coren)
Subject: Re: A Conversation With Matthew
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:07:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.052257.7984@reed.edu>, nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
> 
> Damn, can't I just say "I've got a woody" and leave it at that? Anyone
> twig to that particular expression?

Is this discussion going to branch out yet again? A hardwood be nice
if I had a treesome to share it with, but for now I'll just have to
pine fir yew. If you've got a "woody", I hope I maple on it; I'd as
leaf stroke your chest, nuts, and ash, or kiss your tulips. I birch'll
howl, or at least bark, when you reed this. It may not be
pith-elegant, but... well, you can cedar rest coming, I'm sure.

Robert [who knows that Jess would do this much better (but somebody
        has to fill in while's on sabbatical), and whose only
        associations with "root", "trunk", "limb" or "seed" are too
        obvious to use, and who *hadn't* heard the expression but
        thinks its meaning is pretty obvious, and who thinks this
        whole business of parenthetical signoffs has gotten totally
        out of hand]
From: nigelw@ibmpcug.co.uk (Nigel Whitfield)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: 1-700-A-GAY-MAN
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:27:45 GMT
Reply-To: nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk (Nigel Whitfield)
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

In article <0#rnrp-.rich@netcom.com> rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen) writes:
>
>This is absolutely universal, and on almost every telephone, in the
>United States.  I believe it is also universal in Canada.

The old UK mapping goes like this:

	ABC	DEF
 1	 2	 3

GHI	JKL	MN
 4	 5	 6

PRS	TUV	WXY
 7	 8	 9

	OQ
	 0

And if you want to quote a phone number with letters, put them in capitals,
so the number of the LT information service was (still is, actually)

ABBey 1234

Nigel.

-- 
Nigel Whitfield - nigelw@ibmpcug.co.uk
Gay/Bi/Lesbian? Join uk-motss by mailing uk-motss-request@pyra.co.uk
From: drp@dosbears.UUCP (David R. Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Torch Song Trilogy on TV last night
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:52:27 GMT
Reply-To: drp@dosbears.uucp
Organization: DosBears

In article <18r0nmINN2n1@mizar.usc.edu> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>> Among the sponsors were...  and-- believe it or 
>> not-- MacDonald's.
>
>You shouldn't be all that surprised about McDonald's.  Mrs. Kroc 
>(whose first name I can't ever remember), the person who *owns* 
>McDonald's,

Not. She sold it about a year (or two) ago (and, allegedly, after the terms
were worked out, asked "do you want fries with that?").

--
         David R. Preston   drp@dosbears.uucp dosbears@netcom.com
              Information gladly given but safety requires
               the avoidance of unnecessary conversation.
            D. R. Preston 584 Castro St. #614 SF CA 94114 USA
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: World's First Known Bottom Found in Alps
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:19:27 GMT

In article <!+tnarq.jfh@netcom.com> jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.161015.3854@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>>In article <x=sndkn.jfh@netcom.com> jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:
>>>That's silly,  What made them think he enjoyed it? 
>>Wouldn't you?
>Not in the snow, I wouldn't. 

Jack, Jack, Jack.  You should learn to expand your horizons!  One of my
more memorable teenage romps involved a nice, secluded snowdrift...

;-)

-- 
Michael Bryan  michael@resonex.com  "Milk and Cheese in '92!"  |     ,_,
"Lovers are like... dentures.  You don't want them in your     |    /oo \
mouth all night, but you sure as hell want them within arm's   |    <>__|
reach in the morning!"  --- Miss Elmira Gulch                  |    |  U|
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: To Laura
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:45:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.141157.25594@spdcc.com> pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir) writes:
>
>If someone is going to accept me, I want it to be without strings. I
>offer the same deal in return. 

Isn't there some kind of contradiction?
When you ask someone to accept you without strings, isn't that a string?

I believe that there is no such a thing as "total acceptance without strings".
Every person in the world has a set of social values, and there is no way you
can avoid that. So, asking for no strings is asking for a string.

AAP
From: psp@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (P.S. Powledge)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Hate mail
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:08:38 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ

In article <1992Sep10.142342.27323@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>> - Polly "Cabal Card or Bust" Powledge [still pondering the layers
>>   of meaning in the phrase "academic bitch"]
>You'll always be in the cabal 'o my heart.

Blush. My cup runneth over. (<- uh, oh, I'm beginning to lisp. Guess it
must be that Evil Nelly Queen influence.)

BTW, I instructed at least three people to tell you that I was sorry to
have missed you and the motss get-together last Saturday in NY. I hope
that message got passed along to you.

Well, gotta run now - time to hobnob with the corporate elite,

-- 
				||| Polly Powledge
				||| Internet: P.S.Powledge@ATT.COM
				||| Uucp:     att!hrmso!psp
From: black@lester.sybase.com (Christina Black])
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: How Egalitarian are Homosexual Relationships?
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:49:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.121638.733@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
 
|> 	There was someone in another newsgroup who made the claim that
|> even in homosexual relationships, there is essentially always a
|> dominant and a submissive partner. Is that the rule or the exception?
|> Are homosexual relationships generally egalitarian, in principle, if
|> not in practice?

I think "dominant and submissive" puts the case too strongly.  But
people are all different, and any time you get two people together,
they'll devlop patterns where one takes the lead for some things, the
other for other things.  I think gay relationships are, on balance, more
egalitarian than straight ones, if only because you don't go in with a
lot off assumptions about who'll take the lead.  

-- Chris
black@syabse.com
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Re: adoption
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 11:52:00 GMT

katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:

>But how about fucking Ms. Congeniality?

Depends on the person...

Reflecting on the extreme importance of prepositions in some cases,

--
John Dorrance  * Don't fuck with Ms. Congeniality *  thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu

	Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders
	     what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Hate mail
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:19:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.025855.17862@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

><> A fag is... a big ugly hairy woman with a penis.
><> -- (unknown nitwit)

This sounds remarkably reminiscient of Neal C. Wickham, who I'm glad
to see is back from the void and voluminously posting signature-fodder
to alt.sex.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:11:06 GMT


Speaking of measure 9, and the fact that Pat Robertson's Nazi
organizations are recruiting bigots in to vote for the legalized
bashing of gayfolk in Oregon, makes me question democracy even more.

If these people win, makes me wonder of the true rights of the masses.
The masses have the right to nearly anything they want with enough
signatures and voters (legally that is), but it doesnt' mean they have
any real right to inflict their ugly innards upon the innocent
individual.

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Transmitting from Planet Yip--where everyone you meet 
			      is already dead.
From: aberson@enh.nist.gov
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: RE: Record trivia
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:50:29 GMT
Organization: NIST

In a previous article, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) wrote:
>Does anyone remember the feeble attempt some years ago (perhaps the late
>60's?) when someone attempted to perfect a quadraphonic phonograph?  It
>had an a-groove and a b-groove, and the player had 2 microneedles in a
>cartarge.  Unfortunatly, there was no way to make sure the needles went into
>the correct groove, and the result was, at best, hard to listen to, as the 
>b-needle would be playing the track before the a-groove...

This sounds a lot like the first attempts at stereo...two needles and 
two grooves.  Didn't work very well.

Sim, glad that this group is here so he can actually think about anything
besides Andr*w.

       Sim Aberson   Ft. Lauderdale, FL   aberson%3328.span@sdsc.edu
"It's always Beach Party Barbie, or Malibu Barbie....  That shit does not
prepare you for the true horror of a real woman's life.  Where is Single,
Abused, Trailer-Park Barbie?"             - Roseanne Arnold
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: jns@wam.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer)
Subject: Re: Record trivia
Organization: Militant Homosexual Lobby, Gay Lifestyle, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:28:47 GMT

Jack Hamilton (jfh@netcom.com), knowing
that I can't resist a quiz, asks:
 
> "what two famous movies which opened the same year feature
> themes which start with an octave jump"...

"Gone with the Wind"
"The Wizard of Oz"
	1939

Do I win the accordion?

Name a film which featured set design
by Salvador Dali and a soundtrack with
a Theramin.

--jns  [don't know the counterexample]
From: ro@panix.com (r l reid)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Hate mail
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:11:51 GMT
Organization: Playdoh's Republic

In article <1992Sep10.142342.27323@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>I suspect 'academic bitch' will linger with me, too.

What's this?  You're getting hitched?  MAzel tov!


-- 
		r l reid	ro@panix.com
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: psp@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (P.S. Powledge)
Subject: Re:  Publicity
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:05:25 GMT

In article <72049@apple.Apple.COM> mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>My point:  "Family Values" - as a PUBLICITY TOOL - is designed to distract
>from issues on which the Republicans may be challenged.  I have said this
>three times, and every time, some drooling idiot feels compelled to remark
>that I am ignorant of politics.

You just gotta love M*tth*w's logic:

	Motss poster: 	The Republicans are homohaters.

	M*tth*w: 	Gee, you've got them figured all wrong! Republicans 
			aren't homohaters, they're just, uh, er, unscrupulous
			opportunists! Yeah, that's right: unscrupulous
			opportunists, seeking to avoid dealing with issues
			that they look bad on!!

I hate to break it to you, but for some reason I don't find this a very
compelling argument for voting Republican.


-- 
				||| Polly Powledge
				||| Internet: P.S.Powledge@ATT.COM
				||| Uucp:     att!hrmso!psp
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat)
Subject: Re: Stimulating Photos
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:20:54 GMT

There was once this picture of a Black man on the cover of BGM.  It was so  
striking because this guy seemed very neuter, but very erotic.  He was wearing  
some type of robe and looking to the side.

(Unrelated)  I also think Ansel Adams brings out something that you wouldn't  
ordinarily notice.

When I first took up photography (1986), Ansel Adams and Robert Mapplethorpe  
were my idols.  Now my favorites are Steven Meisel, Herb Ritts and Donald  
Agarrat ... *wink*

Donald
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: chuckm@dakota.tcs.com (Chuck Meares)
Subject: Re: Gay Cops and 60 Minutes
Organization: Teknekron Communications Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:08:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.001438.26765@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>
>
>
>Did anyone else see the "60 Minutes" piece last night on gay cops?
>
>It was an interesting piece.  The San Francisco gay cops that Mike
>Wallace interviewed were very eloquent, especially the transplanted
>New Yorker who was on their S.W.A.T. team.
>
>During the course of the conversation with a group of SF gay cops, one
>of the officers commented that they were just as good as the straight
>folks, and lived pretty normal lives--they were just gay, and they were
>cops.  Mike Wallace said, "But we've all seen the gay pride parades with
>the prancing and mincing around, people acting out roles and such".  The
>response was "But they're only a tiny minority of our community.  They
>don't represent the mainstream.  WE ARE the mainstream."
>
>
>It is so nice to have someone else state exactly what I have been 
>saying.

Right Bob,

And would you like to know how many of those people that were in that 60 minutes
story you could run into at, oh say, the Eagle?  And you could only imagine
what they are wearing when at the Eagle, can't you Bob?

My lover is an S.F. sherriff's deputy.  We live a normal life.  We pay taxes.
I come to work at my company dressed like all the other employees.  AND, we
happen to like to wear/play/etc in leather on weekends.

Bob, you keep missing the point.  All of the gay community is the mainstream.
The people that you see at the parade in full drag most likely don't dress that
way on monday morning when they head off to work (well...maybe they do, but
that's their choice not mine or yours).  We are diverse, but we also
have to be one.

If you wish to dress like a Republican Accountant from Hell (TM) go ahead, but
you have no right to call yourself the mainstream and us the fringe.

Chuck


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Meares                               |
Systems & Network Administration           | PHONE: (510) 649-3649       
Teknekron Communication Systems            | INTERNET: chuckm@tcs.com
2121 Allston Way                           | 
Berkeley, California, 94704                |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed here are mine, mine, all mine ... I was never good
at sharing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Gay Homophobia (was Re: Too straight looking to be gay???)
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:09:26 GMT

In article <Btv10I.IBK@scd.hp.com> mdrayton@sr.hp.com (Mike Drayton) writes:

>When people on
>motss begin complaining about drag queens, butch, hairy men in totally
>revealing leather, or whatever their personal nightmares may be,
>someone else usually reminds us that the resistance at the Stonewall
>Inn was carried out by a group of drag queens who were tired of being
>raided, arrested, and beaten.  Somehow this doesn't seem to impress
>the people taking the assimilationist position.

Every time I hear this, personally, I can't help but feel that it's
something of a non sequitur:

"I hate those feminine gays.  They just leave those nice straight
people with a terrible impression of the decent gays."

"But nellies and drag queens were the ones who practically _started_
the modern gay movement."

My answer almost wants to be "the same drag queens they're complaining
about now?"  I know it seems like I'm associating myself with Sarver
here, and I hate that, but I must ask the question to satisfy myself.
Isn't Laura's answer to this complaint a better answer?  Or, in fact,
is it not?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi
From: lile@netcom.com (Lile Elam)
Subject: Re: not really about A parable...
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 01:47:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>In article <=fqndhb.lile@netcom.com> lile@netcom.com (Lile Elam) writes:
>>This is one of the reasons I refuse to ware sunglasses. I prefer
>>to see life as it is and do not want to hide my eyes (which are
>>the windows to my soul) from others. 

>>I feel that when others wear sun glasses, they are trying to
>>hide from me, the world, and life.

>Does it make sense to judge others by your own motivations/feelings?
>(Of course, most of us do.)  Anyway, here's another perspective. I
>didn't wear sunglasses for years...I love eyes, I love my eyes.  I also
>squinted in "normal" sunshine for all those years; my eyes and face
>*hurt*.  Finally, on the advice of my brother (who has poor vision and
>light-sensitive eyes) I got sunglasses.  I can *see* now in the sun.  It
>doesn't hurt to go outside.  Don't condemn people for motivations they
>may not have.  I would prefer to *not* "hide" my eyes, but even more I
>prefer to be able to see everything clearly and not hurt.  I can always
>go inside with someone and take the sunglasses off...*smile*...

>Muffy
>--

Well, I must admit that you have a point. :)

I guess I could say I was thinking of folks who wore such glasses
on the inside which might work better as an analogy.

As for myself, I will avoid sunglasses as long as possible. But then,
I do love the sun and it's amazing light, even if it does blind me
at times. I feel as if it is alive and is an extension of my own
heart (or vice versa).

Guess this is one of the reasons why suns show up in alot of my 
art work.

:)

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lile Elam	    |  "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are."
lile@netcom.com     |		
Un*x Admin / Artist |			 Buckaroo Banzai
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~