HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:56:43 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell) writes:

> Bush has the authority to at least tell them to do SOMETHING. He gave them
> a reasonable time for the passage of an economic growth package.

Come on.  You know and I know that the Congress did pass such a bill
by the deadline date, and that the President accused them of inaction
anyway.  

Bush didn't like the bill and he vetoed it, which is within his power
as president.  

Hence, it is mere partisan bickering to say that 1) Bush did not
propose a package or 2) Congress did not approve a package.  I hope
that we're a little above that.

Of course, having said that, it sure took the president long enough to
propose a bill.  We kept hearing "wait till the State of the Union
address" for several months.  The president labored mightily and
brought forth a mouse.  If he just wanted to propose the House
Republicans' package, he could have said so sooner.

 
Sorry if this comes out garbled; my terminal is acting wierd.
--Scott
From: lesher@bucknell.edu (timothy lesher `94)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: no new york republican primary
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:17:46 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pa.

> In article <1992Apr08.183813.282682@cs.cmu.edu> dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish) writes:
> >
> >Does anyone have any information about this?  I haven't heard any news
> >about new york republican primaries?  (lots of news about democrat
> >primaries tho)  If this is true and new york cancelled its primary, then
> >why haven't we heard anything?  If new york didn't cancell its primary,
> >then why haven't we heard anything?  This sounds worse than the
> >old soviet system where they at least got a chance to vote
> >yes or no.  (remember at the end they were actually voting no in enough
> >numbers to throw some old guard out.)
> >
> >david redish
> >

I believe that Mr. Redish was referring to the fact that some primaries allow
the voted to choose an "uncommitted" vote, ie, "I don't like any of the guys
on the ballot, and I don't feel strongly enough about anyone else to write
him (or her) in."

Not many states (I think) have this option, but it would (IMHO) be a better
way to register a so-called "protest vote" than a pseudo-candidate like
Buchanan was (no flame here, just my opinion...).

Tim Lesher, aka "Moskva"             |  lesher@bucknell.edu               .....
.....Perot in '92, Buchanan when hell freezes over!                       .....
....."We're kicking butt and taking initials; we're not stopping          .....
.....long enough for names!"                                              .....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:468 talk.politics.misc:17058
From: gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jules D. Gliesche)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 7 Apr 92 05:13:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

Shannon,

The reason LP members don't support Perot is because he is at best a Populist,
but hardly is a Libertarian. If you read his Larry King interview, it's clear
that he has no qualms about using the force of government to acheive his goals,
nor does he question the right of government to interfere in people's personal
lives and choices (i.e. the "war" on drug, etc.)

Perot is unique in that he borrows both democrat and republican ideas - which
makes him the ideal demopublican.

The LP strives to apply a consistent philosophy to social and political
problems - not just a mish-mash of whatever works for the current month. Perot
does not have this kind of developed, ideological base.


-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ "That government is best which governs LEAST"    VOTE LIBERTARIAN   +
+ Andre Marrou / Nancy Lord '92   1-800-682-1776 / 1-900-4-LIBERTY    +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: Brown on libraries, electronic access, honesty
Keywords: brown, library
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 15:09:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.005158.9206@zip.eecs.umich.edu> jimj@z.eecs.umich.edu (Jim Jewett) writes:
>
>
>Brown was asked for his stand on libraries, as part of an interview for
>"American Libraries".  The article from which this quote was taken will
>probably be published in May.  (I got it from the interviewer, Gordon
>Riley.)
>
>"I'd like to see libraries become an electronic freedom network,
>giving the people access to find out what government is really doing.
>And they should be schools without walls, giving continuing education
>to everyone."
>
>He seems to be serious about electronic availability; apparently he has
>a board on Compuserve.  (I'm not on Compuserve, so I can't provide details,
>but I believe it is under '92 campaign.)
>
....
	*Yawn* Nothing new here!  There's been an initiative to create
a nationwide educational infonet for some time.  There has been a lot of 
thrashing, however, on just how to execute it, who runs it, and who
pays for it.  While I think the federal government should pay for the
backbone, and use the Internet backbone as a model, I will say these
are all real issues which need to be worked out first.  It's tied up
with private/public sector conflicts, fed/state issues, AT&T/info
technologies debates, etc....  Not glamorous debates, but necessary.
	Also, all the major candidates are represented by a section in
a Compuserve forum (the sections are not run by the campaigns, 'tho
the campaigns are represented in them).  Were pretty active when I
checked last.

***DRAFT TSONGAS***

Brad

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: LP, GATT, and Beer (Was: Ross Perot)
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<PMETZGER.92Apr3161017@snark.shearson.com>
	<1992Apr4.081901.13972@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:16:25 GMT


In article <1992Apr4.081901.13972@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:

   Since the LP is a pro-free market party, could we assume that it would
   honour GATT if it were in power?

In the sense that the LP would not restrict trade to and from the US
in any way, yes. In the sense that we would necessarily care if other
nations had signed a treaty agreeing to this, no. In the sense that we
would necessarily care about all the details of GATT, no. 

What I mean by this is that the LP is willing to unilaterally
eliminate all trade barriers, on the basis that even a unilateral
elimination of trade barriers would powerfully aid the US economy.
Thus, any treaty that agrees to lowering trade barriers is somewhat
redundant and its details likely do not matter.

   If so, and given its stance on minimal federalism, would there be a
   conflict between honouring GATT and finding a way to cancel tax
   abatements by the State of Missouri and the city of St. Louis to
   local mass brewers such as Anheuser Busch, et al.?  This is an
   issue that will find the U.S. blatantly with its pants down in the
   international free trade forum ... (preliminary GATT finding
   boomeranged from an accusation of beer dumping against Canada)

Well, I'm not sure the question of tax abatements for beer
manufacturers per se is important as we would like to eliminate most
taxes of any kind. However, in this particular situation, it would
appear that the politically simplest thing to do would be to simply
use the situation as an excuse to grant "concessions" to all the other
businesses in St. Louis.

Piddling details like beer tax abatements are minor, however, compared
to the general problem of eliminating our restrictive barriers against
whole foreign industries.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"That government is best which governs least."
		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
Restore the American Dream: Andre Marrou for President! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
From: solomon@chaos.utexas.edu (Thomas Solomon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:29:51 GMT
Organization: Center for Nonlinear Dynamics, University of Texas at Austin
In-reply-to: weverka@csn.org's message of 10 Apr 92 22:42:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.224246.22803@colorado.edu> weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:

   This family of four spends half of our income on rent
   We gross $15,000 and pay $2,295 in social security taxes.
   We get standard deduction and exemptions of $5,700 and $8,600 respectively.
   This makes our net income $700.  The 15% tax on this is $105
   We get earned income credit of $769.

   Total tax is $1631.  

   On Brown's system we deduct our $7800 rent paid and 13% comes to $936.

   The payroll tax in the current system is what kills us poor people.

I'm completely confused by this.  I earn $26,000 a year, and my social
security taxes are $1620.  How is it that your social security tax is
so much more than mine, while your gross income is quite a bit lower?
Is there a difference in the social security tax rates, depending on
your situation?  I always thought that it was a flat percentage of
your first ____ dollars.

                   Tom Solomon
From: weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:42:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.191907.14799@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dba3k@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Daniel Burton Avery) writes:
>The thing that confuses a lot of people about this tax for a
>while (myself included) is that the rent deduction is a
>deduction from your tax -base- and not your actual tax.  See,
>if you make $10,000/year, and pay 30% of your income on rent
>normally, than that means you subtract rent from your gross
>income and -that- is what you multiply by 13% to get your tax.
>In the above case, if you spend 30%, $3,000, on rent, then you
>pay:
>
>$10,000   (gross income)
>-$3,000   (rent deduction)
>=$7,000  (taxable income)
>
>then to get your tax...
>$7,000
>X  .13
>= $910    (your tax)
>
>which is an effective 9.1% tax rate...
>Add this 9.1% to a 13% VAT which will hit lower income people
>more than wealthy ones, and it doesn't look too good.
>
>The rent deduction would save a family spending 30% of their
>income on rent about 4% of their income.  The rent deduction
>doesn't do a whole lot to correct the regressive quality of
>this tax.
>
This family of four spends half of our income on rent
We gross $15,000 and pay $2,295 in social security taxes.
We get standard deduction and exemptions of $5,700 and $8,600 respectively.
This makes our net income $700.  The 15% tax on this is $105
We get earned income credit of $769.

Total tax is $1631.  

On Brown's system we deduct our $7800 rent paid and 13% comes to $936.

The payroll tax in the current system is what kills us poor people.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:438 talk.politics.misc:16977
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:49:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.022237.16677@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, pmiragli@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Pierluigi Miraglia) writes:

|> I couldn't resist this one. People move together because of a number of
|> typically human needs that have nothing to do with gov't incentives. If
|> you looked beyond the (deceptively large) boundaries of the U.S., you'd see
|> that every other advanced society is essentially urban.
|> In Europe ( as most everywhere else) people *want* to move to *inner*
|> cities, as shown by the skyrocketing land value in the urban centers. In
|> fact, it is as far as I know only in the U.S. that "inner city" means
|> "area where nobody wants to live". And the reason for that are probably
|> the relative cheap value of space here and the enormous gov't *subsidy*
|> for private transportation.

But if you take away all of the additional laws and forms of support, and
welfare, and things like that, people would continue to move apart from each
other. That part of public transportation is an exception and there are some
very good agruments that it encourages city  growth.

|> Moreover, studies about urban anthropology show that people in fact like
|> to group together and not to spread apart. Suburbs here are much more
|> the result of people wanting to live *with* what they perceive as their
|> likes than the effect of people seeking isolation. Isolation is one of
|> the least tolerable conditions for humans (then again, humans in the US
|> may be a counterexample to this).

This is a highly debatable point. In fact, I know to people who are very into
this stuff and got to watch them go head to head over it once. The debates here
are intolerably dull compared to that.

Jason W. Solinsky
From: ajl9@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron J Lebovitz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:43:28 GMT
Reply-To: ajl9@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron J Lebovitz)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Apr7.053022.3322@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:

>Less regulation is BY DEFINITION MORE FREEDOM.
>|> a few bucks to make the Pinto safer/
>
>People often chose to pay less money and accept more danger. THAT IS THEIR
>CHOICE. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL SOMEBODY THAT HE/SHE MUST PAY SO THEY CAN BE
>MORE SAFE. THIS IS THE NATURE OF FREEDOM.
>

I know you're much smarter than this, Jason.  You must be having fun, huh?

Anyway, the next person who writes about FREEDOM really needs to understand
that the word, all by itself, is abstract to talk about in terms of
actualizing it.  Freedom just means less restrictions;  but there are clearly
many sources of restriction.  If you think government regulation only
reduces freedom, then why not go all the way and be anarchists?  I would
bet your reason is the obvious one (a la Hobbes), and so your argument is
not really that less regulation is more freedom, but that you'd rather
be restricted by individual circumstance than by a general set of
principles;  that's fine, if you realize the dangers involved.  Do you?

-- Aaron Lebovitz
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Ok, so who do you want? (was Perot for President)
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:01:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
:    earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
 
:    > Like we have a zillion choices here.  Talk about drawing a bad
:    > hand.  Can I get a new set of cards (candidates) please?
 
:    Ok, I'll bite.  Who do you want?
 
: Well, I, for one, want Andre Marrou.

Gee, I thought Andre was ON the list of candidates that Earl was
rejecting.  You mean he's dropped out already?

Of course, if all the candidates were libertarians, I'd have to agree
with Earl.

My point is that in an election it is unlikely that you are going to
get a choice who exactly reflects your personal ideology.  If you are
rejecting all available candidates, like Earl is (and Perry is not),
then perhaps you can tell us who you do want.

--Scott
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: How Perot can make Clinton President
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:34:19 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Apr16.095028.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>How Ross Perot can make Bil Clinton President:
>
>Come November, the election results are as follows:
>Bush    45%
>Clinton 30%
>Perot   20%
>others   5%
>
>	Since Busch came did not get a clear majority, the congress (House, 
>Senate or both, I don't remember - sorry) would then choose amongst the top
>three candidates.  Voting along party lines, Clinton wins and becomes
>President.
>
>hmm....
>
>This could happen if I understand things correctly.  If memory serves me,
>something like this DID happen in the early 1800's.  Imagine what would happen
>if Clinton came in third!


We are forgetting the electoral college. Even with 45% of the overall
popular vote, George could still win enough states to win enough
electoral votes.
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Please post NY ballot
Date: 6 Apr 1992 18:26:32 GMT
Organization: Magic 8 Ball
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

My predictions for popular vote in Democratic primary:

Larry Agran........:  3
Bob Kerrey.........:  4
Jerry Brown........: 33
Tom Harkin.........:  4
Eugene McCarthy....:  4
Bill Clinton.......: 33
Paul Tsongas.......: 19

----------------------
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

If you think that an ex-IBM Salesman is more trustworthy than a
politician, you've never dealt with an IBM Salesman.
From: rjb17@cl.cam.ac.uk (Richard Black)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.british,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy
Date: 13 Apr 92 08:37:53 GMT
Reply-To: rjb17@cl.cam.ac.uk (Richard Black)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <12APR199219172328@zeus.tamu.edu> Philip A. Carney writes:

> What Great Britain (and notice they have PR in Northern Ireland ...

Wrong. Elections for Westminster in NI are by the same method as
everywhere else. It is only _European_ Elections where STV is used.

Richard.

#!/bin/perl
do 'std_disclamer';
Xref: sparky alt.politics.british:8 soc.culture.europe:3699
From: kibo@world.std.com (James 'Kibo' Parry)
Subject: Re: Fun with a fawlty .newsrc
Organization: A room filled with typography (in Boston's Back Bay)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:24:45 GMT

[talk.bizarre]
In article <1992Apr13.042453.16920@yang.earlham.edu> davidv@yang.earlham.edu (Live from the Twilight Zone) writes:
>
>	Anyway, I went back to my .newsrc, and switched to a listing of 
>all registered newsgroups, and alt.sex, alt.religion.kibology, and 
>alt.party somehow merged into one "newsgroup":
>
>			"alt.s parky. ibo y"

Sparky I. Boy will appear in the next double-secret tale of Spot.

						-- K.

Xref: sparky alt.religion.kibology:1643 alt.exploding.kibo:173 alt.stupidity:1527 alt.postmodern:1267 alt.whine:313 alt.flame:6780
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:07:59 GMT
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain Sinclair)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.exploding.kibo,alt.stupidity,alt.postmodern,alt.whine,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Cascade, la, la, la,
Reply-To: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney

krobinsn@alqualonde.endor.cs.psu.edu (Kenneth J Robinson) writes:
 >nonsense is being removed from alt.flame.

OK, who rmgrouped it?


--
Iain Sinclair   axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au                             ne cede.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology
From: kibo@world.std.com (James 'Kibo' Parry)
Subject: Re: Happy Kiboday
Organization: A room filled with typography (in Boston's Back Bay)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:05:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.010642.23289@tc.cornell.edu> kaspo@eos.acm.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
>
>In article <BME85I.JwE@world.std.com> kibo@world.std.com (Wnzrf 'Xvob' Cneel) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.010808.25453@tc.cornell.edu> some bozo writes: 
>>> Hell, it's barely pronounceable in plaintext. But you're right, I'm afraid
>>>I'll never be an X-Vob.
>>
>>But I'm jealous because your consonant-rich last name ALREADY looks rot13.
> 
> It was done that way on purpose. Ancient Polish conspiracy.
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"How do you get shirts so clean, Mr. Rbyzyznzyzsknzski?"

"Ancient Polish Conspiracy!"

"My husband--some hotshot!  Here's our ancient Polish conspiracy--Klgn!
Klgn makes the whites whiter and the brights brighter..."

>>And, of course, 'Kasprzak' begins and ends with K, the swellest letter.
>>In rot13 they change to exxes, the exxiest letter.
> 
> Does that mean that Ximcat is to me as Xibo is to Kibo?
> 
> Well, actually it'd probably be Xaspo. 

pronounced 'exaspo' of course.

>>(Now I'm going to have that 'Kaspo the Friendly Ghost' song running
>>through my head.  Look what you've done.)
> 
> Look what _I've_ done? I've been hearing that line since kindergarten. 
>It's tough to make fun of a name that already looks like a bad joke, but
>people do manage.

The correct response is "Wow, you're a really witty dude, dude.  That's
the FIRST TIME I've heard that joke--TODAY!"

Kaspos And Bits!  Kaspos And Bits!  Kaspos And Bits!

								-- K.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.exploding.kibo,alt.drugs,alt.stupidity,alt.postmodern,alt.whine,alt.tasteless
From: krobinsn@alqualonde.endor.cs.psu.edu (Kenneth J Robinson)
Subject: Re: Cascade, la, la, la,
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:25:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.044507.23038@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> drumm@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Steve Drumm) writes:
>In article <wcsjc.702969488@cunews> wcsjc@alfred.carleton.ca (John Coughlin) writes:
>>In <1992Apr11.014745.24406@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> bur@ultisol.gsfc.nasa.gov (Mike Bur) writes:
>>>Elvis died of a drug overdose.(What kind of pills were they?)
>>Elvis fried while comatose.
>Elvis died of a drug overdose. (Downers, i would imagine...)
>drumm...sometimes ya just gotta say 'what the fuck'

Terminate yourselves at once. This nonsense is being removed from alt.flame.
Please take your childish playtoys elsewhere.

K e n   R o b i n s o n
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology
From: kibo@world.std.com (James 'Kibo' Parry)
Subject: Re: Happy Kiboday
Organization: A room filled with typography (in Boston's Back Bay)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:27:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.010808.25453@tc.cornell.edu> kaspo@eos.acm.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.231908.19944@math.ucla.edu> Ovyy Furezna writes:
>>In article <1992Apr5.205725.29357@tc.cornell.edu> some bozo writes:
>>> 
>>> Kibo's birthday, of course, would be Kiboday. And we also need an 
>>>All *ibos' Day, of course. And maybe a Rot13day for people with neat 
>>>names like Wnzrf Cneel and Ovyy Furezna.
>>
>>As well as F. Enzzvat.  Sorry, Wvz, "Xnfcemnx" doesn't cut it.
>>
> Hell, it's barely pronounceable in plaintext. But you're right, I'm afraid
>I'll never be an X-Vob.

But I'm jealous because your consonant-rich last name ALREADY looks rot13.

And, of course, 'Kasprzak' begins and ends with K, the swellest letter.
In rot13 they change to exxes, the exxiest letter.

(Now I'm going to have that 'Kaspo the Friendly Ghost' song running
through my head.  Look what you've done.)
								-- K.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.angst.xibo.sex,alt.exploding.kibo,alt.stupidity,alt.tasteless
From: bur@ultisol.gsfc.nasa.gov (Mike Bur)
Subject: Re: La, la, la...
Organization: NASA/GSFC code 923
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:02:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.013450.23157@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> ptgarvin@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (PTed Garvin) writes:
>markd@visix.com (Mark Dalrymple) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Mar31.171615.10804@pony.Ingres.COM> reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux) writes:
>>>In article <1992Mar30.094344.9238@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> zack@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Dr. Dave Zatz) writes:
>>>>Am I the only one who finds these 'La La La' posts quite annonying?
>>>No you are not the only one who finds these 'La La La' posts annoying!
>>Who are the only ones who find these `La La La' posts quite annoying?
>Where are the only ones who find these 'La La La' posts quite annoying?
There are the only ones who find these `La La La` posts a might bit annoying.