HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:06:52 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
 <1993Jan23.173939.18362@rotag.mi.org> <93024.034039KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1993Jan24.181922.4665@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

In article <1993Jan24.181922.4665@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Mark A. Cochran) says:

>> [...]
>>were to dispose of the body of his unintended victim, so that it wouldn't be
>>found by the authorities, so nobody would know what he'd accidentally done.
>>Would that be okay?
>>
>Exactly what restrictive abortion laws would force women to do.
>Welcome to the pro-choice camp.

Ha ha.  Very funny.  No law -forces- anyone to have an abortion, unless she
lives in China.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Basic Rights for Gays? (was Re: Your own words, of course != bigot)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:37:31 GMT

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:

>In article <C0yJ81.630@news.cso.uiuc.edu> , vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>I'm sorry, but the social barriers to being overweight are EXTREME.
>>The Chicago Tribune did a huge story on this a few weeks ago.

>So, if overweight people can demonstrate a pattern of unfair discrimination
>against them, then there might be a justification for legislation to protect
>them.  However, there are a few things going against them.  For one, they
>can cease to be overweight simply by changing their behavior (as opposed to
>gays, who remain gay regardless of how the "behave").  For another, their
>condition can, in some cases, be considered =justifiable= reasons for
>descrimination (i.e. poor health risks).

*** GASP ***  Did I just here you say what I thought you said?  Did you
just bring "behavior" into this debate?  When people bring into question
the BEHAVIOR (not sexual preference) of gays there is an uproar of screams
about discrimination.  Are you actually that ignorant that you believe that
all overweight people are overweight because they are lazy?  Ever heard
of metabolism?  There are NUMEROUS medical causes of obesity, all of
which are NATURAL (natural... hmm.. isn't homosexuality natural?).  You
are absolutely endorsing a double standard here.  This is probably
the most hypocritical statement I've ever read on this net.  Besides,
who are you to tell people they have to CONFORM to your standard of
behavior to be "thin and beautiful"?  Isn't this EXACTLY what we keep
hearing gays complain about (with some validity I might say)?  This
just STINKS of hypocrisy.  

Obesity can be "natural", homosexuality can be "natural".  Are we now
going to establish job quotas on people's WEIGHTS???  

>>Oh, I will agree that gays have certainly put together a powerful
>>lobby.  Of course, only a few of the efforts of this lobby are against
>>"grievances".

>I have no idea what you mean by this statement.  True, some radical gay
>groups get seriously out of line, but this has little to do with those
>justified grievances.

I agree.  It's not the justified grievances that bother me, but rather
the unjustified solutions.  

>Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers




Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: My fellow citizens?????????
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:50:49 GMT

root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon) writes:
>kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>   The subject says it all.  Whatever happened to my fellow Americas?
>>I don't care if you're black, white, oriental, or some mixture.  The president
>>reports to Americans, not just citizens.   God, this makes me ill!

    "My Fellow Americans" has some unpleasant connotations if you say it 
with the wrong tone of voice. Richard Nixon saw to that.
  
>>   Oh, I can say God without offending, right?  After all Bill said it several
>>times yesterday.

    Yeah, Bill said it and it bugged the Beejeesus out of me... (seriously, 
feel free to appeal to your diety with all the vigor at your disposal; we 
need help from anybody now and we're not in much position to turn up our 
noses at the source).

>To be fair to President Clinton, he did say "My fellow Americans" several
>times during his address.

    Yeah, actually I thought that it was a great speech. Not too much 
substance, I'll admit, but at least it was short (which is more than I 
can say for the poem that followed - as Rush likes to say, "Brevity is 
the soul of wit").

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15125 alt.sex:43128 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13797 alt.politics.correct:6363 alt.politics.equality:159 alt.politics.homosexuality:10264
From: jmoody@netcom.com (Jim Moody)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:42:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:


>>
>>   Okay, Ace, the ball is in your court.  Please give us a list of
>>the places in this country where I, as a white man, am in danger of
>>being murdered just because I am a white man.  And, if it's not too
>>much trouble, I'd like to see references.
>>


>ask reginald denny (truck driver) about Normandy St. in south
>central Los Angeles, among other places...
>--
>David Leung-tak
>"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
>"A day without sun is night.
The point is not that there isn't hatred, nor is it that there isn't 
anger and resentment in non=white communities that can boil over into
violence and aggression.  Of course there is.  But in the end white
males are statistically less likely, given there numbers in the 
population, of being attacked and injured in a violent attack.  Gays are
being attacked in disproportionate numbers given their representation
in the overall population.  When that happens you start to ask why, because
something is skewing the statistical curve. 

And if, as I believe is that case,  Gay men and women are being attacked
for the simple reason that they are gay and in contact with non=Gay males,
then something is SERIOUSLY amiss.  The same argument can be made for 
women being attacked, usually by males.  These are, in my opinion, hate
crimes.  Hate crimes strike at the very root of society because they are
so totally irrational.  If I am driving around in a black neighborhood in
the middle of a riot I can at least understand, as Reginald Denny does,
that there were some extentuating circustances in my beating.  If I am
simply walking down the street and am set upon and beaten because I am Gay, or
black, or Jewish, or foreign, or female, then all of us must look on each
new encounter as one fraught with danger and society changes.

"
-- 
Jim Moody	jmoody@netcom.com	(415) 978-3289
===================================================================
    "The mystery does not get clearer by repeating the question"
         "nor is it bought by going to amazing places"*
                                                          Rumi
==================================================================
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pot anyone?
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:08:38 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1jo3uuINN64u@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> loweaa@o231-23.Rose-Hulman.Edu. (Anthony A Lowe) writes:
>
>	Hey yall! Here is one we did not catch before the election. It  
>starts with Bill and his appointment to the Attorney General. Well she is  
>a firm believer in the legalization of pot for medicinal uses. So she is a  
>hippy feminist who still is not read the research proving the couple of  
>hundred of chemicals in each joint does more damage than a pack of  
>cigarettes and THC does permanent brain damage, the good part is Bill's  
>response. He says that if he were to smoke pot today he would inhale.  
>Watch for smoke in the White House!

Go and read alt.drugs or talk.politics.drugs and get some real, up-to-date
facts about MJ.  Maybe then you can come back and post something intelligent.
There are legitimate reasons to legalize pot.  The synthetic for THC is
available for people who could use pot but it costs $8 a pill!  Guess who's
making money on that one....
-- 
RULE #1:  At all costs, we must make society fair.
RULE #2:  At all costs, we must make people be nice.
RULE #3:  Rules #1 and #2 are impossible to achieve.
From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Frequently Aksed Questions (FAQ)
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:01:46 GMT
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

Since several of the truths are becoming dated, I suggest adding the
"Hit List" aka "The 50 Broken Promises of Slick Willie" to the FAQ
complete with date broken.

Agitator
  #->

"You can't create more employees without first creating more employers.
 You can't have capitalism without capital."                     1997-2004
Take Back the GOP //      --Jack Kemp, 43rd President of the United States
-----------------//---- R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G ------------------
Only AMIGA!  \\ //    IBM PC  -  Who wants a politically correct computer?
==============\X/==================== Bring Back the Caltech Cannon!! ====
Roderick Lee, HMC '91    "The Professional Agitator"     agitator@ucsd.edu
From: rwn@po.CWRU.Edu (Richard W. Nelson Jr)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: SLICK TIMES
Date: 23 Jan 93 11:35:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


     A new publication out of California called the "SLICK TIMES"
will satirize and otherwise have great fun with Bill Clinton,
Hillary and their administration. It is in a 12 pg. format, and
comes out 4 times a year. For more information or to subscribe,
call 1-800-93-SLICK.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:05:35 GMT

P.S. If you wish to respond to me personally, send mail to:

tsmith@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu

The reply address is set wrong, and mail sent through a straight reply will
not get to me.

One of these days I'll figure out how to get a .sig to work on this program.

				Tom the non hacker

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Re: Clinton & the Press
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 25 Jan 93 08:24:29 PST

In article <21755@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.074948.28660@mic.ucla.edu> rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
>>The press (1) is pro-liberal;
>>(2) is anti-incumbent; (3) will criticize almost anyone (except some of
>>the gods they worship, like that communist M.L.King Jr.) if it sells
>>advertising time; (4) will point out most things that are glaringly true
>>even if they would rather not because not doing so would make them look
>>stupid. 
>
>If we amuse ourselves by adopting, for a moment, Brian's argument, the truth
>is that all four apply to Clinton, as he is the subject and the press is
>covering him. Thus, Brian has a little conflict between 1 and 2.
OF COURSE YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!  That was my whole point.  That 1 and 2 are
in conflict.  What you included above can't be thoroughly understood by
others since you deleted earlier stuff, but what you just said supports
my whole point.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: We Are what the Cover Story Says....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:49:15 GMT

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
] In article <1993Jan21.191924.22566@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
] 
] >If you suggest to others that you are X, then, it is
] >logic that the other would assume that you also do all
] >the things that X's do. 
] 
] No, it's not.  That's the most illogical thing I have heard in years.

Actually at a 'logic level' you are 'correct'
as it is presuming evidence not presented, and
requires making unwarrented assumptions of the
data that has been presented.

But pause for a moment and notice two facts:

1. this is a key part of any 'con' that involves 
a fraudulent presentation of just enough of the data.

2. this is a key part of any 'under cover' operation.

ciao
drieux


ps: Trust me, the Cover Story is the Full Operable Truth
at this point, and besides it was presented by the US GOVT
would they LIE TO YOU?


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14679 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13328 alt.politics.clinton:20790 alt.politics.bush:16197 alt.politics.homosexuality:9953
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Tom Peregrin is a nit wit.
Date: 19 Jan 93 23:18:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

ANNOUNCEMENT!  ANNOUNCEMENT!  ANNOUNCEMENT!  ANNOUNCEMENT!


To all readers of all newsgroups everywhere!  Attention!  Do not get 
involved in net.discussions with Tom Peregrin.  If you disregard my 
words, the following will happen:

1) He will post a response on the net.  Before you get an opportunity 
   to respond, he will post three more times telling everyone what a 
   chicken you are for not responding to his post.

2) He will be very nice to you over e-mail, but ignore your e-mails 
   in discussions on the net.

3) He will find one possible answer for a question and call you names 
   because you found a different one than his (which may be just as 
   good an answer as his.)

4) He will post several times every day, and claim to not see your 
   posts, or perhaps not see them for weeks (even if you post from 
   the same university as he does, as I do.)

5) He will assume that since he has proven you to be a fool (in his 
   mind) on one topic that he can carry his criticisms of you over 
   onto other subjects.  (ex.  Since you are stupid about abortion, 
   you are likewise stupid about the budget deficit.)

6) He will cut you down in threads that you are not even involved in.

7) You will make a citation from a given book.  He will find a different 
   edition of that book, which uses different wording.  He will post the 
   new citation and call you names.

8) He will ignore any apologies or pleas for sensibility.  


Personal to Tom himself:

I take back any nice things or any admissions of culpability that I have 
ever written to you or posted on the net in discussion with you.

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
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rj24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Rush Military Record
Reply-To: rj24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:11:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.073943.28505@mic.ucla.edu> rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
>In article <LARRY.93Jan20233147@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>>>>>>> On 18 Jan 93 22:58:11 GMT, clinton@uark.ark.edu (Jim Clinton) said:
>>Clinton> Well I was just wondering, to me Rush looks old enough to
>>Clinton> have served in Vietnam and all.  So what is Rush's
>>Clinton> military record?
>>
>>They ain't none. Adoring Dittos insist that he had some sort of physical
>>problem which prevented his military service. The rest of us just think he
>>must be a yellow hypocritical coward who managed to avoid the draft.
>
>Be careful - you very successfully undermine your own credibitly when
>you do things typically done by those of very low inteligence, such as
>supporting ideas that you just dream up with no factual basis,
>especially when all the info you may have (e.g., Rush's word) is to the
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>contrary.  Alas, this is typical of your posts.
>

Givin Rush's credibility rating, I would say this supports his
arguement, rather than being to the contrary. 

Robert Johnston








Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14869 alt.politics.clinton:20977 alt.politics.bush:16272 alt.politics.homosexuality:10066
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
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 13:02 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1jpabsINNaj4@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...
| 
|If the person doing this were Jewish, she'd have a point.  But 
|Christians don't follow the Mosaic Law.

	The Leviticus passages happen to be part of Mosiac Law.

	And, the alleged Pauline prohibitions against homosexuality
are Pauline doctrine, not /necessarily/ Christian doctrine.  

	Christ never negated the Mosaic Law, keep in mind.


|of the moral code Christians are told to follow also were in 
|the Mosaic Law doesn't mean Chrsitians are hypocritical for 
|following those, and not the rest of the Mosaic Law.  If a 
|Christian follows the *literal* word of the Bible, he will
|be following those parts which were reaffirmed in the NT, 
|which includes sexual immorality.  You may not like the NT 
|idea of sexual immorality, and may think Christian sexual morality 
|is repressive and outdated, but that doesn't mean the people 
|who believe in it are being incnsistant for using diapers. 

	I'm not sure if the new Pauline morality allowed people
to use diapers.  And, if it did, I'm not clear as to what authority
Paul or any of the Apostles used in abrogating the law.  After all,
Paul never met Jesus.  He just saw a big light that blinded him.
Isn't Satan the angel of Light?

	Anyway, Christians who follow the more liberal teachings
of St. Paul are straying from what is strictly defined as Christianity.
I'd be a bit inclined to call that hypocritical if a follower of Christ
uses the authority of Paul to ignore selected Mosiac Laws.  G-d
doesn't deal lightly with such ilk.

Gadson
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14728 alt.politics.clinton:20827 alt.politics.bush:16215 alt.politics.homosexuality:9970
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
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: 21 Jan 1993 22:27:42 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.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:
> Diapering his/her granddaughters?
> Blended clothing?
> Rare meat?
> Shaving and cutting the hair at his/her temples?

Evelyn, what is your religious upbringing?  Were you taught any of 
the tenants of Christianity, from the point of view of any denomination
in particular, or any at all?  Do you really not have any understanding 
as to why laws like those from Leviticus are not still followed, while 
sexual morality/conduct ones are?   

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14821 alt.politics.clinton:20935 alt.politics.bush:16252 alt.politics.homosexuality:10031
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
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 16:25:08 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> 
>   Listen Wally, Melinda has been overly patient following this line
> of reasoning and the best she has got is "It's complicated" or some
> incredulous tone. Sounds like a giant rationalization to me.

"Patient"?  ;-)  OK, Mikey...=8^O  

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Atlas Shrugged
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:50:22 GMT

John R. Moore (john@anasazi.com) wrote:
: 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.
: 

Funny, but you just described the democratic fascist party platform.

: -- 
: 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: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:56:44 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1993Jan25.190648.548@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com sez:
>
>Maybe I'm
>mistaken, maybe I'm not.  Frankly, I really don't give a damn,

Thanks, Paul, but we managed to figure this out a while back.


-- 
They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14643 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13293 alt.politics.clinton:20760 alt.politics.bush:16182 alt.politics.homosexuality:9939 alt.sex:42726
From: ac999273@umbc.edu (ac999273)
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 10:10:09 -0500
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
NNTP-Posting-Host: umbc8.umbc.edu

In article <1993Jan20.145304.8027@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.061930.19820@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>I hate to be the first person to break the Bad NEWS
>>to you and all, but be honest, lesbians are invisible.

	Must be horrible for you.  If people don't notice you as lesbians,
they are much less likely to discriminate against you for your orientation.




From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:01:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: ZOE BAIRD: ATTORNEY GEN.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA