HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:47:19 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Nov9.184012.8453@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (All this) writes:
> Well, leaving aside her work for the ABA, this makes her about as qualified
> as Blackmun was when he was appointed.  And about as qualified as the 
> average circuit court judge is when he or she is nominated

Well, Blackmun _was_ a federal judge, whereas H. Clinton has not been; I see 
that as a significant distinction in qualification.

'course, the most famous S.Ct. justice, John Marshall, had never been a judge 
prior to taking the Chief Justice post.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: About this "No Mandate" Garbage
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Nov6.062458.26454@nntp.uoregon.edu> <adams.721070472@spssig>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:12:14 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>You are clearly attempting to read more into what happened than what
>happened.  67% of the people rejected Clinton. ...

You mean 57%, but it's still rubbish.  Bush was the incumbent, not 
Clinton.  When an incumbent is running, the vote is always about the
incumbent's record, not the challenger's.  The voters didn't reject
Clinton because he didn't have a record as President which they could
reject or endorse.

If I wanted to be almost as dishonest as Bob Dole, I'd say that 63% of
the people rejected Bush.  Actually, some of the Perot voters would
have voted for Bush, and some wouldn't have voted at all if Perot
hadn't run.  But from all the polls I've seen, more of Perot's voters
would have voted for Clinton than for Bush.  More than anything else,
this election was a referendum on Bush's performance in office.  The
result was that Bush received a smaller percentage of the popular vote
than any *incumbent President* since Taft in 1912.

When Clinton wins with 43% of the vote in 1996, while Jack Kemp and
Ross Perot split the rest, *then* you can say that 57% of the people
rejected Clinton.  Until then, it's nonsense.


Keith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59203 alt.politics.elections:23270 alt.rush-limbaugh:9327 talk.rumors:1185 alt.activism:18545
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:30:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
*doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
*>Sunday on _Meet the Press_, Vernon Jordan, head of Clinton's transition
*>team, confirmed that Anita Hill is the front-runner to get the job of
*>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
*>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
*>who was then the EEOC Commissioner. Put on your goggles, folks, the fire-
*>works should be dazzling.

I should've thought of EEOC Commissioner in my mock Cabinet posts, but
it seems like my choice for Anita Hill (now pretty damn hard to prove
before this post) for the position seems to be quite ... indicative of
reality!

*Revenge is a dish best served cold.
*
*The coldest cut:  After a stint at EEOC, Hill is appointed to the
*Court.
*
*You heard it here first.

Before or after Cuomo?
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: talk.politics.model-un creation
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 5 Nov 1992 13:46:00 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

    A groundswell of support is gathering around the net for the
    creation of talk.politics.model-un.  Please post your support
    to news.groups where a discussion is currently taking place.
    For more info on the newsgroups or the Model UN phenomenon,
    please email f36si@cunyvm or f36si@cunyvm.cuny.edu.  Get
    your friends to post as well - the more people we have posting,
    the faster we get up and running.  PAx,
                                           Matt
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:58:14 GMT

In article 721263404@craft.camp.clarkson.edu, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>
				
>>Still, we need term limits. The citizens of 15 states have already voted
>>in favor of them by true landslide margins (3 to 1 here in AZ).
>
>Ok, but how many of those 15 states sent back Senate members back for
>terms that would have exceeded the limit? Didnt AZ re-elect John McCain?
>Was this his 2nd, 3rd or higher term? Didnt TX send back Phil Gramm
>for his 3rd+ term after passing a term limit thing? Kansas and Bob Dole?
>Wyoming and Alan Simpson? (im but think, but am not totally sure if, 
>KS and WY passed term limits) It makes me
>wonder how much the people of those 15 states really believe in 
>term limits.

once again (and typed slowly) THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION between
re-electing your congressional bozo and supporting term limits.
the way to maximize the return to yourself (the taxpayer) is to
continually re-elect the same person, because seniority=power=pork=$$$.
Most people agree the system sucks, but few are willing to unilaterally
disarm their district (in true martyr fashion).  that is why folks
want to change the system, but still re-elect their bozo in the 
meantime.  The analogy is the that folks who don't like the deficit
should just give everything they own to the goverment.  their 100% 
sacrifice pays for 6.7seconds of interest on the debt--clearly 
irrational.
--Don



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: barber@jazz.concert.net (Scott Barber)
Subject: Re: [t.p.drugs] total votes for all candidates
Organization: MCNC Center for Communications -- CONCERT Network
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:07:10 GMT

In article <JASON.92Nov6092001@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <Bx9Exw.Isy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
>-> In article <1992Nov5.134113.1408@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>-> 
>-> >           Andrew Marrou, Oth 64,328 - 0 percent
>-> 
>-> Who?  Never heard of him.
>
>	You just summed up the problems of the Libertarian party.
>--
>Jason C. Austin
>j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

In addition to the possibility that people are simply not
sufficiently moved by the notion that our country can function based 
solely on the idea of individual rights with little societal mechanism 
for arbitration of conflict, both physical, social and fiscal.

It is as extremist and unrealistic in my mind to consider a society
based solely on the individual (Libertarianism) as it is to consider
one based solely on the societal (Communism).  They are both
idealistic and reactionary, and neither balances the importance of
individual freedoms with the reality of our social context.

Scott

Scott Barber	  "I voted for the crazy, bozo, ozone men."
barber@jazz.concert.net		"What is the freedom of the most
MCNC, RTP, NC, BVD 	 	 free?  To act rightly!" --Goethe
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Subject:      " I still believe in a little town ... "
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 09:14:53 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA05975; Fri, 13 Nov 92 08:13:08 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA18932; Fri, 13 Nov 92 08:13:06 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 3121; Fri, 13 Nov 92 09:15:57 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 8472; Fri, 13 Nov 92 09:15:57 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet


     " that's broke ".

     hehehe.

     Predicition -

        This one's going to rank right up there with

        " Peace in our time "
        " You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore "
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: USA Today/CNN tracking poll -- final results
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:10:44 GMT
Organization: Ball State University

In article <1992Nov6.234636.5475@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 	No, they didn't "just report" it.  They used words like "smoking gun"
> and "direct link" to imply that Bush was now irrevocably linked to Iran-Contra.
> 	But later analysis proved that Casper's notes were nothing new, and
> nothing concrete.

	from what I remember gore is the one who used the term "smoking gun."  
The press picked it up from him.
	Yes they weren't anything new, but it was the first time they were
used in an indictment...    

Also, sources say aides are trying to get Bush to pardon Wienberger... Hmmm...

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59583 alt.politics.elections:23474 alt.rush-limbaugh:9451 talk.rumors:1210 alt.activism:18629
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 11 Nov 1992 17:30:12 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Greg Trotter) writes:
|> 
|> The first time I listened to Rush was right after Bush nominated Thomas --
|> before the Anita Hill squabble started. I believe that some women's rights
|> group was criticizing Thomas because he wasn't qualified.
|> 
|> Rush's comment was along the lines of: "Since when are qualifications
|> important to people who support AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?!?"

Of course, Thomas' nomination was AFFIRMATIVE ACTION personified.  It is
his stance that the program he benefited from throughout his career is
unnecessary and and unfair, that it hypocritical.  Of course Thomas is
not intentionally hpyocritical.  He is probably the only person in the
country that thinks he was the most qualified person for the job.
|> 
|> Great line. It turned me into a dittohead.
|> 

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:00:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.181224.16247@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>In article <1992Nov09.232222.27857@src4src.linet.org> erik@src4src.linet.org (Erik VanRiper) writes:
>>In <1992Nov7.150918.22011@oz.plymouth.edu> (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:

>>>I love this conversation about Clinton's supposed landslide.  The best
>>>comedy I've seen in wuite some time.  Perhaps if you say it enough
>>>times, people will believe that winning by 5% of the popular vote is a
>>>landslide.

>>Please read everything.  Clinton won by an ELECTORAL landslide.
>>No press has said that he won by a popular landslide vote.

>More often than not, they've been omiting the word 'electoral',
>thereby implying the other becuase thats what most people think of
>first.  

Do they?  How do you know?  When I hear landslide, I almost *ALWAYS*
think electoral, because we have had almost no popular landslides in US
history.  (1936, 1964, I suppose.  Maybe 1984; I'll have to check the
numbers.)

>	Even if your point is valid, didn't Reagan and Bush have
>electoral landslides?  You never heard it refered to as a landslide by
>many media outlets.

Yes, I did.  Just because you live in a fantasy world in which the press
only criticizes Republicans (remember Carter?) doesn't mean that the
rest of us do.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Back to the drug debate (was: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:05:40
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<1992Nov5.131359.21004@athena.mit.edu>
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu's message of 5 Nov 92 13:13:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.131359.21004@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
-> In article <Bx5oLD.3yn@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>, 
-> jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff 'ifucanreedthisumustuzeunix' Aitken) said:
-> 
-> > > Actually, we should *stop* enforcing the laws we have.  If we'd
-> > > stop enforcing laws against victimless crimes like drug sale/use,
-> > > we'd have a LOT more prison space, a LOT more police officers free
-> > > to deal with real crime, and a LOT less wasted court time.  [David
-> > > Marc Nieporent]
-> >
-> > Say what!?  "... victimless crimes like drug sale/use ..."  What
-> > exactly do you mean by this asinine statement?  Are you saying that
-> > people who sell/abuse drugs should be LEFT ALONE to further ruin
-> > themselves and those around them?
-> 
-> Picture, in your mind, a drug sale.  One person hands money to another
-> person, and that person hands drugs to the first person.  End of
-> story.  No victim, no crime, no "further ruin" to anyone.  And no
-> reason for the state to get involved.  At least, not in a free society.

	Picture the first person's kids seeing their parent take those
drugs, and picture the kids taking drugs.  Picture a room full of
crack babies.  No one lives in a vacuum, and what you do affects the
people around you.  
-- 
Jason C. Austin 
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60064 alt.politics.elections:23753 tx.politics:7286 alt.politics.bush:13873
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative?
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:04:55 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <BxMFIq.FJ8@NeoSoft.com> jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese) writes:
>I'm not sure it wasn't a case of their economy collapsed from the burden
>of defense spending only shortly before ours did...we were lucky.

Our economy is nowheres near collapsing. 

Don't you folks find it down-right frightening that the media suddenly
decided to report on how great the economy is the day AFTER the election?
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58380 alt.politics.clinton:15981
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Is God a Socialist?
Summary: Who said that?
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:33:32 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <Bx9wEK.KvE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)            writes...
> 
>I have read several recent posts which said that God is a Socialist.
>
Who said this? Are you paraphrasing?

>	Comments welcome. 
>Andrew Aiken
> 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58535 alt.politics.clinton:16134
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: USA Today/CNN tracking poll -- final results
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:08:36 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov5.163352.22678@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

	Joe, just want to say thanx for doing this during the election.  Great
job!
	(Anyone who has posted graphs knows who tedious it can get :)

> USA Today/CNN Tracking Poll:
> P = Perot,  B = Bush,  C = Clinton,  x = other or undecided
> actual vote:
> p = Perot,  b = Bush,  c = Clinton
...
>                  % preference (likely voters)                Clinton lead (%)
>       0    5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40   45   50    0    5   10   15
>       |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|    |----|----|----|
> 10/26 |    x           P                  B     C            |     o        
> 10/27 |     x         P                     B C              | o            
> 10/28 |    x          P                     B  C             |  o           
> 10/29 |    x        P                         BC             |o             
> 10/30 |    x        P                        B  C            |  o           
> 10/31 |     x        P                    B      C           |      o       
> 11/01 |     x       P                     B       C          |       o      
> 11/02 |    x        P                      B      C          |      o       
> 11/03 |                  p                  b    c           |    o         
>       |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|    |----|----|----|
>       0    5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40   45   50    0    5   10   15

	Just wanted to make an observation here.  Does anyone remember what
happened on 10/30?  The press pulled their own "October Surprise" and trumped
up Casper's notes to be a "smoking gun" for Bush on Iran-Contra.
	Bush recovered from that, but not enough.

	The press is seeing the real side of their favorite-son candidate now,
though.  He has basically ignored them since the election day love-fest.

	(Is anyone else sick of Ted Koppel fawning all over Bill?  Did he send
Bill a sweetest day card?)

	The press has their candidate in the White House.  The spin has rotated
counter-clockwise.  Let's see how they try to make Camelot II happen.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59554 alt.politics.elections:23456 tx.politics:7194 alt.politics.bush:13739
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative?
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:47:55 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov10.033656.8548@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:

>>The interesting question is this: will Ronald Reagan get the credit for the
>>collapse of communism in America or with the credit go to whomever is on

>why not give the credit to Gorbechev (spelling?)?

Because without Reagan's Defense policies there would have been no
'crisis' for the Soviet Union, insofar as spending a huge amount of
wealth and still being faced by the United States, which looked like
it was able and willing to outrun them indefinitely?  Bush tried to
claim credit for this one, but he just happened to be the one in
office when things came to fruition.  The credit belongs (on this side
of the Big Water) to President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59332 ca.politics:9486
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: A Worrisome Example of "Subhuman" Ideology
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:33:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <13099@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <100853@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

># Now heterosexual men and women enjoy a special privilege in [Denver,
># Boulder, and Aspen]. They can sue for discrimination if they are fired
># because of their sexuality. Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals can no
># longer.

>Those cities should repeal their sexual orientation provision
>immediately.

>You of course didn't respond to my posting.  Probably, you couldn't.

If and when you make some reasonable commentary about the Public Broadcasting
System, I'll be sure to comment. I didn't think your comments about some
leftist fascist scheme to denigrate heterosexuality merited any response.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Unlikely Voters
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:37:50 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 1d7pkqINN37i@gap.caltech.edu, chdunn@cco.caltech.edu (Christopher Dunn) writes:
>	The question that remains is whether CNN/Gallop
>unscrupulously changed methodologies midstream in order to sway
>Perot voters to Clinton and to convince Clinton voters to get to
>the voting booth.  The suddenness of Bush's jump in the polls is
>suspicious.

I still think that the jump had something to do with the virtual certainty
that Clinton would win and Perot's self-destructive revelations about the
alleged Republican "dirty tricks".  Bush-leaning Perot supporters found his
remarks difficult to believe, and they were driven to the lesser of two evils.
Clinton-leaning Perot supporters tended to believe the remarks, and they felt
safer in using Perot as a kind of protest vote.  So the Bush-leaners bailed
out to Bush, and the Clinton-leaners stayed put, thus driving up Bush's numbers.

The election as a whole was a stunning mandate for change and a healthy (but less
stunning) mandate for Clinton's version of change.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58392 alt.politics.homosexuality:6829 soc.motss:46267