HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out (perhaps) pro-choice
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 22:15:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.205224.20317@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <ld92hjINNmcq@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>>Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>|>
>>|> Actually, there will be ice floes on the River Styx before THAT happens.
>>|>
>>|> Let me rephrase that--I should have said "Perhaps there are extreme
>>|> circumstances where abortion might be an option, but I am still against it.."
>>|> I can't just walk away from this.  I have committed myself to this debate
>>|> and cannot give up.  That would be wrong.
>>|>
>>So you now state that "Perhaps" there should be choice.
>>
>>|> I have corrected my previous posting that was thought to be a vote for pro-
>>|> choice.  I should not have been so vague.
>>|>
>>Vagueness isn't your problem.  Your desire to hold an extremest
>>position that leaves no room for people to be people is your problem.
>>So far I have not met anyone who is perfect, but you expect people
>>to be perfect or pay.  Hopefully the courts and the law will continue
>>to help you keep your problem to yourself.
>>
>>--
>>These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
>>occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
>
>
>will not go away.  I thought I lived in America......
>
>
>Simon
>

In his response, Mr. Polen sayst that his problem with the other gentleman
is not his vagueness. his "desire to hold an extremest {sic} position" 
apparently is the problem. 
Not that I agree with the pro-lifers, but I must say that it is a litle strange
to see this type of a reaction from one who claims to have an open mind.
{As Groucho Marx said, there sits a man with an open mind, I can feel the
breeze all the way over here.}

Was not Martin Luther King's position in the 1960's *extremist*? yet, I and
most other "right" thinking Americans have no problem with his beliefs.

To the deconstructionists, I am NOT equating MLK with pro-lifers, I am simply 
making an analogy.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 04:37:34 GMT

	[My apologies to the people who still think that Bush has a chance]

	As the GOP slides ever furthur into the tank, and James Baker
starts composing his explanations regarding his failure to save George
Bush from himself, a reacurring thought comes to me:

	This election is the juxposition of two major events for
Republicans.  The first is the massive failure in their bid for the
white house. Not only is Bush going to lose, he's not losing in
the wake of a major catastrophy or scandle, but rather on his own
merits. (Call this premature if you like, but unless Clinton is found
screwing a sheep, the writings on the wall, folks)

	The other major event is the rise of Limbaugh, Buchannan and
their ilk within the party. No one can prove that the reason that
people arn't voting republican is because of the choices of Convention
speakers this year, but there does seem to be a correlation between
Republicans who might win and Republicans who have stayed as far away
from the GOP convention, Family Values, and the rest of the far right
rhetoric as they could.

	It seems terribly ironic that Rushs rise would coincide with
the fall of his beloved party, and even more so that his rise could be
factor in the decline. It will take more then one race to show a clear
cause and effect, of course, but it looks entertainingly suspicious.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7490 alt.activism.d:3903 alt.politics.elections:17008 alt.politics.bush:9306 alt.politics.clinton:10630 talk.politics.misc:52014 talk.abortion:42818
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 15 Oct 1992 08:24:16 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct15.043121.862@muddcs.claremont.edu> weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.031044.24585@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
xxxx>And with the current economy,
xxxWhy who has the most control over our economy? It's congress isn't it?


38 vetoes.

Adrienne Regard
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: ...but I repeat myself
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:43:03 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department

In article <Oct09.003616.54386@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
>
>Before I do, I wanna tuck in this DISCLAIMER:  This is how the argument works.
>I'm not saying whether I believe in it or not.  drieux, lay off with the
>hurricanes.
>
>By having sex, a woman has "signed" a virtual "consent form" that reads
>more or less "God forbid we actually concieve, I will carry this child to
>term, 'less my life is in danger" So on so forth.
>
>When she is raped, she did not consent to carry the child to term, and so can
>do with it what she wants.


    But not all responsibilities are incurred by consent.  The duty to
preserve an innocent human life is one that binds me whether I consent
to it or not.  Although, if consent is given implicitly or explicitly,
there is a two-fold duty: to preserve the life of the innocent child,
and to take responsibility for the voluntary action that brought the
child about.


>I know this argument has pokable holes, do me a favor and don't flame me,
>I just work here.

    
    Look, Ma, no flames!  :-)


>Big Al.  Who REALLY believes that the great pumpkin will descend next thanks-
>giving and destroy us all.


John Rickert					     Humani nil a me
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		     alienum puto.
							--Terence
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7347 talk.abortion:42546
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Simon drops a snake on the rug while the adults are chatting.
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:28:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

>In article <1992Oct12.181224.21287@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.040509.9447@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>Well, I plan to depict the riot police being fully armed, and using
>>>white posphorus instead of tear gas.  Now, since in my story assulting
>>>police officers, especially pulling guns on them, would be a capital offense,
>>>those who escaped would either face on the spot execution,or the death penalty
>>>after trial.  f course, this would all be televised, to make examples of the
>>
>>I suppose that in your world, defending yourself against a police
>>assault would also be an "assault".  How convenient.
>>
>Well, actually since those attacked are criminals, this would not be
>a police assult, it would be an arrest operation.
>You seem worried about this, even though it's only fiction.
>I was inspired by the works of Eric Blair and Ray Bradbury.
	Don't be idiotic.  You were "inspired" by a puerile desire to annoy
people.  It's tiresome in 5-year-olds.  In a putative adult it's merely 
pathetic.
>
>
>Simon

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:55:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.083321.25736@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>
>>It *is* rather curious that Clinton would "tour" the Soviet Union AND
>>Czechoslovakia so soon after the '68 repression.
>
>>Clinton impresses me more and more as a man of principle.   NOT!
>
>	The issue as I understand it, is not merely that he went to
>the Soviet Union so soon afterwards, but that he denied going there
>when asked about it on television.

Yup.  Let me guess what his excuse for fibbing: the reason he denied it
was he thought they were talking about Moscow, Idaho, right?

Okay Guys ....  How about we all compile an encyclopedia(*) of lies
President-presumptive Clinton has told. 

(*) I would have said a book, but this looks like a multi-volume
affair.

>Jim Del Vecchio

Pat
		Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo Candidate
From: kml@cellar.org (Scott Tiger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:43:36 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:

> Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.
> Most people have trouble believing Clinton (indeed, it's the cover story 
> of this week's Time Magazine) and Dan kept hammering the issue.  "Do you real
> trust Clinton to be President?"  I think most would answer "no".  And he and
> the Admiral had Gore running away from his book on the environment (supposedl
> his strong point), making him look like an extremist.  yeah, he exaggerated
> with the facts, but so did Gore.  Gore looked so stiff.  How many times did
> you hear "Bill Clinton and I think ...." at the beginning of a sentence?
> 
> This is NOT to say that Quayle is a good VP or that Bush is a good president.
> But reading the papers today, you have to believe that either 1) they watched
> a different debate, or 2) they are biased.  I mean, it wasn't even close.


Unbiased observers obviously exclude the writer of this blather.  Quayle
was a petulant whining pipsqueak who got his ass kicked on the facts.
I thought it was the most disgraceful display by an elected official
that I have ever witnessed.  Gore refused to sink to Quayle's level.
That, my friend, makes him a winner.

                  Something constructive should come here.
                  $dump ora_control1/blocks=(start:1,end:1)
                            Vidi, Vici, Veni!
  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com - My other account is a Mercedes.
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:41:25 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: news@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <nate.693@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>flagg@blind-lemon.cs.unlv.edu (Scott Cunningham) writes:
>>Rush's show is not a forum for Republicans, a news show (though it does 
>>feature current events), or an attack on the Liberals of this country.
>
>    I see. Is that why Rush so often repeats his signature catch-phrase 
>that liberalism is "heinous"? Is that why Rush's show which "has no guests" 
>has recently hosted discussions with several influential Republicans 
>(ncluding Bush, Quayle, Buchanan, and Bennett)?

Rush makes no secret about the agenda of his program. He is a self-described
convervative commentator.

>    Is that why Rush spent several minutes in yesterday's show practically 
>sputtering that he couldn't believe that a whole 2% of his Monday poll 
>respondants were "stupid and idiotic" enough to say that they plan to 
>vote for Clinton? Since I plan to vote for Clinton I found that segment 
>more than a little insulting.

You were supposed to.

>>As he has stated many, many times, his show contains nothing but HIS OWN 
>>PERSONAL OPINIONS!  Why do so many of you consider this threatening?
>
>    Maybe it's because Rush's PERSONAL OPINIONS include verbiage which 
>amounts to a personal insult to my intelligence and the intelligences 
>of most of my friends.

Yes.

Make no mistake about it. Rush, and a healthy percentage of his mostly
conservative audience, have no love lost for liberalism.

If you don't like it, *why* do you listen? *Why* are you posting to Rush
related newsgroup. If someone got on my nerves that bad, I simply wouldn't
listen/watch/read.

							- greg
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:16:01 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <1992Oct16.164523.12509@news.nd.edu>, susan larsen writes:

>In article <1992Oct16.150925.28008@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) wr
>>n article <1992Oct15.211455.23080@anat.UMSMED.EDU> jbh@anat.UMSMED.EDU (James
>>>
>>>In article <60.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>>>> [stuff deleted]
>>>>For example, witness this testy exchange
>>>>between reporters and designated Republican attack-bitch, Mary Matalin:
>>>
>>>[more stuff deleted]
>>>
>>>Does this remind anyone else of Lee (Willie Horton) Atwater?  Does Matalin
>>>play blues guitar?
>>
>>Yeah, Matalin reminds me a lot of Atwater - both told the simple truth, and
>>oth were savaged as nazis and sleaze campaigners for daring to tell the truth
>>about the political opponents.

>Was it not Lee Atwater who went around making deathbed repentences to those
>whom he was instrumental in savagely trashing?  I remember specifically
>reading about a meeting between Atwater and Dukakis in which Atwater
>apologized for the Willie Horton episode.

>Apparently, Atwater himself did not hold to the veracity of his statements
>when he was confronted with the specter of his Maker.

As far as I know, the veracity wasn't challenged.  However, Atwater did feel
that the campaign was too negative and divisive.

>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*************************************************************************
"Take a breath, Al.  Lighten up." -- Dan Quayle to Al Gore, 10/13/92


Marrou/Lord '92 -- pro-choice AND less government.
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:03:18 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <98654@bu.edu> tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:
>Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.

Wrong.  Unbiased observers would've noticed Quayle's childish behavior.
However, other children might think he was the winner.

>But reading the papers today, you have to believe that either 1) they watched
>a different debate, or 2) they are biased.  I mean, it wasn't even close.

I suspect they rated them on debate skills and statesmanship, rather than 
shrillness of voice, nastiness of manner, or whining to the moderator.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: costin@cs.mcgill.ca (Costin RIZAN)
Subject: Re: Tom Selleck on Arsenio
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:15:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.195918.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <5822@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>> 
>> It's not that conservatives don't care. We do. We just have different
>> answers than liberals do. It's a difference of the mind, not of the
>> heart.
>> Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
>How true. Jack Kemp said something similar:
>"Conservatives define compassion not by the number of people who receive some
>kind of government aid but rather by the number of people who no longer need
>it."

	Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of young people living in the gethos
that would like to thank Mr. Bush for helping them establish a new career
as a 'crack consultant and distributor'.
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:44:34 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct9.173203.22189@b30.ingr.com>, dash@skyy.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (O.P.P) writes:
> In article <1992Oct9.010125.10541@seq.uncwil.edu>, session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> |> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
> |> 
> |> >>>     This is the same Bill Clinton who, while at Oxford, sought
> |> >>>information on either obtaining dual citizenship or obtaining
> |> >>>British citizenship.
> |> >> 
> |> >> There is absolutely no proof of these charges whatsoever. And Monday night
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> >> on live TV, Clinton denied the allegations.
>     
>            NEWS FLASH!!!!  Even though I have no proof whatsoever,
>            (In my best B1 BOB voice) I think Bill Clinton dresses
>            in women's clothing when he goes home at night.
>            If Bill Clinton would just come clean on this subject,
>            then let the American people decide. Is this the kind
>            of man we want as Commander-in-Chief? I don't think so.
> 
>                                        O.P.P
> 
>            Bush  4 more months.



DASH,

TRY AGAIN, I DID NOT WRITE THIS STATEMENT. IN FACT I AGREE WITH YOU, THERE
             ^^^^^^^
             ^^^^^^^
FACTS TO MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THIS!!!!!!!

Ken
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus Day, 1992
Date: 13 Oct 92 07:43:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Oct13.011749.17130@news.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:

>   Happy Columbus Day!  God bless America!


>John R.

A good thing G*d does not read these newsgroups, otherwise man would
she be upset.

Pim van Meurs

-- 
Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Followup-To: talk.abortion 
Summary: CAN WE CUT DOWN ON THE FUCKING NEWSGROUPS LINE? 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 02:29:56 GMT

[Note: Followups to talk.abortion]

In article <1992Oct11.030127.20622@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.013535.24697@netcom.com>
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>> Potential is irrelevent.  Actuality counts.  There is an enourmous
>> difference between what potential a person may have and what is
>> actually realized.  As an example, consider trying to spend much of
>> the $7 billion you can potentially earn (after all, Bill Gates did
>> it).
>
>But without this potential, you would never actually achieve what you
>do achieve. For example, some people are more inclined to work on autos
>than patients. This is many times a result of genetics -- what one
>person's "gifts" are may differ from another's -- and these "genetic"
>gifts are determined at conception.

So you're saying that I'm a computer programmer because of genetics?

Shouldn't this be in alt.stupidity?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:19:01 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Oct8.000832.21594@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>Anyone who thinks sex jokes about Madonna are sick, are hypocrites,
>IMO - they need to get off of Rush's back and get on the backs of
>ACT-UP and other militant feminists and hardcore Lefties who make sex
>jokes about Bush, Rush, Clarence Thomas and Jesse Helms. 

	Examples, please?

	I think that these people can claim _much_ more provocation
than RL can with Madonna; we're talking about aggressive homophobes
here.

>-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
                             ^^^^
                       Time to get deborged!	
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
X-Xxdate: Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:39:26 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:42:28 GMT

In article <Bw59wx.BJw@eis.calstate.edu> Kenneth Mitchell,
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu writes:
>Like the man said, you must have watched a different debate. Gore lied
>about his book,

WRONG: Several sources have said that the so-called quote by Quayle is
not in the book. First of all, nowhere does Gore state that the United
States
should foot the whole expense as implied by Quayle. Secondly, the 100
Billion
dollar figure quoted by Quayle is the inflation-adjusted cost of the
original
Marshall plan---either a piece of dirty politics or total stupidity on
Quayle's part. Take your pick.


>lied about his Senate voting record,

MISLEADING: The only time he voted for the CBI was when it was part of a
much larger trade bill whose importance overrode Gore's opposition to the
CBI.

>and God only knows
>WHAT else he lied about.

The vast majority of the lies, distortions, and fabrications being stated
by
several sources belong to Quayle.

>Gore was as stiff as a wooden statue; he was
>clearly reciting "canned" speeches. 

The first marginally true statement in this post. Hardly damaging though.

Norman
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7432 alt.rush-limbaugh:7433
From: attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Phil Gramm's analysis of Clinton's plan
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:57:53 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Does anyone out there have a copy of Phil Gramm's analysis of Clinton's
economic plan?  If so, could you please post it and/or mail me a copy?
Thanks!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Atteberry              |  The heart of the wise inclines to the
attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu  |  right, but the heart of the fool to the
D-D-D-Dittos!                |  left.  -Ecclesiastes 10:2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion