HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub Won.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 09:04:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.010619.14014@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>Gore was wooden,

Gore came off as 100% pure plastic when he was reciting his prepared
speeches.  He talked like a human being when he was speaking off the
cuff, but much of the time, he looked, moved, and sounded exactly like
one of those AudioAnimaTronic things at Disneyland.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Debate
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:24:38 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta) writes:

>Well, I thought last night's debate was quite a bundle of fun.
>I started out by watching it on TV but soon felt the first pangs
>of nausea from that much unshielded exposure to the Vice-Shrub's
>voice and image, so I tuned to NPR on the radio.

>I must say that I was continually annoyed by Dano's perpetual,
>childish snickering and countless interruptions.

HUH?  'countless interruptions'?  I thought just the opposited,
Quayle let Gore give 5 minuter speech and was told that we 'are out
of time'
when it became his 'turn'.  The next 5 minute 'discussion' period
started with Quayle and Al interrupted the ENTIRE TIME.  He had
asked a question of Quayle in his rebuttal (Abortion I think..)
and while Quayle was talking, Al repeated 'answer the question' about
10 times....HE looked RUDE to me.

> His handlers
>have probably cast aside any notion of "presidential demeanor"
>in favor of pit-bull tactics.

>Among the many lies, distortions and verbal meanderings, there
>are two that I'd like to comment upon. First of all, when the
>Vice-Potatoe-Head was drooling about Clinton's supposedly
>duplicitous stance on abortion, he states "one thing I don't think
>it's wise to do, and that is to change your position." So now
>we're supposed to believe that all politicians spring forth
>into public life fully-formed like Athena from the head of Zeus,
>with their positions on controversial topics set in concrete? I
>think it's a sad day when even a bible-thumping RepubliClone can
>admit to such a mind-set and still be considered seriously for
>public office. Secondly, when Quayl uttered the phrase "welfare
>woman" during his closing arguments, did anyone else find it
>exceedingly disgusting? With that one phrase, he managed to combine
>all the divise notions of gender, race and class that "God's Own
B
B
>Party" has used for the past 12 years to split the electorate.

>BTW, did anyone else notice Perot's comment on Sun. night that
>"people cannot be programmed like objects"? I think this is a
>clear indication that he's aware of, if not actually an
>advocate of, Object-Oriented Programming. Perhaps a programmer
>in the audience during the Thurs. night debate will quiz him
>on his views of multiple-inheritance with regard to the tax laws.

>Sunil Gupta
>Monsoon Software, Inc.
>sg@monsoon.com
--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:5187 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6578
From: jhussain@cs.ucsd.edu (Jabir Hussain)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What Abortion Controversy?
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:39:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Organization: CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego


In article <1992Oct9.025916.2660@utkux1.utk.edu>, rdosser@martha.utcc.utk.edu (rdosser) writes:
|> Did anybody catch Danny's reflection that, after having talked to people
|> across America, he came to the conclusion that abortion just isn't
|> something the American people care about?
|> This is so lame on so many levels. Not vintage Danny, but the Dan-handlers
|> have been extremely liberal (excuse me!) with the duct tape lately, and
|> it seems he's almost run dry.

actually, the san diego union tribune recently listed the top ten issues
important to voters.  this is from memory, but something like > 70% said
the economy.  abortion was way down (about 5 or 6% said it was the most
important issue for them).  so i would think dan quayle is right on this
one (i assume he meant "relative to other, more important, issues").
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Bush debating
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:10:08 GMT
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <1992Oct12.192350.25775@netcom.com>, madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi
Hausmann) writes:
> Did you notice it was Clinton who was asked the only "Family Values"
> question?  Great endnote, informing everyone that Sunday was his 17th
> wedding anniversary.  Pity no one nailed Bush for that nasty convention
> in Houston or on the abortion issue.

   Um, Perot nailed him dead center.  He implied Bush should have dragged
Buchanan off the podium.  IMHO Ross' best remark of the night.

> Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
> Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jberger@novell.com (John Berger)
Subject: Re: A Rush By Any Other Name
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:51:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.000025.21452@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>Subject: A Rush By Any Other Name
>>didn't it used to be just "Rush Slimeball", or do you all just hold a
>>name-calling contest every so often?
>Good Idea!
>
>Choose one from Column A, one from Column B:
>
>Column A
>--------
>Rush
>Retch
>Rust
>Rash
>
>Column B
>--------
>Lymphnode
>Limpbone
>Lameboy
>Lintbarf
>
>These are all I can remember now.  More suggestions welcomed;
>nay, demanded!
>
How about:
Column B
Limburger

At first, he seems just as cheesy as the rest of them, but if you swallow 
it, nobody can stand to be around you!
From: afc@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Feminism is the root of all evil (Dan's book review)
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:01:58 GMT

The Gainesville Sun had a little story abour Our Boy today.  It seems
he received a book in the mail from a senile nut who blames the state
of the world on feminists: if women were barefoot, pregnant, and in
the kitchen this would be a much better place to live (Kinder, Kirke,
Kutchen as Buchanan would say).

Anyway, Dano replied with a nice letter praising the book and thanking
the old fart for his support.  When this was made public, and the
content of the book was discovered, Dano's handlers ran for cover.  
They claimed that Dano had never read the book.

You know, I believe them.

And they say that we never say nice things about the Shrub in this 
newsgroup!

A. F. Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: erics@sco.COM (eric smith)
Subject: Re: debates
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 18:03:40 GMT


Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>Most expect Gore to massacre Quayle.  I expect Quayle to destroy Gore, by
>simply quoting his book and exposing him for the wacko-environmentalist
>liberal he is.

This would only happen if he misquoted Gore, like Bush did repeatedly
during his campaign swing through the Northwest last month, even after
he'd been informed by reporters that his citations were in error.

-----
Eric Smith     erics@sco.com     erics@infoserv.com     CI$: 70262,3610

"I see no media mention of it, but we entered in -- you asked what time
 it is and I'm telling you how to build a watch here -- but we had Boris
 Yeltsin here the other day.  And I think my times campaigning in Iowa,
 years ago, and how there was a -- Iowa has a kind of, I single out Iowa,
 it's a kind of an international state in a sense and has a great
 interest in all these things -- and we had Yeltsin standing here in the
 Rose Garden and we entered into a deal to eliminate the biggest and most
 ballistic missiles and it was almost, 'Ho-hum, what have you done for me
 lately?' "

 -George Bush, on why he should be re-elected

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Vice Shrub Won.
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:06:19 GMT


Yup, I think Our Man Dan actually won.  He came out there shooting,
was aggressive with the occassional little fact, and didn't make an
obvious gaffe.

Gore was wooden, and there were a couple of lines I thought he should
have followed up on but didn't.  So much for zinging your opponent
with the single-moderator.

Quayle was helped in part by having the closing zing a number of
times, when I thought the discussion could have continued for quite a
while longer.  Lawyers are right when they say they'd rather have
closing arguments before a jury.  Further, expectations were so low
for him that he would have come across peachy by not saying, for
instance, "Hypocracy is when hippos rule the world."  But give the
Vice Shrub credit: he came prepared.  Quayle as the GOP nominee in
'96?

Adm. Stockdale.  Hmm.  I felt sorry for him, especially at the
beginning.

The debate shouldn't change the overall election.  Quayle may have
improved his political stock, but that won't necessarily help Bush.
Won't hurt, but it won't help: Bush is still seen as the one
responsible for everyone's woes.  Gore.  Hmm.  Trickier to assess, but
I don't think he screwed up the Democratic ticket by letting Quayle
get away at some points.  Stockdale's performance won't help Perot at
all.  It might harm his ticket: he bumbled fairly badly in the
beginning (but he's such a NICE, Santa-like bumbler, unlike Quayle,
the Ken-doll bumbler in '88), and Perot seems to have picked him
without considering if he were qualified to step into the President's
shoes if, say, an eagle picked Ross up and carried him away.  This
won't reflect well on Perot's judgement, but then Bush had these
problems in '88, and it didn't hurt him much at all.

Three funniest lines (these are approximations: I don't have the text
in front of me):

3) When I ran my own civilization...  -- Stockdale
	[yes, I know it was an unfortunate situation in the POW camp.
	 It's just the way he said it.]

2) I didn't have my hearing aide on...  -- Stockdale again

And the most irony-laden/Freudian slippish line....



1) I want a President who tells the truth... -- The Danster himself
	[Was it only me, or did other people have visions of
	 Iran-contra and Iraq-gate, not to mention "Read My Lips"
	 a-dancing through my head?]

--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
From: imam@yoko.rutgers.edu (Adil S. Imam)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: }8-)
Keywords: Deer Headlights Potatoe Debate
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:28:25 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Is it just me or did Gore actually say "... like a deer caught in the
headlights..." in his opening statement?
}8-)
			o  o
}8-P

Looks like some Gore advisor actually reads a.f.d-q.

-Adil
-- 
Adil S. Imam
Department of Computer Science,
Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, NJ 08903.
Date: Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992 12:43:33 PST
From: <DDURRETT%KAOS@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub Won.
 <1992Oct14.090411.25772@netcom.com> <Bw45DE.B5x@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>

In article <Bw45DE.B5x@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, ujwb@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Jeff Beer) says:
>
>In article <1992Oct14.090411.25772@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
>writes:
>>In article <1992Oct14.010619.14014@news.columbia.edu>
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>>Gore was wooden,
>>
>>Gore came off as 100% pure plastic when he was reciting his prepared
>>speeches.  He talked like a human being when he was speaking off the
>>cuff, but much of the time, he looked, moved, and sounded exactly like
>>one of those AudioAnimaTronic things at Disneyland.
>
>Maybe so, but both Gore and Quayle changed the subject, Dan perhaps more
>than Gore, when the topic was one that they were had on.  Would be nice
>if they could have a moderator press a buzzer everytime one of them
>changed the subject.
>
>Gore was articulate on many stuff, but yes, they were canned and
>rehearsed responses.  But he did have the strategy of ending his
>speeches with a question or challange to Quayle, to try to keep him on
>the defensive.  Quayle didn't always bite.
>
>Jeff

A friend of mine put it this way: Both Quayle's and Gore's responses
were canned, but at least it seemed that Gore's came from his own
canned ideas, not someone else's.

Roo-Dog Rip

Roo-Dog Rip is:                  <>SLAC, Stanford, the DOE and the
Derrell Durrett                  <>University of Colorado neither claim
D_DURRETT@COLOPHYS.BITNET        <>responsibility nor accept liability
D_DURRETT%KAOS@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU <>for my opinions. Gee- what a surprise.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Subject: Re: more bashing
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 16:11:32 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.13 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In  <1992Oct7.054237.15655@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>  huang@mwilliams.eche.ualberta.ca () writes:
> Can those Quayle bashers find some place else to masturbate?  This
> place is santified for the genuine fan of The Honourable J. Danforth
> Quayle.  Please return to the original intent.  Thanks.  

Explain:  Are you canadian?  If you are, how can you be a fan of Mr.  
Quayle?  Also, don't YOU have canadian politicians to admire and
create newsgroups about? 


--
Christopher J. Born

born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: rdosser@UTKUX1.UTK.EDU (rdosser)
Subject: Re: What Abortion Controversy?
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:47:14 GMT

In article <39234@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jhussain@cs.ucsd.edu (Jabir Hussain) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct9.025916.2660@utkux1.utk.edu>, rdosser@martha.utcc.utk.edu (rdosser) writes:
>|> Did anybody catch Danny's reflection that, after having talked to people
>|> across America, he came to the conclusion that abortion just isn't
>|> something the American people care about?
>|> This is so lame on so many levels. Not vintage Danny, but the Dan-handlers
>|> have been extremely liberal (excuse me!) with the duct tape lately, and
>|> it seems he's almost run dry.
>
>actually, the san diego union tribune recently listed the top ten issues
>important to voters.  this is from memory, but something like > 70% said
>the economy.  abortion was way down (about 5 or 6% said it was the most
>important issue for them).  so i would think dan quayle is right on this
>one (i assume he meant "relative to other, more important, issues").
>

Gee, why is it we always have to assume something or get some kind of
clarification, disclaimer or explanation whenene Dan speaks?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: What Abortion Controversy?
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Keywords: 

In article <39234@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jhussain@cs.ucsd.edu (Jabir Hussain) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct9.025916.2660@utkux1.utk.edu>, rdosser@martha.utcc.utk.edu (rdosser) writes:
>|> Did anybody catch Danny's reflection that, after having talked to people
>|> across America, he came to the conclusion that abortion just isn't
>|> something the American people care about?
>|> This is so lame on so many levels. Not vintage Danny, but the Dan-handlers
>|> have been extremely liberal (excuse me!) with the duct tape lately, and
>|> it seems he's almost run dry.
>
>actually, the san diego union tribune recently listed the top ten issues
>important to voters.  this is from memory, but something like > 70% said
>the economy.  abortion was way down (about 5 or 6% said it was the most
>important issue for them).  so i would think dan quayle is right on this
>one (i assume he meant "relative to other, more important, issues").
>

Gee, why is it we always have to assume something or get some kind of
clarification, disclaimer or explanation whenever Dan speaks?
He wasn't talking relative. He said it "wasn't something people were
talking about."
I guess that's why we had the five-mile-long human chain of protest here
in Knoxville, and why there's a firestorm of legal action in this state
over attempts to shut down our clinics.


He wasn't talking relative. He said it "wasn't something people were
talking about."
I guess that's why we had the five-mile-long human chain of protest here
in Knoxville, and why there's a firestorm of legal action in this state
over attempts to shut down our clinics.
From: cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: veep debate reactions
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:09:15 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering


On NPR tonight, there was a woman (a GB/DQ supporter) who was praising
Danny-boy for being so dogged with his two themes.  She said that this
makes up for his gaffes from the last 4 years and all the heat the press
has given him.


How come I'm not surprised that our boy was limited to memorizing two
sentences (maybe with variations).  That's probably his memory quota.
Meanwhile, he avoided answering any issue questions....
From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Bush debating
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:33:51 GMT
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Oct12.204455.24572@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.192350.25775@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>
>>wedding anniversary.  Pity no one nailed Bush for that nasty convention
>>in Houston or on the abortion issue.
>>
>
>hate to be too technical and political here, but Perot did nail Bush for the
>convention, or at least P Buchanon's speech, saying something like "When i
>heard someone at the podium and on nation tv preaching hate like that,
>I would have yanked him off the stage right then."
>
   It was even better than that.  Perot suggested that it was
   the *candidate's* responsibility to yank the hate monger off
   the stage.

   Wayne
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub Won.
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:24:21 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1bkvfuINNgg5@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>
>>|> > >BTW, I wouldn't sweat the election.  Even His Rushness conceded today.
>>|> Well, there's not much to it.  Uncle Rush admitted there is little hope, and
>>|> that we were in for four years of unchecked liberalism.
>>And he's happier than hell about it.
>
>I guess he figures it's job security -- preaching to the disaffected.

Pundits have job security.  If they make a prediction, and they're
right, laurel's galore.  If they're wrong, they can spend many, many
hours analyzing why they're wrong.


--
"All that talk about trickle-down theory made
Quayle want to leave the room for a minute."
				-- Letterman
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: martha@gvlf7-o.gvl.unisys.com (Martha Sherman)
Subject: Re: Debate Results, my opinion.
Organization: Paramax Systems, Great Valley Labs, Paoli, Pa
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:46:06 GMT

In article <Bw64JL.BAH@scd.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>
>Dan came off, to me, like a petulant child, and arrogant SOB, a rude rich boy,
>a snob, as though he were too good to have to stoop to Gore's level.
>

The best description I heard was by "Give 'em Hell" Zell of Georgia 
(paraphrased):  "Dan Quayle reminded me of one of my grandkids when he's
had too much sugar."

Martha H. Sherman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I speak only for myself, and sometimes I even wonder about that...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling)
Subject: Re: Dan Doll
Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:47:53 GMT

Michal Leah Peri (peri@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: Maybe we can get Mattel to market a Dan Doll that days 
: "Spelling is tough!"
NO !!! Speling is toughe!

	Ben
From: erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: The Veep Debate
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:16:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>Quayle kept coming back to "do you trust Bill Clinton?"

>Well, I think Gore - who has a high trust factor - could have done
>much to diffuse that issue if (on the 5th or 6th time Quayle repeated 
>that same question) he had answered:

>Well, Dan, the American people will tell us who they trust on
>November 3rd.  But I'll tell you right now, I trust Bill Clinton.

>Too bad Al missed the opportunity....

I wished he would have listed a few of the groups who have endorsed
Clinton, like many law enforcement associations, a group of military
advisors including Admiral Crowe (once head of the JCS for Bush),
and a group of Silicon Valley executives, and said "well, apparently
*they* trust Bill Clinton".

Didn't Bush make a pledge in his 1988 campaign to create a million
new jobs, or some number like that? I can't understand why Clinton
and Gore have failed to bring this up as an example of Bush's failed
rhetoric.

-----
Eric Smith	    | "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't hit his tail
erics@sco.com	    |     on the ground.  'If.'  Too hypothetical."
erics@infoserv.com  | - George Bush, on extending unemployment benefits
CI$: 70262,3610	    |
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: jamaass@bluemoon.rn.com (Jeffrey A. Maass)
Subject: Re: more bashing
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 21:02:59 EDT

huang@mwilliams.eche.ualberta.ca () writes:

> Can those Quayle bashers find some place else to masturbate?  This
> place is santified for the genuine fan of The Honourable J. Danforth
> Quayle.  Please return to the original intent.  Thanks.  

Hee Hee.


Jeff Maass                   Amateur Radio: K8ND (@ W8CQK)
NW of Columbus Ohio                Netmail: jamaass@bluemoon.uucp

GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE:
  "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to make
   them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth."
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: '88 veep debate on C-SPAN tomorrow...
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:33:42 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

C-SPAN will be running the tape of the '88 debate tomorrow at 1300 Eastern, so
everyone will have the opportunity to see Our Boy receive the most memorable
put-down of his life (assuming it was a bigger put-down than what Marilyn no
doubt inflicts upon him in private...)




|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Organization: Legal Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA