HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:27:12 GMT

In article <Bw1pu9.BHu.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to Stan Knight:

>>> On a side note, several pro-choice women on talk.abortion 
>>> have been viciously attacked by radical pro-choicers for 
>>> their support or non-opposition to third-trimester abortion 
>>> restrictions. I wonder why these radical pro-choicers rarely 
>>> attack men (such as yourself) who express the same opinion? 

>> Hey Doug, you sexist wimp. I just did call Stan on his opinion.
>> Or do I, as a non-white woman, not count?

> I doubt that DOD thinks that you count, Nadja.  

Of course she counts.  Don't lie Ms. Garvin.  

> I also doubt
> that it would have mattered if every supporter of legal 
> abortion had just called the guy on his opinion.  

So far, only Ms. Adolf has called Stan Knight on his opinion.
You and the rest of your pro-abort buddies have been silent.
Perhaps it's the fact that Stan Knight is a man?  Your pro-abort
buddies seem to always attack women who express support for 
moderate abortion restrictions, but rarely do they attack men.   

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger, who's still waiting for Ms. Garvin to "call"
Stan Knight on his opinion.  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN)
Subject: Re: Pro-Bush yet not anti-Marijuana
Summary: pot
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: Clinton and pot
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:29:21 GMT

In article <BvvEKz.CKC@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, rint69@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (rintoul bradley e)               writes...
>I consider myself to be more pro-Bush than pro-Clinton

>Laugh all you want "you-who-have-been-around-the-block-a
>few-more-times-than-me". Just please don't believe all the
>shit (and I do mean shit) about pot.        
> 
Pro-Bush and not anti-Marijuana? Does this mean you like to
shoot yourself in the foot? I believe the term is 
"Politics makes strange bedfellows". But this? 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite)
Subject: Re: not-George
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:37:48 GMT

In <1992Oct5.125553.7318@iscsvax.uni.edu> fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>If you think that Bush has done a good job, vote for him.

Yeah, right.

>If you think Bush has done a bad job, vote for Clinton.

Not if you think Clinton will do even worse, or if you're worried
about putting the Democrats in total control of our government again.

>Don't just vote for someone who is not-George, because enough splintering
>of the not-George vote means that we will again have George.

Unless George's mean streak continues eroding gullible people's
confidence in other presidential candidates, I don't think we have
to worry about Bush obtaining even a plurality in the election.
The last poll that I saw had 70% of respondents saying there's no
way they'd vote for Bush.

-- Trevor Bourget (trevor@telesoft.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: cable tv
Organization: University of Lowell
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:42:07 GMT

In article <trussell.718400856@cwis>, trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:
> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
>>items 1-4 should NOT be controlled by government, these are
>>issues that work themselves out by consumers/competition. 
>>the only thing any regulation might have business doing is
>>guaranteeing the market be open to competition so each 
>>individual can select the service provider in their home. 
>>even this is debatable.
> 
>     Obviously you haven't read the bill itself (why not?  don't want to
> be informed?), because what the bill does is to mandate these price controls
> only in areas where the cable company is a monopoly, and remove them when
> competition is in place (like DBS, which the cable companies have been
> fighting tooth and nail and attempting to deny programming to to retain
> their monopolies).  This act puts a stop to their unfair attempts to
> deny choices to the public, and leaves them alone once it's out of their
> hands.

The public does have a choice; get rid of their cable.  This will force the
cable companies to reduce their rates.  It's called a free market and it works
better than govt. regulation.
--Ray Cote
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:41:20 GMT

In article <5881@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>One: I don't think that the President/Executive Branch will unilaterally
>start a war. I don't recall any war in which the first aggressors
>fighting were from a democratic country. 

Well, then I suggest you read a book on world military history of the
eighteenth through twentieth century.  It's fascinating stuff.

(If you consider the US a democracy - we're actually a republic)
We invaded Mexico (as first agressors) in the 1840's.
The Confederacy was as much a democracy as the Union - so
  their firing on Fort Sumpter (or the Union's occupation of
  Fort Sumpter) can be considered a first aggression.
In the twentieth century we invaded Latin American countries dozens
  of times.
(If you consider other democracies)
Great Britain and France (intermittently a democracy) invaded and 
  colonized countries in Asia and Africa.  
  In fact an interesting war to consider is the Opium War 
  in China.  Great Britain started a war with China,
  because the Emporer of China tried to prohibit the
  sale (by British merchants) of opium, a dangerous narcotic.  
  In order to insure their market the British invaded China.  
  Other European nations (both democratic and not) supported 
  Britain, chiefly for reasons of trade.  The U.S. vehemently 
  opposed the British agression.  


John D.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen)
Subject: The economy & fine footwear...
	<1992Oct13.005048.10487@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Organization: Nat'l Center for Supercomputing Applications
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:12:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.005048.10487@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:

                 BIG NEWS: THE ECONOMY FLUCTUATES

   and the ride seems a lot worse if people are screaming their guts
   out all the way down even the most minor of slopes. trying to
   wildly stabilize things in the short term will only make the long
   term more painful. the government can only do so much. it's a
   convenient scapegoat, but it's no solution.

That's right.  And the real solution is to run, don't walk, to the
nearest Jacque Penney's and buy four pairs of socks.

Cheers,

Marc the wildly-stabilized

--
Marc Andreessen
Software Development Group
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8370 alt.politics.clinton:9348 alt.politics.elections:15808
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: BUSH:  Innuendo update
Date: 9 Oct 1992 14:55:26 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

 > 10/08/92  -  New Orleans, LA  (exact quote not available)
 >
 >     New Orleans (UPI) -- President Bush today said he likely will 
 >     raise more questions about Bill Clinton's patriotism.  Despite 
 >     an admitted lack of proof,  President Bush continues to raise 
 >     questions about Bill Clinton's trip to Moscow in 1969. Bush says
 >     to expect more questions about his opponent's patriotism during 
 >     Sunday night's debate.

 >Interesting factoid:
 >   Strobe Talbott, a fellow Rhodes scholar at the time and now editor at
 >   large of Time magazine, said he was among eight of the 32 students on
 >   the fellowships who traveled to Moscow during the winter break.
 

Interesting factoid II:
Source-USA Today Oct. 9, 1992 Page 7A

Other Rhodes scholars to visit the USSR:

Mark Lackritz    a securites industry lobbyist.
Steve Sturm      US Air-Force Colonel now with NATO
Patrick Jordan   US State Dept. lawyer during the Reagan/Bush Admin.
William Drozdiak Former foreign editor The Washington Post

-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Dornan the Barbarian
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:35:14 GMT

This idiot is on CNN now. I can't believe this stuff.
It reminds me of a World Wrestling Federation "press event".
-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9514 alt.politics.clinton:11020 alt.politics.elections:17343 alt.rush-limbaugh:7650
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Missed opportunities
Date: 16 Oct 1992 19:48:36 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct14.135728.23014@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>No more so than Clinton. Bush however understands the fundamental
>problem: govenement spends too much and any money we give only makes
>it worse. Look at his freeze proposal and you will see numbers which
>hold together much better.

You mean Bush's *1988* "flexible freeze" proposal, right? The one he was
totally incapable of implementing?

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: George Bush on Larry King tonight: US Troops in Yugoslavia
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 01:47:46 GMT

George Bush is harping on that stupid "will not send a single American
soldier into Yugoslavia unless I am absolutely sure of a successful
outcome." That's an exact quote from a few minutes ago on CNN.

Canada, meanwhile, sends thousands of troops to UN missions all over
the world, especially Yugoslavia, where we have one of the largest
contingents, have lost a few soldiers' lives in the process, and we pay
for all the costs.

Meanwhile, the USA is behind in their UN payments, and here we have the
president of the USA still sounding so reluctant to commit American
troops to do their fair share on the world stage. It's downright embarassing.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7968 alt.politics.clinton:8784 talk.bizarre:33082
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush in Fantasy Land
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:44:13 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Oct11.025239.25070@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.151720.27511@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>>
>
   [stuff deleted re Bush-wacker's mention of Clinton's Moscow trip...]

Ah, that's the clincher!  He is a KGB spy!  Where's Maxwell Smart when
>you need him?
>
>
>
>--
>"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....

	
	My opinion is that the Bushman fell asleep during a rerun
	of the Manchurian candidate . . .  kinda like Ronnie Reggae
	fell asleep during an old rerun of Star Trek and then came
	up with "Star Wars. . ."

		Judy


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,
From: hshams@IASTATE.EDU (Habib Shams)
Subject: Presidential Debate II: Carol Simpson's Attitude
Keywords: Presidential, Debate
Reply-To: hshams@IASTATE.EDU (Habib Shams)
Organization: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:05:33 GMT

I don't know if you guys noticed it or not, I found that Carol Simpon's 
conduct as a moderator during the Thursday night debate was at times anything
but objective and impartial.

Case in point:

1. "THE EDUCATION PRESIDENT....."

When the focus of the debate was on education policy, and a question had
been asked by an auidence member, Ms. Simpson responded by saying something 
to the effect that, would the "education President" like to answer first? 

Comment: George Bush has been critized with this particular phrase by both
the media and Gov. Clinton throughout the campaign.  Therefore, I feel that 
the use of this phrase by the moderator smell of partisanism and shows an 
overt lack of objectivity.

2.  "HOW HAS THE RECESSION AFFECTED YOU PERSONALLY...?"

Neither Ross Perot nor Gov. Clinton was redirected by the moderator, Ms Simpson,
when they strayed off the subject(i.e. how the recession has affected their
lives on a personal level) and started going off on the tangent of their
standard stump speaches.  However, in the case of the President the issue of 
personal experience with the economic downturn was reemphasised by the
moderator.

Comment:  This was a blatent example of how the moderator was trying to pin the
President down on a subject that she had allowed the other two canidates to get
away from the specifics of the question.

3.  "HAVEN'T YOU AND SENATOR GORE HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IRAQ ...?"

When an audience member asked a general question about foriegn policy the
moderator asked Govenor Clinton something to the effect that hadn't he and
Al Gore had some comments about the Gulf War and Saddam Hussain.

Comment:  The question from the audience was not about the Gulf War and 
Saddam Hussain and it should have been left up to Govenor Clinton to address
the issue in the manner he saw fit.  

I am not a big Bush fan. However, I believe that these debates should be free of
any kind of partisan attitudes/politics.

America, go vote on November 3rd!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:50:17 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct6.212050.12821@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
]   mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
]    hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
]>>Four students came home from Kent State in bodybags, and not all of them
]>>were even protestors.
]At the time of the protests, did they know that those four+ would be the
]only ones killed?  The government could have been planning another
]Tiannimen (sp?) Square, for all the protestors knew.

At the time of the protests, no one had any reason whatsoever to expect
that ANYONE would come home in bodybags. Kent State was the only
protest where people were shot. It didn't take any courage whatsoever
to protest there.


-- 
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
"Government is the agent of those who are too refined to do their own mugging."
  Joseph Sobran
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen)
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
	<1992Oct6.232616.29823@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
	<1992Oct7.030501.7674@news.columbia.edu> <5881@news.duke.edu>
Organization: Nat'l Center for Supercomputing Applications
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:52:09 GMT

In article <5881@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

   One: I don't think that the President/Executive Branch will
   unilaterally start a war. I don't recall any war in which the first
   aggressors fighting were from a democratic country. I doubt that
   any President will be so bold or stupid as to say, "Let's invade
   Canada!"

``Let's invade Panama!''

``Let's invade Iraq!''  (Remember, they didn't attack *us*.)

Bold?  Stupid?  Your choice.

Marc

--
Marc Andreessen
Software Development Group
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:47:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.135033.2756@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>William M. Everett writes:
>>>
>>the S&L bailout was hardly the sole work of George Bush. You make it sound
>>like it was all just one big scheme of his to fund his son.
>
>Well, considering that his family sells equipment to help put out oil
>field fires, there are some who feel that helped stiffen Bush's 
>resolve to blow off Saddam and his threat to torch the Kuwaiti fields.
>
>And there's his family's hotel interest in Peking....
>
>And his son's ability to manage a sizeable loan from the Small Business
>Administration...
>
>Some people think that conflict of interest is a kind word to describe
>GB's dealings in his office. Some don't.  Makes elections so interesting.

You're right. George Bush's presidency is just a scheme to make money for
himself and his family.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Missed opportunities
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:39:09 GMT

In article <92289.132956JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>>The only pollitically acceptable way to end the deficit is to simply
>>freeze spending until growth catches up. This is part of Bush's program
>>which he may or may not implement but at least he understands the
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>problem better than Clinton does.

>If this is the case, why has he made is worse over the last three and
>a half years?

Two reasons:

1. He didn't implement it. A freeze is not a good way to balance the budget
   but I think it is the most acceptable way.

2. He raised taxes and then he and Congress spent the money instead of using
   it for deficit reduction.

As I said above, Bush may or may not implement a freeze. I hope he does if
elected. Even if not, he will still be better than what Clinton will do.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------192 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: Bush's Veto
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,misc.test,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:40:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.123642.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu misspells:
>	"But that discrimantes
>against the poor." NO IT DOESN'T. It discriminates against the
>brainless little twits with no motivation! Why should they deserve the same
>rewards as intelligent hardworkers?
>

	Which one are you, dear heart?

	-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jonobie@Baker.mcs.kent.edu (Jonobie Baker)
Subject: Re: SHOULD WE TRUST GEORGE BUSH
Organization: Kent State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:03:06 GMT

No.

	-Jonobie


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: AL GORE-THE STEPFORD CANDIDATE
Keywords: plastic man
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:50:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.141334.13270@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> gratrix@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jackie Gratrix) writes:
|During the 1970's the movie "The Stepford Wives" was released
|in which the women of the Stepford community were one by one
|replaced with perfect, yet spiritless clones.  After watching
|last night's debate, I submit that Al Gore is the Stepford 
|candidate. 

Hardly original.  There's been a song about "Young Dan
Stepford" around for nearly four years.
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: johna@psdcae1.gvg.tek.com (John Abt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:25:16 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

> ....He's [Dornan] a right-wing nut who spends his nights looking
>for communists under his bed -- and everything he says should be taken in
>that context.

Will somebody please tell Bob Dornan that the cold war is over??

I guess we'll just have to suffer through this period of Evil Empire
withdrawl and acknowledge that there will be some sporadic hate
flashbacks and knee-jerk red-baiting.


John Abt
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Where will Bush want to have his library ? Maine or Texas
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:22:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.150035.26288@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>
>   Next year, the Bush Presidential Library will need to be built. My 
>question is, where will Bush want the library be built ?  Texas or Maine  
> 
>   
My guess is that he will operate one library out of a hotel room in Houston,
consisting of three copies of "Six Crises" and that book by his dog. The
tax breaks are fabulous.

Alan



Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8193 alt.politics.clinton:9087 alt.destroy.the.earth:655
From: mechler@cs.ubc.ca (Roland Mechler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Date: 8 Oct 1992 19:58:43 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: arkell.cs.ubc.ca

In article <1992Oct7.124505.25930@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct6.162127.3657@sci34hub.sci.com>, gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct6.000021.14558@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
|> >
|> >>     A.  Man does not have the capacity to destroy the planet.
|> >
|> >Famous last words......
|> 
|> Truer words were never spoken.  We probably could destroy most of the larger
|> life forms if we honestly tried, but nobody has been able to describe in any
|> detail a scenario in which all life forms including bacteria and viruses
|> would be destroyed.  And even then, as long as the planet is intact, there's
|> no reason to believe life couldn't happen again.
|> 
|> No, if "destroy the planet" means "make the planet unihabitable by man", then
|> I agree we have that power.  But that's certainly a convenient definition.

Whew! we can all breathe easier knowing that our little buddies the
bacteria and the viruses are going to make it!

Yes, it's so convenient that all us bigger life forms just happen to
be around right now. Kind of like one big 7-11.

-Roland

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections