HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Limbaugh's Falseness Revealed
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:42:59 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In <1992Nov12.141836.22056@meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>In article <Nov.11.14.37.09.1992.15457@math.rutgers.edu>, jvogel@math.rutgers.edu (jeff vogel) writes:
>|> Fascinating article in the New York Times today. It seems that our dear,
>|> dear idol, Rush Limbaugh, not long before his radio show went on the
>|> air, hosted a New York radio talk show with a highly liberal slant.
>|> He had often complained that his views, while popular, were not getting
>|> good ratings, and that he had some interesting ideas for what to do if the 
>|> show was cancelled.
>|> [...]

>LIAR.  No such article exists.  We have the 11/11/92 NYT online on Lexis/Nexis,
>all 244 articles of it, and none of them even mentions Limbaugh.  There have
>been no articles in the NYT about him since 10/1/92.  Nice try.

	John, thanks for pointing this out.  I read the NYT, and there was
no such article yesterday, the day before, and so on.  Rush began his talk
radio career in New York with the show that he is doing now.  Before he
came to New York, he was the host of a conservative radio program in
Sacramento, as Nathan Engle mentioned.  Rush Limbaugh comes from a family
of Republican lawyers, and he has long associated personally and
professionally with conservative leaders.  I suppose that there may have
been a time, when he was younger, that he was liberal in his politics.
This is not so unusual, and it has happened to the best of us.  Some former
leftists include David Horowitz, Thomas Sowell, Robert Bork, Frank Chodorov,
and Michael Novak.  Ronald Reagan was a New Deal Democrat.  Often those who
have made the flight from liberalism are its most perceptive critics.

Andrew Aiken
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: This is OUTRAGEOUS...
Summary: ...but that's all Stevedennis knows.
Organization: Somewhere in the nation's fourth-largest city
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:00:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.201653.20426@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>		November 11, 1992:
>   
>Bill Clinton (President-Elect) was at the Arkansas War 
>Veterans Memorial Service today.
>THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. A DRAFT DODGER "honoring" war
>veterans with his presence? 

Big words from a little boy who wasn't out of diapers yet when we finally
got out of 'Nam, if indeed he'd even been born yet...

>Okay, okay. Let's just put this in perspective. 
>
>
>
>Bill Clinton at the Veterans' Day Memorial is like:
>  
>* Sinead O'Connor at Burger King 
>* Willie Horton outside prison
>* Jerry Brown having Earth citizenship 
>* Gloria Steinem chasing men 
>* Madonna teaching chastity 
>* Jack Kervorkian doing CPR  
>* Earth First! running a logging company
>* Fidel Castro joining Amnesty International
>* The Sacramento Kings at the NBA Playoffs
>* Dr. Spock giving corporal punishment 
>* David Duke in the NAACP 
>* Van Halen teaching classical music
>* Molly Yard in a swimsuit

* Steve "Dennis Hall" Chaney actually *being* "pro-life"

--PLH (hey, this could get to be fun...)


--
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is such a bad loser
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:38:05 GMT
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


In a previous article, edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford) says:

>
>You said the people have spoken clearly? Hmm I hope you are
>right.... since 60% of them voted against Clinton.
>

You know, this is about the 50th time I've seen this statistic.

56% of the vote went against Clinton.

But 63% of the vote went against Bush, and 81% of the vote went against
Perot.

Now let's forget it, and get on with the business of rebuilding our country.

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Religion: Society's First    *
*  /\  the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  // Fully Functional Informational *    
* /__\             ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  // and Emotional Virus...          *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7922 alt.rush-limbaugh:9023 alt.politics.bush:13167 misc.test:12675 talk.bizarre:36820 alt.politics.clinton:15807
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,misc.test,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:34:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov5.082832.19492JPII@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.034239.3528@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
>"
>"
>"Since George is on his way out, we will no longer need alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
>"alt.rush-limbaugh, or alt.politics.bush.  I will be sending out the
>"rmgroups for these three groups.  Also, since Clinton is now president,
>"I will create alt.president.clinton.  Since the volume should be large,
>"we'll hold on to alt.politics.clinton for a while.
>"
>"
>"Ta-ta for now,
>"M
>
>
>Good idea - I beat you to it!! rmgroups for alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and
>alt.politics.bush have been sent out as well as a newgroup for
>alt.president.clinton. I forgot alt.rush-limbaugh - you do the honors
>for that one.

Ah it warms my heart to see the self-declared defenders of the First 
Amendment so willing and ready to destroy the free speech rights of 
anyone they don't agree with. A certain prelude to what will happen 
to the Bill of Rights under the Clinton administration (note, the 
singular). Of course, thanks to liberals, the Bill of Rights is 
considered to have only 9 amendments already, so Clinton won't have
as big a job to do.
-- 
John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
                           | Support the coup!
                           |
jrs@netcom.com             | 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dan@ektools.kodak.com (Daniel P. Schaertel)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle My Hero !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 15:29:19 GMT

In article <nate.785@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>   To the cultural elite: Whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Quayle's
>>stands on the issues you must admit that through the great personal tragedy 
>>Dan suffered at your hands, he has stood up for his beliefs.
>
>    To which great personal tragedy are you alluding? Did he loose any 
>close relatives? Did he loose his job or his home? I know that he's been 
>the butt of a great many jokes, but I would hardly call that a personal 
>tragedy. Just think of Dan's future on the lecture circuit: he can hold up 
>a flash card with the 'e' in potatoe scratched out and have the audience 
>rolling in the aisles. I admire Dan Quayle for standing by his beliefs, but 
>he neither deserves nor receives my sympathy or my pity.
>

It is sad that you have such a limited view of tragedy.  You see a
persons reputation is important.  There are people that would rather die
than live a life with a defiled reputation.  To say that taking the
abuse that he has had to take is not hardship only shows your lack of
understanding about values and what is important in life.  But then you
say your a democrat and all is clear.  I guess the newly elected
president doesn't have to worry about reputation.  He was elected
inspite of his.  But remember he is the least popular president ever
elected.  Only 43% of Americans wanted him.  That is sad too.

P.S.  Just think how you would feel if everybody on the net started
calling you names, not taking what you say seriously, but rather taking
it out of context and making fun of it constantly.  And lets say that
your employer reads alot of the false postings about you.  Maybe he
would start to question your intelligence, and your ability to do a good
job at anything.  And lets say this has an impact on future job
considerations for you.  But then remember, it's not a tragedy.  You
didn't lose a loved one.  Your just not loved by anyone.  No big deal,
right?

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Rush shoots own foot again!!
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:04:11 GMT

ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:


>On today's (11/10) Limbaugh show, Rush once again demonstrated his
>hypocracy.

>Early in the show he launched into a diatribe about "Right to death"
>laws, complaining about cases where, against all odds, people who were
>either terminally ill or terminally injured made some level of recovery
>or remission.

>He stated clearly that "This taking of human life, WHATEVER you want to
>call it, must stop".

>At the end of the show, he reported on the execution tonight of a person
>in Illinois (I assume), and commented on the gala celebration that would
>be held at EIB affiliate WLS in Chicago AFTER the execution, punctuating
>the comment with that arrogant chuckle of his.

>And he says Bill Clinton waffles???

The two are unrelated, so how is this waffling? Now, before anyone says
I'm pro-Rush, I'm not. I've never heard his show. So all I have to go by 
is what you are telling me. Assuming you have not biased what Rush said,
then I completely disagree with his first statement (I'm for Right to Death),
and I would have to have far more details on the second (I'm for the death
penalty under very limited situations) before I would agree. And even if/when
I do agree, I'm never happy about it. So in whole, I more disagree with Rush
than agree with him. The point is that even thought I disagree with him,
that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the two points have
nothing to do with each other (which was what you were saying). People get 
so keyed up with someone that they stop thinking logicly. Please feel free 
to rip my views apart (some of you might anyways), but give your views as 
much power as you can by being logical about it. If you just flame at me, 
you haven't proven anything (although if it feels good, that's ok too).

>-- 
>*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //   No God, Know Peace   /\     * 
>*                    Kelley L. Miller  //  Know God, No Peace    /P \    *    
>*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //                        /____\   *
>*****************  James Trafficant for US Senate, 1998  *****************
-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7957 alt.politics.clinton:15922 alt.politics.bush:13231 alt.rush-limbaugh:9077
From: lanier@acpub.duke.edu (Dustin Lanier)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush grasps at straws
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:57:14 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Nov6.100959.10007@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM writes:

>
>  Look for Rush to start flaming off at everyone within a few days.
>  By the end of the week, Rush will probably have Bush down as the
>  devil of the Republican party.  

	And I would certainly appreciate it.  When Bush was supporting Bush it
only continued the lie that Bush was conservative, risking making the election
a referendum on ideology, when conservatives left Bush too.  Rush will 
certainly begin making the same arguments every other conservative has made but
Rush wouldn't because of a loyalty to the Republican party: that when people
talk about "the last 12 years" of this and the "republican rule" of that, I
respond, don't put the two together because Bush betrayed Reagan and the 
conservative movement.  Rush will do it sooner or later, and I'm sure he will
feel much more comfortable saying what he undoubtably really thinks.


>  Jon Rosen

Dustin Lanier						Kemp '96!
"I'm not liberal, I'm ideologically challenged!"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle My Hero !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:59:32 GMT

vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.140848.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>> Thank you Dan
>> 
>> Thank you Mr. Vice President for being a beacon of truth in the ranks of the
>> Washington elitists. History will regard you Dan as a man of truth,
>> conviiction, decency, honor, CHARACTER, and compassion.  You are a man that
>> through the worst attacks on you person that stood up for what you believe is
>> right and this country will be better for it.  
>> 
>> 	To the cultural elite: Whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Quayle's
>> stands on the issues you must admit that through the great personal tragedy Dan
>> suffered at your hands, he has stood up for his beliefs.  He has done this
>> without compromise for political gain.  We must ask ourselves if we could have
>> done the same. 

>Here Here!!
>Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
>---------
>Do you hear the people sing?
> Singing the song of Angry men?
>It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
>----------
>		Possible Republican Creed.
>		Vince Goddard
>		Jack Kemp in '96

Here Here Too Too!!!! 
-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7955 alt.politics.clinton:15917 alt.politics.bush:13227
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.ru
Subject: Re: Rush grasps at straws
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:41:38 GMT
	<1992Nov4.173115.12977@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
	<Bx8CIH.7wC@beach.csulb.edu>
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <Bx8CIH.7wC@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

      Give him a few days to get over the severe shock he's been subjected
   to. I'm sure he'll be back better than ever. After all, now he'll have
   a Congress *and* a President to rave against. An embarassment of riches.

I saw him on TV last night, and despite my distaste for the
man I have to admit he was very funny.  He doesn't seem to
be at all upset about the outcome of the election, which
doesn't surprise me a bit.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8150 alt.rush-limbaugh:9223 alt.politics.bush:13493 talk.bizarre:37217 alt.politics.clinton:16362
From: curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 7 Nov 1992 20:53:45 GMT
Organization: CS Dept. Snakepit - Do Not Feed.
NNTP-Posting-Host: mamba.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <BD.92Nov7090655@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
|jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
|
|>Of course, thanks to liberals, the Bill of Rights is 
|>considered to have only 9 amendments already, so Clinton won't have
|>as big a job to do.
|
|I'm a liberal - which one of the amendments is it I'm
|supposed to not be in support of?

Uh, the Tenth?

Guess the water supply in Hanover is kind of low in clueides.

c
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: November 3, the day Rush dies!
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 00:12:51 GMT

In article <mjenkins.720895095@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>In <1992Nov4.152858.17500@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>
>>>>Ladies and Gentlemen, four years from now a man wil emerge from the ashes
>>>>of 1992 and rise like a phoenix to lead this country.
>>>
>>>>That man is ________________________________.
>>>
>>>Dan Quayle.

>>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>>                           | Support the coup!
>
>I like your style, John! Now...can you do anything about this Mulroney
>character we have to put up with?
>
>Michael



Well, as I see it, with the previous defeat of Meech Lake, and now the
crushing defeat of the "Charlatan" agreement, Mulroney pretty much
has to call an election. Simply vote his party out.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:30:31 EST
From: <ADB103@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: RADIO LEAD IN TUNE

The name of the song is "OHIO" the group is the very liberal Chrissy Hynde
Davies and the Pretenders.  Arent there any conservatives (besides Ted N.)
that rock?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 06:41:16 GMT

: 
: John,
: 
: Your .sig points out what kind of a narrow-minded person you are.
: And your summaries point out not only your single-minded devotion to
: whatever Rush limbaugh says, but the fact you have no life.  Why?
: What kind of life must you have that the best thing you can think 
: to do with your time is type up 'summaries' of the Rush Limbaugh
: show.
: 
:
Thank you, thank you, thank you for typing up summaries of the Rush Limbaugh
show, John. I can't listen to the show, and your summaries are greatly 
appreciated. As for the above statement, you would think that we should get
all of our news from the newspapers, and telivision.

Felix Gorney
gorney@picard.med.ge.com

"The man who reads only newspapers, is less informed than the man who reads
nothing at all."
                        Ben Franklin  (please correct me if I'm wrong)

To this I add: The man who gets his news from television, is less informed than
the man who reads only newspapers.


 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7962 alt.rush-limbaugh:9085 talk.bizarre:36930 misc.test:12733 alt.politics.elections:22748 alt.politics.bush:13242 alt.politics.clinton:15936 alt.job.gooley:59
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre,misc.test,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.job.gooley
Subject: Did He Have To? (was Re: WANKERS)
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:20:18 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Nov4.163946.5694@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:

>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!  CLINTON WINS  HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

>HA HA YOU BUNCH OF WANKERS.  ALL OF YOU BUSH SUPPORTERERS ARE A BUNCH OF
>LOSERS!!!  WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO NOW YOU CRY BABIES?  ARE YA GONNA CRY TO
>MAMA?  HAHAHAHAHAH!!!  CLINTON WINS!!!!  HERE IS A GIFT FROM ME TO ALL
>OF YOU WANKING FOOLS:

	[ASCII picture of him mooning deleted]

	C'mon, did you have to moon the whole net?

	You give the rest of us Clinton supporters a very bad name.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: enor@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: This is OUTRAGEOUS...topcs
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:49:40 GMT


> * Dan Quayle at the Veteran's Day Memorial
As a member of the Indiana National Guard Dan Quayle had a much chance of going
to vietnam,even more so, than somebody who signed up for a Draft Lottery. 
Remeber many of the forces in Desert Storm were in Vietnam.



Robert Eno
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8267 alt.president.clinton:247 talk.politics.misc:59291
From: harrison@jho.com (Mark Harrison)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Network projections
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:44:01 GMT
Organization: Software Programming, Inc., Dallas, Texas USA

m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:

>One thing that's been bugging me since election night is the networks
>projecting the winners from state to state.

The thing that bothers me is how everyone was so convinced that
network projections were a BAD THING in 1988, but a GOOD THING
in 1992.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that it usually helps
the poll leader, which was Bush in 1988 and Clinton in 1992.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hi, this is Captain Kirk.  I can't | Mark Harrison     harrison@jho.com
answer my communicator right now..."| Richardson, TX    (214)669-2853
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8253 talk.politics.misc:59222
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Network projections
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:47:04 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


In article <1992Nov8.031824.16473@oz.plymouth.edu>, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
> One thing that's been bugging me since election night is the networks
> projecting the winners from state to state.
> 
> Using New Hampshire as an example, ABC declared Clinton the winner
> just after 8 PM I believe.  Initially, Clinton DID have the lead, but
> thats because our cities (Manchester, Nashua, Derry and Portsmouth,
> etc.) tend to report first and tend to be moderate.  However, as the
> North Country returns came in, Bush actually took the lead at about 11
> PM.  It turns out that Clinton won NH by less than one percent, but
> how can ABC or any other network project the winner in a state whose
> vote was THAT close and wasn't sure until early in the morning.

The networks compare the precinct results with that precinct's results for
the last several elections.  That way they take into account the Dem & Repub
strongholds when making their prediction.  They probably saw Clinton doing
better than expected in Dem precincts and Bush worse than expected in Repub
precincts, make their projection and were right.

> Thankfully, the Democrats didn't make the gains in NH as the Democrats
> were hoping for.  Every two years they say it's our turn and the NH
> people will realise it.  What we DO realise is that we don't want
> Democrats running the ship here.  We have seen what's happened in
> Maine, Massachusetts and New York.  We DON'T want it in New Hampshire.
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8396 alt.rush-limbaugh:9474 talk.bizarre:37716 misc.test:12968 alt.politics.elections:23496 alt.politics.bush:13766 alt.politics.clinton:16866 alt.job.gooley:78
From: andrewc@spider.co.uk (Andrew Cannon)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre,misc.test,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.job.gooley
Subject: Re: WANKERS
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:33:24 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <1992Nov8.231546.9020@cs.ucf.edu> jinxiong@cs.ucf.edu (Chen Jinxiong) writes:
>What is a wanker?

Wanker, v:
	  Someone who wanks.

Wank, n: 
	 To masturbate. (see also: five finger knuckle shuffle, pulling the pud,
			 fucking Mrs Palm and her 5 daughters, Shufftying )

-- 
|      Andy Cannon       | Sweater, n:                                   |     
| Misplaced Yorkshireman |            A garment worn by a child when its |     
|   Spider Systems Ltd   | mother feels chilly.                          |     
|  andrewc@spider.co.uk  |                     ......And Still the Moon  |    
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh