HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Date: 12 Oct 92 07:03:25 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> 	[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)
> 

Alas, I believe that you're probably correct. 

> 	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
> 

Alex, you have th REAL reason right there in your .sig. Reagn campaigned
as a conservative and won in a landslide. He GOVERNED as a conservative,
and won re-election in an even BIGGER landslide. In 1988, Reagan said (in
effect) "Look, I know Bush was always a liberal, and he called my policies
'voodoo economics', but he's seen the light, he's learned the truth." And
Bush campaigned as a conservative, and won the election. He then proceeded
to govern like a liberal, got in bed with Foley and "his good friend Danny
Rostenkowski", agreed to the biggest tax hike in HISTORY, has screwed over
the conservatives at every opportunity, and has played us for suckers.
THAT'S why Bush will lose (and I agree, he probably can't pull it out of
the hat this late). 

But even you should know that a single data point doesn't make a line, no
matter how hard you try.

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:11:13 GMT

I must admit, I can think of NO answer to Simon's compelling argument
(which he posted to ~87 newsgroups).

> = Simon E. Booth writes:











-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: jcarroll@bach.udel.edu (Royal J Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Feminism
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:36:50 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Oct5.061754.15221@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	It is sometimes said of RL's use of "feminazi" that there is a
>certain kind of extremist feminist that it appropriately refers to.
>While there are _some_ feminists that can be called extremists, I
>think that RL is trying to smear _all_ feminists, since he has not
>described what he considers legitimate feminist positions.
>

Not true.  On his TV show a couple of weeks ago, he addressed this very
issue.  He said that the term "feminazi" was not a general term and that
he felt that there were only 10 to 12 women whom he would classify as a
"feminazi".  He said that the term is reserved for extremists.  He did
not name all of those that he considered to be "feminazis".

-James

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If I could only reach you/If I could make you smile
If I could only reach you/That would really be a breakthough
-Queen, "Breakthru"=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=jcarroll@brahms.udel.edu-
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH: OUT OF A JOB?
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:52:15 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
> 
> Do you think his popularity will stay if Clinton wins next month?  I
> seriously doubt it.  He makes this claim about how it doesn't matter
> who is in office and who is in power.  The point is, for the past 12
> years we have had the disasterous effects of republican rule to deal
> with while limbaugh has tried his best to put a positive spin on a bad
> thing.
> 
Y'know, this "big lie" is getting to be sort of old and tired. 1981-1989
was the best growth period this nation has EVER had, and EVERY income
group showed real gains in income. THAT'S the scorecard on "Reaganomics".
Then along comes Bush, who sabotages everything that Reagan did, and the
liberals who want ti finally get a little power themselves run against
"Reagan-Bush". Please! The two men are totally different. 

On the other hand, our two presidential candidates this year are like peas
in a pod.  What Bush has done, Clinton will do IN SPADES. Either will be a
disaster; Bush will be a SMALL disaster, while Clinton will be a MAJOR
disaster. 



> I do believe that if Clinton wins, limbaugh's ratings will cease increasing
> and perhaps even shrink a bit.  His TV show is probably history, even now.

Hardly; it's number one in its time slot in most markets. It may be a
flash in the pan, but I suspect not. 


> His book sales have a builtin 10,000,000 almost prepaid customer base and
> it was sheer brilliance on his part to write it.  I applaud him for this 
> book.

Yeah, and it's a good book, too; you ought to read it.


> 
> Nobody can predict when the downfall will occur.  I see him as a cross
> between Mort Downey, jr. and Jimmy Swaggart.
> 

Not even close. Downey is into "shock" radio; insult callers, ethnic
slurs, totally outrageous behavior. (Matter of fact, Rush's job at KFBK in
1984 was as Downey's REPLACEMENT, after Downey insulted a local
Asian-American politician with a racial slur.)  About Swaggart, I wouldn't
know; I NEVER listen to tele-evangelists.

> I also noticed that he has been breaking his "habit" of not having guests
> on his show, bush and quayl awhile back and today, BuchanaNAZI.  Not having
> guests is his policy, however he will have on friendly ones which leads one
> to believe that he is not capable of defending himself with one of the "enemy."
> 

Seems unlikely, considering that he's done well defending himself during
guest shots on shows like Donahue. 

But the proof of the pudding, and all that; I expect Rush Limbaugh to be
on the radio until he decides to retire. I sure hope so.

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7242 alt.activism.d:3824 talk.abortion:42246
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:14:42 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Oct5.200919.24784@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
|In article <1063@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|>The same thinking applies to the Democrats who support abortion on demand
|>and government funding of abortion.  On this issue the Democratic party is
|>also a fringe group.
|
|I don't think this statement is correct. As far as I know, the Democrats
|support the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe v. Wade into
|federal law.  Roe v. Wade allows restriction of abortion during the third
|trimester of pregnancy.  That doesn't qualify as "abortion on demand," at
|least not after fetal viability.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know what the Democratic platform says (I
haven't gotten my copy yet), but both Clinton and Gore have come out for
government funding of abortion with no restrictions.  This does qualify as
"abortion on demand".
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:01:03 GMT
X-Posted-From: eng-nxt10.cso.uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) drools:
: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
: >sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
: >>Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.
: >>Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
: >>moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??
: >Trees move in the wind.  Bacon moves when it sizzles.  Fires moves as its
: >fuel is consumed.
: Get serious, please.  You know fully well what I was talking about.

I'm sorry, but you did make one helluva jump in logic up there.
Movement in and of itself does not constitute human awareness.  Many
non-sentient living things move in response to a stimulus.  Plants
move in response to changes in the weather or direction of the sun.
Cockroaches are known to scuttle away from light.  Night flying insects
fly towards streetlights.  Are plants, cockroaches, and other insects
sentient/aware?

Be carefull where you step, Simon.  You never know when you might
be taking an innocent insect's life.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7091 alt.activism.d:3764 alt.politics.elections:16094 alt.politics.bush:8620 alt.politics.clinton:9693 talk.politics.misc:50889 talk.abortion:41958
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
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
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 11 Oct 92 15:24:34 GMT
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
X-Posted-From: eng-nxt10.cso.uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:

: That's why I am pro-life. I believe every individual -- born or unborn
: -- has the potential to make a positive impact on society, and should
: have the opportunity to do so (before AND after birth!) Unlike many
: pro-life individuals whose primary concern is in the womb, I also
: believe as much in getting kids out of the ghetto.

Unfortunately an equivalent but opposite argument can be made.

"I believe every individual -- born or unborn -- has the potential to
make a negative impact on society."  You never know if that clump
of cells in a woman's body is going to become the world's next
politician, lawyer, mass-murderer, or Klan leader.

Yes, thinking about potentials is well and good.  Unfortunately
there are two edges to that sword....
--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6735 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5020
From: saunders@luther.che.wisc.edu (Brian E. Saunders)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:47:53 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison

In article <cortez.718439946@milton> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>
>Uh, just curious, but how many papers in Indiana are owned by the Pulliams?
>Roughly, how much of the total newspaper readership in Indiana read
>Pulliam-owned papers? And what did these papers say about the two
>candidates during the campaign season?

Quite a few, as the name "Knight-Pulliam Publishing" or somehting like that
was on quite a few of the papers.  But you have assumed that most of the
people who voted in Indiana read the papers religously and have assumed
that the ones who do believed them.  The 2nd assumption may be true, but
the 1rst assumption is definitely not.  But you will not get a disagreement
from me when you say that this was a major factor.  I just didn't think
that it was the largest factor.

Were you in Indiana in 1980?  Besides, Quayle was already in the House of
Representatives at that time.  Now if you want to blame the papers
completely for his ascent into the House in 1976, I probably would concur
completely.
-- 

Brian E. Saunders			saunders@luther.che.wisc.edu
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Subject: Comparing Rush and Bob Grant.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:33:16 GMT
Distribution: ny , nj
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center


For all the WABC listeners out there,  I would like to hear your
thoughts about comparing Rush and Bob Grant.  

Bob Grant is also on WABC on of Manhattan and he is on 4pm to 7pm
on weekdays.

Personally, I find Bob Grant more entertaining and less pompous.
I like Bob's way of making it sound like he is being forced to 
continue the show and that each caller is one less caller that
he has to take.  As if he is filling a quota.

Since my mother is from Naples, Italy,  I especially like his
curses in Italian (Naples dialect).

His curse to Mario (our famous governor) goes something like this:
"Mario! Mario! Tu si proprio nu sfacchimmo!"
If my sources are correct, he is calling the governor a "son of a bitch".

Does any else out there prefer Bob over Rush or am I all alone in this?

-- 
--
 Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
 From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7551 talk.abortion:42883
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:41:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <lefty-141092152611@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.012113.24098@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
>>
>> Geez, you people take absurdity at face value.
>
>Well, we take _you_ at face value.
>
Then you have no idea who I really am.  Look past what you read on you screen.
And read my last postings, which  clarify what I was talking about.

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: leescogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Lee)
Subject: Re: Columbus Day, 1992
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:08:50 GMT

In article <Bw3K7H.IHB@ns1.nodak.edu> jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen) writes:
>In article <39415@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>)
>)A good thing G*d does not read these newsgroups, otherwise man would
>)she be upset.
>
>hmmm .... God as a swear word.  Then what about Jesus?  Or ... Holy Ghost?
>
>please get your 'facts' straight before you post.  (HINT:  God isn't a woman)
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>NOR a swear word.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lighten up!  How do you know God isn't a woman?  G*d is neither male nor female
to the best of my knowledge.  I suppose you would get mad at the Jews for
referring to G*d as YHWH?


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:39:06 GMT

saunders@luther.che.wisc.edu (Brian E. Saunders) writes:

>In article <qojojm8@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.183808.18034@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>|> This intellectual tirade has stunned me.  Let me just ask one question, if
>>|> this guy is so dumb then how did he defeat the veteran Birch Bayhe (sp?)
>>|> in Indiana?  Perhaps you would care to conclude that the people of Indiana
>>|> are dumb too (hey, they elected Birch Bayhe :))
>>
>>He did it the usual way - tons of money, both his own and from outside
>>the state. Bayh's seat was targeted by the Republican National Committee
>>as one they felt might be vulnerable to a massive infusion of dollars and
>>Ronald Reagan's coattails. They were right. So Our Man Dan is a flesh-and-
>>blood living example of the Evils Of Big Money in our election process.

>Though this is besides the point, Birch Bayh was vulnerable for more reasons
>than money being pumped into a campaign.  Old Birch was responsible for
>passing bills which were very unpopular throughout Indiana, and were thought
>to have cost Indiana 1000's of jobs.  Of course, part of it was a sign of
>the times too, as the whole midwest was in a bad recession.....

Uh, just curious, but how many papers in Indiana are owned by the Pulliams?
Roughly, how much of the total newspaper readership in Indiana read
Pulliam-owned papers? And what did these papers say about the two
candidates during the campaign season?

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:20:04 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct13.004408.13860@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> Then you must also agree that an infant sucking on a woman's breast
> is also a "parasite", since the infant is living off the woman, 
> damaging her body, and giving her nothing if she does not want
> the infant.  

Must we?

I'd assume that if an infant is sucking on a woman's breast, it's the
woman's choice that it be there.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:20:28 GMT

In article <1bcjnsINN1j4@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.040509.9447@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>As the people depicted in my planned novel will be. ... The police
>>>>then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
>>>>against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....
>>>We'll see your truncheons and raise you fully automatic weapons.  We'll
>>>get you to your god that much faster. :-)
>>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.
>
>
>Ah, so in Simon's future world, the state is governed by force, and those
>who do not, in good faith, agree with thugs can be gunned down.
>
>Boy, ain't *that* a future to look forward to?
>
>I predict he'll sell approximately 3 million copies -- all to pro-choicers
>who will use such a book as political material OPPOSING just such an extreme
>and unviable future.
>
>Adrienne Regard
>Afraid of mere fiction?? Actually, only the guilty are subject to such
punishment, killers of children are facing execution.   It's only a story...

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:44:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.221124.27909@news.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:

>> Maybe it's me, but when a baby (or a baby-to-be, whatever you'd like to
>> call it!) becomes a PARASITE, I think there's a MAJOR problem with our
>> society.

> Why? It IS a parasite. It's living off the woman in who's body it
> is living. It is damaging her body and giving her nothing  if she does
> not want it.

Then you must also agree that an infant sucking on a woman's breast
is also a "parasite", since the infant is living off the woman, 
damaging her body, and giving her nothing if she does not want
the infant.  


>Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6831 alt.activism.d:3632 alt.politics.elections:15571 alt.politics.bush:8128 alt.politics.clinton:9013 talk.politics.misc:50212 talk.abortion:41274
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
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: 6 Oct 92 16:51:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct6.015922.5611@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <ld0okmINN8b6@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> I have one solution, and I'll get nuclear flamed for it, but what is
>>|> wrong with abstinence as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
>>|> BTW--anyone notice that I've kept my postings on the level, without the
>>|> sarcasm of the replies I get???
>
>My husband wouldn't like it is an objection that pops into my mind.
>:-)
>
>One issue that the anti-abortion folks really are unwilling to deal
>with is that many of the women who seek to terminate pregnancies
>are literally not in any economic shape to continue them. There is
>a great deal of handwaving at 'forcing employers' to provide unpaid
>leave, but no real help with expenses and childcare. Many women work
>at jobs that don't offer health benefits.To go on welfare would often cause them to have to evict their husbands.

This is patently false.  87% of americans have comprehensive health 
care plans.  In addition, there are infertile couples waiting in line 
to pay for the expenses of pregnant women who will then let those 
infertile couples adopt her baby.

Ted

-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7697 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5560