HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:00:46 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 720967796@cunews, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>In <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.
>Forget it! You think that just because Bush is no longer in power that
>suddenly none of us are going to be interested in what Rush has to
>say?!
>Keep the Limbaugh groups. If you wanna kill something, try
>alt.fan.dan-quayle.

The a.f.d-q group will probably whither away soon.  I think people are already
losing interest in the guy.  a.f.r-l will be around for awhile.  I wouldn't
be too concerned about it.

---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:25:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:

> 
> 	It wasn't a record turnout, but it was certainly higher than in
> '88 or '84 (1988 turnout: 50.1% of eligible voters; 1992: 54% of eligible 
> voters - a welcome trend).  Bill Clinton won the presidency with a smaller
> proportion of the vote than Mike Dukakis got in 1988.  This does not
> diminish his victory.  I'm eager to see what he will do as president.
> I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But he
> has no popular mandate, so he must, as he promised he would last night
> in his victory speech, work to deserve the support of the Bush and Perot 
> voters who together constitute the majority of the electorate. 
> 
> 
> Andrew Aiken

I did not vote for Sad King Billy, but I, too hope that he does well.
The fact that he did not get a mandate (an assinine concept anyway)
is not very important.  In fact, it may be good.  
I honestly hope that Clinton is responsible about dealing with the
deficit, and I hope the need to get the support of people who
did not vote for him will keep him communicating with the public.

Billy does have an advantage with Congress, and this may mitigate
the non-mandate thing, but the congress may still fight him.
Congress did not exactly make things simple for Jimmy.


doug
>
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Music on the Radio Show
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:35:04 GMT
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.

In article <92315.231124BJGLEAS@auvm.american.edu> BJGLEAS@auvm.american.edu (bj gleason) writes:
>Does anybody know the name of the music that is played at the beginning of
>the radio show?
>
>thanks...
>
>bj

" My City Was Gone"  - the Pretenders...

I think thats the name of the song, but I'm not absolutely certain,
the group I'm sure of...

God bless,

Michael



-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Plymouth State Women's Soccer - #2 in the nation (Div. 3)  (15-0-2)
 Three wins from the national championship.  v. U MA Dartmouth  Sun.
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: To JRS et.al-coexist
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 17:23:20 EST
Organization: ACME products - artillery division

crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

> If you want to read some REAL un-patriotic, un-american statments I suggest
> you look up Rep. Maxine Waters' statements in the wake of the LA riots.  That
> this woman has not been impeached for conduct unbecoming a Representative is
> symptomatic of what is wrong with the Congress.

On the other hand, if we could get more people like Waters in congress, maybe
people would get so disgusted with the whole freak show that they'd simply
shoot all 535 of them.


--
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: You probably missed this
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:27:00 GMT


AP-Republicans-Out                                                


                                                ----------------  
                                                ! GENERAL NEWS !
---------------------------------------------------------------- 
                      Limbaugh, Ailes make surprise announcement
-----------------------------------------------------------------

^                                                         
(New York City) -- Long time Republican strategist Roger Ailes
and Rush Limbaugh, author of the best-selling book "The way
things out to be" held a joint news conference this morning to
announce that they are both homosexual and plan to be wed.

Ailes, holding a copy of Limbaugh's best-selling book, "The way
things out to be" described the decision as "difficult, yet
necessary."  Saying also, "drapes were cleaner, easier to
breathe, amazing results from the first day" he admitted that, in
fact, most hard-core Republicans are closet gays that have
yearned to be free for the past 12 years."

Holding a copy of his best-selling book, "The way things out to
be", in his formerly nicotine-stained fingers,  Limbaugh admitted
that although the recent Democratic victory in the presidential
election had come as a great shock, that both he and Ailes took
it as a sign from God that, quote "things had loosened up in this
country to the point where we could finally unmask ourselves." 
Limbaugh also reported "Wow, Spanish is easy!"

The happy couple told the assembled reporters of gifts they have
given each other to celebrate the occasion:  Limbaugh, author of
the best-selling book, "The way things out to be" gave Ailes a
specially-tailored shirt that sports a custom collar large enough
to be buttoned around Ailes' neck. 
Holding a copy of Limbaugh's best-selling book, "The way things
out to be," Ailes described the relief he felt at actually being
able to wear a tie again.  For his part, Ailes presented Limbaugh
with a copy of the best-selling book "The way things out to be,"
for his collection.

Asked about their future plans, Limbaugh and Ailes said they
would honeymoon on a tramp steamer, describing the difficulty
they would have occupying a berth in the same standard size
stateroom at the same time.
Following their return to New York, Ailes described their plans
to create a child saying, "we have so much to give."  When
pressed on the question of how two gay men would be able to
create an offspring, Limbaugh, holding a copy of his best-selling
book "The way things out to be" in his formerly nicotine-stained
fingers answered, "Liposuction."  Adding, "after all, how much
television can we watch?"

APTV-11-10-92 0804CST<



+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu (brian h. harper)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 08:18:32 GMT

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.190713.18501@henson.cc.wwu.edu> brian h. harper,
>n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu writes:
>>Yes, a mandate to not have Bush, but using this logic, the majority (57%)
>>voted against Clinton. That, too is a mandate. Course it won't matter
>>because he won. Does it feel good to have a Pres that the majority of
>voters
>>don't want? 

>You do realise how counterproductive, pointless, and devicive
>this discussion is, don't you? We have work to do dammit!
>Help us get it done.

I will help to do one thing: eliminate the electoral college. I have already
sent numerous letters to my representatives, and encourage all others to do
the same. Please realise I'm this concerned about it not because I think
Bill didn't deserve to win, but because the system is undemocratic and works
against third-party and independent candidates. As for "working with the
president". Where was this attitude from Democrats the last four years? I
support my president when I agree with him. If I agree with Bill's plans,
great, if not, then I'll fight them. That's the way democracy is supposed to
work. Expecting everyone to support Bill in whatever he does is simply
ridiculous. He has to earn that support. I'll give him the chance he
deserves though. I wish him the best of luck. 

-Brian Harper


>Norman

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




>When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
>                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: WANKERS
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:04:13 GMT

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:
>
 (very poor artwork omitted)

 I know if I was Bill Clinton, I'd be glad to have such supporters as this.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Conservatism isn't dead.
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:10:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.141216.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
> Conservatism isn't dead 
> it just hit a speed bump.

I like to think that we just ran over a liberal. So, we backed up for a second,
and we will run over them again in 1996.   >:-)
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
From: sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush boycott
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 20:11:10 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

Dream on  . . . I'll never give up my Snapple!
  -=SJT=-
sjthomas@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: enor@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Dan Quayle My Hero !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:08:48 GMT

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. 

-----------------------
The good thing about this election is that through CSPAN America finally saw
the real DAN QUAYLE and what they saw was good.

**********
Dan and Marilyn Quayle for President in 1996.  

Robert R. Eno A Conservative voice in Liberal Massachusetts
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett)
Subject: You don't listen to/watch the shows.  So why post here?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:23:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.155733.26123@uts.cc.wayne.edu> tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson) writes:
>My comments are based solely on what I'm reading here. I did not watch
>(have never watched) his show.

   Then why do you bother to post here?  This newsgroup is called 
"alt.FAN.rush-limbaugh", not "alt.bash.rush-limbaugh".  I get enough flack for
posting to the comp.sys.amiga newsgroups when I no longer own an Amiga.  By
the same token, I do not understand why people like you post here who have
never heard or seen Rush Limbaugh and probably would not know him from
George Bush.  

   If you are going to continue to post here, at least give yourself a 
tiny amount of credibility by listening to his radio show and/or watching
his TV show once in a while.  You have zero credibility here otherwise.

>     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
>      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
>     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
>                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
--------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Summary Wed 11/4/92
Keywords: Rush Limbaugh Unofficial Summary
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:57:25 GMT

jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:


>for Wednesday, November 4, 1992

>by John Switzer

>-- 
>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>                           | Support the coup!
>CompuServe: 74076,1250     |
>Internet: jrs@netcom.com   |

Well, you know there is growing talk of the possibility that Clinton
will be impeached.  And then we'd be left with Algore for President.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8492 alt.politics.clinton:17026
From: RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: This is OUTRAGEOUS...
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:34:03 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Blah....Blah about draft-dodging. BILL CLINTON is NOt a DrAFT DODGER.
He  avoided  service by legal means. You may not like it but it is NOT DRAFT DO
DGING.

I don't see any contradiction in his honoring veterans even if he is not one. I
f you stick to this criterion we can only have ex-military men for high office
or continue to fight wars to have a frtesh supply of "veterans".

An aside is the fact of so many veterans I meet even in a wealthy neighborhood
like Palo Alto who are scarred physically and mentally and little is done to he
lp them. So what do you want keep beating the drums of a war which left serious
 scars or heal them . I say let us cooperate with a President who has stated hi
s desire to heal these wounds. So PLEASEEEEEE get off these stupid egotistical
misguided hobby horses and do SOME THING for our fellow citizens.

rajagopalan
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:53:52 GMT

EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:

>Or you could look at it this way: 2 thirds voted against the incumbent.
>That's a mandate.

Or you could look at it this way: More than 50% voted against the winner.
That's NO mandate!
-- 
     ____  __   __       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:8646 talk.politics.misc:60314
From: michael@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Michael of Nebadon)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Date: 16 Nov 92 05:42:45 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <BxrEAF.I3K@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>
>Seriously though, I've wondered what impact the recently passed legislation
>in several states will have on the operation of Congress.  Since the choice
>leadership positions are based at least partially on seniority, aren't
>those states putting themselves at a disadvantage?  I've always favored
>term limits but it seems to me that they should be applied across the
>board.

The speculation is that once a sufficient number of states have terms limts,
their members will use their votes in Congress to get it applied at the
Federal level. They'll have a big incentive to do so in the disadvantage
you list above. Some have speculated that such efforts could be killed in
committee by the chairman (who would, in all probability, be from a no-limit
state). I think it's likely that once some critical mass of Congress members
were in favor of limits, they could get it out of committee. After all, would
you want that many members against you when your personal pork-laden bill
came up for voting?  ;-)

michael@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Better news software.  NSF grant fron Al Gore anyone?  Was Re: Statistics in the eye of the beholder
Date: 8 Nov 1992 03:04:20 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov7.052046.1404@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.185859.8214@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>In article <1d8sniINNsb7@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
[The original part of the thread where someone said 60-70% of the
people where 'scared' of a clinton prez and it was implyed these people
even voted for clinton.  (or at least some of them)  Thus the
%age was questioned.  And a Rush poll was held up to ask the BIG question
"how valid are your numbers?  how did you obtain them?  Are they
biased?  What conclusions can you draw?  And does the conclusion you
draw from the data seem valid, or are you streching it thin?"  Thus
we come full circle......]
>This does not look like to me what he was trying to say.  To me it
>looks like what he was trying to say was that the people who participated
>in Rush's poll make up what is sometimes called a biased sample.
>
>However by your standards, implied by your reply, it could be said
>that since on the order of 63% of the people voted against Bush,
>then Bush was "out of touch with this fine land".

Does anyone feel that new news software would help stop a thread
comming back to (close) to it's starting post?

And the bigger question:
Will Al Gore have the NFS pay someone to do it?  
(Hey, Aikken.  Here's your chance.  Write the software while on the  side
track Rush-Clinton weight and claim the only way you can write the
code is on that small island you wanted to buy.  Al will get you a 
fiber internet connection too.  Just tell 'em you voted 'em in and
they will BUY the island to facilitate the project.)


-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8050 alt.rush-limbaugh:9155
From: joltman@doctor-pepper.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. facts
Date: 6 Nov 1992 16:10:37 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
NNTP-Posting-Host: doctor-pepper.ai.mit.edu

In article <grendel.721004596@camelot>, grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
|> In <1992Nov2.022055.7768@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >	I've been really wondering about the GOP tactic of trying to
|> >convice the public that they are not really miserable. Assuming that
|> >things are really better then they seem, it strikes me as poor
|> >political judgement to tell the general public that they are wrong.
|> 
|> I know.  That's why Bush lost, with statements like "our economy is the envy
|> of the world".  His false optimism backfired.
|> 
|> >	I don't catch Rush's show often, but I'm beginning to believe that 
|> >I could pick any day at random, and catch Rush in at least one bold faced
|> >lie over the course of his show. As Rush gets more and more like _The New
|> >Federalist_ I've got to wonder why anyone would want information that is
|> >in all likelyhood, false? After all - if you have to verify everything
|> >somewhere else, why not get it somewhere else to start with?
|> 
|> People will believe lies rather than admit they're wrong, in general.
|> (I know that statement will come back to haunt me).  But conservative
|> extremists who can't find anyone to support their rantings and ravings
|> LOVE Rush.  They don't care if he lies; all they care about is that he
|> doesn't challenge their viewpoints.  Limbaugh is a safe haven for any
|> right extremist to be as ridiculous as they want without fear of ridicule.
|> 
|> 

Personally, I like they way he stretches the truth to the elastic
limit without technically lying.  He's pretty good at convincing
his listeners to draw outrageous conclusions from facts -- but look
at the audience and it's not quite as impressive, after all.  It's
not like these ditto-heads put up any resistence to Rush's mind
games.
-- 
T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
From: dp
Subject: Re: Liberals want to remove Admendment #10? (was Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:05:05 GMT

In article <1dmsi9INNa87@agate.berkeley.edu>, curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov9.225116.7508@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:

<stuff deleted>

|> Now the problem here as I think you can see is that the Texas National
|> Guard is all full of middle-aged rednecks with Budweiser bellies, wide
|> belts, and lizard-skin boots who would have some trouble bustin Oprah
|> Winfrey's ass let alone Uncle Sam's, seein as the latter is just
|> crawlin with these psycho nineteen-year-olds, got muscles and every
|> kind of lethal weaponry.
|> 
|> And in addition, they Communists.  The lot of them.  So you kin
|> see where the troubles a this country is comin from.

The problem here is that you assume that it would be the Texas National Guard
that would police such matters.  Texas is the only state that joined the Union
via a treaty.  One of the provisions of that treaty is that Texas maintained
the right to have both an army and a navy, which it does (and these are NOT
the National Guard units).  The problem that Texas has is that it has a
liberal governor who loves to spend taxpayer monies.  For example, within two
weeks of taking office she had raised the budget of the governor's office by
over $1 million/year.  This sort of spending makes Texas vulnerable to federal
blackmail -- you know, the sort that gives us a "national" speed limit ('any
state that does not establish a maximum spped limit of 55 MPH will not receive
federal highway funds').

***  The opinions are mine (maybe) and do not necessarily represent those  ***
***  of my employer.                                                       ***
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton