HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 21:23:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.200928.2970@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.182904.8860@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>
>>I thought that's what I said?! If the court decided abortion is
>>constitutionally illegal, then no law can be passed to "legalize" it.
>>Constitutional amendment is required.
>
>	You're still missing the point. The court could, if it wanted,
>uphold a law that made abortion illegal, but it cannot decide that abortion
>is illegal. IF congress passed a law making abortion illegal, and IF the
>supreme court upheld the law, ONLY THEN could no law be passed to legalize it.
>In fact, if congress passed such a law, the supreme court would probably
>have to throw it out anyway, for the same reason that it will presumably
>overturn roe-v-wade.

That's exactly what I said, that's exactly what I meant, and that's
exactly my point! I said it in 2 sentences, 3 lines, 27 words, or 171
characters, instead of 4 sentences, 7 lines, 81 words, and 458
characters. 8-) What's your problem?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 14:55:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.215514.944@desire.wright.edu> psmoker@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> I am from Earth. How about you? You asked that question, I supposed
>> you must have come from a planet different than mine.
>> Do you know who Al Gore is? You think he doesn't listen to those
>> wackos? How about all those liberal government officials? Have you
>  ^^^^^^
>Had you used this at the beginning of the letter, I would not have gone on.
>As it is, it just shows your religious devotion to what you believe is true,
>and your refusal to consider any other view. Right.

It takes one to know one.

---
Ed
From: jeffb@gatecom.UUCP (Jeff Breitner)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 23:43:54 EDT
Organization: Gateway Communication Inc.

sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:

> I don't care if Clinton smoked pot.  People do stupid things when they are 
> young.  The trouble is, in the same sentence that he said he didn't like it, 
> also said the he didn't inhale.  How can he know that he didn't like it if he
> didn't inhale?  Even when Clinton admits things he still can't tell the truth
> All you pot smokers out there - isn't it pretty impossible to get a buzz ( an
> know whether you like it or not) if you don't inhale or ingest the drug 
> somehow?
> 
> Susan Schudt
 
Would certainly seem that way to me.  The classic that I like (and further
pointed out by Rush) was the one where he said in front of a Jewish
organization that he'd run a Kosher kitchen 
 
My dad always told me that if you keep your mouth open people will
try to shove all sorts of sh** into it.
From: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Date: 10 Apr 92 06:17:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: milestn.36
Reply-To: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Organization: Milestone R/D Labs, Milw. WI

In article <1992Apr7.163726.1023@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>Sorry, I cannot assume that everyone has tried it until proven
>otherwise. Since there is no accusation against Bush (and other
>officials), and there is no evidence, 

1) Dan Quayle has been accused of pot smoking, and quite regualary in his
younger days.  (Shepard Express)  The article went on to mention a 
speech of Dan's in Indiana where he submitted a bill (or some such) for
the legalization of pot.  I'm sure the validity can be checked, as I'm
sure advociation of such a postion doesn't mean one is a user of pot.
2) What do you consider acusations, and what do you consider evidance?
I've heard of no one accusing Bill of smoking pot, only Bill telling
us how he tried it once.  I've heard accusations of George Bush sleeping
around with some aid in a motel room......

>>    Personally, I would wonder about the judgement and character of
>>anyone who managed to live through the 60's without being even a little 
>>curious about what all the fuss was about. 
>
>Hey, Speak for yourself. I've never tried it, and have no intention
>of trying it. I am a professional, went to good colleges, and have
>excelleent judgment.

I see.  So 'professionalism', going to 'good colleges' and having
'execllent judgement' is the end all and be all, thus preventing you 
from doing something "stupid" eh?

When was your last drinking binge?  Eating binge?  How often do you 
charge on your credit card more than you can afford in one month?

I guess comming from such a wonderful background qualifies you for
the abilty to judge others?

>Has it ever occurred to you that because of our excellent judgment
>that's why we have never tried it?

Anal retentiveness perhaps?
-- 
Marc Rassbach       marcr@studsys.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.
From: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:59:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: milestn.35
Reply-To: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Organization: Milestone R/D Labs, Milw. WI

>attribute lost.  :-(
In article <1992Apr9.020634.12777@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>> When Clinton admits, Rush
>>calls him a drug fiend. When Rush admits, people come to his defense. 
>>I agree, there is no issue.

>   Good point, but Rush isn't about to hold himself up as a potential 
>leader of the U.S. 

Patrick, Clue time.  The 'no issue' comment was SARCASM.

> Rush isn't making decisions that affect many people
>behind closed doors.  Justice Ginzberg would have been making these kinds of
>decisions and Bill Clinton (although he never will) would like to find 
>himself in this lofty position.  

Both parties to the best of or knowledge have never operated heavy
machinery (or political power) while under the influance of 'pot'.


>As for Rush's media power, if those who 
>listen to his show thought that his mind was warped or that he really
>couldn't do the show with half his brain tied behind his back,

When Rush says he's only using 1/2 of his brain, I believe him.
Such a statement explains alot about Rush.

>would have the good sense not to listen.  It remains to be seen as to 
>whether the public buys Bill's credibility - 

If you are looking for crediblity in a public official, look at your local
level.  There seems to be some kind of law...the only way to get in on a
national level is to be dishonest.

>in conjunction with his infidelity, I doubt it.

Why does Bill's sexual habbits matter?

>                                    -Patrick Conway

Pat, Aprox 1 week ago a fellow reader 'called you on the carpet.'  Any
reason you have not responded?  I'm interested in knowing.

-- 
Marc Rassbach       marcr@studsys.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.
From: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:43:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: milestn.39
Reply-To: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Organization: Milestone R/D Labs, Milw. WI

In article <1992Apr8.145315.25196@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> So what do the dittoheads think? Do you think that 500,000
>people gathered in one place for one reason is a fringe group? 

Is 500,000 people hanging on Rush Limbaugh's words every day a fringe
group?  How about 3,000,000?  Or is it because the 500,000 AGREE with 
Rush Limbaugh III, they are not 'fringe' or 'nimbrods' but part of
a few, select people who beleive in greatness?

>Is it
>possible that Rush no longer speaks for America, and is now just a
>toady to the Republican party? 

If the accusiations of Rush Limbaugh III showing up on his conferance
on Compu$erve as an alias are true, then Rush is worse than a toady.
He's a man who claims to 'stand by his words', and yet sneaks around
as an alias deleting the words of others.

Come on Rush, be a man.  If you are going to censor, do it as 
Rush Limbaugh III, not as an alias.

> The big question in my mind, though, is this: If 500,000
>people is still insignificant, how many people does it take to be a
>representative population? Would 5 million be enough (thats 2% of the

A representative population is best expressed by the number of 
listeners to Rush Limbaugh Radio Program.  The proof is left (or
should that be right) up to Rush.


-- 
Marc Rassbach       marcr@studsys.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.
From: psmoker@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:02:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1992Apr13.220255.945
Organization: Wright State University

In article <44@milestn.UUCP>, marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
> In article <1992Apr10.151046.6425@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
> <In article <35@milestn.UUCP> marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
> <<Why does Bill's sexual habbits matter?
> <
> <Why don't you ask Slick, "What is the best way to prevent AIDS?"
> <Do you think he can credibly say "monogomy?" Well, abstinence is
> <not practical.
> 
Why could he not credibly say "monogomy?" He knows he is putting himself at
risk. As do all the pot smokers, the beer and wine drinkers, and on a more
realistic level, anybody who ever gets into a 2 ton death machince called
a car. I can still credibly say the best way not to get into a car accident
is to not get into a car, and then drive home...

> Again Ed, Why does Bill's sexual habbits matter?
> -- 
> Marc Rassbach       marcr@studsys.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.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 16:37:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.124240.9332@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>    I think the people who do "give a shit" are the extreme zero-
>tolerance crowd. There really are some people who think that even a
>single puff is an unforgivable sin, so I sort of understand why public
>figures start trying to dodge and side-step when the question of *any*
>past drug use of any kind comes up. The question of judgement is bound
>to arise, but I wouldn't say that one-time drug use is indicative of 
>anything worse than an active sense of curiosity.

Sorry, I cannot assume that everyone has tried it until proven
otherwise. Since there is no accusation against Bush (and other
officials), and there is no evidence, I have to give Bush the benefit
of the doubt. I have to say that, in this matter, the "others" are
a little bit better than those "dope smokers." I don't like Bush
or the "other" officials, but I have to be fair.

>    Personally, I would wonder about the judgement and character of
>anyone who managed to live through the 60's without being even a little 
>curious about what all the fuss was about. 

Hey, Speak for yourself. I've never tried it, and have no intention
of trying it. I am a professional, went to good colleges, and have
excelleent judgment.
Has it ever occurred to you that because of our excellent judgment
that's why we have never tried it?
From: psmoker@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: FemiNazis (was: Re Tuesday 4/7/92)
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:10:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1992Apr13.221039.946
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Wright State University

In article <41@milestn.UUCP>, marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.045615.28609@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin) writes:
>>In article <9=rj0qg.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>>>Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show
>>>
>>>Why do the feminazis fear the democratic process? Evidently they
>>
>>BTW what does the term feminazis [sic?] really mean?  In the context
>>that follows it looks like Rush is trying for a pejorative adjective
>>to make any woman who thinks that some abortions are justified to be
>>the equivalent of Hitler.  If that is the wrong intepretation, then
>>the term nazi should not be used.  Nazi is not a casual pejorative!
> 
> What does the term feminazi REALLY mean?  Webster doesn't have it,
> nor does the OED.  (and the OED is the legal def. ergo legally the word
> has no meaning.)
> 
> So you have to rely on the usage.  
> 
> Now this is where things get fun.  Rush Limbaugh III USES the word
> to mean any woman who expresses feminist viewpoints.  Rush ALSO
> will tell you that the word REALLY means 13-15 'hardcore' 
> feminists.  
> 
> So which definition do you use?  What Rush says it is, or how Rush uses
> the word?
> 
> I'd say use the definition based on how Rush uses the word, and call
> the 'formal' definition backpeddling to save face.
> 
So, either Rush is connect the nazi movement with feminism to imply that
feminism is an elite movement that wants to kill everyone else, or he is
downplaying the role of the nazis, and consequently the holocost in WWII, 
thereby supporting Nazism. Either way, I'm offended.

> 
> -- 
> Marc Rassbach       marcr@studsys.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.

Geosh VonVathauer
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 16:44:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.164806.15602@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
> ...[Deleted]...
>But when you make the statement that anyone who
>hasn't tried pot has good judgement (sounds like a general statement) you
>start creating an intellectual upper and lower class on the basis of one 
>issue - not good. 

Come on! You know I didn't say "anyone," stop putting words in my
mouth. You also know I didn't try to create "seperate" classes, too.
You are the one who's mentioning it. Stop reading into what I say.
I said something like "Have you ever considered those of us who did
try pot because of our excellent judgment." That does not NECESSARILY
mean everyone who never tried pot have good judgment, does it? For
those who want to go to the EXTREME, it can be interpreted that way.
But I thought you folks have more common sense than that. (Come on,
no flame.) I can only be responsible for what I say and what I mean.
I can't be responsible for what you think. Think at your own risk. 8-)

Matter closed!

---
Ed
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 13:58:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.191232.39363@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 2frjbits@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Preston J. Park) writes:
>No, I can't see the court doing that.  The court now is >constructionist< not
>conservative as the press would miss inform us.  The Supreme Court be much
>more likely to rule any new legislation legal despite RvW (Remember the New
>Deal courts), since saying the Constitution outlaws abortion is just as stupid 
>as saying it protects it.

Have you seen the American Constitution series on PBS? One topic
was abortion, is it Constitutional? The discussions were excellent,
from both sides. One, I believe it was Robert Bork, mentioned that
the Constitution guarantees all people the right to life, liberty,
and the pursue of happiness. If the unborn is "ruled" to be a "life,"
then abortion must be unconstitutional. May I remind you that
Robert Bork is a firm believer in seperation of power.
Whether it's stupid or smart, it's a matter of opinion.

---
Ed
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: turnerrw@ssvax1.ssd.loral.com (Robert Turner)
Subject: SF Bay Area Stations
Organization: Space Systems/Loral
Distribution: us
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:15:24 GMT

Greetings,

I'm looking for stations and broadcast times for Rush's show in the SF Bay Area.  Please respond
via e-mail or postings on the net.

Thanks.
Robert Turner
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:32:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.145243.6031@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:

>I agree with you up to this point. I think Row vs Wade will be
>overturned. But I don't know what the consequence will be. I don't
>know whether it will be turned over to the states or simply
>UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If unconstitutional (based on protecting the life
>of the unborn child), then States can't legalize it too. I don't
>think Congress can pass a law to allow it either, since the
>Constitution has precedence. If Congress had passed a law, then
>the law would be unconstitutional, by definition. The Constitution
>must be changed. Am I right about this?

	Close, but not quite. The Supreme Court cannot find that 
legal abortion is unconstitutional, unless legal abortion was made into
a law (ie: congress passes a law limiting abortion laws). This is because
the Supreme Court does not make laws.

	What can happen is that the supreme court can examine roe v. wade,
and throw it out, possibly on constitutional grounds. That decision would
allow laws to be made that restricted abortion. At that point, the Senate
and House could get together and make a federal law restricting abortion,
but it would probably be thrown out by the court for the same reason as
roe v. wade (ie: it's a states rights issue).

	The far right side of the republican party is lobbying to enact a
constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion, which is the ultimate way
to bring the country around to one way of thinking. If you are in favor 
of this, I urge you to lobby your contact party office and make this part
of the official Republican Party Platform.


-- 
#################################		           :alex.
#Disclaimer: Anyone who agrees  #                 Systems Programmer
#with me deserves what they get.#    University of Maryland Baltimore County
#################################	    alex@umbc3.umbc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: the "Anita Hill Report"
Keywords: copy grovel
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 13:51:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.004026@birch.cs.Virginia.EDU> mad5c@birch.cs.Virginia.EDU
 (Michael DeLong) writes:
>Does some benevolent soul have a copy of the American Spectator
>"Anita Hill Report" willing to send a poor graduate student a
>Xerox copy?
>
>I'm just not prepared to drop change on a magazine I've never seen
>for a report of dubious value.
>
>I'm also looking for the Rubbergate list, if anyone has seen it.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Mike.
>
>
>


It would cost a lot to copy it too! =)  Really, the article is VERY long.(15 
pages, small print!)  I
would suggest buying the mag.  But, if you really want me to copy it
send me e-mail and i will!
-- 
Susan E. Schudt
Dept. of Chemical Engineering - Ohio State
"When you're right, you're right!"
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: iadmr@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Reply-To: iadmr@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:51:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.111117.1977@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>In article <53798@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> jan@oas.olivetti.com writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.153752.20990@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr7.200503.9860@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu 
>>>(Alex S. Crain) writes:
>>>>	I thought that the artical was classically conservative - try and
>>>>show how a certain section of society is defined by the criminal class,
>>>>and attempt to punish that section based on that relationship. I wonder if
>>>>she considers herself pro-family?
>>>
>>>    Strange, I thought that the article was classically extremist - 
>>>first outline a problem in simplistic terms, and then use statistics to
>>>try and blame all instances of the problem on some unrelated and probably
>>>innocent third party. I wonder if she's in favor of a negotiated compromise
>>>about who should pay in light of the fact that she benefits from locking
>>>up these dangerous criminals just as much as the rest of us.
>>
>>Are y'all serious?
>
>    No, Jan, not really. I was just sort of playing out the parable of
>the blind men and the elephant (each blind man felt a different part of
>the elephant, so to one the elephant was a wall, to another it was a
>tree, etc).
>
>>Face it -- if you want to "simplify" about white men, you're extremist, if
>>you want to "simplify" about black people or women or anybody else, you're 
>>conservative.
>
>    That sounds like a little bit of a simplification in itself. What
>does simplification about Usenet postings make you? (intelligent probably).
>
>-- 
>Nathan Engle             Software Juggler
>Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
>nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu

I put a copy of this article on Compuserve in the Rush Limbaugh section and he
deleted it!  I'm pretty sure it was him.  I saw "ENOS SLOBODNIK" logged on with
his user ID.  My message was on there just before ol' Enos signed on and was
gone after he left.  How old is this story?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark R. Rogstad		| Bitnet: IADMR@MTSUNIX1
Technology Education	| Internet: IADMR@msu.oscs.montana.edu
Montana St. University	| Compuserve: 76366,472
Bozeman, MT   59717	| GEnie: M.ROGSTAD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Always Question Authority", George Weber, KOA Radio, Denver, CO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh