HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush is anti-American
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:29:13 GMT

(Michael J. Chilton) writes:
>       I was a frequent listener to the Rush Limbaugh program, and 
>liked the words he said very much, but all that has changed. Now that 
>he is on the case of Bill Clinton, the President of the United States 
>of America, it is not funny anymore. 

    I hate to say this, but you ought to lighten up.

>Rush can find something to be funny about that would help to unite 
>America instead of to divide it. He is only making the problem of an 
>un-united nation worse. 

    I don't doubt that Rush has a backlog of really good stuff that he 
could draw upon if he'd give the Clinton tirades a rest, but he calls 
the shots. He's the host.

    I would agree that Rush's position is one which discourages compromise 
and encourages extremists of both sides to become even more radical. I'm 
not going to try to tell you that it's a good thing, but he's welcome to 
his opinion. If it really bothers you that much then I advise you to vote 
with your feet and stop listening.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15284 talk.abortion:58230
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:55:33 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.120413.27404@wam.umd.edu>, judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein

>> Here's another question for you: is masturbation ethical?

>        Why yes...masturbation IS ethical...but not morally right.
>Masturbation is an act to relieve sexual tension to get...once again...self
>gratification!  This is also frowned on by Christianity.

So you miss everything else (or agree with it) and then respond only
to this last tidbit. I've got some further questions for you:

If masturbation is immoral and frowned on by christianity, then what
does christianity think about the masturbation of stud horses? (Recalling
that this is done to keep the stud horse in good health when he doesn't
perform his services regularly enough to keep himself in good health)

If it is immoral, what does Xtianity think about the masturbating monkeys?
(Are they all going to hell?)

How about those monkeys that have exhibited "homosexual" tendencies?
(From a study where monkeys were observed to wait until the male-female
were finished coupling, and then the female went off with another female)

No wonder Xtians are such a sour-puss lot, they do a lot of frowning.

-Apologies to all those christians who are of better fiber than this
dogma spitting unthinking replica of a person.

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 06:02:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.222238.14959@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>In article <C1Bs2B.CpE@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>After all, I am a human and you are a human.  Logic suggests that you
>>do all the things that humans do.
>
>You confusse general and particular things people do.

I don't.  This argument was presented in sarcasm, Alberto -- I'm sorry
I assumed you'd realize that.  *Your* argument hinges in the confusion
of the general and the particular.

>Yes, we can assume that heterosexuals have sex with people of the 
>opposite sex. It does not mean that A PARTICULAR person does it. 
>It just means that HETEROSEXUALS in General, do it.

By the same reasoning, while we can assume that homosexuals, in
general, have sex with members of the same sex, we cannot assume that
a particular one does.  That was originally your thesis -- that we
*can* assume such a thing.  You have just disproved your own argument;
congratulations!

>>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
>
>Say bye to Rock from me.

Ten points for cleverness, Alberto.  Minus fifty for humanity.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14671 alt.politics.clinton:20784 alt.politics.bush:16194 alt.politics.homosexuality:9948
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 18:02:59 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> Please point to one statement that we have made suggesting
> that anybody we disagree with should lose their jobs,
> homes, or children.  That they should be beaten up or
> murdered on the streets.  That their civil rights should in
> any way, shape, or form be curtailed.

Melinda, please point out to me where _I_ have said that anyone 
_I_ disagree with should lose their jobs, homes, or children; 
that they should be beaten up or murdered on the streets; that 
their civil rights should in any way, shape, or form be curtailed.
Yet, I can be called a bigot and a homophobe.  From what you've 
wrote, you are as bigoted (and ignorant about) Christians as 
you say others are to/of yourself.   

> I am emphatically not anti-Christian.  The problem I have
> here is that some self-identified Christians are using
> inconsistent application of Biblical precepts to justify
> persecuting gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, 

Like Leviticus?  Anyone who questions why Christians view 
homosexuality as wrong, but don't have a problem with eating 
pork, haven't the slightest clue as to what Christians believe 
on these things, or why.  Definitly one of the more bizarre 
red herrings you'll find.  

> and that
> they're trying to put the weight of law behind their
> religious beliefs. 

Not all Christians want to see their religious views made into 
law.  See Steve Adams's discussion of abortion in talk.religion.misc. 
Many do, but by no means all.  And those that do are generally 
mainly concerned with what they percieve as an atmosphere of 
anti-morality that is surrounding them, and influencing their 
children. 

> It's important,
> however, that we recognize that those who hate are the ones
> who are responsible for their own hatred,

You know, that makes a lot of sense.  Too bad you and the Robert 
Johnson's, Jess Anderson's, and Bob Donahue's of the world have 
such tunnel vision that they can only see this concept from 
their own point of view.  The nastiness and venomness of typical 
posts from Tim Pierce and others shows _deep_ hatred.  

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:01:03 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams) writes:

>>Oh, Edward?  Did you know that flaming a person because of hir
>>spelling, hir grammer, and/or hir use of the old standard of typing
>>completely in lowercase is bad form and another sign of a 
>>net.clueless person?

>>Michael D. Adams

>BTW, what's this "hir" stuff?  [Editor's note: Edward is asking
>to point out the innate silliness of this new grammatical convention]

> E.S.

There are many ways that people attempt to be more accurate and descriptive
in their use of personal pronouns than the original speakers of English were.
They can simply use plural.  (takes an effort to be gramatically consistent)
One can use "one" instead of "he" (or "she"), but one can get confused when
one is dedicated to saying "one" for every individual one mentions.  He or she
could use the phrasing "he or she" (which is most accurate), or he/she could
use "he/she" or "s/he" and so on.  A few daring people construct a new hybrid
pronoun that litterally means "he or she" but has fewer letters and is not
prejudiced to one half or the other.  One example of this would be hir use
of "hir" (a cross between "his" and "her") for the singular possessive personal
pronoun above.  Other suggested conventions are te,tim,ter (I think) or
ey,em,eir (pronounced "ay", "em", "air").  The first is a hybrid of he/him/his
and she/her/her, and the second is a reduced version of they/them/their.
[Actually, the last one was used in "The Joy of TeX" (a typesetting language),
and may not be exactly as I described it here.  I belive the te/tim/ter was
the suggestion in the feminist dictioary (or whatever it's called).]

Other people simply assume that "he" includes women automatically, but I find
that rediculous and even somewhat offensive--and I'm not even a woman!  As a
turn-around I especially like the approach of consistently using "she" when
refering to unknown individuals (after announcing that "she" is to mean "he
or she"), just to point out how awkward it makes the opposite gender feel.
I have also read text books where they alternate "he" and "she" in the chapters
or sections (as examples of individuals in the field).  Although I am most
partial to the longer forms of "he or she" or "he/she" or "s/he", I would
eventually prefer to see an accepted hybrid form in general use.

-Rob
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gas Tax (was Re: Elvis has entered the building..)
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:43:37 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <C186u3.G2G@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.125129.5108@memstvx1.memst.edu> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>Another potential pitfall that lies ahead is the call for an increased
>>gasoline tax as part of a "national energy strategy". 
> 
> The problem with the gas tax is that one thing they cry about doing with it
> is improving mass transit.  Well, whoop te do...  Mass transit isn't going to
> do much for us out on the prairies, not everyone has the misfortune to live in
> New York City or LA.  (Not just here, how about Arkansas?)  A gas tax is going
> to hit one hell of a lot of people hard that have to use gas just to survive.

The other "major benefit" that a huge gas-tax increase is supposed to confer 
is to "help conservation" by "getting people to buy more efficient cars." 
Uh-huh.  For the majority of drivers who DO have a fuel-efficient car, it's a 
tax.  For those who can't necessarily afford a more fuel-efficient car, it's
a tax.

And, as you say, fat lotta good that does for those of us in the sticks /
boonies / wilderness, defined as 'not in a major city'.  Gee, guess I could
walk to the bus station -- hell, it's only six miles... 

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: SCREW Les Aspin!
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:23:20 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <106298@netnews.upenn.edu>, nstowfis@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Nicholas J Stowfis) writes:
> 
> What I want to know is, can CLINTON pronounce "nuclear", or is he going
> to follow in the footsteps of Jimmy Carter, the "nukilla physicist"?
> (Should've stuck to peanuts...)

"What I want to know is: do we want somebody who can't PRONOUNCE the word 
'nuclear' to be the one who can LAUNCH them?"  
      -- more or less a quote from Robin Williams, circa 1977

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14736 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13375 alt.politics.clinton:20834
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:19:40 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: C'mon, get it right! (Was Re: America Held Hostage: Day 1

In article <yLVoXB1w165w@missing.kludge.com>, pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete
Bowden) says:

>If President Slick-Willie Blythe (hey Jim, isn't that Step-Cousin? or was

No, no, get his name right.

It's Slick-Willie Thomas Jefferson Franklin Delano Fitzgerald Kennedy Roosevelt
           Blythe-Clinton!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:41:05 GMT

In article <1jkpldINN77v@male.EBay.Sun.COM> birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
: In article <1j5c81INNl9m@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> chaudhary-amar@yale.edu (Amar >Chaudhary) writes:
: 
:   I think I saw it best said in a poster which depicted the Pope, the Ayetollah
: Khomeni, and Pat Robertson.  The caption read: "If God is so good, then how come he >has spokesmen like these?"

>This completely overlooks Gandi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, etc.

Gandhi? He was a Hindu.
Martin Luther King? Every good right winger _knows_ that he wasn't a
real Christian, but a Communist, taking orders from Moscow. (*joke*)

	At any rate, they were not obnoxious theocrats. Where are the
"Christians against Crooked Evangelists"? And where were the "Muslims
against Khomeini"? Not very many, I'm afraid.

>Let's not forget mention the priests and sisters who have died in South
>and Central America for their beliefs.  

	Every good right-winger knows that they were all Commies in
Christian clothing. (*joke*)

>While the Liberal community currently is attempting to re-write their 
>own history, it wasn't long ago that the spokespersons for their 
>ideology included the likes of.

>Mao Tze-Tung
>Castro
>Lenin
>and the Big Kahoona...Stalin

	And the Right has had such heroes as:

	Franco
	Mussolini
	Hitler
	South Africa's architects of apartheid
	Pinochet
	etc.

>The list goes on. What I find fascinating is how quickly the liberals 
>have distanced themselves from these folks since the collapse of the
>USSR. My favorite quote from an NPR news cast is "...Right Wing Communist 
>hardliners in the Politburo..." .                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	That's because Communists there are now conservatives in the
sense that they wish to preserve traditional institutions, in this
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15214 talk.abortion:58034
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Stations won't air RL's show during day
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:47:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan22.042505.15084@leland.Stanford.EDU> kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson) writes:
>In article <LARRY.93Jan21134217@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:10:24 GMT, root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
>>J.R.> said: Station managers are not idiots.. the reason they run
>>J.R.> RL at night is that he's currently 3rd in the late night
>>J.R.> ratings, the 2 in front of him have networks behind them.
>>J.R.> He's currently beating the shit out of Arsenio, Letterman &
>>J.R.> Woopie.
>>
>>And here CBS just signed Letterman for $14M.. What fools! I'll bet they
>>could have had Rush for a lot less. And Dave is no doubt shakin' in his
>>boots over the prospect of facing off with Rush.
>>
>>Then there's CNBC firing up old Tom Snyder again. More cannon fodder for
>>Rush!
>>
>>J.R.> I'm glad the station managers aren't shoot from the hip morons like
>>J.R.> you...
>>
>>Good Thing. With all that success, we can expect a whole flock of Rush
>>look-alike programs along soon.
>>
>>L.
>>"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
>> I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
>> Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
>> (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
>>O Fair New Mexico! Landfill of Enchantment. And home of THEM (Atomic Ants)..
>
>As much as I like Rush and even considering how conservative I am, I
>still doubt that Rush will remain "super-popular" as long as David
>Letterman has.  Hopefully, I am wrong here and hopefully he will
>help bring the quiet conservatives out of their closets to help
>straighten out the mess this nation is in, but beating out David
>Letterman may be tough.  I mean when will Rush try bouncing off
>a trampoline onto a wall of velcro with a velcro suit on.  I mean
>when will Rush wear a rice krispy suit, lay in a bowl, and have
>milk poured on him.  The list goes on.

I would rather say that David Letterman doing those things are what has 
kept him out of the top 3 for all these years.

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15372 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14070
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Blacks on TV (was Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!)
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:23:50 GMT
Organization: IBM Rochester
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <C1HDMy.KGt@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jj6707@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (John E Jablonski) writes:
|> In article <C1H2u8.Cu9@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
|> |> maybe someone can give me some good role models for blacks on TV.
|> |>
|>   I don't watch that much TV, but how about Star Trek?  
|>     Original--Uhura-Chief Communications Officer
|>     Next Gen--Jordie (sp) -head engineer
|>     Deep Space 9-- the commander of the space station is black
|> 
|> And the best part is they all achieved their success as individuals.
|> There was no government program to "help" them.

They also live in a world where there is no racism, 
people are fully educated, and the human race is united.
A little more ideal than anything on earth these days.

Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14687 alt.sex:42742 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13335 alt.politics.correct:6305 alt.politics.equality:129 alt.politics.homosexuality:9955 talk.abortion:57164
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:58:27 GMT
Organization: Kalamazoo College

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams) writes:
>>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>[Wonderful tirade by Drieux deleted]
>
>>>Is your [shift] key acting up or something?
>
>>Oh, Edward?  Did you know that flaming a person because of hir
>>spelling, hir grammer, and/or hir use of the old standard of typing
>>completely in lowercase is bad form and another sign of a 
>>net.clueless person?
>
>Actually I was aware of this... but that doesn't mean I have to conform.
>I thought non-conformism was something liberals respected...  

Oh, them liberals'll still respect you.  They'll still consider you
net.clueless, but they'll respect you.  :-)

>My problem was not with Drieux's lack of uppercase letters, but rather 
>with his inability to KEEP FROM USING THEM ON EVERY strange WORD he DEEMED
>was IMPORTANT even though THE rest Of Us Couldn't Stand Reading iT.  

Hmmm, maybe that explains why I've always hated Emily Dickinson...

Actually, the Rest of Us don't mind all that much...

>BTW, what's this "hir" stuff?  [Editor's note: Edward is asking
>to point out the innate silliness of this new grammatical convention]

If you're going to point out a grammatical silliness, please do so
grammatically.  I think you mean "trying" instead of "asking," or
"pointing out" instead of "asking to point out," or, even better,
"That 'hir' stuff is really silly" instead of the whole shebang.

Or are you asking permission?  Then, yes, go right ahead and point it
out to us.  Though frankly I don't find it much sillier than any other
grammatical convention.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "A degree in Computer Science from Berkeley didn't much qualify me to uphold
  the banner of Chaos against the forces of Order."              - R. Zelazny
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15301 alt.sex:43338
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:53:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

00mlschmalz@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:

]In article <john.727819560@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

]> :-) :-) :-) (only half in smiles.... this shows the idiocy of creating
]> preference-based governmentally recognized groups)
]> John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)

]There is a de facto recognition of a sub group, but the point of all 
]of this is to eliminate the artificial separation that the ignorant 
]and the fearful create in the workplace, et al.  There is more recognition 
]and separation in making rules whereby one CAN be separated and 
]discriminated against than there is in trying to integrate the separated.

Would you care to put that in English?

]The only people I've ever met that want specially recognized divisions 
]are the heterosexuals who see this discrimination as something "morally" 
]right.  Those of my friends who are homosexual don't want segregation, 
]separate regognition, or special treatment. They want acceptance and
]integration.

Then why are they advocating policies which will in fact create
separate recognition and special treatment? Perhaps they are like
many who fail to differentiate between the goals of a proposed
policy and the actual effects of that policy?
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14751 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13386 alt.politics.clinton:20851 alt.politics.bush:16230 alt.politics.homosexuality:9986