HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh GIFs Please
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 19:29:04 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison) writes:

> 
> In a previous article, gus3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Christian Gustafson) says:
> 
> >Does anyone have a GIF of Rush Limbaugh?  I would like to add his
> >mug to my Windows wallpaper (to replace that poor girl with goo
> >all over her face who is there now.)  No 'erotic' or 'tasteless' 
> >pix of him, please...
> 
>      ANY GIF of this obese clown would be tasteless, doncha think?  And the
> word "erotic" doesn't even vaguely apply to the man.  Anyway, why not try
> anonymous ftp to right-wing.losers.org.  Rush GIFS are available in the
> /pub/GIF/fat-guys/talk-show directory.  Good luck.
> 
> -- 
>     Vern Morrison               |  Only the strong survive: "I'm just not
>     aa680@po.cwru.edu           |  going to have too much sympathy when I'm  
>     vern@cray.csuohio.edu       |  putting in 50- to 80-hour weeks and not   
>     Parma, Ohio: a modern Eden  |  seeing others keep up." --John A. Hnat


Well maybe if you were a female walrus you might find him a little 
attractive, maybe a little erotic.......


Pope Charles   Subgenius Pope Of Houston  Slack!

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum
Date: 17 Dec 92 10:56:57
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<1992Dec16.192140.24606@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu's message of Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:21:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.192140.24606@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
-> In article <m0iVVB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
-> >> I would like to formally propose a new group, alt.conservative.forum, 
-> >> a moderated group to discuss conservative values and assorted political
-> >> goings-on from a distinctly right-wing standpoint.
-> >[...]
-> >> A moderated group would cut out this gibberish and allow reasoned, intelligen
-> >> discussion of the issues facing the country and the world.
-> >Is it just me, or is there a teensy little contradiction here?
-> 
-> It's just you.
-> 
-> Actually, it's not just you, and because it's not just you, and because there
-> are a million such flamers just like you, I think the group is a good idea.
-> It's quite understandable why someone might want to post from a conservative
-> viewpoint without getting flamed merely for daring to suggest that they want
-> intelligent discussion.

	I don't think a moderated discussion group is the answer.
Here's a few rules I follow while reading to skip the endless cliche:

	-If the article contains the word ``facist'', ``Nazi'', or
``bigot'' delete it.

	-If the article makes a lame attempt at playing with Rush's
name or calling him a name, delete it.  Some examples are Limbots,
Flush Limburger, and Thewindbag.

	-If the article contains the phrase ``religous right'', delete
it.

	-If an article is recommending a boycot, delete it.

	-If an article is predicting the downfall of Rush, delete it. 

Any more?

--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9923 alt.rush-limbaugh:11382
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 10 Dec 1992 11:36:43 CST
From: Myself!!! <U57567@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
 <1992Dec2.142828.21269@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <1992Dec4.010438.4006@anasazi.com>

In article <1992Dec4.010438.4006@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
says:
>
>In article <1992Dec2.142828.21269@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>                           v
>jpsb@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.go
>(Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>> :    Did it ever enter your tiny mind that maybe, _just maybe_, your
>>: theory that removing fetal tissue is murder might not be true?  Did
>>:
>>:  [Sophist argument deleted]
>>:
>>
>>What a convenient  attitude!  Sure it OK to abort unborn children, because   y
>the
>>are NOTHING! Just a mass of unwanted flesh! You make me SICK. At least have
>>the guts to admit what it is you are doing. Your ending a life, a human life.
>
>Jeff, you neglected to point out the problem with Jim's argument.  Generally
>he is suffering from a lack of critical thinking but the specific problem
>he has is that the Genes and DNA of the fetus is, if he took the time to
>analyze these issues, HUMAN.  I'll bet there are 43 chromosomes in each cell
>that, when put next to a similar cell of a newborn, would be quite similar!
>
>Sure, abortion is legal and so we must obey the law BUT we don't have to
>hide from our conscience by pretending that what we are killing isn't human.
>
>Mike Best
>
    Hmmmm.  If I remember my biology corectly, ALL human tissue has
those 43 chromosomes.  Thus, having you appendix removed is murder by
your claim.  This is not meant to flame you, just point how the whole
abortion debate seems to wind up at extremes, such as this crap:
"if you DON'T concive a baby, your
commiting murder because (person A) says life ALWAYS starts before
you (person B) think it does!"  Throw in religion (a primitive ritual
left over from when people did not understand the world) and you got
an unsolveable mess.
Abortion is not MY row to hoe.  I am a man, it is a choice left up
up to the woman.  Period.

AL
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10010 alt.rush-limbaugh:11513
From: shindle@ocf.berkeley.edu (Richard Michael Shindle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92
Date: 13 Dec 1992 08:51:31 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: planecrash.berkeley.edu

In article <iB1oVB3w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly) writes:
>
>> 
>> I find it vastly amusing that those who are the most vehemently
>> opposed to Dr Limbaugh almost never have anything of substance to
>> say. They are, however, most glib with the cutesy-poo adjectives
>> of the derogatory variety. Fortunately, this people are in the 
>> minority, invariably liberal who think appearances are more
>> important than substance and because of this are the REAL losers!
>> 

Now, those of you who are about to read this, please do so with an open
mind. (If you were just offended by this opening statement, then it
probably wasn't meant for you.) I may live in Berkeley, but I'm not a
left-winger or a right-winger. Just an independent who sees alot of
interesting points given by both sides. (In other words, you both have
good points and I would like to incorporate them.) Anyway, I would have to
agree when I try to discuss what Limbaugh says to see if he is correct or
that is opinion is valid, those that I talk to in Berkeley are very much
against him and for reasons that have no basis in fact. ("he's an idiot",
doesn't cut it.) So Iwould like to hear from thos of you who don't like
him, valid reasons why. (God, this is long-winded to say I agree.)

Mike

P.S. What radio station is he on in the Bay Area?

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:46:38 GMT

shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:


>In article <1992Dec17.173953.17650@dbsun.uucp>, hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
>writes...

>>>>Just wait until Rush can stop saying, "think about what Clinton's
>>>>going to do" and start yelling, "Look at what Clinton's doing!"
>>>>It'll be business as usual, perhaps even better.

>>>Just wait until Limbaugh has to start telling blatant lies instead of
>>>carefully composed half truths to be able to sustain his rhetoric.

>I think that too many people are focusing on the Clinton things going on. 

>Remember, Rush's show is about the hot news of the day. These days its Clinton.

Besides that, the news weenies -- especially the teevee types -- really do
need to be counterbalanced.  Last night John Chancellor (NBC) was gushing
over Willie/Hillary/Algor so much that I thought I was watching one of
Willie's old campaign commercials.  The problem isn't that we have too much
Rush; we have too little.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:56:55 GMT

ryanm@stein.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:
>rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>"moterated", as in only politically correct conservative doctrine allowed?

>Not in the way you mean it.  We don't want decent, fruitful discussions
>destroyed by a bunch of liberals who want Christians and Conservatives put
>to death.  The only way I know of is to have it moderated, considering the
>childish practices, and garbage comming from the
>"Libs/Nazis/Commies/Murderes/etc..." group.

    This is strange. I know that we've been seeing a higher than normal 
noise level on this group recently, but I'm afraid that I missed the 
"bunch of liberals" who want Christians and Conservatives put to death. 
There might be a few of those around, but I don't recall seeing them.

    I might also question your claim that decent and fruitful discussions 
have been destroyed. Which subjects in particular would you say have been 
derailed by those Nasty Liberals? I've seen quite a bit of name-calling in 
the raging abortion debate, but I would hardly say that the abortion debate 
is "fruitful" considering that no one has changed anyone else's mind yet.

>>>                                                            Intelligent
>>> conservatives (and I will propose intelligent liberals as well, since, 
>>> contrary to popular conservative opinion, such animals do exist) will be
>>> encouraged to participate in our discussions.

    This sounds really neat, and I wish you the best of luck in finding 
intelligent liberals. They *are* around. I'd like to think that I'm one of 
them, but I personally prefer to remain in an open unmoderated forum.
IMHO the only thing that you will accomplish by isolating conservatives 
into their own group is that conservatives and liberals will spend even 
less time interacting than they do now (which is not the most desireable 
result).

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: David.White@launchpad.unc.edu (David White)
Subject: What's Rush's Compuserve's e-mail address?
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:22:38 GMT


Hi, All.  The subject line pretty well says it all - if someone could
please e-mail me Rush's Compuserve address, I'd be most grateful.  Thank
you kindly!

=-=-= David =-=-=
David.White@bbs.oit.unc.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations - NOT!
Date: 17 Dec 92 10:23:25
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<92351.104414KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: Kurt Ludwick's message of Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:44:14 EST

In article <92351.104414KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
-> In article <1992Dec15.215103.17692@netcom.com>, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
-> says:
-> 
-> >>Franklin was a notarious womanizer (a right-wing republican/fundamentalist
-> >>trait), but he also advocated many liberal causes of the time.
-> >**SNORF** This is the most hilarious thing I've seen all week, right
-> >next to the "Funniest Cooking Disasters" thread on rec.cooking.
-> >Right-wing Republican fundamentalists like Teddy Kennedy?  Bob
-> >Packwood?  (Well, he's Republican, but a very *liberal* Republican.)
-> >Daniel Inoye?  Wilbur Mills?
-> 
-> Nah, he must've meant Clarence Thomas.  We all know what a womanizer he is;
-> the volume of evidence is undeniable.  Right?
-> (I mean, there WAS some, wasn't there?  Hm?)

	You have to remember that evidence doesn't matter when the
charges are serious enough.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov
From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Disappointment with this group...
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:21:32 GMT
Organization: -

In article <1992Dec15.043210.24310@u.washington.edu>, 
ryanm@stein.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:
> 
> I just joined this group today and already hate it.  

Thanks for sharing.  I just read your post today and already hate it.

> I love to listen to Rush Limbaugh when ever I get a chance.  

So do it.

> Infact I can't watch his show until I workout (it works too!). I don't 
> get to listen to him very often because all the computers in my shop 
> cause horrible interferrence.  I thought this news group would help me 
> keep up in the Ditto head stuff.  

Learn to use your newsreader.  If you are lucky it will even have a
spelling checker.

> I now have to wade through a pile of puss from Libs/Nazis/Fems/Humanists
> just to get one of relevance.

My aren't you sweet.  You left off fags, commies, atheists, and
everyone else you hate.

> It was mentioned that a moderated conservative news group should be formed
> is a great idea.  I welcome a chance to discuss ideas without the above
> people butting in.  

Sorry, but you'll have to get used to people butting in.  This isn't
any one person's world and this newsgroup is a (semi)public forum. 
Sorry to interrupt.  You were saying?

> I enjoy a good arguement but not on every comment made.  

Oops, I guess you mean me!

> I hope we can create a news group like this.

Create a news group like what?  And who is "we". So far, you've told
us everything and everyone you don't like.  Who and what is it that
you do like?  Oh yea, you only like to hear what you like to hear. 
Such a tough expectation to live up to.  I hope I am not a
disappointment.

> I think the people who have invaded this news group and turned good
> fruitfull discussions into a garbage pit typifys the liberals as childish
> and without restraint.  

If you just joined this newsgroup today, how do you know that it
hasn't always been a garbage pit full of fruitless discussions?  And
if this first post of yours to a new newsgroup is any indicator I
guess we won't be able to count on much self-restraint from you
either.  Guess that makes you a liberal and a childish one at that.

> I do not feel this way with all liberals 

How liberal of you.

> and some have good points and valid discussions 

Well, that's the first positive comment you've made.

> but the majority are trash conversations.  

Looks like you've slipped back into character.

>GROW UP PEOPLE!  --Ryan

Funny, I was just about to say the same thing to you.

> I don't need flames, just understanding.

Apologies for the flame, but I think you are the one that doesn't
understand.

Jim

P.S. Ryan, I hope you someday manage to find a place that is able to
take the broad horizons of the world and fit them into your narrow
perceptions.

P.P.S. to everyone else.  I hope you realize this was a somewhat a
joke.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: What ARE We Against!
Date: 12 Dec 1992 18:22:51 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorba7.larc.nasa.gov

Are you against homosexuals OR are you just against
antisocial, obnoxious jerks who happen to be
homosexuals?  The distinction IS important.

If I meet a jerk who is a homosexual, they will make me
disgusted, and I will oppose them.  If I run across a 
whole group of obnoxious folks, I will oppose them.
I WILL NOT be convinced to like them, nor should I, just
because they are homosexuals.

Jerks are Jerks, and when they are homosexuals, they do
a disservice to the others.  It seems to me that the
honest, reasonable homosexuals should start being a little
more descrimating about who they support, and realize that
hanging around dirt makes them dirty!

DAMN IT, I'M A WHITE MALE!!!  BUT I SURE DON'T APPROVE OF OR
LIKE EVERY WHITE MALE IN THIS COUNTRY!

(COULD THIS BE SOCIAL MATURITY?!)

Mike Rowland

Mike Rowland (Contractor),  MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard)
Subject: Re: RUSH?
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:01:13 GMT


In a previous article, mdw@db.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh) says:

>Hi. I saw a CD in the store today by a band called "Rush"
>and was wondering if this has anything to do with the movie
>"Rush" or maybe Rush Limbaugh (who is really funny!)
>Should I get it? I didn't like that movie much but I listen
>to Rush Limbaugh every day on the radio and heard he had an
>album out.
>
>Sorry if this is a newbie question but I've never heard
>of the BAND "Rush" before.
>
>Any ideas? Thanks.
>
>mdw
>

I can't believe he's serious.  If so, I am far older than I thought, and it
is time for an unscheduled midlife crisis.

-- 
Randy Howard            _o	    @'s: jrh@dell.com
Dell Computer Corp.     \<,	    !'s: ...!uunet!dellunix!jrh
______________________()/ ()______________________________________________


Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10447 alt.politics.clinton:18864 alt.politics.bush:14738
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Jury Duty (Was: Thewindbag Against Mo)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:04:24 GMT

In article <BzEqLw.4qn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>Ed.Sterrett@f166.n363.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Sterrett) writes:
>
>>Hi Nathan,
>>      
>> NE>     Being registered to vote can be inconvenient if because of being 
>> NE> registered you get called to serve on jury duty. I can imagine circumstan
>> 
>>  The *new* thing now, since so many try to avoid jury duty by not 
>>registering to vote, is to use the list of driver's licenses to select 
>>prospective jurors.  At least in Florida, as well as several other 
>>states, driving a car (legally) also makes you subject to call for 
>>jury duty.

In Ventura County, SB, there's been a dispute about whether the welfare rolls
should be used as well; some people claim minority groups are underrepresented
(in this case hispanic) and figure that this would be one way to get a larger
jury pool. Of course, if you wanted to get everyone, cable TV!
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: stegner_g@cubldr.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:12:27 GMT

>>Kelley Miller writes:

>>Only the most indoctrinated Limbot will support him, and I'm not 
>>at all sure they qualify as "people" anymore...

Robert Alexander writes:

> And only the most indoctrinated Democrat will believe that
> Bill Clinton is a success. Make your benchmarks now. Have a
> look back in four years. We shall continue this
> conversation. I know Rush will be here.>

(Much deleted, and for good reasons... see previous post)

I will be most happy to make my benchmarks now, Mr. Alexander.

I agree with your assessment, Kelley.  And now, to slap this young Republican
around a little bit...

Mr. Alexander, you sound more scared than anybody I've seen post to this thread
so far.  What are you afraid of?  The fact that America has spoken at the polls
on Nov. 3 and it didn't quite go your way this time?  I know how humiliating it
is to have your candidate lose... it happened to me all throughout the 80's. 
But come, now, face the music... BUSH LOST!!!  Now is the time to take stock of
your unrealistic political views and realize how political cycles come and go
regarding the presidency.  You seem to have been politically active for a very
short time, Mr. Alexander.  Take some advice from people who have been voting
for a few decades.  Learn to take a loss with dignity.

Now, as for Rush Limbaugh and all that he stands for... Really now.  All you
people getting so uptight or elated over a talk-show entertainer??  I hardly
have the time to get concerned over someone so far on the fringes of anything
resembling actual political discourse in this country.  At least Morton Downey
Jr. in his time had the balls to confront his political foes face to face on
TV.  Rush?  He couldn't possibly do that.  He doesn't have the tenacity (or the
ability) to face up to an opponent, either in his studio or over the airwaves. 
All his call-ins seem suspiciously censored out in order to filter in only the
callers who agree with him.  No, Rush only does best when he is totally
insulated in his studio with just his own opinions vomiting from his own oral
cavity.  At least he'd be interesting if he would have the balls to get on a
serious Sunday morning political talk show and actually have to face an
opponent by getting into a political discourse.  No, not Rush.

I just had to respond to this thread when I discovered that Mr. Alexander was
the last to post to it.  I just couldn't let that unsubstantiated rhetoric go
unchecked.

Glen Stegner
Univ of Colorado at Boulder
stegner_g@cubldr.colorado.edu


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:57:09 GMT

In article <1gq80kINNb9@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes:
>Russ Anderson writes in response to my post:
>>
>>What are "conservative values"?
>>
>>Take the following issues:
>>
>(several awesome issues addressed)
>
>I dunno, Russ.  Help me create alt.politics.conservative and find out.  8-)

Perhaps we should.  We can watch the battle for the soul of the GOP in
a net microcosm.  (This perhaps would be more philosophical a fight
than what is actually going on.  The organizational sophistication of
the various Fundamentalist groups obviously won't matter in this
forum.)




--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh