HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cyeomans@ms.uky.edu (Charles Yeomans)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.shostakovich
Subject: Re: Looking for a biography of DSH
Date: 19 Dec 92 16:00:27 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

In article <2874@irit.irit.fr> conquet@irit.irit.fr (Eric CONQUET) writes:
>Hello out there,
>
>I am really a fan of Shosta music and I am trying desperately to find a 
>book on this genius.
>I know that there is a biography entitled "testimony" but it is impossible
>to find it in France.
>I am looking for any book about DSH (biographies, letters..). I would prefer
>a book in French since it is my mother tongue but English books will be 
>welcome (Russian books, if some exist, will be also welcomed).
>Please answer by e-mail, if I get some interesting responses I will post
>a summary.
>
THe consensus seems to be that Tesimony is a good book, and it is
based on a true story.  Instead I would recommend "the New Shostakovich",
by Ian McDonald  (ISBN # 1-55553-089-0).  I do not believe it has
been translated into French.

Charles Yeomans
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:13:16 GMT

exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
>>And after all, the life of a fetus/embryo is priceless, and worth any
>>expense.
>
>>Right?
>
>Next, we should pay rapists not to rape, and murderers not to murder,
>of course.

The key difference being that in the case of pregnancy you're
demanding that a woman contribute her services, health, and money to
the development of the fetus while you contribute ...

nothing

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: RUSH?
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:11:14 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
>

Oh dear, it's finally happened...the world has gone through a rift in the
fabric of space and is desolving...

RUSH is a progressive rock band, and has been around for at least 15 years.
Many have called the band "The greatest 3-man band of all time".  They have 
had no fewer then 10 albums, and if I am not mistaken, at least 8 of them
went double-platinum.

If you are not familiar with them, by all means give them a try...they are
great!!




>-- 
>Matt Welsh     mdw@tc.cornell.edu     Cornell Theory Center
>  "It's a Katana, ya Midwestern Computer Geek." --Tom Payne
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   HATE IS NOT A  *         
*                    Kelley L. Miller  / /  \  FAMILY VALUE   *            
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  / /____\                *  
*     GIGO: Gospel In--Garbage Out   /______\                 *
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10349 alt.fan.warlord:9603 alt.music.rush:5185
From: cw001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Cristobal Weinholz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.warlord,alt.music.rush
Subject: Re: RUSH?
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:44:15 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <BzDysy.KHC@unix.portal.com> rivit@shell.portal.com (Russell Michael VanTassell) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.203322.514@doug.cae.wisc.edu> saunders@luther.che.wisc.edu (Brian E. Saunders) writes:
>>with the band since Neil Peart (one of the best damn drummers in the world)
>>replaced him before their second album, he really is the inspiration for
>>quite a few of their songs, e.g. Red Lenses, New World Man, etc...

>OK, let's see if I can stop laughing long enough to post this...


>A general trivia question for all of those bigger Rush-heads than myself:

>Does anyone know what happened to Rutsy?  Yes, I realize that he wasn't
>terribly great (in comparison to Peart, of course), but does anyone know
>why he left the band, where he is today, what he thinks of Rush right now,
>etc.?

>Just a curious question...

>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>RiViT@shell.portal.com                                      russ@mce.com

>#include <signature.h>

I read somewhere (B-Man's book?) that Alex still sees John every now and
then at a weightlifting place, and Rutsey either owns the place or just goes
there a lot.  I think he left the band because he was getting really sick
(literally) on the road, and he just couldn't take it anymore.  Does he like
the band? Who knows??

And also (if Mike Weintraub reads this) I *know* that the "Pull Me Under"
(Dream Theater) was recorded to end that way, but I thought that they could
have ended it a little better than that.

Cristobal Weinholz		"Follow men's eyes as they look to the skies
University of Rochester		The shifting shafts of shining
				Weave the fabric of their dreams...."
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Rush hates women (?)
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Super G Burger"
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:59:30 GMT

<1992Dec7.171207.4065@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
><nancyo.723690835@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) :
...
>>Recently Rush made a comment about Clinton going around
>>and meeting the public in malls--and how people were making
>>comments like Clinton is "their JFK", etc--and then he
>>added, "WOMEN are saying that, anyway."
>
>Mainly because JFK was an alleged womanizer. Anyone who looks to
>Clinton as a JFK ignores that side of him - and the fact that he may
>be just as bad. Gennifer Flowers, anyone? 

What's wrong with womanizing, Steve?  Whoops!  I just realized that you
probably don't know what that means.  You'd better look up some biological
data in the library first, then examine classic romance, then maybe some
more current adult reading material.  

BTW, look into socio-political history.  You'll find that most presidents
have had somewhat "flamboyant" histories.  It never effected their ability
to govern.

>>Being at odds with a liberal feminist ideology is one
>>thing, but I sense that Rush is just plain hostile to
>>ALL women.
>
>No, you just don't have all your facts.

Right.  Rush would only be hostile if he could make money off of it.  Just
like he's really glad that Clinton got elected because he can personally
make more money off of the controversy.

>>So, did his mother abandon him as a child, or what? 
>
>No, but it seems you may have abandoned something quite vital
>to humanity. It comes complete with cortex, cerebrum and stem...

Now, what would you know about humanity...


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10331 alt.rush-limbaugh:11814 alt.politics.clinton:18805 alt.politics.homosexuality:8094 alt.politics.bush:14663
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.forum
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:33:46 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <BzF8wn.BCH@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec17.181813.12038@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
|> 
|> >All I know is that it is easier to start a group in the
|> >alt.* heirarchy, since the others are considered more
|> >"permanent".
|> 
|> By whom??  If anything, alt groups are more permanent than Usenet
|> groups.  The latter at least go away after a while if they are
|> removed.

By "permanent" I meant accepted and important.  alt.* groups
are more open and less prone to follow the "rules" set up in
the other heirarchy.  And I know all about Bruce Becker.

Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:55:59 GMT

In article <1gtdhmINNlg7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly) writes:
>
>If the shoe fits that you are a wacko, pinko, communist or some
>other form of extremist, so be it. We conservatives (including
>Dr Limbaugh) do not lump all our liberal opponents in the same
>basket as almost all liberals claim. But there is no getting
>around it the Slick Willie and his servant algor and Hillary and
>Mitchell and and and and are wackos and extremists on the wrong
>side of what is good for the country and are opposed to all the
>things that made this country the greatest in the world.
>
>-- 
>
Yep.  You conservatives (especially "Feminazi" Rush) would
NEVER lump all of your opponents into the same basket.  Just
not counting posts on this newsgroup....

                         --The Grim Reaper
                           (SCYTHE@U.WASHINGTON.EDU)


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: tim@kudzu.viewlogic.com (Tim Foster)
Subject: Re: The Religious Right (was: Somalia
Originator: tim@kudzu
Organization: Viewlogic Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:30:33 GMT


In article <Bz9FKH.KMw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
|> tim@kudzu.viewlogic.com (Tim Foster) writes:
|> >|> USAToday took a poll at the Republican convention and found that a majority
|> >|> (I believe ~54%) of the delegates would consider themselves "born-again
|> >|> Christians."
|> >|> Scary food for thought.
|> >It's not quite clear why you think this statistic is "scary food
|> >for thought".  Would you mind explaning?
|> I will bite the bullet and answer this one with an honest, overgeneralized 
|> opinion.  Most of the bron-again Christians I have met in my life (and they
|> were self described as such, and have numbered at least 100, with levels of
|> familiarity ranging from passing to close friendship) have been, at one level,
|> somewhat irrational in their political views and rather prone to endorse 
|> legislation that enforces the 'right' view, God's view, which happens to be
|> theirs as well.
|> 
|> I don't mean to say this is true of the Christians who post here.  I may well
|> have gotten a bad batch.  Just tellin' what I saw.

The feeling I get from reading your response, which very well
might not be the way you feel, is you feel that there is a
separate group of Christians who claim to be "born again".  Even
if that is not what you believe, there are many people (especially
the media) who feel that way (maybe even some people who call
themselves Christians).  However, I would like to set the record
straight.  The Bible, which is the cornerstone of all Christian
theology, is clear that in order to be a Christian, one must be
"born again."  Therefore, all Christians fall under that category.

As for the "irrational" political views of "born again" Christians,
I believe that you are being unfair in that judgment.  How else is
a person supposed to form their views than by what they believe?
If one says they believe something, but does not support that in
every facet of their life, then aren't they being hypocritical?  

|> >|> Tino
|> >|>               Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
|> >Tim Foster 
|> >E-mail: tfoster@viewlogic.com 
|> ______________
|> Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
|> ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
-- 

Tim Foster 
E-mail: tfoster@viewlogic.com 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kennedy@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92
Organization: Arizona State Univ, Tempe
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:11:05 GMT

shindle@ocf.berkeley.edu (Richard Michael Shindle) writes:
> 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 I would like to hear from thos of you who don't like
> him, valid reasons why. (God, this is long-winded to say I agree.)

     Still not convinced?  Watch as the guy takes
calls.  Do you really think that anyone who makes
faces mocking callers who disagree with him is
anything more than a clown?

     If you're seriously interested in current
affairs, watch the McLaughlin group on PBS where
at least there is debate from both sides instead
of a fixed arena.

--Ralph Kennedy      {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 17 Dec 92 11:15:44 CST


In article <1gq80kINNb9@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (if God's your father then call home!) writes:
> Russ Anderson writes in response to my post:
> >In article <1gl52rINN4mf@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (if God's your father then call home!) 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.
> >
> >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-)

How would that help me find out?  The whole point of creating that group,
as opposed to this group, is to prevent liberals like me from posting.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9954 alt.politics.clinton:18448 alt.politics.bush:14450 alt.politics.homosexuality:7878 alt.rush-limbaugh:11447
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Date: 11 Dec 1992 22:45 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <Bz459z.484@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes...
| 
|It's fascinating to me that today homosexuals are trying very hard to
|get in (and stay in) the military, but during the Vietnam war there
|were straights who claimed to be homosexual just to get out or stay
|out.

	It's even more fascinating to realise that the military will allow
Homosexuals in when a draft is imposed, that is, when the country may 
indeed be in real military danger.  

	The argument is that they need every bit of help they can get.

	But with all the worry about Gays distroying morale and combat ef-
fectiveness, I would think that those opposed to Gays would think them
more of a risk in draft/wartime, when the consequences of combat ineffect-
iveness are more dire.

Gadson Sandor
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: What do you think?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:05:13 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <palane.724390750@pv7427.vincent.iastate.edu>, palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:
|> In <1992Dec9.021940.10059@rock.concert.net> cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole) writes:
|> 
|> >I don't know what it is, but the arrogance of the liberal American press
|> >shining their Sun Guns into the eyes of the US troops' night vision scopes as
|> >they land loaded-for-bear on a potentially hostile beach completely
|> >overwhelmes me.  I get the feeling the press did the traditional thumb-on-nose
|> 
|> They were invited to a party (the beach landing). The Pentagon forgot to
|> say no lights as they thought that would be obvious. The news brought them
|> because (naturallY) it was at night so they needed lights. Shows how much
|> military acumen there is among the press.

It was a set up.  If there had been any danger, the press 
would not have been there.  Also, those Seals and Marines 
could have come ashore unseen by those reporters if they
had wanted to.  And you notice that they were retrieving 
equipment that had been placed earlier, and no one has 
footage of that.


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9998 alt.politics.clinton:18489 alt.politics.bush:14481 alt.politics.homosexuality:7915 alt.rush-limbaugh:11501
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Date: 12 Dec 92 23:42:14 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <12DEC199213472570@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
>Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
>Date: 12 Dec 92 19:47:00 GMT

>In article <Bz5r1K.9wK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes...
>| 
>|  Except for an occasional screw-up (play on words unintended), the
>|military has not knowingly drafted, enlisted, or commissioned anyone whom
>|they knew to be homosexual.  Those who are later found to be such are quickly
>|separated.  Admittedly, my experience only goes back three decades so I
>|can't address what the policy was prior to that.  The "need every bit of
>|help they can get" argument sounds more like a Billary initiative.

>        Indeed?  I was told that now-a-days, you cannot claim to be Gay
>in order to get out of the military when there is compulsory service 
>(draft).  

What draft?  Do you know how long it's been since there has been a draft?

>I hate to have given out incorrect information.  Do you know
>if what you are saying is true for these days?

>Gadson Sandor
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    !!! H A P P Y   H O L I D A Y S !!!

  - Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
    exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org  <SLOW!>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:44:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.180838.838@news2.cis.umn.edu> prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
> (John Switzer) writes:
>>(Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>>
>>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends, 
>>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>>
>>I'll make you the same bet that I've made every other idiot who can ignore
>>reality - $100 that at the end of Clinton's 100 days, Rush will still be
>>on the TV and radio, with at least as many affiliates that he has now.
>
>You are taking this personally, aren't you Johny boy?
>
>Why don't you keep the money and buy yourself a shirt that
>says: I cannt disagree without being disagreeable.

Because I'm not so hypocritical that I would cloak my venomous sentiments in 
touchy-feely verbiage. And, Satya-boy, if you're such a model of 
courtesy and civility, then pray tell, why do you delight in insulting 
others with such terms as "ranting" and "Johny boy"? 

>Have a good day, 
>Satya Prabhakar 

Once again an example of liberal-style hypocrisy - if you really 
wanted others to have a good day, you wouldn't post. And I'm interested
in why you are unwilling to take my bet? Could it be you know you are 
wrong with your prediction? If so, then why did you post in the first
place, other than to unnecessarily vent your spleen in public? 
-- 
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,talk.politics.misc