HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 23 Jul 1992 15:12:43 CDT
From: Howard Wachtel <U13054@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Does Rush reply to Internet?
 <1992Jul22.053203.5948@ddsw1.mcs.com> <txfm#gj.jrs@netcom.com>

In article <txfm
>
>In article <1992Jul22.053203.5948@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack
>Schmidling) writes:
>>I presume you will have gotten his number by now but I am curious to know
>>if anyone has ever gotten a response from Rush on Compuserve.  I would be
>>very surprised to know that he even reads his email.


>As to CompuServe, I have
>received replies to some of my email, and I know of others who have as well.

   For those of us who have neither the time nor the financial resources
to subscribe to CompuServe, does Rush even read (much less respond to)
e-mail sent to his CompuServe account from the Internet?  Some time ago
I recall one poster stating that Rush simply deletes all such mail.
________________________________________________________________
Howard K. Wachtel              University of Illinois at Chicago
U13054@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU        Phone (312) 975-7970
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: EQUITY and Barbara Jordon
Date: 23 Jul 92 06:27:07 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

didn't Carter also travel on BCCI-owned aircraft? 

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
From: mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Does Rush reply to Internet?
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:15:09 GMT
Organization: UB

U13054@uicvm.uic.edu (Howard Wachtel) writes:

>   For those of us who have neither the time nor the financial resources
>to subscribe to CompuServe, does Rush even read (much less respond to)
>e-mail sent to his CompuServe account from the Internet?  Some time ago
>I recall one poster stating that Rush simply deletes all such mail.

	Nonsense.  I am living proof to the contrary.  I have indeed mailed
Rush from my humble Unix account, and have received one response out of about
a half dozen letters.  That's not bad considering that Rush doesn't exactly
have all the time in the world on his hands.

-- 
Matt Bernhardt
University of Buffalo             THIS SPACE FOR RENT.
mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu
From: Phil_Warburton@grace.UUCP (Phil Warburton)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: KENNEDY SONGS....PLEEEEEEEZE!!!
Distribution: world
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:06:59 EST
Organization: Graceful Boot BBS (send replies to moscom.com!grace!User_Name)

 N>    Thank you!!!!

Do you realize that you just quoted three pages of info and only said TWO
WORDS?


-- Via DLG Pro v0.992

+--------------------+------------------------------------------------------
-+
| name@wherever.spot |   The above post is distributed under the shareware 
|
+--------------------+  concept. Readers are required to send $10 US to the
|
|   Advertise Here   |    Author within 30 minutes of recieving this post. 
|
+--------------------+------------------------------------------------------
-+
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jglarson@watmsg.waterloo.edu (Johan Larson)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 12:28:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.014344.7537@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <Brx4Fw.Cnu@well.sf.ca.us> rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:
>>The "World's Smallest Political Quiz" based on the Nolan Chart
>>
>
>There doesn't seem to be enough granularity here, and I'm not
>convinced the questions are sufficiently varied to differentiate much.
>I took the quiz personally, then took it from the Republican,
>Democrat, and libertarian point of views.  Everything but libertarian
>wound up hitting right around the center.  That leaves me feeling like
>this was a quiz put together by libertarians.

I can find at least one dissenting data point.
I just asked my father to take the quiz.  He scored 20/30, putting
him solidly into the authoritarian area.  I think he would describe
himself as a European Liberal.

-- 
Johan Larson
                    The net is packed with objectivists, anarchists, 
                    libertarians and self-appointed threats to the current 
                    order, writing on company time with company equipment.
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: re: Name-calling in the abortion battle (media bias?)
Keywords: bias
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:23:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>|> After all, hearing 'anti-abortion', you know that a) the subject is
>|> abortion, and 2) the person described is against it. 'Pro-life' is not
>|> nearly as succinct.

>How does the term "pro-choice" meet the same specifications? "Pro-abortion
>rights" is a lot closer to the mark.

    Someone must be reading this at National Public Radio. Just for the 
interest of all you NPR-bashers out there, I heard a report on the news
this morning in which they described a rally attended by several hundred
"abortion rights activists".

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: schubert@capri.berkeley.edu (John Schubert)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Who, exactly, is in the top 2% of wage earners????
Date: 31 Jul 1992 18:44:57 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: schubert@united.berkeley.edu (John Schubert)
NNTP-Posting-Host: capri.berkeley.edu


Hello,

With all the talk about "raising taxes on the upper 2% of income
earners in the country", I was just wondering exactly who these
people are.

From Rush and Sen. Phil Gramm I have heard that the upper 2% is anyone who
earns more than $86k/year.

From some Democrats I have heard that the $86k figure is wrong, and that it
is actually people who earn more than $200k/year.

Now that is a big difference.  I imagine that it might not be as simple as
either one of the above two figures alone, but is there some sort of figure
to use instead of "upper 2%"???

Thanks,

-John

John Schubert
schubert@united.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: an565@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gregory Grosshans)
Subject: Re: Does Rush reply to Internet?
Reply-To: an565@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gregory Grosshans)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 22:27:47 GMT


In a previous article, U13054@uicvm.uic.edu (Howard Wachtel) says:

>
>   For those of us who have neither the time nor the financial resources
>to subscribe to CompuServe, does Rush even read (much less respond to)
>e-mail sent to his CompuServe account from the Internet?  Some time ago
>I recall one poster stating that Rush simply deletes all such mail.

Yes, he occasionally does reply.  I mailed him a message a few months ago
via internet, and he responded promptly.  It was about the local radio
station that carries his show.
 
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Gregg Grosshans                      > normal disclaimers apply |
| an565@cleveland.freenet.edu          >--------------------------|
| an565%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm   >                          |
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What a relief!
Keywords: Thank goodness for "ditto-heads"
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:02:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: psygate.nate.366
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

jdw1@Ra.MsState.Edu (James D Williams) writes:
>Keep up the good work with all the summaries and INTELLIGENT conversations
>that take place on this board. The only one that really matters...

    There must be some noise on this damn ethernet connection. Is this 
person actually saying that intelligent conversations take place in 
alt.rush-limbaugh? 

    I've seen some pretty good flame wars here, and the inevitable, 
interminable threads on abortion, but I'm not sure it counts as a 
conversation when the participants talk past, around, down to, and 
practically everything except *to* each other.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.testalt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) 
Subject: width test re: Quayle on abortion
Reply-To: tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:04:15 GMT



In article <1992Jul23.170632.14292@umbc3.umbc.edu> newspost@umbc3.umbc.edu (News posting account) writes:
>
>	I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>decsion that she made".
>
>	Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
>-- 
>Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
>					Alex Crain
>					UMBC Academic Computing Services


To be more accurate, he said, and stressed, "I would support my 
daughter.  I would certainly hope she wouldn't make that decision."

I read it this way:  "Although I don't agree with abortion,
I wouldn't throw her out because she had one."

That does not make him "pro-choice."

Supporting his daughter when she makes mistakes (i.e. getting pregnant,
getting an abortion) is definetely pro-family.

---------------
"They always told me I would be a rocket scientist"
Timothy K. Canham
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rush compuserve (and Snapple)
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:50:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: psygate.nate.367
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>dish@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Tony Goldish) writes:
>>I believe that it is possible to use internet to email to compuserve

    Gee, I dunno. You might direct an inquiry to:

        postmaster@compuserve.com

    or to me at 73020.2122@compuserve.com

    (or maybe even to 70277.2502@compuserve.com if you're adventuresome)

>I presume you will have gotten his number by now but I am curious to know
>if anyone has ever gotten a response from Rush on Compuserve.  I would be
>very surprised to know that he even reads his email.

    Yes, I've gotten a CIS response (i.e.- sent to my Compuserve mailbox
rather than all the way through to internet). I believe that John Switzer
has also gotten numerous responses since he's more active on CIS than me.

>His Compuserve hype is right up there with Snapple.  Has anyone ever tasted
>that rubbish?  It is nothing but flavored sugar water.

    Well, that's true of course, however it's also true that the flavors
they put in Snapple are all natural. As far as flavored sugar waters go, I 
rate Snapple Kiwi Strawberry cocktail as better than any of the carbonated
alternatives on the market.

    Some of the flavors don't do anything for me. The raspberry iced tea
is a little weird, and I prefer plain old orange juice to their "orangeade".
but I'd say it's a little extreme to write off the whole product line as 
rubbish just because of a few experiments which turned out less than 
completely successful.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: BACK TO LIMBAUGH'S NONAGENDA
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:03:30 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

In article <nate.405@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>arf@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>> Why does Rush refuse to talk about Israel?
>
>    I find it incredible to believe that you can seriously ask that 
>question considering the vitriolic flame war in which you've been 
>involved. I would think that, given your recent experience, the 
>question would answer itself.

ARF says:

I see.  I uncover a scandal and get bashed by those involved in it so I
just shut up and go away?

I would suggest that the way the questioned was not answered points to the
need to persue it further.  There is no point in asking it again but I will
suggest that callers flood his line with the question and insist that he
answer it.
I also suggest that readers email him at 70277.2502@compuserve.com and
flood his mailbox till he answers it.

                        
js

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: RICKERJP@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu ()
Subject: Re: Prayer at graduations
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:38:46 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

In <1992Jul24.133702.1761@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu writes
 
> But, you see, the Court's position has been based upon the problem with
> an *agent* of the school (and, thereby, of the state) promoting religion--
> not private individuals promoting religion.  The problem with school *agents*
> doing it is that 1) they are explicitly prohibited from doing such by the
> constitution, and 2) that there may be a coercive effect even in "voluntary"
> participation programs.


    The interpretation implied in 1), though common, is not in accord with
the original meaning of the Constitution as written.  The first amendment
_actually_ says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  It specifically
states _Congress_.  It doesn't say anything about what state legislatures
may or may not do.  Moreover, the tenth amendment says that all powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor proscribed to
the States by it, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Thus, religion is a matter to be left to the states, just as intra-state
commerce, marriage, and drinking laws are.

    Now, I admit, most people wouldn't _like_ this interpretation or
think it is a particularly good idea in our ultrapluralistic society,
but it is the original intent of the law, and this intent has been
altered and eroded through sustained judicial activism as much as anything.

    The real point of all this, if it isn't clear, is that the common
interpretation of separation between church and state is not really 
the original (and in my opinion, authoritative, but that's a long story
all its own) intention of the amendment.

> 
> 
> -- 
> J. S. Greenfield                                     greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
> (I like to put 'greeny' here, 
> but my d*mn system wants a 
> *real* name!)                      "What's the difference between an orange?"


John Rickert                      		Where laws are not sovereign,
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu              demagogues arise.
							   -- Aristotle
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Towards a balanced press
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:28:37 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <419@milestn.UUCP> marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>
>Kinda like Rush on the "democrats in the presidancy."  I'm sure
>Democrats are just as capable as Republicans at not raising taxes.
>

 No, less capable. George Bush has said that allowing congress to raise
 taxes was a mistake.
 Bill Clinton's position is the following.

   Read Bills lips. He will only raise taxes on the rich.
 
 How does Mr. Bill define rich ?    

   Anyone who has a higher salary then a member of the US Congress.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: varvel@plains.NoDak.edu (Andrew Varvel)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush Limbaugh?
Summary: Who is Rush Limbaugh?
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:28:25 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

Excuse me, but precisely who or what is Rush Limbaugh?
(or for that matter carasso or gooley?)

Thanks in advance.

--Andrew Varvel--                     "Uff-da"--local saying
varvel@plains.NoDak.edu         
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Company
	<1992Jul26.014344.7537@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
	<1992Jul30.214352.12454@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1992Jul31.170102.21437@mcs.anl.gov>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:09:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.170102.21437@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:

   BTW my score...

   >Whose decision should it be                My      Not     Gov't
   >whether or not you:                     Decision   Sure   Decides
   >
   ...
   >-  Have an Abortion?                      ____     ____     _X__
   ...

Gee, Mike, I thought nature had decided that one for you!

Abortion is no man's decision, although a thoughtful woman should
consider the advice of important men in her life.
--
: : Jan Steinman	   steinman@is.morgan.com		 Bytesmiths : :
: : 2002 Parkside Court				   West Linn, OR 97068-2767 : :
: : 503/657-7703					       212/956-8722 : :
From: bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Kennedy song ftp location
Date: 31 Jul 92 03:55:45 GMT
Distribution: na

Where is the site(s) that the Kennedy spoof song,
the philanderer, is available for anonymous ftp?
Thanks!
--
Dave Bakken                               Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu
Dept. of Computer Science; U of Arizona   Voice:    +1 602 621 4089      
Tucson, AZ 85721; USA                     FAX:      +1 602 621 4246
The fact that you're paranoid doesn't prove they're *not* out to get you.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:08:19 GMT

shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:

>BTW my score...

>>Whose decision should it be                My      Not     Gov't
>>whether or not you:                     Decision   Sure   Decides
>>
>>-  Wear a Seatbelt or Helmet?             _X__     ____     ____

Who pays for your nursing home care if you smash up but *don't*
kill yourself.  Who pays for the children you can't support if you're
disabled?

>>-  Own a gun?                             _X__     ____     ____

Who makes sure you lock up your gun so your neighbor's 4 year old
doesn't get a hold of it?

>>-  Become a soldier?                      _X__     ____     ____

Who pays your mercenary salary?

>>-  Help the needy?                        _X__     ____     ____

What?  All by yourself?

>>-  Pay for sex
>    (assuming discreet marketing)?         _X__     ____     ____

Who makes sure the marketing is "discreet"?  Who decides what
"discrete" means?

>>-  Have an Abortion?                      ____     ____     _X__

Who pays for your abortion if you can't afford it?  Who pays 
to raise the child if you choose not to have an abortion?  Who
regulates the abortion providers to make sure you're not mauled
by some back-alley butcher or some well-meaning provider who
isn't quite up on proper medical practice?

>>-  Smoke dope?                            _X__     ____     ____

Who makes sure the dope you smoke isn't laced with something 
you hadn't planned on consuming?  Who makes sure you don't 
cause injury to others while you're high?

>>-  Send your child to school?             _X__     ____     ____

Who makes sure that there's school for you to send your child to?

>>-  Swim nude(on private property)?        _X__     ____     ____

Who keeps track pf whether that property is privately owned, and by
whom?

>>-  Buy a pornographic book or video?      _X__     ____     ____

Who printed the currency you would use to buy that book or video?

>				mike


						--  Michal
 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc
From: kevinc@sequent.com (Kevin Closson)
Subject: Re: Religious and educational choice
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 23:48:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul14.161126.5410@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>10 minutes away and another an hour away, and you're saying that my
>kid has to learn to be a Hindu just because I don't want to spend two
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Learning about Hinduism from an academic standpoint does not equate to
  "learn[ing] to be a Hindu" any more than pledging allegiance to the wall
  makes one and American.  

   This is a simple problem.  EXTINGUISH the notion that taxpayers have the
  responsibility to educate your kids at all.  You should be screaming 
  SOCIALISM or simply be quiet and take your medicine.   Vote in TUITION
  or stiffle.

   I, personally, don't like paying for someone else's kids education at all.
  Like my parents before me,  I'll pay tuition for a good education for my
  kids and my taxes will pay for your kid to learn about Hinduism.  I'll vote 
  to change when given the opportunity. 
  
   I will state, however,  that I wont pay tuition to send my kids to a school
  that fails to even touch eastern religion and culture because of small-minded
  Xenophobic mental lethargy.
   
   BTW,  I don't watch T.V. evangelism. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Subject: Mike's abortion (was Re: Media bias)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 18:55:25 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Jul26.014344.7537@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
	<1992Jul30.214352.12454@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1992Jul31.170102.21437@mcs.anl.gov>
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
   >Whose decision should it be                My      Not     Gov't
   >whether or not you:                     Decision   Sure   Decides
   >-  Have an Abortion?                      ____     ____     _X__

If the government decrees that Mike must have an abortion, it will be
quite a scene.  Probably a confusing and traumatic experience for some
poor gynecologist out there.  Somebody take notes of what happens and
report back to the net, okay?  :-)

(Does anyone remember the male character in the Life of Brian who kept
feeling opressed because he had no womb?  The People's Front of Judea
(or was it the Judea People's Front?) eventually added a plank to
their platform saying that people of all genders have the right to
have children.)

   A useful test all in all but it could use some cleaning up and
   clarification.

I agree.
--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>    CompuServe ID 71045,2267 checked occasionally.
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.