HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:05:32 GMT

In article <1687F9CC8.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.043701.28553@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>>In article <1687E86A2.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct12.024125.7749@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
>>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>>"Intelligent Liberal" is an oxymoron, and a liberal is just a moron.
>>>>
>>>>:)
>>>>Simon
>>>
>>>Simon...until now, I respected you, because you seemed to be trying to
>>>have a serious debate.  Now, you have sunk to silly name-calling, and
>>>you have lost my respect.  And *NO*, the smiley does not change that.
>>>
>>>I am quite a bit more liberal than you, although I do not find myself
>>>in agreement with all "liberal" positions.  I am considered intelligent
>>>by everyone who knows me.  You just insulted me with your silly
>>>comments.  If you want to have a serious discussion with people, that
>>>is not the right way to proceed.
>>>
>>I got equally "silly" flames in e-mail.  So now my side of the debate
>>is invalid because I told a joke??  I'll keep up this debate, in a serious
>>manner, what you saw is posted in measured amounts, not indiscriminately.
>
>Simon....If you thought that was a "flame", you don't know the meaning
>of the word.  The point is, your insensitive "joke" insulted me.  This
>lowered my opinion of you, and made me lose respect for your "side" of
>the "debate".  You do not win debating points or advance your position
>in a real debate.  You have the show some well thought-out positions,
>which so far, you have not, other than a "belief" that whatever you say
>is right.
>
>Perhaps you got a wrong impression of what constitutes a "debate" from
>the farce on Sunday night.  Ross Perot scored "points" and even "won"
>the debate through wisecracks without saying anything of substance.  In
>a real debate, you get graded on what you say, not on your one-liners.
>My original comments stand.
>
Well, I'm trying to jump back on the track of the original debate, not harp-
ing on the joke, besides, was my joke any worse than the cracks about
conservatives being fascists.  I'm letting go of the joke, are you??
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6916 alt.activism.d:3667 alt.politics.elections:15729 alt.politics.bush:8273 alt.politics.clinton:9194 talk.politics.misc:50422 talk.abortion:41478
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:13:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.015922.5611@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>
>>One issue that the anti-abortion folks really are unwilling to deal
>>with is that many of the women who seek to terminate pregnancies
>>are literally not in any economic shape to continue them. There is
>>a great deal of handwaving at 'forcing employers' to provide unpaid
>>leave, but no real help with expenses and childcare. Many women work
>>at jobs that don't offer health benefits.To go on welfare would often cause them to have to evict their husbands.

>This is patently false.  87% of americans have comprehensive health 
>care plans.  In addition, there are infertile couples waiting in line 
>to pay for the expenses of pregnant women who will then let those 
>infertile couples adopt her baby.

In other words, poor women should sell their children. This shows what
you REALLY think of people.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: RUSH: OUT OF A JOB?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:52:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.125254.15052@sinkhole.unf.edu> jdough@unf6.unf.edu (Joseph Dougherty) writes:
>	And who is Ray Taliaferro...? This is a world-wide net, you know?

He's the late-late-late-late-night talk show host on KGO radio, 81 AM
in San Francisco.  He was chair of the San Francisco Arts Commission at
one time. (He was serving when the controversial memorial bust of Mayor
Moscone was commissioned.)

How to describe Ray Taliaferro... Well, first take Andy Rooney, of
"60 Minutes".  <PLEASE! :-P>.  Take that fingernails-on-the-blackboard
whine, raise it an octave, and multiply it ten-fold.

OK, then give that screech a script of 60's-time-warp hard-left
paranoia.  Example: Did you know that Jerry Brown's fruit fly crisis
was a sinister CIA plot to conduct chemical warfare experiments on the
oppressed masses of Silicon Valley?  You didn't?

Then, give this sad excuse for a waste of the RF spectrum an air of
condescending, supercilious smugness, boundless self-righteousness,
and a sadistic glee in insulting anyone who dares to differ in the
slightest degree with his pontifications -- typically after he has
hung up on them.

There you have it, a close approximation to Ray Taliaferro.
The reality is worse.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out (perhaps) pro-choice
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:52:24 GMT

In article <ld92hjINNmcq@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Simon E. Booth) writes:
>|>
>|> Actually, there will be ice floes on the River Styx before THAT happens.
>|>
>|> Let me rephrase that--I should have said "Perhaps there are extreme
>|> circumstances where abortion might be an option, but I am still against it.."
>|> I can't just walk away from this.  I have committed myself to this debate
>|> and cannot give up.  That would be wrong.
>|>
>So you now state that "Perhaps" there should be choice.
>
>|> I have corrected my previous posting that was thought to be a vote for pro-
>|> choice.  I should not have been so vague.
>|>
>Vagueness isn't your problem.  Your desire to hold an extremest
>position that leaves no room for people to be people is your problem.
>So far I have not met anyone who is perfect, but you expect people
>to be perfect or pay.  Hopefully the courts and the law will continue
>to help you keep your problem to yourself.
>
>--
>These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
>occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.

Being Pro-Life is not a problem.  And if I keep it to myself the issue
will not go away.  I thought I lived in America......


Simon

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Rush gets nailed on Columbus
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:56:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.141758.16141@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>I love it - a liberal attacks Rush for ignoring the truth and what he 
>doesn't like, and then he ends his argument by claiming that Rush 
>cut to a break early. I guess liberals don't mind lying as long as 
>they are the ones who do it - I suppose you didn't hear the call 
>from Mike from Stratford, who Rush went to after Grace? 

I'm not sure what you're talking about.  I mean, the sentences are
syntactically correct, they just don't make sense.  I was somehow
inconsistent for poking fun at Rush for cutting to a break early?
Where did this lying bit come from?  And yes, in answer to your
question, I did hear the call from Mike from Stratford although I don't
recall what his point was.  I'm not sure it's relevant - I was
commenting on the call from Grace.

Oh, I think I see what you're trying to point out.  Rush did talk to
Grace for sometime before taking Mike's call.  But before he talked to
Grace for awhile, he took a break within 3-4 minutes of getting the
call from Grace, which was the first call he took after getting back
from the previous break AND the call was the first thing he did - he
didn't do any sort of update or 5 minute harangue or whatever.  I guess
conservatives don't mind not getting their facts straight, as long as
they're the ones who do it.


>Rush also addressed the young woman's sources by saying he didn't know 
>about them, but that he couldn't help but feel that it they were genuine
>then the major media would have picked up on them. His sceptism is justified
>since it's already been shown that many "first hand accounts" like "Brother Sun,
>Sister Moon" are fictitious. 

No, he didn't say he was skeptical, he flat out said that he couldn't
believe her source because the mainstream media didn't pick it up.
Since when if the mainstream media an arbiter of all that is true?  If
he had said, "Well, I'll concede the point for now, but I'm skeptical
of the sources" I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7086 alt.activism.d:3759 talk.abortion:41946
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: Both parties are fringe groups.  Not.
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:13:52 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <1992Oct5.062639.15381@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1063@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>The same thinking applies to the Democrats who support abortion on demand
>
>	But is abortion on command OK?
>
>	Like they have in China.

Of course not.  How could you get that from anything I've said?  I think
abortion is always wrong except to safe the life of the mother (if you want
to argue that please take it to email).

>	I've seen some opponents of abortion state that they would
>gladly have fetuses with a genetic predisposition to homosexuality
>aborted. So if you're gay, you don't have much right-to-life in their
>book :-(

I've never heard that.  It certainly isn't my position, but it is the kind
of thing that legal abortion allows and results in -- abortions to choose
sex, and as genetic testing gets more sophisticated, other features as
well.  I'm against this in all cases.

>>and government funding of abortion.  On this issue the Democratic party is
>
>	Why is government supposed to be a great evil? Are you an
>anarchist or something?

No, I'm a libertarian (before I'm blasted, yes I know the Libertarian party
is Pro-Choice, but about 30% of Libertarian Party members are Pro-Life).  I
didn't say government is a great evil.  They are a necessary evil.  :-)  I
just don't necessarily see government as a force for good in all cases.

>>also a fringe group.
>
>	Compared to what?

I was responding to someone who said the Republican Party was a fringe
group because of (or was it "on") their position on abortion.  I simply
pointed out that the Democratic Party is a "fringe" group in exactly the
same sense, and they are.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: long@next3.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Organization: University of Central Florida
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:06:29 GMT

In article <Oct05.202401.52295@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  
sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
> In article <1b_p5lc.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)  
writes:
> 
> 	Conception is the first time that a human individual is
> created, an individual who will, if not killed, eventually grow
> into an adult human.  At no time prior to conception is this the
> case, and at no time after.  BTW, if you have a documented
> statement from a reputable embryologist who says that a human
> individual is created at any time OTHER than at conception, I'd
> like to see your source.  In all my time on this net so far, I
> haven't seen any such thing.

In the process of forming idential twins, new human individuals are  
created after conception.  Sometimes long after.  There three general ways  
that twins are formed.  The first and earliest is in the mere physical  
separation of cells after the first few divisions.  These physically  
separate cells become separate individual embryos with separate individual  
sacs and separate placentas.  The second kind of twinning occurs many  
hours later when the blastula divides into two connected cell masses,  
producing a single sac, two placentas and two embryos.  The third can  
occur days later when the early embryonic mass within the blastula forms  
two separate masses.  This produces one sac, one placenta, but two embryos  
sharing it.  These processes are multiplied, in a number of combinations,  
for triplets, quadruplets or quintuplets.    
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Thurs 10/15/92
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:37:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
XXXDate: Fri, 16 Oct 92 19:35:45 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A70467A146010642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1biupfINNjra@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Vern Morrison,
aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>     Today, Rush and his listeners, a bunch of braindead sad sacks who
>haven't read fifteen books in their lifetimes, will piss and moan about
>Bill Clinton, the man who, in less than three weeks, will be elected
>President of the United States.

Lets see, over 300 books on my bookshelf, and that is just the ones I thought
worth keeping. I have read some of the books on/by Clinton and Gore, my
reaction:

I laughed, I cried, I hurled!

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6884 alt.activism.d:3655 alt.politics.elections:15679 alt.politics.bush:8228 alt.politics.clinton:9126 talk.politics.misc:50356 talk.abortion:41422
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Date: 8 Oct 1992 19:25:03 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Ted Krueger) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|> >Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> II think you understand at least part of what I've been trying to say.
|> >|> Perhaps there are valid reason for abortion, although I'm against it.
|> >|> But those reasons must be important, and other options should be examined
|> >|> as well.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Simon
|> >
|> >That is all pro-choice advocates are saying.  Thank you for joining.
|> 
|> This is such crap.  Perhaps you feel this way, but the leaders of 
|> NOW and NARAL certainly do not.  Please watch next time any state 
|> tries to enact things like parental notification or waiting periods 
|> which just might have the chance of reducing the numbers of abortions.
|> 
Not even close.  NOW will fight anything that takes away the rights
of women.  Arbitrary and meaningless restrictions on abortion to
satisfy the crusading, religious right is only one arena on which
they are engagine this war.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Keywords: Rush Liberal Media Anita Hill Clarence Thomas
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:50:02 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:

> ?Question for the conservorrhoids: Why has Clarence Thomas hidden from the
> ?public since his confirmation? Could it be that he finds it painful to
> ?keep telling the same lie? Could it be for the same reason he could not
> ?bring himself to call Hill a liar, even though he was prompted in that
> ?direction by the Senators many times?
> 
> Point one: wasn't that covered in some issue of _Newsweek_ a few weeks
> ago?

I don't know.

> Point two: why doesn't Teddy Kennedy address Chappaquidick?

Similar situation. He was guilty and he doesn't want to answer the tough
questions.

> Point three: would you have enough time to act beneath your position as
> a judge or a Supreme Court Justice going around calling someone who
> testified against you a liar?

None of the other justices have had their character called into question.
Thomas' character has been quite seriously called into question. If he is
innocent, he owes it to the American public to forcefully defend himnself
and restore the public's confidence in the Court. If he can't do that he
should resign.

> I don't know too many SCJs who do
> interviews. That is until they retire. [Only Thurgood Marshall
> interviewed, but he didn't go about it every single week on the talk
> show circuit.]

I saw Sandra Day O'Connor in the Sunday color section recently--Parade,
I think.

> Point four: If Justice Thomas goes on the attack against Anita Hill, how
> would you respond? "Oh, he's trying to kick that poor, innocent soul
> even more!" <<<Outpour of sympathy on the part of liberals and the news
> media while the rest of the country wonders in amazement how trivial we
> can all get about things now.>>>

That's ridiculous. You should have stopped at point three.

John
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6742 talk.abortion:41098
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:58:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct6.201239.4480@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
|> >In article <1b_p5lc.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> >> Because saying that embryologists say that a human life begins at conception
|> >> isn't particularly useful.  It is saying that a human life is that which
|> >> begins at conception because a human life begins at conception.  If you're
|> >> just going to _define_ a human life to begin at conception, then you might
|> >> _define_ with just as much validity a human life to begin at birth.
|> >
|> >	Conception is the first time that a human individual is
|> >created, an individual who will, if not killed, eventually grow
|> >into an adult human.  At no time prior to conception is this the
|> >case, and at no time after.  BTW, if you have a documented
|> >statement from a reputable embryologist who says that a human
|> >individual is created at any time OTHER than at conception, I'd
|> >like to see your source.  In all my time on this net so far, I
|> >haven't seen any such thing.
|> 
|> Still a circular definition.  If an "individual" is defined to be what
|> is created at conception, then of course anything after conception is
|> going to be an individual.  Unless you have some other definition of
|> "individual?"  One that does not rely on the notion of conception?

	An individual of a given species will, if it does not die somewhere along
the way, eventually develop into an adult of that species.  Simple.  Not
circular.  (Well, I suppose all definitions are ultimately circular...)

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:15:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.013258.6779@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>In article <1b2l0cINN2bh@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>> And if my mother, when she was pregnant with me, decided that pregnancy
>> and childraising was too much of a burden, and was FORCED to have me,
>> I'd have a lifetime of apologizing to do.
>
>This is why all of you liberals are so whacked-out. Allow me to give
>y'all a lesson in Biology 101. When a baby is conceived, his/her
>genetic blueprint is formed. He (or she) is unique, and so are his/her
>characteristics -- big feet, blue eyes, brown hair, pug nose, et
>cetera. Before conception, that doesn't exist. Millions of sperm with
>millions of blueprints and millions of ovums with millions of
>blueprints are floating in their respective ovaries and vesicles. When
>the two are brought together, they form the blueprint for an
>INDIVIDUAL. When that individual is aborted, that blueprint for life is
>terminated. A baby that may have been a genius. The baby that may have
>the found the cure for AIDS, or the cure for cancer, now lying in a
>dumpster outside an abortion clinic. No, excuse me... following in the
>words of others on the net, that PARASITE is in the dumpster. Sorry.
>Excuse me.
>
>When you PREVENT pregnancy, an individual blueprint for life is not
>terminated... because one was never made in the first place!
>
>Geez. I don't know how people can't understand simple logic.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
>
>"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
>-- Ronald Reagan

This is what I have been trying to tell these people.  Abortion destroys
an unique, sentient, feeling person.

That is why I object so strongly to it.

Simon