HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:37:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.142821.26389@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>In article <cortez.718440319@milton> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>>> 
>>I don't believe you for a second. You know, California, press in tow,
>>pulls over at a Burger King with a "now hiring" sign and declares
>>that it's a sign things are "turning around in America."
>
>This is your basic problem, your mind is closed (IMO).  I really did 
>not recall this event.  On the face of it I can see how you could
>argue that this is an indication that things are getting worse what
>with buisnesses hiring people as indicated by the sign.

The event was covered in the press.  It is included in the
Quayle Quote file, which has been posted in a.f.d-q
oodles of times.  How can reminding you of this be
evidence of a closed mind?
>
>> [Burger King stuff deleted]
>>
>>So go on, explain it. Enlighten us as to how to interpret Dan's
>>statements consistent with your theory that he is able to think.
>>
>I would be difficult since I am not aware of this incident.  Furthermore,
>I am not aware that anyone can make a proof describing someone's 
>ability to think, not even your's and you are obviously a thinker!

You just claimed that Mr. Warner had a closed mind (with
no evidence); now you claim that we can't "prove" 
anyone's ability to think.  What a weasel!

We are still waiting for evidence to counter the LARGE
body of facts which indicate that Our Boy is an idiot.

>By the way, do you have a problem with Bob Woodward's claim that 
>Dan Quayle would be an effective President should something happen
>to Bush?  You remember Bob - Watergate... Nixon...

Obviously, even Bob has his off-days.  If you want to base your
high opinion of DQ on personal testimonials (instead of facts)
check out Nixon's opinion of the Dandroid.

BTW, how many of Bob Woodward's other opinions do
you agree with?

>Mike Best


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7065 talk.abortion:41895
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:05:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
><BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) :
...
>As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
>future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
>and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
>then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
>against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....

We'll see your truncheons and raise you fully automatic weapons.  We'll
get you to your god that much faster. :-)


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.rush-limbaugh:7330 talk.abortion:42484
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:09:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


In article <1992Oct13.195811.14886@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
[my old reply deleted because Booth doesn't know how]

#Actually, this was part of the larger, overall picture of a proposed
#work of FICTION, not reality.  "Novel" refering to a book, not "original".

I knew what I meant by the word "novel," Booth.

You've compared yourself to Orwell several times now.  I was
pointing out one of the major differences - _1984_ was
inventive fiction.  Yours is not.  

(I've read a bit from one science fiction story that addressed
abortion.  Pro-forcers spent eternity pregnant and unhappy.)

Susan
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:05:04 GMT

<1992Oct13.200611.15344@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
><1992Oct13.084801.7428@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Oct12.040509.9447@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>><1992Oct11.010544.21220@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) :
>>>><1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
...
>>>Well, I plan to depict the riot police being fully armed, and using
>>>white posphorus instead of tear gas.  Now, since in my story assulting
>>>police officers, especially pulling guns on them, would be a capital offense,
>>>those who escaped would either face on the spot execution,or the death penalty
>>>after trial.  f course, this would all be televised, to make examples of the
>>>criminals.   Now, let's see the book buring the PC crowd would stage.
>>
>>Is this some more of those "family values" the alleged pro-life
>>Republicans are talking about?  "on the spot execution", "death penalty",
>>and all for just standing around an abortion clinic.  Damn, Jesus would be
>>proud.
>>
>>No, just a proposed work of "futuristic" fiction.  Not reality, although
>I get the feeling that some people here think it is real.

I doubt anyone thinks you are discussing reality.  I was referring to the
values behind your "novel" wrt killing people for assembling, all in the
name of *pro-life*.

Ain't America wonderful: You're frre to write any work of fiction you
want, and we are free to criticise it and you for writing it.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Polls, impacts on the masses
Keywords: Las Vegas counts more
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:59:08 GMT

In article <6583@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:

>Gee, the Weekly Reader poll of elementary students shows Bush winning
>55% to 45%.  They have been correct ever since 1952.

	Yea, but Bush only leads in the 1st-4th grades, in 5-12 it's a Clinton
victory for sure. 



-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Rush Insensitive to human suffering
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:54:53 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Oct16.041550.19400@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct15.231139.15303@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
|> >
|> >Rush Limbaugh:  You are an insensitive, hate-monger.
|> >
|> >Making fun of the homeless.  What a man!!
|> >Making fun of native americans.  What a humorist!!
|> >Making fun of people with AIDS.  What a celebrity!!
|> >
|> I see no problem here   :-)  :-)

Booth, if that is your real name, get a life.
People like you are the problem.  Grow up.
There are real problems in this country that
won't be solved by laughing at them.


Jared Dahl
Opinions are mine, not my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6899 alt.activism.d:3661 alt.politics.elections:15701 alt.politics.bush:8247 alt.politics.clinton:9146 talk.politics.misc:50387 talk.abortion:41445
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
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 21:40:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>> = (Ted Krueger) writes:

>>87% of americans have comprehensive health care plans.

>can you support this statement?

.6% of t.a. participants believe the Tedmeister.  What about other groups?


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7329 talk.abortion:42481 alt.abortion.inequity:4406 alt.religion.computers:825
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Well You Know about those AmigaDosHeads
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:12:15 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

] In article <1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
] # As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
] # future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
] # and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
] # then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
] # against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....
] 
] This quote horrified me.  Someone, *please*, tell me he's just trying
] to get a rise.

they just want to grow up and think that they are as good
as the basic 8088 folks......

ciao
drieux

ps: Do we have to convert from SunWorshippers to SolarisWorshippers?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:33:05 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <92281.202001KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>In article <6542@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John
>Locke) says:
>
>>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?
>
>He doesn't like to say bad things about other people.  It was pretty obvious
>he was calling her a liar, making him say it would have been redundant.
>Just remember: _at the time that people were watching the hearings_ (I almost
>said 'trial,' since that's practically what it was), most people believed
>Thomas.  In the past year, he's had better things to do than tour the country
>to drum up support for himself, unlike a certain Oklahoma professor who shall
>remain nameless.

Kurt is right (IMO) and I would add that his comment regarding calling the
hearing a "trial" is very appropriate.  If you will read your handy pocket
Constitution you will notice that it describes that the legislature shall
pass no bills of attainder.  This is nearly what the Senators did to Thomas
but it is not surprising to think that Senators such as Kennedy, Metzenbaum,
and Biden would do such a thing considering their character.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:41:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.194752.4335@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>
>Come on Ken, Clinton _did_ avoid the draft. He has never denied that. I am
>proud of him for doing it. Millions of other American males did to. Not very

That's fine, you have the right to be proud of him.

>As far as that marijuana thing, he never tried to say that he never smoked it.
>When asked a direct question on the issue, he answered it honestly and you
>conservatives won't let him live his honesty down.

I don't remember him being forthright about this or several other issues.
Am I mistaken or was he asked the question had he ever broken the law and
he said no.  Later the question was reposed, had he ever broken the laws 
of _this_ country and he then said yes.  I am honestly vague here, no 
sarcasm, but wasn't this about the smoking stuff?

Perhaps it is just me but it has seemed to me that to get a straight answer
out of Clinton has been like pulling teeth.

Mike Best
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:03:48 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: news@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu

My apologies if you see this twice. My machine went bonkers.

In article <YOUNG.92Oct15132929@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.214550.14858@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>
>>   When we were *told* she told friends. Listen, only a handful of people
>>   claim that they were told.
>
>If she were concerned for her job, and felt that she couldn't go
>public, yet was driven to tell someone, it is entirely consistent that
>only a handful of people (most folks would probably only tell one best
>friend) were told.

If she made it up, this too could account for it. My point is that, in
a court of law, this wouldn't get anywhere because she failed to cast
reasonable doubt.

>>   If Anita Hill had brought her claims to a Grand Jury today or 10 years
>>   ago, it would never have seen trial. Her word against his. Innocent
>>   until PROVEN (*not alleged) guilty is still the docturing in the USA.
>
>You mean all those folks under indictment by grand juries never should
>have been indicted, since they are by docturing [sic] innocent?  Why
>do we bother with grand juries, then?

Please don't make fun of my typos.

Peter, please read the section you quoted again. If you still don't get it,
read on.

Note for the intellectually challenged: I asserted that if it had been
taken to a grand jury, it would not have gone to trial, because there was
and is insufficient evidence. Peter attempts to equate this with all
indictments are invalid, regardless of circumstance.

						- greg
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon Admits he's a Nazi (no film at 11 due to lack of interest)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:46:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.024022.15517@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.211237.18170@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>Well, I am most definitely pro-life.  In the above scenario, the police
>>had standing orders to use whateve force necessary to stop the pro-choice
>>demonstrators.  Now, I haven't really written much so far, but the basic
>>storyline is: The future.  Liberalism has run amok in our society, the people
>>are fed up with this trend and demand a solution to this problem.  The people
>>find their solution embodied in the ideas promoted by the New Order Party,
>>who is elected by a landslide on their candidate's promise to stamp out
>>liberalism once and for all. You're right, to make the world a better place.
>
>Thank you Simon. I always thought you were a fascist. Having you state it
>plainly on the net is very honest of you.
>
So Orwell was then a fascist because he wrote about Big Brother in "1984"??
I always thought that "1984" was a criticism of fascism/Nazism.  I'm
automatically a Nazi for planning to write about how such a system could
come to power under the right circumstances.  You might be getting fact and
fiction a tad confused.  I'm not a Nazi, in fact if you have read my previous
postings you'll see that one fundamental reason I oppose abortion is its
potential for use in Nazi-style eugenics.  I doubt I would last long under a
Nazi system.
From: flagg@blind-lemon.cs.unlv.edu (Scott Cunningham)
Subject: Re: STOCKDALE ?!?!
Organization: UNLV
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 19:54:24 GMT

In article <1bgqgsINN1ec@clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk> ecpzp@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr  
V A Noronha) writes:
 "Get this guy Stockdale!
 "He's inarticlate, confused, purely bewildered.
 "Did he turn on his hearing aid at all?
 "And to think he might be one heart beat from the Presidency.
 "Or this Ross Perot's secret weapon to make sure he doesn't do well
 " enough to help Bush by ousting Clinton?

Yea, too bad this guy didn't come off more like a politician!

	Look at Dan's presentation, he couldn't even get the numbers straight!   
$150 billion in new taxes, NOT!  Almost a third of that, not that I do/do not  
want these taxes, just a fair representation of the numbers!

	Look at Gore's presentation, he wasn't in the debate, he was making  
speaches.  In carefully worded double speak he danced around the debate as no  
other polititian could!


________________________________________________________________________
Scott Cunningham \ We're the NSA                                        \
Username: flagg  \ So your the ones I hear on the other end of my phone \
                 \ No, that's the FBI                                   \
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: flagg@blind-lemon.cs.unlv.edu (Scott Cunningham)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Organization: UNLV
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:33:20 GMT

 "In article <1992Oct12.043734.5462@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)  
writes:
 "	[My apologies to the people who still think that Bush has a chance]

	Sorry to burst your bubble but the presidential election is not a  
win/lose event.  Unlike a sporting event if the person I choose to vote for  
does not have the majority of the Electoral Vote, I do not "lose".

 "	This election is the juxposition of two major events for
 "Republicans.  The first is the massive failure in their bid for the
 "white house. Not only is Bush going to lose, he's not losing in
 "the wake of a major catastrophy or scandle, but rather on his own
 "merits. (Call this premature if you like, but unless Clinton is found
 "screwing a sheep, the writings on the wall, folks)

	Other than "screwing sheep" there are many other criteria which I and  
many other's consider before making a decision on who would be the best man to  
be president.  I think that the questions concerning Clinton's honesty puts  
quite an unfavorable light on his credibility.  Also, how does one win on his  
merits?  Perhaps a lack of merits, or maybe faults, but not merits.

 "	The other major event is the rise of Limbaugh, Buchannan and
 "their ilk within the party. No one can prove that the reason that
 "people arn't voting republican is because of the choices of Convention
 "speakers this year, but there does seem to be a correlation between
 "Republicans who might win and Republicans who have stayed as far away
 "from the GOP convention, Family Values, and the rest of the far right
 "rhetoric as they could.

	Rush Limbaugh is not "within the party" he is a popular TV and Radio  
personality.  There is no threat to the political system by Rush Limbaugh and  
he is mearly exercising his freedom of speech, (as many liberals do).  Rush's  
show is not a forum for Republicans, a news show (though it does feature  
current events), or an attack on the Liberals of this country.  As he has  
stated many, many times, his show contains nothing but HIS OWN PERSONAL  
OPINIONS!  Why do so many of you consider this threatening?

________________________________________________________________________
Scott Cunningham \ We're the NSA                                        \
Username: flagg  \ So your the ones I hear on the other end of my phone \
                 \ No, that's the FBI                                   \
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Simon Admits he's a Nazi 
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:12:18 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


In article <1992Oct13.194614.14480@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
 
>I'm not a Nazi, in fact if you have read my previous
>postings you'll see that one fundamental reason I oppose abortion is its
>potential for use in Nazi-style eugenics.  I doubt I would last long under a
>Nazi system.
 
At least just judging from what you have posted here so far, I doubt 
that what you say is true.  
 
Pro-choice believes that the person most capable to make their own
reproductive choice is the individual (For some women).
 
Pro-life believes that this choice should only be up to the government.
 
Guess which group has the higher potential to be used for 
Nazi-style eugenics?
 
Dan King
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6824 alt.activism.d:3624 alt.politics.elections:15564 alt.politics.bush:8120 alt.politics.clinton:9004 talk.politics.misc:50202 talk.abortion:41266
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
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: 6 Oct 92 17:43:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <ld3flkINN2i0@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (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.

Ted
-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6949 alt.activism.d:3677 alt.politics.elections:15799 alt.politics.bush:8362 alt.politics.clinton:9333 talk.politics.misc:50500 talk.abortion:41575