HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: CROSSPOSTING!!!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:04:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.202208.14419@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>After private discussion with a few prominent participants in this newsgroup
>I have been trying to privately moderate the number of crossposts to this
>group in particular and to a.r-l not in particular since it gets about 50%
>more posts per day than a.f.r-l.  I have been sending out the following
>form letter:
>
>******************************************************************************
****
>Form-letter:
>
>Can you please refrain from cross-posting articles like this to
>alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and alt.rush-limbaugh?  These two groups
>are now getting so many off-topic postings that his fans and
>anti-fans have ceased participating.
>
>If you feel you must post it to a r-l group could you only post it
>to alt.rush-limbaugh and refrain from posting it to alt.fan.r-l?
>
>Firstrun articles are fine but Re: replies don't add much to these
>groups if they are off-topic.
>
>Thank you.  Comments and flames to msako@lsil.com
>
>******************************************************************************
*****
>
>and have received a few responses, mostly in defense but after an explanation
>on my part the poster usually agreed with the intent of the form letter.  I
>know many people here (including me) have cutback or ceased participation
>altogether because of the excessive number of off-topic posts.
>
>If the true fans here would unite and help to rid this group of the crossposti
ng
>I think it could get back to what it used to be before alt.politics.bush and
>alt.politics.clinton which seem to be the principal groups that the crossposts
>eminate from.
>
>
>---
>==============================================================================
=
>Mitch Sako    LSI Computing Systems              Office    408-433-4187
>internet:     msako@lsil.com                FAX  408-433-8796
>uucp:         lsil!msako
>RIME:         ->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
>Disclaimer:   Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
>         reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
>         my management or my mother



AMEN!!

Thank you.  I thought I was the only one bothered by this.  From now on, 
anything that is cross-posted gets a big fat "K" from me!

It's getting old very fast...
-- 
           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
             Win Twins!
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:52:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:

> In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
> 
> > 
> > And, asked if he could provide some substantive proof of his allegations,
> > Mr. Dornan admitted he could not, but suggested that his "gut feelings"
> > compelled him to continue them.
> 
> He SAID this?  Jesus...
> 
It is amazing that McCarhtyism is not dead.

doug
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: Michigan State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 03:42:01 GMT

bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:

> *    The American people don't want to hear about Bill Clinton's 1969
> itinerary

The biggest problem about this entire thing is not what Clinton did, but 
his trying to cover it up.  Many people, even 'conservatives', disagree
about the Vietnam War to this day.  That is all right.  What is not all
right is that Clinton repeatedly has said that he only attended a couple
of anti-war rallies, and then only to hear the speakers, and that he
just had a chance and brief meeting with that clergyman, etc., when the
truth is that Clinton actually helped organize rallies, carried a coffin
into the embassy compound, and on and on.

Why does he feel the need to lie about all of this?
-- 
Dan Griffin                     Abort the whales with a nuclear handgun.
griffin@egr.msu.edu
From: aholdern@zeus.calpoly.edu (Andrejs Abolins Holderness)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Jokes ( and a Perot one too )
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:04:36 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In article <1992Oct14.133830.4066@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner) writes:
>Here are some more Clinton jokes:
>
>Well, just a thought.
>
>You know, it would be a peachy keen idea for someone to paste the heads of
>Bill, Hillary, Al, and Tipper on a porno movie, and doing around the world
>several times.
>
>The movie would be called "The Great 'Ol Party"
>
>The repub's talk about the grand old party, but these guys would go at it
>24 hours a day.
>
>Why does Hillary have a big mouth?
>She likes to bl** whales.
>
>Why does hillary have a grimace on her face?
>Bill forgot to take the di*** out.
>
>Why did Bill use the di***?
>Because Hillary bit it off!
>
>Why did Gennifer Flowers leave Bill and talked?
>Bill had NOTHING to give her!
>
>About the porno film,
>                       Slick Willie bl*** the country.
>
>And a Perot Joke:
>                  Doesn't Perot look like Radar 30 years later?
>
>And another Clinton joke:
>
>Hillary isn't just butt ugly, she's up-butt ugly!
>
just curious..were these supposed to be funny?
  
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6447 alt.rush-limbaugh:6832
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:41:29 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct6.001338.27975@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.212140.20360@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>
>>Madonna's new $4 million estate in Coral Gables took a "big
>>beating, though." Windows were broken and the landscape was
>>damaged. Rush says that this is no big deal for Madonna - "it's
>>not the first time that some guy blew into town for a night,
>>trashed her, and then left."
>
>	This was the Rush Limbaugh quote I was talking about.
>
>	It seems that he _relished_ the thought of her being sexually
>humiliated, which I find rather sick. Yes, sick. I think sex should be
>for enjoyment, not for humiliation, whatever Rush Limbaugh may think.

Humiliation is in the eye of the beholder.  I think that she sexually 
humiliates herself by publicly doing the things that she does in 
videos, movies, etc.  If you publicly display a certain type of 
behavior, don't be surprised when someone comes to take advantage of 
that behavior.

In other words, if you symbolically masturbate on stage in front of 
thousands of people, don't be surprised if someone thinks that you 
are sexually loose.

Ted

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

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Clarifying an Argument
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:21:55 GMT

In article <Oct09.195039.99097@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
>If a man gets another man pregnant, I'll be rather surprised.

	I predict there'll be two guys even more surprised than you!

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nordquist@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Subject: Test 2
Organization: Washington State University
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:18:10 -0800

Just one more Test

Dan Nordquist
All my opinions are mine and not my employers


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: eric@wdl35.wdl.loral.com (Eric Kuhnen)
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Distribution: usa, na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:17:39 GMT

tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.190408.19387@wdl.loral.com> eric@wdl35.wdl.loral.com (Eric Kuhnen) writes:
>>Furthermore, I testify that the only way lasting Peace may be achieved is
>>by knowing the true character of God.
>And then you burn at the stake anybody who doesn't beleive in what you think
>is the true character of God.   If you manage to burn enough of em,  there
>will be lasting peace.

Well, I suppose so, if this was Salem, Massachussetts in the 17th Century. :)
But seriously, the very nature of my belief precludes me from the intellectual,
social, emotional, spiritual, and certainly physical stake burning to which
you are alluding.

Eric
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opinions are based upon Reason and Logic, and are therefore not connected
in any way to my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Think about it for a minute
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:48:33 GMT

>problem that government should fix and what should be left to the
>private sector.  Conservatives (as myself) tend to believe that more
>should be left to the private sector and ruled by competition and market
>forces.  Liberals tend to believe that more should be controlled by
>government.  Unfortunately I tend to think that in general government
>control is a bad thing.  It leads to socialism and communism.  This

Exactly.  It occurred to me a few days ago that with socialism imploding all
over the world, I suppose it's possible that something of a vacuum may exist
that will now be filled by Slick Willie and his "from each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs" agenda.  Hmmmm...did I just
suggest that liberalism is dangerously close to socialism?  Maybe.

 ===========================================================================|
 |Don Wiggins                           | Success is getting what you want. |
 |Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu | Happiness is wanting what you get.|
 |                                      |     -- Brother Dave Gardner       |
 ===========================================================================|
From: fpittl@infopls.chi.il.us (Frank Pittel)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 00:03:41 CDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

BS> then Clinton went to visit his friend.

BS> *    Clinton spent Christmas in Finland with the family of a college
BS> friend before heading to Moscow where he spent five or six days
BS> touring.

BS> *    Clinton has repeatedly said that he opposed the war in Vietnam
BS> and that he attended several anti-war marches.  He participated in no
BS> anti-American demonstrations.

That's all fine and good, the problem I have with all of this (which is
what Bush origanly commented on) is Clintons inabilty to tell the truth.

He can't even tell the same story the same way times in a row.

First he didn't dodge the draft then he did a little then some more.
Each time it was a differant stroy.
Then he didn't organize protests then he did. (again sort-of)

The question that has to be asked here is. Does he even know what the
truth is about anything? What kind of president would he make? From what
I can tell when asked a tuff question his first instinct is to lie about
it. Then if pressed admit to the lie and blame Bush.

Frank
---
 * SLMR 2.0 *
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Keywords: Rush Liberal Media Anita Hill Clarence Thomas
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:17:16 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <palane.718478993@pv7426.vincent.iastate.edu> palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:
>
>Paul
>
>[By the way, at the time, I considered her story to be more convincing, but
>lacking any proof so I would have voted to confirm. Of course, he didn't have
>the qualifications to be nominated in the first place, but that's another
>issue.]

Paul, I suggest you read a few of Thomas' opinions from the last year and
then compare his reasoning abilties to that of Justice Souter's (try the
PA abortion ruling).  Not only does Souter's writing ability stink, in 
comparison with Thomas, his reasoning abilities need help.

Ted K.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6659 alt.rush-limbaugh:7089
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:38:33 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct8.005556.29945@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	And how was the
>movie decadent? What is self-evident to you may not be self-evident to
>others.
>

How about masturbation through her clothes on stage?  She said, on one 
of those Entertainment Tonight clones, that she had an orgasm on stage.

Good enough for you?

Ted

-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:30:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Rush Limbaugh: a Misogynist Boor?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush will never die (was Re: rush)
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:39:55 GMT

In article <Bw4zo8.4rw@epix.rrze.uni-erlangen.de>, arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de
(Michael Arras) says:

>kill conservatism (although you may try).  There are a lot of other people
>with conservative values and a natural entertaining personality who could
>probably get the same ratings as Rush, if Rush went off the air.

Blasphemy!  Burn in Berkeley, heathen!  :-)

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:33:55 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <9210081734.AA21296@MIT.EDU> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>
>                GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
>
> *    Bush's latest attack on Bill Clinton for a trip he took 23 years
> ago is a pathetic attempt to divert the American people from the
> worst economic record in 50 years.  It is a sign of pure
> desperation.
>
> *    Bush said last night it's been an ugly political year.  He's
> right -- and he's responsible for it.  It's smear campaigns like he's
> running that have turned off the American people.

If the American people are turned off you should be grateful for the
observation.  Sow why the panic?>

> *    Moscow was just one of many places Clinton visited as a tourist
> during his Northern European vacation.  He traveled alone, without a
> sponsor, and he paid his own way.
>
> *    At least eight of the 32 Rhodes scholars in Clinton's class also
> traveled to Moscow on their own or in small groups.  There were no
> restrictions on traveling to Moscow. It was very inexpensive.
I wonder if any of them can remember who they talked to?>
>
> *    Clinton has repeatedly said that he opposed the war in Vietnam
> and that he attended several anti-war marches.  He participated in no
> anti-American demonstrations.
>
If you march in a protest against a war in wich Americans fight you a
are by definition marching in an anti-American demonstration.  And to
do it in a froeign country is absolutely disgraceful in my view.
Truth this relevation scares the bejeebers out of the pro-Clinton camp.  If i
it's no big deal then why shouldn't Clinton tell the American people about it?
One last thing.  Do you honestly believe that if the Clinton campaign had
this kind of information on President Bush they wouldnt use it.  More i
importantly dosen't the public have a right to know?
>
>Distribution:
>  Org >internet:Clinton-Org@ai.mit.edu
>  Jock Gill [70670,2477]
>
>
From: dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson )
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Arthur B. Laffer
Summary: Mr. Bush MUST be re-elected even if he doesn't deserve it
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:53:29 GMT
Organization: Amoco Corporation

In article <1992Oct15.102658.19202@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>    BUSH DOES NOT MERIT REELECTION
>        by Arthur B. Laffer 
>
>  George Bush has not earned the right to be reelected.  His performance
>  has been poor across a wide range of presidential tasks.  It's time
>  for a new broom to sweep the country clean.
   [much deleted] 
>  The final point is that, if Clinton screws up the country, you'll get
>  a great GOP president in 1996 the likes of Kemp or Quayle.  If Bush
>  wins you'll get a rotten four years and by 1996 you'll still have
>  nothing to look forward to.

First of all, it is not if Mr. Clinton screws up, it is after he screws up.
However, Mr. Laffer has some fair criticism of Mr. Bush's "read my lips"
pledge.  It is a little hard (even for a far right wing Republican like me)
to not frown when Mr. Bush criticizes Mr. Clinton about trust.

I also have problems with Bush not giving more support to Israel
than he did. The economy I would blame on a combination of Mr. Bush,
the democrat controlled Congress, and the business cycle.  The cyclic
nature of the economy gets most of the blame; the rest of the blame should
fall primarily on Congress's shoulders for not passing Mr. Bush's economic
program.

However, our country can't stand four years of liberal democrats in power.
They will continue to tear down the values that have held our society 
together this long.  They will do their best to kill as many babies as 
possible (Mr. Clinton's litmus test for the supreme court).  They will 
continue to promote persecution of Christians and to champion the agenda of 
sodomites, felons, and econazies. They will tell criminals who riot in the 
streets, "Nice little boys, we understand that your feelings are hurt 
because you can't have everything you want without working for it". NO, the 
United States of America can not stand the reaping (the results) that will 
occur after that kind of sowing.    		


"Jesus saith unto him, I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life: NO MAN
cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME"  John 14:6 
=========================================================================
David L. Hanson       Internet --> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com
Amoco Corporation     X.400    --> A=attmail,P=amoco,S=Hanson,G=David,I=L
Any opinions expressed are my own!
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6406 alt.rush-limbaugh:6802
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:31:06 GMT
 <92280.013331KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Oct6.195029.27536@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na

In article <1992Oct6.195029.27536@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) says:

>Gee, weren't you the guy who got all offended by my joke that conservatives
>have trouble typing, even with one finger?

No.

>Hey, it's just a joke.  This message is a joke, Rushes comments about
>Madonna were a joke, and Kurt Ludwick is a joke.

WAAAHHH!  MOMMY! HE'S PICKING ON ME!!!! WAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!

>Hey, it's just another joke... don't get offended.

OK, OK already.  Gee, you say that like it's not obvious.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner)
Subject: Re: Two down... one to go!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:22:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.004510.22586@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>Rush Limbaugh is the MOST listened to on the radio 
>and the MOST read in the non-fiction books section... In history.
>
>If he becomes the MOST watched person on TV, it'll make Rush Limbaugh
>the absolutely most paid-attention-to person in the United States of
>America, all around. 
>
>The man is a genius. 
> 
>
I'll drink to that!

From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:01:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, snh1@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Sanjay Hiranandani - N2MRZ) writes:

> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> >	This was the Rush Limbaugh quote I was talking about.
> >	It seems that he _relished_ the thought of her being sexually
> >humiliated, which I find rather sick. Yes, sick. I think sex should be
> >for enjoyment, not for humiliation, whatever Rush Limbaugh may think.
> 
> 	Is it wrong for a conservative to have a sense of humor?

No, but can you demonstrate that this phenomenon has actually
occurred, so that we do not have to treat it as strictly rhetorical?

doug
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6408 alt.rush-limbaugh:6804
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:37:00 GMT
 <1992Oct6.011858.13643@umbc3.umbc.edu>
 <1992Oct6.232140.1297@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <1992Oct7.022235.15230@s1.gov>
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na

In article <1992Oct7.022235.15230@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says:

>        "Ridicule traditional values" -- What are "traditional
>values", and how does she do the ridiculing? I think that we have some
>awfully thin skins here...

I think 'sex with religious symbols' is a good start.

>        "Blatantly promiscuous lifestyle" -- like what??? Do you have
>direct knowledge of who Madonna goes to bed with??? Not even the
>National Enquirer...

...can keep up with her... :-)  (sorry, it fit so well)
I'm sorry, is anyone offended by Madonna jokes?  If so, I'll have to stop.

>        And there is another aspect of her career that is sure to
>enrage a lot of conservatives -- she has gotten essentially no
>government funding for her career. So that means that they can't order
>the NEA to pull the financial plug on her. The closest she has ever

Bravo for her.  You know, from her success, I don't doubt Mapplethorpe could
have made a lot of money on the market for his 'Piss Christ', probably by
selling it for use in a heavy metal video.  Or a Madonna video.  Or especial-
ly Sinead (SkINhEAD) O'Connor.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------