HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 16:12:35 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: Engle

In article <ged1.721587318@crux1.cit.cornell.edu> ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle) writes:
>Hmm, maybe you should read the rest of my letters?
>
>	Seems that I should take my own advice: notice that what I think is
>	wrong is the method, not the means.  I am sure that Engle has much
>	to say of his own and I respect those opinions.  What I don't respect
>	is the way he systematically chops up thought and does his best to
>	show that he disagrees without coming up with constructive solutions
>	and thought.  Where would a nation of criticizers get us? It really

Seems to me that your statement applies to at least half the people in this
group.  Why pick on one person?

>	does seem that many of today's liberals (and conservatives) can do
>	nothing more than take someone's idea and find what is wrong with it
>	as opposed to what will work and how to implement those things.  As

True enough.

>	I have said elsewhere, someone has to come up with the original
>	thought.  Maybe now you see that I place value in criticism, but only
>	when it is followed with some thought.

So, if I see a problem with an argument, unless I can come up with a
solution, I should keep my mouth shut?  I think not.  A lot of the debate
here centers around why we should change this or that.  If someone simply
points out perceived flaws in the argument, are they not implicitly 
arguing that the status quo is better than the proposed change?

>	Engle himself admits, also check out his writings, that he spends
>	most of his time arguing with others' points.

Is that not the nature of debate?  I find that Mr. Engle's comments are
generally polite (no insults, etc) and usually valid.  If someone is able
to shoot a hole in one of my arguments, it may hurt a bit but I generally
am able to step back and examine my argument, hopefully to patch it up,
but sometimes it changes my mind.  Seems to me that the problems of
"liberals" vs. "conservatives" is not that no one offers alternatives, but
that each side is generally unwilling to even *listen* to the other side.

People like Rush Limbaugh feed on this, and even promote it.  Inflammatory
rhetoric like "feminazi" and "econazi" is hardly constructive now, is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9590 or.politics:612
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,or.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriage (was: The Difference Between Cs and Ls)
Keywords: marriage, homosexuals, rights.
Date: 10 Nov 92 05:58:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: bug.1123
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: na
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <BwuzBE.9v7@news.orst.edu> curt@oce.orst.edu
(Curt Vandetta) writes:
<The Constitution of the United States of America gives rights to
<individuals, it doesn't give any rights to society.

The Founders (and I) would say rather, that the Bill of Rights,
acknowledges existing individual Rights (which I consider redundant:
only individuals *can* have Rights), and denies government the authority
to infringe on these Rights.

<It does give some power to the government, but none to society through
<government.

A) We are talking about state laws primarily (the only federal aspects
to marriage that I know of are the tax code and the law that a state
must recognize a legal marriages from all other states).

B) Ym> are making a distinction without a difference.

<The Government was not given the power to legislate morals, but it has
<assumed that power.

The marriage laws are not about morals.

<It IMHO has over stepped it's bounds.  It should never have recognized 
<marriage in the first place, and it should definitely not recognize only
<the "Christian" (for lack of a better term) form of marriage.

Is it your position that the government shouldn't take any interest in
how children are raised?  Why isn't this a legitimate interest of
government?

<I see this as a violation of my 1st amendment right to freedom of
<religion.

Nonsense.  The marriage laws don't restrict your religious practice.

<There are many religions that have a different definitions of marriage,
<and we as a free society should be left alone to worship them as WE
<see fit.

Ymu are.  As I have said before, you can have any ceremony ym> would
like to join any arbitrary group of consenting adults, and you can call
that union whatever you like.  Ymu just can't get a state marriage
license for it (unless it is a traditional marriage), but why should
you be able to?  Why do you need it?  Why do you need (or want) the
state's blessing?
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: 2ftohaul@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: How do I get a station list?
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:00:53 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Hello fellow dittoheads,

How do I get a station list?  I am going to Colorado to go skiing soon
and I want to find out which stations Rush is on out in Colorado.  Is
there a station list posted to this group?

Also, what is the name of the music or song that Rush uses on his
T.V. show?  The intro music?  Thanks.

--
CAT
Listen to Rush Limbaugh!  It is good for your head.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 16:22:05 GMT

In <10NOV199213360109@sscvx1.ssc.gov>, John Seitzler writes:

>In article <1992Nov10.171300.11448@netcom.com>, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
>>an, I can't believe the complaints I'm getting with my sig - isn't it amazing
>>that for 12 years, Democrats have been ridiculing Reagan, Bush, Quayle, and
>>anything conservative, yet when they are finally victorious they allow no
>>dissent whatever? I was going to change this sig after about a week or so,
>>but since it's irritating so many whiny liberals, I'm going to keep it around
>>for a while.
>>--
>>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>>                           | Support the coup!
>>CompuServe: 74076,1250     |
>>Internet: jrs@netcom.com   |

>
>Personally, I think your sig is great!  I am continually amazed  how
>'out of control' the liberals get when we don't 'see the light'.
>All I can say is these same raving Libs (or RL's) will be talking out of
>the other side of their mouths when Slick Willie really messes things up
>(and rest assured he will!!!).  The last laugh will be ours.  It'll take
                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You'll laugh if the economy sucks and if the misery index hits 20% again?
You'll sacrifice the good of the country for political ammunition?  Sheesh.
That's no different than what the Congressional Democrats did to Bush.

>12 years after Clinton's 1 term to straighten out the mess he will make.
>Don't tell me to 'give him a chance', just listen to what he promised!!!

He promised Big Government.  If and when people get tired of so much govern-
ment, regulations and taxes, then we smaller government types will be helped.
I hope Clinton does well, but I'll be waiting to pounce on him if he messes
up...

We need to focus on Congress, since that's where the problems are.  Clinton
may--repeat, *may*--be the moderate he claims to be, but Congress isn't.
Congress is controlled by unabashed liberals.  I'm looking forward to having
term limits kick in (which are constitutional, by the way).

Tim Irvin--planning a Libertarian candidacy vs. Congressman Don Edwards in '94
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Subject: Re: Why is the media apologizing for Clinton?
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 11:31:24 GMT

It certainly does seem that the media have been apoligising for Clinton. It seemsthey are even covering international affairs. The question has even been posited:"Will Bill Clinton be up to the task?" The world is still a dangerous place. I 
wonder why they weren't asking these questions BEFORE the election. 

Paul Tsongas was on the Good Morning America Show yesterday. He said something   that really blew my mind. When asked how Clinton could possibly keep all the
promises he made before the election, Tsongas replied that it wasn't necessary.
He said that no one should expect Clinton to keep his promises. He said that thisis the way the system works, all the way down to city hall.

Tsongas was asked who Clinton should consider his real constituency now. He 
replied that the only constituency Clinton should concern himself with now, is   the people in the boardrooms, i.e. the people who run business. This is quite 
bizarre coming from a liberal like Tsongas. This may have been an attempt to 
calm the fears some people may have, and to appear pro business, but it is the 
same kind of talk that liberals have lambasted conservatives for from the        beginning. 

As far as a pro business approach, Clinton has promised legislation to force
businesses to provide services to employees, that all total, will cut profits
by 2/3. He also plans to increase investment in business by increaseing taxes
on certain individuals, and foreign corporations. If these people are offered 
incentives to invest their money, it will probably be in the form of tax shelters. On the other hand, he says he will raise money from these same groups, to coveradditional spending, and a tax break for the middle class. Will Clinton's plans 
actually be beneficial to the US? I'm not going to hold my breath.

Felix Gorney
gorney @ picard.med.ge.com

The opinions expressed are my own.
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Date: 8 Nov 1992 02:19:00 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov6.140151.4548@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>It was interesting hearing Rush deny that a) the Republican party hase
>taken over by the Religious Right and b) it doesn't matter anyway.  At

Also note:  Rush had almost no "religious adds" on his show two years
ago.  Now, one can hear adds for tapes/books to set you on the moral
path sold by people traditionly associated with the "religious right".
Also note Rush is inot the show for the money.  Now, when has Rush bit the
hand that feeds him?


-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
From: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Predictions for 1993
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:03:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:
>Aha, so you admit that the media is  slanted.

You missed the whole point.  Rush claims that the "liberal media" 
can't be trusted, and admits to being biased in the opposite direction
in the name of "equal time."  But even if the media is biased, 
presenting the *opposite* bias does more harm than good.

Understand now?

>Have you listned to Rush's show for more than a few days?

I've been a regular listener for over three months.  When I miss 
the show, I try to read the summaries posted here.  I watch the
TV show from time to time.  

>Maybee you don't like what was being said, because it disproves positions you
>may hold near, and dear to yourself. The truth is sometimes hard to swallow.

Maybe I know a little bit more than you about what it takes to "disprove"
something.  Maybe I can tell the difference between news and entertainment.
Maybe I'm not even the mean old liberal that you seem to think I am.
Maybe you should learn not to assume that everyone who disagrees with you
is one of "them." 

David
"Make that 26 known Limbots."
From: seitzler@sscvx1.ssc.gov (JOHN SEITZLER)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush's Fax #
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:10:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1


Hey, can anyone out there tell me Rush's Fax Number???  We have some
juicy Liberal Tripe we need to get to him.   Thanks.....
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush TV in NYC is Changing Channels
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:35:13 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates


For those who watch Rush Limbaugh on WWOR (Channel 9) out of Secaucus, NJ,
and have noticed that they have bumped him to 1 AM EST from 12:30 EST, be
notified that his show will no longer be carried on that station after
November 13. 

Beginning November 16, RL can be seen on WNEW-TV (Fox, Channel 5) in New 
York City.  Time unknown.

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz)
Subject: Re: newgroup alt.rush-limbaugh.trans
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:56:20 GMT

In article <1dp1rbINNb3l@uwm.edu> stalker@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Javier LaSalle Williams) writes:
>I sent a message to create alt.rush-limbaugh.trans, so we can just post
>the transcripts there and keep the discussion on the other two groups.
>does anyone know what it takes to moderate the group?  Would anyone be
>intrested?  We have to find out if it gets created or not anyway, but 
>if it does, we may want it moderated so there isnt 100 messages everyday, 
>like there is on the discussion groups
>
>- Stalker
>
>-- 
>|  stalker@csd4.csd.uwm.edu  | University of Wisconsin Milwaukee   |      
>|----------------------------|-------------------------------------|
>| "If the answer is 'What's the question?', then the question is." |  
>|                                     - Paul T.G.E. Britton        | 

This sounds like something for John Switzer to handle, since he is the one
who posts the transcripts most of the time.  I think he should moderate that
group and a new one should be created which would help those who just want
to get the transcripts.

Alex
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:28:13 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <nate.801@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu
(Nathan Engle) writes: 
>root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon) writes:
>>pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>>jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
>>>>tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>>>>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.

>>>>In your opinion...

>>>Testimony is evidence.

>>If it was truly "testimony", then why all the fuss over how she was
>>treated by the "cross-examiners". BTW , Clarence Thomas "testified" that 
>>her allegations were false, if you take her testimony as "evidence", you 
>>must take his as evidence also.

> Quite true.  And then we can do what juries do all the time.  *Weigh*
> the evidence on each side and come to a conclusion.

All this talk, as though Thomas were on trial!  

> >    How about this as an alternate wording? 
> >    "She offered no *proof* that she was harassed by anyone."

> Yes, she did.  Given that we have no time travel, the only *proof* we
> have of ANYTHING is evidence.  If we think that the evidence is good
> enough, we call it "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."  You may argue
> that her evidence wasn't good enough, but you can't argue that she
> didn't give any.

Sure sounds like Thomas was on trial!

> >    Evidence and testimony are all well and good, but the Judiciary was the 
> >only body which could validate Ms Hill's evidence. There were no judges 
> >on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and there was no chance that any 
> >new allegations made in Thomas's confirmation hearings could have been  
> >validated within the purview of those hearings. Our system demands that 
> >Judge Thomas be considered innocent until proven guilty, and since no 

> No, it doesn't.  He wasn't on trial.  

Oh, so Thomas WASN'T on trial!

> If he were, then he must be considered innocent.  

Just so.

> There's no such thing as irrefutable proof -- even videotaped evidence
> isn't irrefutable.  (Ask Rodney King about that.)

Apparently, YOU haven't seen the ENTIRE videotape; the jury DID.  Seeing the
WHOLE truth might have changed a lot of minds, and perhaps prevented the riots.
But it ain't your fault; most of the networks refused to air the ENTIRE thing
until after the riots.  Aah, but that's another thread, isn't it? 

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen)
Subject: Re: Rush's Future...
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 01:34:36 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Nov04.172813.16163@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
)Rush will perish or prosper under President Clinton,
)depending on how well President Clinton lives up to
)expectations.  
)
)I expect the contents of Rush's show to remain constant.

I totally agree that Rush's show will be pretty constant.  Any radical changes
might upset listeners/viewers.

However, I feel that Rush will remain on, and he won't dissappear.  His show
is EVENT driven, not politically driven(his show would still be here if there
were no politics).

)
)Jared Dahl
)Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.


-- 
Lee Jorgensen             Internet: jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------
            This is an imaginary .signature ...
   please rotate your monitor by 90 degrees and try again.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tgeorges@nyx.cs.du.edu (Thomas Georges)
Subject: Re: bleeding hearts
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 21:53:23 GMT

jt2n+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Trivelli) writes:

>These ultra-right-wing organizations cannot function without this fake
>religious aura, because they would be seen for what they really are:
>ignorant backwards rednecks.

So if I adhere to a value system I am now an ignorant, backwards, redneck?
Hmmm...

Ignorant of what?  Your intelligence?

Backwards to what?  The "progress" of our day where murder, rape, theft, and
abortion is at an all-time high?  I'm proud to wear *that* label!

Redneck?  I admit that the Florida sun gives me a good tan, but I'm from the
'burbs, you ass!

>Sometimes, however, little slips in rhetoric (such as calling someone a
>"bleeding heart liberal" ) reveal some interesting truths. These are left
>as an exercise for the reader.

Why don't you excercise your brain a bit, Mr. Caustic?

Tom
------- Thomas L. Georges ------ / "I believe that there is one God and that --
------ Harris Corporate HQ ---- /  this country was established with that -----
----- 1025 W. Nasa Blvd. MS57- /  foundational belief; that our morality ------
---- Melbourne, Fl. 32919 --- /  emanates from our Divine Creator, whose laws--
--- 407-724-3974 ----------- /  are not subject to amendment, modification, or
-- 407-724-3888 (fax) ----- /  recission by man." ------ Rush Limbaugh, 1992 --
- tlg@pc3q.corp.harris.com / --------------------- "The Way Things Ought To Be"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: A sad day for America
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1992 23:15:47 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

Some people must just like being kicked when they are down...

In article <Yey1XPS00UhBM3Y5Q=@andrew.cmu.edu>, Gary James Patalsky <gp2f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> 
|> 
|> I say America will have double digit inflation, interest rates and
|> unemployment by June.  If Clinton could not run the small state of
|> Arkansas, what is he going to do to America?
|> 
|> BTW, Clinton is a socialist.  National health care is socialism.
 
That's not the half of it.  After Clinton is inagurated, Rush Limbaugh
and all his fans will be first up against the wall in the ensuing
Political Purifying of America!!

|> You people just elected a failure to the presidency.  What's wrong with you?

Nothing.  We just voted a failure out of the presidency.  HA!


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Keywords: Engle
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:10:01 GMT

ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle) writes:
>Hmm, maybe you should read the rest of my letters?

    I have received no letters from you, although I've seen several 
posted articles.

>Seems that I should take my own advice: notice that what I think is    
>wrong is the method, not the means.  I am sure that Engle has much
>to say of his own and I respect those opinions. What I don't respect
>is the way he systematically chops up thought and does his best to 
>show that he disagrees without coming up with constructive solutions 
>and thought.

    You mean like the way that I've "chopped up" your thoughts here? 
Personally I thought that it was simple courtesy to quote the text to 
which I respond since very few of us have photgraphic memories.

>Where would a nation of criticizers get us? 

    Looks to me like it's made us the greatest superpower the world has 
ever known, but that's just my humble opinion.

>It really does seem that many of today's liberals (and conservatives) 
>can do nothing more than take someone's idea and find what is wrong 
>with it as opposed to what will work and how to implement those things.

    Are you suggesting that critical examination is unnecessary?

>As I have said elsewhere, someone has to come up with the original 
>thought. Maybe now you see that I place value in criticism, but only
>when it is followed with some thought. Engle himself admits, also 
>check out his writings, that he spends most of his time arguing with 
>others' points.

    It's true. I prefer to spend my time speaking directly to the things 
others have actually said. I believe, as did Albert Einstein, that the 
ideas of lone individuals are mean and paltry in comparison with ideas
born of interactions with other people. If I have an original thought 
someday then I will count myself very fortunate, but until that unlikely 
event occurs I'm afraid that I must content myself to the less important 
and less valuable role of puncturing other people's balloons and playing 
the Devil's advocate.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle)
Subject: C'mon Nathan Engle...
Summary: You blast then avoid
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:38:18 GMT

Where are you Engle, I'd like to think that you are not avoiding the topic
at hand...or is it that you have blasted too many others that you need to
spend the time responding to them....

	I wonder what you are doing here in Limbaugh-land anyway.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh