HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:11:03 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
] In article <1992Dec28.075957.19167@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
] >
] >] I read this and was sickened by it.  All I've got to say is that's what
] >] the death penalty is for.  I honestly hope those three killers get the
] >] gas chamber, no appeals.
] >]
] >] Call me crude, but something must be done.
] >
] >thanks simon, I was often confused about
] >your commitment to the sanctity of all human life....
] 
] This is precisely why I feel that these murderers should be executed.
] 
] Simon
] 

thank you again simon for clarifying that you 
do not hold to the sanctity of human life as
some matter of intrinsic value.

Or should we interpret this along the old
"double predestinationalist" lines, wherein
we KNOW that there was intrinsic value in the
person who was killed, and NONE in the person
who did the killing.....

Or are you just intending to show off what
Comes from ModernSeXularHumanist education
and its MoralRelativisticThinking?

ciao
drieux

ps: pulling out the old DD214 one more time, to
wave the fact that as a Card Carrying WarMongerBabyKiller[tm]
it is so nice to see folks willing to stand up for
what they believe in.....

"napalm, napalm, sticks like glue.... "




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gus3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Christian Gustafson)
Subject: Re: Rush on Donahue
Reply-To: gus3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:07:22 GMT

In article <nate.978@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>thatcher@vcd.hp.com (Garen Thatcher) writes:
>>Has everyone seen todays Donahue show yet? 
>>[...]
>    I didn't see that show but I saw some clips on last night's RL the TV 
>show. I'm not sure it's the same Donahue show, though. Is this the one in 
>which they took a call from a girl who said repeatedly that she thought 
>Rush was a pig and got a rousing ovation from Phil's audience? I know 
>that she's entitled to her opinion and she doesn't have to love Rush, but 
>the fact that the audience gave such a positive response to such a weak, 
>non-substantive personal attack [...]

Oh, God, yes this clip made my skin crawl.  Was, then, the entire show
carried on in this manner?  Rush sure has guts to venture into a hornets
nest like that; it gave creedence to G. LeBon's observation of the sheer
mindlessness of crowds.  Only LeBon was concerned about how groups like 
juries, with some intelligent and respectable members, could be deceived and
led about nonetheless - to see a crowd composed entirely of idiots, 
Donahue's studio audience, is absolutely terrifying.  I presume that by 
going on a show like that Rush wanted to counter the misconception that 
he is not open to debate, by venturing into an alien forum.  Maybe he should
try out Larry King...

Donahue's audience is mostly female - I presume that they were hostile to
Rush because their husbands/boyfriends/etc. are loyal fans!
cg
-- 
:::::======  gus3@midway.uchicago.edu  | FCC, FDA, FTC, FAA, EPA, FEMA,    
:::::======                            | IRS, FBI, FDIC, DLC, SEC, TVA,
===========  Paleoconservatives Unite! | and the Fed - STOP scrambling
===========  Re-take America, etc ...  | Conservative BandwiPH$$HDSBOBHJYQ$M@N
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10745 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:48
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
Subject: Re: A Stolen Life, A Dying Soul
Date: 27 Dec 92 18:41:51 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>I read this and was sickened by it.  All I've got to say is that's what
>the death penalty is for.  I honestly hope those three killers get the
>gas chamber, no appeals.

    I read the original post, but my reaction was merely to be saddened. 
Perhaps my study of history has inured me to violence, but it's difficult 
for me to get too overwrought about individual cases like this one.

>Call me crude, but something must be done.

    I think that your gut reaction may lead you to wish for something less 
than purely poetic justice. IMHO the most appropriate thing that could be 
done would be to throw those three guys and a case of A1 sauce into a cell 
with Jeffery Dalhmer. (There you go, Simon, you weren't nearly as crude 
as me)

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:59:57 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

] 
] I read this and was sickened by it.  All I've got to say is that's what
] the death penalty is for.  I honestly hope those three killers get the
] gas chamber, no appeals.
] 
] Call me crude, but something must be done.
] 
] Simon
] 


thanks simon, I was often confused about
your commitment to the sanctity of all human life....


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
From: cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush on Donahue
Date: 23 Dec 1992 07:51:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I didn't get to see the Donahue Show with Rush, but if anyone did
and video-taped it, could they lease take the time to post a trans-
cript of it so that we can ALL "love Rush more" and "HATE Phil even
more"? <<<SEG>>>

I for one would appreciate it. Thanks in advance!

--
From: stegner_g@cubldr.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:48:33 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Dec21.231710.20966@netcom.com>, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
> In article <1992Dec20.165342.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> stegner_g@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:
>>As regards your statement on separation of church and state, If George 
>>Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin could hear you now, 
>>they'd all be turning in their graves.  The clause stating that "there 
>>shall be a clear separation of church and state..." was intended exactly 
>>to prevent people like you from imposing your morality on the rest of us.  
> 
> Just where is this clause stating that "there shall be a clear
> separation of church and state..."?  It is nowhere in the
> Constitution.  The word "church" does not appear anywhere in the
> constitution.  The only two places were religion is mentioned are
> 
> (1) Article VI Section 3, "... no religious test shall ever be
>     required as a qualification to any office or public trust under
>     the United States."
> 
> (2) Ammendment 1, " Congress shall make no law respecting an
>     establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE
>     THEREOF..."
> 
> (Fanatical, intolerant anti-Christians conveniently "forget" the
> free-exercise part of the Bill of Rights.)

The extracts from the Constitution you quote have been unquestionably
interpreted to mean "a clear separation of church and state."  I stated my case
incorrectly when I said it was a clause in the Constitution as such. 
Nevertheless, if religion cannot be a litmus test for qualification to any
office (this doesn't just mean Congressional office, this broadly applies to
any form of public employment), it also follows that religious establishments
cannot use the government to impose moralistic legislation on the American
people.  The framers of the Consitution clearly intended for the political
sphere to be negotiated in what people sometimes call "the real world" and for
religion to be an individual's personal conviction, for which that person may
exercise freely without government interference (as you so eloquently quote in
CAPS above).

These capitalized words are evidently the PART of Amendment One which strike
your emotional chords the most - not surprisingly, since most Christians (if
you are one, which I cannot assume, can I?) use that six-word phrase to justify
doing things that go way beyond the mere exercising of the religion - such as
composing parts of the 1992 Republican Party Platform.

I am not a fanatical, intolerant anti-Christian, nor do I practice witchcraft,
kill children, turn into a lesbian, or spend my spare time destroying
capitalism.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Summary: Looks like we can expect more of the same from Propeller Boy.
Organization: 4,128 Maniacs
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 15:58:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.144709.24457@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

   As of Jan.20, 1993, President Hillary Clinton (and First Man Bill)
   will give us two new traditions in America:

[the usual Chaney woman-bashing, anyone-left-of-Attila-the-Hun-bashing
deleted -- you've only seen this a few hundred times, already...PLH]

What do you know -- brand new year, same old psychopath...

       --Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--

Rev 2.5?  Don't tell me -- you added a tape drive to the C-128.

       USENET Warlord / IRC Channel Owner / Accounts WorldWide / Home Login!

"USENET Warlord", I can understand -- you *did* make a show of threatening
people in e-mail, and on other networks, no less.  Maybe you should add
"Fidonet Newbie", as well.  IRC channel owner -- I just don't know how I'll
sleep at night knowing you have a channel of your own on IRC.  (Relay works
better, and I can run that from the mainframe, anyway.) "Accounts WorldWide
/ Home Login!" -- sheesh.  I know you already have a whole army of alternate
personalities, but we've already got a *real* John Palmer-type.  I guess I
should expect threatening e-mail from one of your virtual lawyers, now. :-)

		   (Whooboy that means LOTSA time for all this!)

Oh, joy.  We're still giggling over what happened the last time you had a
lot of time for this.

		       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

...and they're grateful for that.  Me, I'll be happy if Dr. Radimsky reads
news...:-)


--PLH, is it rerun time already?
--

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:17:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.165342.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> stegner_g@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:
>As regards your statement on separation of church and state, If George 
>Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin could hear you now, 
>they'd all be turning in their graves.  The clause stating that "there 
>shall be a clear separation of church and state..." was intended exactly 
>to prevent people like you from imposing your morality on the rest of us.  

Just where is this clause stating that "there shall be a clear
separation of church and state..."?  It is nowhere in the
Constitution.  The word "church" does not appear anywhere in the
constitution.  The only two places were religion is mentioned are

(1) Article VI Section 3, "... no religious test shall ever be
    required as a qualification to any office or public trust under
    the United States."

(2) Ammendment 1, " Congress shall make no law respecting an
    establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE
    THEREOF..."

(Fanatical, intolerant anti-Christians conveniently "forget" the
free-exercise part of the Bill of Rights.)

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Clark University
Date: 29 DEC 92 16:52:47 GMT

In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>>This is the same attitude I have seen from pro-lifers
>>all along.  They'll get arrested to save a life, but
>>once the baby is born they could care less.  Try to get
>>some of these folks to support social programs like
>>WIC or foodstamps.  It's a hoot!
>> 
>>Jared Dahl
>>Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>>Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
> 
>Blah blah blah.. how many times have we heard this ludicrous argument.
>In taking a life a murderer forfeits his rights because he has WILLINGLY
>with MALICE ended another person's life and given evidence that he cannot
>be trusted to participate in society.  Laws are designed not only to enforce
>morals, but to teach them (Why does it seem like I keep saying this...).
>The only way a law can teach is if the punishment fits the crime and
>if it is executed SWIFTLY.
>
>An unborn baby has undertaken no conscious action of any kind, nor with
>any malice, to threaten any member of society.  Thus, without due process,
>it is your contention that this baby be found guilty of nothing and 
>sentenced to death for it.

Fetuses do pose a threat to members of society - the women that they are 
living inside of.  Every pregnant woman faces a risk of death that is greater 
than 0.00.

>The resistance you hear from "us" concerning social programs is not
>a result of our lack of respect or concern for human life, rather it is
>from the opposite, our concern for human life.  Creating a welfare state
>inhibits people's belief in themselves, promotes and reinforces their
>feelings of helplessness rather than encouraging the desire to change their
>situation by themselves, and punishes those who have accepted the 
>responsibility for their own destiny (ie. people who work).

Really, those poor, homeless, and hungry children should just take 
responsibility for their lives and find a job.  Funding programs such as 
WIC will just encourage infants and children to be lazy bums.

>This is not meant to imply that certain situations don't exist where some
>assistance is warranted, but rather that many more exist that would be
>better solved by encouraging self-dependence rather than state-dependence.

But when it comes to abortion, you would rather have the state take charge 
than let the pregnant woman make her own decision about her life and her body?

>Edward Simmonds

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:37:37 GMT

In article <C08L2F.I7F@ddsw1.mcs.com>
karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>I have noticed a definite hypocrisy in the term "Conservative", especially
>as applied by Rush...
>
>Has anyone noted that Rush, and most other "Conservatives", support the
>measure which passed in Colorado (family values and all that)?
>
>Yet, is not one of the founding principles of conservative thought that the
>government should make fewer laws,

       Just to make a point, a position that the government should make
fewer laws does not mean that you object to every new law which comes
down the pike simply because it is a new law.

>and leave people more alone (than the
>liberals)?

       Actually, the impression I get is that the problem with the
Colorado amendment is that it leaves people *too much* alone.  That
the government doesn't step in at the "right" times.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: So, anyone want to talk about Rush Limbaugh around here?
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:07:02 GMT
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorba7.larc.nasa.gov

In article <C0AIqw.D9E@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu 
(JIM GRAHAM) writes:
> Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
> Path: 
> 
news.larc.nasa.gov!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.ind
ia
> na.edu!venus.iucf.indiana.edu!graham
> From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
> Subject: Re: So, anyone want to talk about Rush Limbaugh around here?
> Message-ID: <C0AIqw.D9E@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
> News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
> Sender: news@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
> Nntp-Posting-Host: venus.iucf.indiana.edu
> Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
> Organization: Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, Bloomington, Indiana
> References: <mjenkins.725914336@cunews> 
<nate.1008@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>
> Distribution:  world
> Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:15:27 GMT
> Lines: 36
> 
> In article <nate.1008@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, 
> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes...
> >mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
> >>...my killfile is huge.
> > 
> >    Mine is not, but this morning I really kind of regret it.
> > 
> >    I've paged through almost 200 articles and this is the first one to 
> >even make a token attempt to talk about Rush (Yeah, Michael!).
> > 
> >    Just for the record, let me state that I'm really, really bored with 
> >        1) the "Gays in the Military" thread
> >        2) the "Sexuality/Lifestyles" thread
> >    and 3) everything to do with Steve Chaney (the new cross-post king)
> > 
> >    At this point I can only hope against hope that the people who have 
> >been sustaining those tired old topics will find new interests once the 
> >new semester starts. Thank heavens Rush will be back on the air in 24 
hours 
> >and 15 minutes.
> > 
> >--
> >Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
> >Psychology Department               Indiana University
> >nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
> 
> I'll second all of the above, Nathan. :-)
> 
> Jim Graham 
> 
>         -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
>                           Neither do they speak for me.
>  ______________________________________________________________________
> | Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
> |           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
> | BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
> |            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
> |______________________________________________________________________|

YEAH, NATHAN!!!

Mike

Mike Rowland (Contractor),  MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush on Donahue
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:54:53 GMT

thatcher@vcd.hp.com (Garen Thatcher) writes:
>Has everyone seen todays Donahue show yet? Phil tried to lay it on
>thick but I think that Rush really held up under a really tired and
>mundane attempt to dicredit Rush's viewpoint.

    I didn't see that show but I saw some clips on last night's RL the TV 
show. I'm not sure it's the same Donahue show, though. Is this the one in 
which they took a call from a girl who said repeatedly that she thought 
Rush was a pig and got a rousing ovation from Phil's audience? I know 
that she's entitled to her opinion and she doesn't have to love Rush, but 
the fact that the audience gave such a positive response to such a weak, 
non-substantive personal attack makes me really question the intelligence 
of the people Phil had in his audience. I don't think it's in my or any 
liberal's interest to waste time subjecting Rush to that sort of empty 
ad hominien stuff. 

>Didn't make me like Rush less but made me hate Phil more.....

    Somehow I doubt that the program actually changed your opinion of 
Phil Donahue. Surely you must have known on the way into the show how
Donahue makes his living?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:57:54 GMT

Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way (larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu) wrote:
: This reminds me a little of the Monty Python skit where a fellow paid
: money to get an argument. The other man accepted a 5# note, and then
: proceeded to argue for some time that he hadn't been paid. Then suddenly
: he stopped arguing, and had to be paid another 5# note before he would
: continue arguing.
: 
: So send me a fiver if you want me to continue arguing.

You ARE allowed to argue for free on personal time :)

: 
: L.
: "Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
:  I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
:  Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
:  (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
: Oh sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10750 alt.politics.clinton:19137 alt.politics.bush:14949
From: dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Summary: YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN!
Date: 27 Dec 92 21:06:37 GMT
Organization: These are my opinions.

"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of
evil against you falsely for My sake.  Rejoice and be glad, for great is
your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before
you."  Matthew 5:11-12	

Thank you for all the blessing, Mr. Barwell; you alone have greatly 
increased my rewards in heaven. 




============================================================================
David L. Hanson
Naperville, IL

"He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
 abideth on him." John 3:36