HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:06:01 GMT

In article <BzF8Ew.6r1@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>In article <22580003@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>, tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes...
>>The Rush phenomenon reminds me of the Archie Bunker show.....
>> 
>>The producers were shocked to learn that a significan portion of 
>>the audience was identifying with Archie..not realizing that Archie
>>was the object of the ridicule for his bigotry.
>
>How was this conclusion arrived at?  Was it a scientific poll?
>
>Or is this just hearsay, as usual?
I've heard it also.  From my psych teacher, when we were discussing
desegregation.

>
>> 
>>Its great for Rush...he doesnt have to be intellectual (the audience
>>probably reads and comprehends at about the 6th grade level-that's
>>reader's digest folks!) and can make outrageous statements and not
>>have to back his words up.
>
>I think not.  6th grade level minds typically do not have enough
>wit and logic to understand most of Rush's points.
>
>Quite the contrary, in fact.  One MUST be intellectual in order to
>understand many of his points (ie he leaves it to his audience to
>understand them, rather than spelling them out).
>
>Actually, 6th grade minds are mostly possessed by liberals :-)
>
>> 
>>Certainly please don't think that I'm knocking the man....after all
>>he is getting rich being a bigot...and I still have to work for a
>                            ^^^^^
>Can you provide at least one reference to substantiate, without
>question, that Rush is a "bigot"?
>
>I'd really like to know.
>
>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.                                    |
>|______________________________________________________________________|

Definition (roughly) BIGOT: Someone who discriminates against another because
                            of a group that the other person belongs to.
                            Thus, all anti-homosexual type people are bigots.
                            So are all anti-feminists.  So are all
                            anti-aardvarks (a.s.s. joke =)
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:45:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <92352.102045KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <22580003@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>, tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony
>Zugates) says:
>
>>[blah blah blah]
>>Certainly please don't think that I'm knocking the man....after all
>>he is getting rich being a bigot...and I still have to work for a
>>living.
>
>You know, I never get tired of these idiots who never listen to Rush coming
>in and making their stupid little ad hominem attacks on him.
>
>>It just aint fair... Maybe next Christmas I can think of a way to
>>get rich off of the bigotry phenomenon too....hmmm KuKluxKlan turtles?
>
>Go away, little man.   I'm bigotted against anyone who posts crap like yours.

Oh, come on now, Kurt - these people do have their purpose. After all, think 
of the pleasure we get seeing their pathetic attempts at humor. In particular,
I never tire of seeing how they think being witty means coming up with some 
stupid version of Rush's name. Besides these guys proves Rush right every day
by 1) reaffirming that they think the general public at large is basically 
a bunch of idiots and that Rush's audience in particular is nothing but
a bunch of sponge heads who can't think for themselves, and 2) showing 
that they are more than willing to criticize somebody they have never listened
to. It's an amazing thing that people with no knowledge of a person or subject
are so free with their opinions on such things.
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: shschimm@nyx.cs.du.edu (Steven H. Schimmrich)
Subject: Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.forum
Organization: Department of Geological Sciences, SUNY at Albany
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 17:53:33 GMT


In article <1gl52rINN4mf@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>,
pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (if God's your father then call home!) says:

>> I would like to formally propose a new group, alt.conservative.forum,
>> a moderated group to discuss conservative values and assorted political
>> goings-on from a distinctly right-wing standpoint.

In article <92350.145137KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu 
(Kurt Ludwick) writes:

> Why do we need a moderated group?  There are intelligent liberals here, 
> who help stimulate thought.  The stupid ones are easy to ignore (or flame,
> whichever is your preference. :)

   I agree that a new group for conservatives is sorely needed and you coul
count on my vote but ONLY if it's moderated.
   We NEED a moderated newsgroup because of the immature people (mostly the
flaming liberals, in my opinion) who constantly post useless stuff like "Rush 
Limbaugh is a fat pig and you're all fascists!" etc.
   I personally don't have time to wade through all of the noise posted on
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and alt.rush-limbaugh by people who hate him and hate
comservative values.  There are plenty of places to debate issues like
abortion and gay rights between liberals and conservatives - what I would
like to see is intelligent discussion about conservative issues without
all the flaming from the 18 year-old know-it-alls on the net.
   By the way, a good moderator would let liberals post on a moderated
conservative newsgroup if they sent a well-written, provocative post.
A moderator would be able to sift out all the trash (posts which do
nothing but disagree for the sake of disagreeing or insult or are just
pointless wastes of bandwidth.

--
Steven H. Schimmrich     Department of Geological Sciences         "Non semper
ss6349@tyr.albany.edu    State University of New York at Albany   ea sunt quae
ss6349@albnyvms.bitnet   Albany, New York 12222  (518) 442-4466   videntur."
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:22:31 GMT

In article <Bz5r1K.9wK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>
>>In article <Bz459z.484@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes...
> >| 
> >|It's fascinating to me that today homosexuals are trying very hard to
> >|get in (and stay in) the military, but during the Vietnam war there
> >|were straights who claimed to be homosexual just to get out or stay
> >|out.
>
>>	It's even more fascinating to realise that the military will allow
>>Homosexuals in when a draft is imposed, that is, when the country may 
>>indeed be in real military danger.  
>>	The argument is that they need every bit of help they can get.
>>	But with all the worry about Gays distroying morale and combat ef-
>>fectiveness, I would think that those opposed to Gays would think them
>>more of a risk in draft/wartime, when the consequences of combat ineffect-
>>iveness are more dire.
>>Gadson Sandor
>
>Not true.  Except for an occasional screw-up (play on words unintended), the
>military has not knowingly drafted, enlisted, or commissioned anyone whom
>they knew to be homosexual.  Those who are later found to be such are quickly
>separated.  Admittedly, my experience only goes back three decades so I

Actually this is false.  Sgt. Perry Watkins (sp.?) was kept in the army
(I believe) several years after he publicly proclaimed that he was homosexual.
Moreover, during the Gulf War several gays and lesbians who were
discovered were kept in until the fighting was over.  They can be
cannon fodder, but they can't have careers.

>can't address what the policy was prior to that.  The "need every bit of
>help they can get" argument sounds more like a Billary initiative.
>
>|===========================================================================|
>|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
>| & Lead Scout for the Baby Boomers    | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
>|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
>|===========================================================================|


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: icsip193@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: Re: NO MORE HYPENATED--AMERICANS
Reply-To: icsip193@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:20:59 GMT

In article <92345.103426KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.212953.23095@den.mmc.com>, sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John
>Sims) says:
>
>>It does seem you ain't nobody if you don't have a hyphen in your
>>description.
>
	That's it!  I am no longer a "white guy!"  I am now a
European-American!

		-Quicksilver
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush being censored???
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:16:11 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com
Keywords: rush, censorship, tv

In article <1992Dec15.172039.16469@netcom.com>, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
|> In article <BzB3D0.233q@austin.ibm.com> jpietro@perelandra.austin.ibm.com writes:
|> >Last Friday's show, in particular, had a segment where a group of
|> >children were "pledging their allegiance" to Rush.  There was one line
|> >that went as follows:
|> >
|> >   "...one conservative, just like ___..."
|> >
|> >The word following "like" ("God" I presume) was cut from the audio
|> >portion of the tape.  You could see the children mouth the word, but
|> >no sound whatsoever.
|> >
|> >Did this happen everywhere?  I'm curious if this was local censorship,
|> >or if Rush did this to himself.  I seriously doubt the latter.
|> 
|> It happened on both the stations that carry Rush's show in southern 
|> California, so either Rush did it, there were some satellite problems,
|> or the tape had a flaw. That was a cute bit, although the most impressive
|> video was the 7-year old kid reading from Rush's book (thanks to 
|> Hooked on Phonics, if I remember right).

I noticed this too, but I assumed at the time that Rush did it deliberately to
lampoon the censorship of "God" from public schools.

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250
From: cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:30:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


First of all it must be stated that there is never anything "fair"
in this world. One gets what one deserves. Work or lose - those 
are the only two choices.

Next as a college graduate with an advanced degree who spends hours
a day watching news (mostly C-Span) and reading voluminously and
never watching football or guzzling beer I am only one of millions
just like me (or nearly so) who find Dr Limbaugh not only correct
in his views much if not most of the time, but in addition begrudge
him not one iota of his success. It is only the crybaby liberals
who cannot stomach the idea that someone should not only succeed
but EXCEED over one or more of his fellows. It is the concept of
EXCEEDING that made this country great. But liberals don't like
that - no one or no country should be better than anyone else in
any way. This is, of course, prima facie evidence of rank stupidity.

Sorry, you deserve to be a loser until you change your attitude and
decide you will become the best it is possible to become with the
talents God gave you.

-- 

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ryanm@stein.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly)
Subject: Liberals are imature (appology)...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:04:09 GMT


I had mentioned at one time that the liberals are childish.  This is true
with some on this group but is also true for some conservatives.  I was
informed that name calling stems from a childish behavior.  Therefore it
can effect anyone.  I appologize for catagorizing liberals as childish and
imature.

Now I say that it appears that many liberals are effected by this disorder
:-).  (Duck! Flames inbound)  --Ryan

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  Ryan McNeilly                    Internet: ryanm@u.washington.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"You can't deal from a position of weakness"  --Alfred Thayer Mahan
Moral:  Protect the 2nd Amendment!

My comments and opinions are my own and nobody elses!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: RUSH'S 'HIT' LIST (additions)
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:38:50 GMT

dlovely@meaddata.com (David Lovely) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.213520.4562@memstvx1.memst.edu>, kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>|> > UPDATE THEMES:
>|> > Spotted Owl/Timber Update:
>|> > "Lumberjack"? by Jackyl?

>Remove the ?s, this one is correct!

Ooooh, nitpick anal-retentive time... On the album the song is listed
as "The Lumberjack".  Jackyl is spelled correctly.
-- 
In which level of metalanguage are you now speaking?
From: cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:49:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


If the shoe fits that you are a wacko, pinko, communist or some
other form of extremist, so be it. We conservatives (including
Dr Limbaugh) do not lump all our liberal opponents in the same
basket as almost all liberals claim. But there is no getting
around it the Slick Willie and his servant algor and Hillary and
Mitchell and and and and are wackos and extremists on the wrong
side of what is good for the country and are opposed to all the
things that made this country the greatest in the world.

-- 

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: stegner_g@cubldr.colorado.edu
Subject: <None>
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:53:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.193830.5519@u.washington.edu>, ryanm@stein.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:

(Re: possible creation of newsgroup alt.politics.conservative)

> I don't believe that the intent is to eliminate liberal views or
> discussions but rather maintain a civilized level or mood.  I am unsure
> what the original posters intent was (no libs or what) but I want liberals
> to post to it, just in a civilized manner.  The moderator will only block
> those threads that are name calling or just stupid comments intended for
> feuds between individuals.  I don't know how to maintain a level of
> fairness with a moderator though.  --Ryan
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>   Ryan McNeilly                    Internet: ryanm@u.washington.edu
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Very good point Ryan.  Obviously, the original poster's intent was to post to a
newsgroup where his viewpoints won't have to get challenged.  The general rule
here is that "you can run but you can't hide."  Creating a new newsgroup will
not keep out people who want to challenge those views being expressed in that
newsgroup.  That's why conservatives are always posting to alt.activist.*
groups, and quite often in a mean-sprited manner.  The mean-spiritedness
between feuding ideologies cuts both ways.  The original poster of this thread
obviously did not take this into account.

Installing a moderator to "maintain a civilized mood" (read: censor out
particular points of view) is akin to installing a dictator to keep the peace. 
A newsgroup's tone of argument and reasoning will only be civilized if the
people who post to it are civilized.  Individuals who can't bear to have their
arguments challenged should not be indulging in this activity.  An individual
does not grow intellectually by surrounding him/herself with people who think
the same way.

As for posts in which the intention is to incite a feud, the best way to
eliminate that problem is to IGNORE THE DERELICT!

Glen Stegner
University of Colorado at Boulder
stegner_g@cubldr.colorado.edu

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10525 alt.rush-limbaugh:12022
From: gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez)
Subject: Re:  Sometimes I wonder about you peoples
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:52:13 GMT

Gosh Emil, you are so witty.  Because of your sharp wit
I have been reconverted, I am a slimly liberal again.  
I have a question for you, did you amuse yourself?  
Maybe you are the one that should go out and meet 
members of the opposite sex--your sexual frustration is
evident to everyone on the net.  

				John R. Gonzalez

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Posts by Rush? NOT!
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:59:56 GMT

kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>andersmc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes, among other things:
>> could be spent better other places. As for Rush's address it is a 
>> compuserve address which is:
>> 70277.2502@compuserve.com
>> Problem is, I've never been able to get through with that.  I get all my mail
>> returned. I maybe doing something wrong? who knows.

>For one thing, you need a comma <70277,2502> instead of a dot.

    As a local internet postmaster I couldn't let this one slip by. The 
naming conventions on Compuserve really do specify the use of a comma to 
separate the two numbers, but every internet mailer I've ever seen is going 
to interpret that comma as a separator between two mail addresses. Thus if 
you send mail to:

    70277,2502@compuserve.com 

    then you will cause mail to be sent to user "70277" on your local 
system and to user 2502@compuserve.com. The original advice using a 
period instead of a comma is the correct syntax. My understanding is that 
compuserve.com is a gateway which strips the internet domain and replaces 
the period with a comma before it forwards the message into CIS.

>For another, I know of no one who's been able to get email
>through to the Big Guy, primarily due to his mailbox being
>perpetually overstuffed. It's kind of like the lottery.

    I've gotten mail through to him. It definitely helps if you send it 
from a Compuserve address because recently Rush has been assigning 
the internet stuff he receives a lower priority than his CIS mail. Mail 
originating at internet sites isn't guaranteed to be read very quickly, 
although I'm sure someone will read it eventually.

>The best way, if you must, is plain old snailmail.
>At least your letters don't bounce.

    I dunno about that. My impression has been that 90% of the mail he 
reads on the air comes from Compuserve email.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 12 Dec 92 07:49:11 GMT

In <1992Dec11.110518.11891@walter.cray.com> paws@spam.cray.com (Daniel Baehr) writes:


>In article <1992Dec11.140528.26046@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:

>    All in all the majority is going to win out.  Period.  MANY more
> people are hetrosexual than homosexual and the VAST majority agrees with
> the hetrosexual life style.  (70%+ I think..??)

I don't think anybody disagrees with heterosexuality; it's just that about
ten percent of the population aren't sexually aroused by members of the
opposite sex.  I'm straight and I have no problem with either heterosexuality
or homosexuality.

>    If you start makeing laws that favor gays then why not make a law
> that favors people into beastiality, s+m, hetrosexuality or any of the
> other sexual life styles?  After all, fair is fair.

This tired argument has been advanced more times than I care to count in this
newsgroup, but I will answer it again.  First of all, homosexuality is not
a lifestyle; it is an orientation.  There is a big difference.  Second,
nobody is advocating laws that favor gays, just laws that give gays equal
rights and opportunities.  Third, there's no law against S&M that I know
of, as long as no one gets hurt and both parties are consenting.  Fourth,
bestiality, like pedophilia or rape, is rightfully considered a crime because
it does not involve two consenting parties.  You need to be careful to
differentiate between sexual practices that take advantage of someone or
cause someone injury, and sexual practices that are merely different from
your own.

>        Daniel Baehr


--
Yosha Bourgea                       "What you think is the sunshine
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu          is just a twinkle in my eye
All for Squid and Squid for All      got a ring around my finger
Carpe Hoc, Infans!                   called the fourth of july."
Lasciate Ogne Speranza                      --Tom Waits  


Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10228 alt.politics.clinton:18719 alt.politics.bush:14600 alt.politics.homosexuality:8015
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:04:43 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <12DEC199213472570@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>In article <Bz5r1K.9wK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes...
>
>	Indeed?  I was told that now-a-days, you cannot claim to be Gay
>in order to get out of the military when there is compulsory service 
>(draft).  I hate to have given out incorrect information.  Do you know
>if what you are saying is true for these days?

From what I understand, and I could be wrong, people who revealed
or were accused or otherwise found out to be gay during the Gulf War
were told they'd be discharged after the war. 

Charming, huh? You're good enough to die for your country, but not
to serve it during peacetime.
-- 
We need not fear those who do evil in the name of evil, but Heaven
protect us from those who do evil in the name of good.
Arthur C. Adams acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil            	<fnord>
No, I'm not the Arthur Adams who draws comic books. Don't even ask.