HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Religious rights and responsibilities
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:03:17 GMT


In a previous article, phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley) says:

>In article <1992Oct15.192533.2435@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.
>aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>>In article <phurley.50@tamu.edu> phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley) writes:
>
>>[various drivel deleted]
>
>>>                     ... but even no religion is religion ...
>
>>If you believe that, then I'll happily admit that you're no fool.
>
>Are you asking me to make a statement of faith? ;-) The Supreme Court has 
>recognized both atheism and humanism as religions. Allowing the public 
>schools to promote atheism by not teaching about God is as much 
>a violation of the (unconstitutional) idea that religion can be separated 
>from politics as allowing one particular denomination to teach their 
>doctrine.
>

You have GOT to be joking!!

Are you saying something can be promoted by NOT talking about it?

Heck, that splves the entire school problem.  We just won't teach our children
anything at all, and in that way, we'll be promoting the information we've
been trusting to the schools and teachers, and it won't cost us a cent...

I think you need viable definitions of religion and atheism...

From Webster's School and Office Dictionary, (c)1990, William Collons+World
Publishing Co.

Religion: A belief in god or gods.  2. Manifestation of that belief through
prayer, worship, ect.

Atheism: Disbelief in the existance of god or gods.,

These two definitions are diameterically opposed.  Saying atheism is a religion
is like saying a dog is a cat.


>I do believe that no religion is religion and I'm not alone. One poster to 
>this news group identifies his atheism in his sig (sorry, I forgot his 
>name and he hasn't posted lately). It says something about a news flash from 
>the Vatican declaring that Jesus' body has been found. Such a thing would 
>validate *his* faith if it were true.
>

That was me.  And it's a joke.  Are you familar with the concept of humor?
I look for no validation, as I have no faith, poriod.


>Philip Hurley               "It is absurd to say that you are
>T.A.E.X.                    especially advancing freedom when you only
>Computer Technology         use free thought to destroy free will."
>(409) 845-9689                              -- Chesterton
>p-hurley1@tamu.edu             I, too, disclaim.
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:45:58 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct11.162015.20316@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
[text deleted]

#Tell me again how great things are now, compared to under Jimmy Carter? The
#more people bring up the Carter era, the more I think that it's been largely
#maligned by Reagan revisionists who look to blame all of Reagans problems
#on Carter while taking credit for anything good. Like Reagan, Carter inhereted
#a recessionary economy (the 75 recession) and Carters term doesn't look
#too bad compared to Reagans first term. Reagan gave us a several great years,
#which, thanks to his lack of spending controls, we will be paying for long
#into the future - at least Carter didn't leave us with a national disaster.

By any measure that I'm familiar with, Reagan didn't inherit a 
recessionary economy.  The U.S. was starting a recovery in 1980.
(The 1980 recession was only 6 months long.)  To be fair, though,
Carter didn't really inherit a recession, either.    (It's
silly to blame the problems of the Reagan economy on the
Carter administration and not blame the problems of the
Carter economy on Ford/Nixon.  It may be the case that
Carter was not in office long enough to make a significant
impact on the economy, but the same cannot be argued of the
Reagan/Bush administrations.)  

It is important to remember is that during the recessions
in the Carter administration, the worst that happened was that
real GNP did not change.  (That was in 1980 - in 1977-78, the
rate of growth merely slowed.)  In the 1982 recession, real GNP
actually became smaller.  The rate of growth of real GNP under
Reagan was never as high as the rate of growth under Carter.

Reagan's economic legacy is not a good one.  For example,
a supplementary text that I use in teaching intro to macro
(Byrns and Stone) says, "Remedying persistent deficits the
federal budget and our balances of trade and payments
while adapting to the internationalization of economies
everywhere in the world may be as formidable a task as
curing the Great Depression seemed in 1933."  It
doesn't seem to be a task that GHWB is up to.

Susan
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner)
Subject: Re: Stuff about Clinton
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:44:00 GMT

Here's some more Clinton jokes:

If Bill Clinton get elected, how will he and Hillary travel around?

Bill rides in Air Force 1 and Hillary rides the broom!

I just noticed something. Hillary Clinton looks like Witch Hazel in a
cheap disguise.
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:51:18 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, 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...

> 
> I watched Mr. Dornan's blatherings for nearly an hour. The difference 
> between Bob Dornan and Rush Limbaugh seems to be that, on occasion, 
> Rush has some degree of credibility.

Yes, and when he does NOT have credibility, it is fun to wonder
how long it will be befor he is chewing on the carpet and
screaming, "Putsch Putsch."

> 
> With folks like Bob Dornan helping out in this presidential campaign, 
> no wonder the whole Republican party is on the skids.

I can't believe I am going to end up forced to vote for Billy C.
What a detestable situation.  But GHWB has GOT to go.

> 
> Tom Jefferson wouldn't like this. Not at all.

Hard to say, but who cares?  He's dead.

doug

These are my opinions and are almost certainly not those of my employer.
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Please Help
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:32:19 GMT
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <22580001@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:

I sent my full set of replies in by email... some thoughts tho.

>3.) Are you in favor of adoption?

This question is vague.  Do you mean, adoption as it stands?  I doubt if 
anybody wants to make adoption illegal.  Do you mean as a enforced alternative
to abortion?   Do you force the woman to go through her pregnancy, and then
force some 'lucky' couple to adopt?  Or force the woman to have the kid,
and jsut hope that somebody will adopt it?

>4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
>rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?

I could see some circumstances - for example, men can be raped by women
(all the locker room jokes notwithstanding).   You would have to explicitly
state what the conditions are before this question makes a lot of sense.
Could it be capricious decision - "I don't think I want to be responsible
for this kid",  or advised and adjudicated legal decision -  "This court
dissolves your repsonsibilities as a parent."
From: kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Karin Brennan)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious rights and responsibilities
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:38:56 GMT
	<1992Oct8.194753.25622@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


>What insidious innuendo! If what you're saying is that people have used 
>religion to justify their behaviour then you must think us very naive.
 
<>Do you mean to say that people _HAVEN'T_ used religion to justify
<>their behavior?

This is easy enough.
People will use ANY reason they can come up with to justify their
behavior: politics, religion, feminism, social status, race, sexual
preference, education, or lack of...etc.   Today, it's just easiest to
blame the problems of the world on the Religious community. Tomorrow,
who knows.  
 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

> In article <BD.92Oct7104850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
> >
> >lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
> >
> >>Now, Rush and Dan may not be perfect, but at least
> >>they aren't shoving socialism and big government down our throats.
> >
> >Right.  Reagan and Bush have overseen one of the largest increases
> >in the size of government in the history of the country, and
> >80% of the new jobs created by Bush have been in *government*.
> >
> >For Christ's sake, think for yourself, man!
> >
> >Reagan Bush have lied to you for twelve years!  Lied, lied, and
> >lied again!  They have come damn close to bankrupting the country,
> >and *you* talk about big spender liberals?
> 
> What is Clinton going to do differently?

Very probably not.  But do not pretend that the Republicans are not
socialists.  They are.  I do not intend to vote libertarian myself,
but if you want to avoid socialism, you ought to vote for them.
Bush and Clinton merely support different aspects of the same thing.

doug
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The End of Rush? - NOT!
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:21:35 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article KK@sdf.lonestar.org, thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.134906.7287@iscsvax.uni.edu> snyder3338@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>>What's the matter???  Are you afraid someone might agree with him???
>>Maybe it's because he's RIGHT!!!   Think about that.. and maybe you should
>>listen some more so you can straighten yourself out....
>Did someone perhaps forget his Lithium treatments today?

Is limbaugh on lithium?  I saw him on Buckley's show last night and he was
appearing to be perspiring profusely.  This is one sign of lithium treatments.

---
===============================================================================
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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

> 
> >In other words, any woman who works outside the home, or who is in
> >any way politically active (with the exception of Phyllis Schlafley (who's
> >picture, I understand, sits beside his bed, and gives him an object on
> >which to base his sexual fantisies (grin)))
> 
>     This is where you loose most of your credibility. To claim, even in 
> jest, that *anyone* could base sexual fantasies on a photograph of Mrs 
> Schlafley is patently absurd.

I dunno, people do some pretty deranged things.

doug
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: The effect of a Perot debate victory
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:54:42 GMT

|> >RESULT:  Perot takes votes from Clinton but not enough to save Bush's 
|> >bacon
|> 
|>     Hopefully.

	I've been trying to get a handle on what Perot is going to do to the
totals, and I heard an interesting theory today:

	People like to vote for a winner, and Clinton will be percieved
as the winner way before the election actually happens. This means that
people who like clinton at all will vote for him, and people who want to
vote for a winner will vote for him. People who hate clinton and are
willing to vote for a loser will have a choice between Bush and Perot,
with Perot being the more popular underdog.

	Result: Bush loses votes, Clinton doesn't.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious rights and responsibilities
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:43:55 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona

In article <1992Oct7.143255.1891@gacvx2.gac.edu> bthomas@perdita.gac.edu (Barbara L Thomas) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.194027.27391@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  writes:
>> Christian principles - isn't that what the inquisition was based on?

>If you were trying to be offensive, you succeeded

Thank you..  this _is_ alt.fan.Rush_Limbaugh after all!   Just trying to
follow in the footsteps of the self proclaimed "great one".

>                    If you want to have an intelligent debate of a subject,

Then I wouldn't post it in alt.fan.rush-Limbaugh!


P.S.  You mean you find the fact that the Inquisition was founded on
Christian Principles offensive?  Or do you find the reminder of that
rather unpleasant little fact offensive?   Would you prefer we forget
that little annoying fact, so that the radical right can go ahead
with their new version of the Ecclesia Militans without hindrance?
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:45:51 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
 <1992Oct8.230804.19490@umbc3.umbc.edu>

In article <1992Oct8.230804.19490@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
says:

>        Inflation was bad under Carter, but at least the GNP grew to
>help make up for it. GNP growth under Carter was higher then any time
>during the 80's (yea, largly due to inflation, but also due to the massive
>number of new jobs).

Nominal GNP, or real GNP?  High inflation makes a huge difference.
I'd bet real GNP rose a lot more during the 80s.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: pads@ravel.udel.edu (Stephen J. Padbury)
Subject: Re: WANTED: Hitchhiker's guide to the net
Organization: Yeah Right!
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:28:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.211918.13344@etek.chalmers.se> lindq@etek.chalmers.se (Johan Lindqvist) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.231423.20010@eskimo.celestial.com>, thalos@eskimo.celestial.com (Kris Knien) writes:
>|> 
>|> A while back, I read a 12-part story called The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
>|> Net.  Unfortunately, I only was able to find the first 11 parts and never
>|> got to read the conclusion.  I would really appreacite it if someone would
>|> mail this to me, (all 12 parts). Better yet, post it, I feel it's good
>|> enough to share with other readers of a.f.d-a. :)
>
>Well, I have it, and if you liky, I'd mail it to you, but I don't know if
>it's worth posting (86 k and not that funny).
>
>If you (or anyone else) feel that he (or she) would like to get it in his
>(or her) mailbox, or if enough of you brothers (or sisters) out there
>want me to, I'll consider posting.
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Johan Lindqvist                     |Due to lack of interest, tomorrow
>Gothenburg         Mail:            |has been cancelled.
>Sweden      lindq@etek.chalmers.se  |
>______________________________________________________________________________


I would like a copy please.

______________________________________________________________________________
Stephen Padbury                   |Current Campus Record Holder:
University of Delaware            | Most Different ways to crash a Hard Drive
email: pads@ravel.udel.edu        |  Discovered in one week (by experience)
______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: bbs.zio@tsoft.sf-bay.org (James Elkinton)
Subject: Re: Scrabble and Book Signings
Organization: The TSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 8238
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:13:23 GMT

oahvenla@silver-surfer.cs.hut.fi (Osma Ahvenlampi) writes:

> In <1992Oct5.110540.836@aston.ac.uk> thompsmr@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Thompso
> >	And secondly, and slightly more importantly - In a very idle moment
> >during the holidays I happened to have a Scrabble board handy, and tried to 
> >spell out "What do you get if you multiply six by nine" (mainly to irritate 
> >parents, because it was one of those magnetic travel thingies. Anyway - you
> >can't. There aren't enough y's in a Scrabble set. Even if you use the blank 
> >provided you end up one y short.
> >	Oh for a touch of realism, eh? ;-)
> 
> Who told you to use Scrabble set? Arthur doesn't use one, he made the letters
> himself. Why couldn't he have made more letters than in the original?
> --
> Osma Ahvenlampi  -  oahvenla@niksula.cs.hut.fi
> My opinions are mine, and though someone else may share them, that's not my
> fault. You may freely agree or disagree with me, I don't much care.

And taken to another level of considering the making of the pieces...
 
Arthur was last gen. matrix of the computer program, and he made the 
pieces.  It could easily have been from that influence a set was formed 
such that when the appropriate letters were randomly picked out, the 
letters previously properly created in accordance to the program's 
influence were then properly ordered in same fashion. 

But that brings up another point....
 
A hell of a lot of missing letters!  I would expect at least one of each 
letter, then more made when deemed necessary.  
 
Oh well, 
 
to semiquote, I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong with 
the Universe!


--
James Elkinton (bbs.zio@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Challenge for Douglas Adams-freaks
Organization: :noitazinagrO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 13:36:06 GMT

Kevin Charles Rubio (ensalada@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: 
: 
: This is a post of the letter I sent in reply.  If anyone can help with
: pre-HHGG stuff, please do.
: 
: I believe that Douglas Adams worked a bit on a radio series called
: "The Burkiss Way."
:  
Correct.  The show was "The Burkiss Way to Dynamic Living" featuring a
host of second-rate comic types and mostly awful skits.  In true BBC
fashion, it ran and ran and ran.  One of other writers, whose name
escapes me but is given in the book of HH radio scripts, served as the
"personality prototype" for Marvin, the Paranoid Android.

DNA is generally credited with the best skit ever to appear on the
Burkiss Way.  It starts something like this:

(the whole skit is done in fake Japanese accents.  Lots of sibilants
etc)

(Door Opens)
Pilot: You sent for me, Sir!
Commander: Ah yes, come in, Simkins!    (typical DNA: get'em early with
a funny name joke)

Commander: Sit down.  Now tell me, Simkins, how long have you been a
kamikaze pilot?
Pilot: 2 years, sir!
Commander: And in that time, Simkins, how many missions have you flown?
Pilot: 13, sir!

(later fragment...the Commander reviews Simkins' mission reports)

Commander: Couldn't find target....couldn't find target....ran out of
fuel looking for target....headband slipped over eyes!
Pilot: It is very difficult to find the ships, sometimes.
Commander: Perhaps you should widen your search.  Have you considered
trying - the Sea?!

(and on to slightly lame ending).

Please don't ask for a copy of the script: I'm doing this from memory
(not bad for about 16 years ago, eh?)

--
||)) There is no truth to the rumor that:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||)) Lotus are suing Apple for copying the look and feel of their lawsuits )|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Re: Challenge for Douglas Adams-freaks
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:10:51 GMT

adw@otter.hpl.hp.com (Dave Wells) writes:
>From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
>>Kevin Charles Rubio (ensalada@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>>: I believe that Douglas Adams worked a bit on a radio series called
>>: "The Burkiss Way."
>>:  
>>
>>Correct.  The show was "The Burkiss Way to Dynamic Living" featuring a
>>host of second-rate comic types and mostly awful skits.

>As always, a matter of opinion. I thought much of it was hilarious.
>Unusually for Radio 4, Burkiss was fairly surreal, with some
>barely-credible attempt being made to link a series of sketches into a
>narrative whole. Not unlike Adams' later style, in fact.

I've been looking for this show for YEARS!  Some time ago, I bought
an extremely funny book called "BESTSELLER! : The Life and Death
of Eric Pode of Croydon".  The book documents the life of a fictional
character using a large number of hilarious plays/news cuttings/adverts/
letters/stories etc, which are obviously adapted from radio scripts.

The point I'm getting to is that the foreword says this book is
"actually a dustbin of things from some wireless show called The
Burkiss Way".  The authors are listed as Andrew Marshall and 
David Renwick, the same two guys mostly responsible for the jokes
in Alexei Sayle's Stuff, The Two Ronnies, and some of Not The Nine
O'Clock News.  Douglas does not crack a mention in this book.

The book is done up on the outside like a Joan Collins bestseller.
This is how the back cover reads:

"...It was one of those hot, steamy afternoons in late fall.
 Croydon mopped the sweat off his handkerchief and turned down
 the thermometer.  His face was still sounding fire alarms where
 Ricky's boys had administered the concrete nose drops, but he
 could take it.  Suddenly he figured out why it was so hot - 
 the fan was going backwards.  He poured himself a bar of chocolate
 and thought back to last night at Rosco's casino.  In two hours
 he'd collected over 2000 G's.  It was the worst game of Scrabble
 he had ever played..."

AN EARTHSHATTERING COLLECTION OF CLASSIC BOMBSHELLS FROM THE MASTER'S 
MOST GRIPPING WORKS ARE HERE ASSEMBLED FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER INTO
A SIZZLING FIRECRACKER OF A BOOK THAT WILL GRIND INTO YOUR SOUL AND
TEAR YOUR HEART OUT LIMB FROM LIMB!!!

 "My wife's a wonderful woman, you know"
 "Really?  How long is it since you tied the knot?"
 "About half as long.  Haaaaaaaaaaaa!"


Martin
--
,--------------------------------------------------------------.      _ .
| All the deserts I could irrigate      Martin Dougiamas.      |   _r| Ll\
| All the poor I could emancipate    martin@cs.curtin.edu.au   |  |  |    \
| But that's not what interests me      Curtin University      |  \  |_   /
| I'm interested in apathy          Perth, Western Australia  -+-> x~  `-'
`=== This Is Serious, Mum ====================================='        V