HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Posts by Rush? NOT!
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:40:01 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1gba0fINN6dp@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>,
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.
> 
> Matthew Anderson
> andersmc@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu

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

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.

He reads email on the show sometimes, but it's like the
lottery in that regard, too. You know somebody gets the
prize, but you don't know anyone personally who has.

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

Cheers,
KB

-- 
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.                                      *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu                                    *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,711@compuserve.com**********************
"If nobody said anything unless he knew what he was talking about,
a ghastly hush would descend upon the earth."--Sir Alan Herbert
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: megabyte@chinet.chi.il.us (Dr. Megabyte)
Subject: Re: Der Limbaugh-bund
Summary: Rush demographics
Keywords: Advertisements,Madison_Ave,Power_Elite
Organization: Abacus Computers - You Can Count On Us
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:30:12 GMT

gus3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Hey dittoheads, since Rush has been on the air for several years now, 
>does anyone know anything about the demographic content of his audience,

My local station just picked up Rush and has been running ads promoting
Rush's selling power.  In the ads they claim, "National Survey reveal that
the largest section of Rush's audience is Male, 35-43, educated beyond high
school, and, of course, conservative."

Can't say anything about the TV show.

-- 
"It is a pity that even a single drop of this noble 
 gift of God should be spilled" - J.S. Bach on wine
Mark E. Sunderlin: Technocrat in Winchester, Virginia  KD4HRI
 aka Dr. Megabyte: megabyte@chinet.chi.il.us  (703) 722-9330
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rharlan@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Rick Harlan)
Subject: Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:09:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.003502.3501@asuvax.eas.asu.edu> kennedy@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph Kennedy) writes:
>
>     Ok, only a total idiot would buy the above
>garbage.
>
>      So.  Then when the press shows up with lights
>and cameras, the Pentagon can act surprised and
>indignant and applaud as Limbaugh screams, "See,
>the Pentagon was right in restricting the press
>during the Gulf War!  The press can't handle not
>having restrictions!" and the idiots who take Rush
>and his show seriously actually buy the whole thing
>hook, line, and sinker.  Unfortunately for the
>Pentagon, no one who really matters is stupid enough
>to buy it and can see right through such self-serving
>nonsense.
>
>     Your friends from Berkeley say, "He's an idiot."
>Well, actually he may or may not be.  He may be an
>idiot, but more likely he's a very clever man who
>realizes that a lot of money can be made off of the
>ignorant masses.
>
>--Ralph Kennedy      {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
>                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
>                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
>                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu


	Even though the general consensus was that the press had acted 
irresponsibly at the troop landing, it was Rush who came to their
defense (on this one issue) when it came out that the Pentagon had
advised them on the "best" locations to cover the landing. 
	Rush could have gone on using this incident to illustrate his
opinions on the big media. But he chose to give up this lever in favor
of the truth. How many "reputable" publications would have made such a
public retraction (burying it in the classifieds doesn't count) ? 
	In fact I notice that even though your post came about a week
after both his first statement and the retraction, it seems as though
you are the one trying to score political points by slanting the facts.
-- 
Rick Harlan	     // The answer is blowing in the wind.
 rharlan            //			-Bob Dylan
@ucs.indiana.edu   // The Proof is left as an exercise for the reader. 
Indiana University//		        -Pierre de Fermat
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:58:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:

> 
> p.s. This is becoming irrelevant to the general populace and I shall
>      cease and desist from continuing this thread hereafter.
> 

This is beyond the call of duty.  It would be more than adequate
for you to cease OR desist.  Doing both is somewhat redundant and
may be contrued by some as a poor investment of the extra willpower.

doug
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: berger@atropa (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:13:07 GMT

rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu 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?
*----
I don't believe there is any law in effect for a draft (just registration,
which has no exclusions at all) so there's no way to tell.  But it is true
that the military branches suspended their expulsion of known gays during
the gulf war (and resumed when the news reporters returned from Iraq).
--
	Mike Berger
	Internet    berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: *I* got through (was Re: Posts by Rush? NOT!)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:58:44 GMT

In article <spinuzzi.70.724440087@gab.unt.edu> spinuzzi@gab.unt.edu (Clay Spinuzzi) writes:
>In article <1gbtbnINN957@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes:
>>
>>>70277.2502@compuserve.com [that's Rush's e-mail address]
>>>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.
>>
>>No sir, you're doing everything just like you're supposed to.  Rush's mailbox
>>just fills up rather quickly (surprise, surprise) and when you can't stuff 
>>any more mail into his box, it bounces back to you.
>
>Actually, I've only e-mailed Rush once (I sent him and Clinton both a joke). 
>To my surprise, the mail didn't get returned.

I've got a CompuServe account and even that doesn't guarantee getting through. 
I've found that he reads his mail sometime during the late night and 
early morning hours, say 10 p.m. to 10 a.m. EST; perhaps he reads it at
other times, too, but whenever I have requested a return receipt on my 
CIS mail to him, it's been retrieved during this time.  

Also, when I've tried to send messages through the net to CompuServe, 
my success rate is about 50/50, regardless of whom I'm sending it to - Rush,
me, others, etc. And I've never been able to send a reply to any mail 
that someone on the net has sent me - for some reason the CIS Internet
gateway can't figure out the proper return address. Go figure. 
-- 
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.politics.clinton
From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Values
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:24:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.011249.18504@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>If the Republicans are so eager to defend values in American politics,
>then why do they insist upon extirpating values from foreign policy,
>that is, playing realpolitik, with no regard to values.  (Not that
>I don't understand the need to ally with non-democratic regimes, mind
>you, but that the Republicans, who claim to hold values *above all*,
>seems to be hypocritical here.)  Clinton has said that he favors
>promotion of democratic values as a legitimate goal of U.S. foreign 
>policy.
>
>Chris

I'll assume you don't mean the US is being expansionist, rather that
they're trying to promote the national interests.  If my assumption is
correct, would you explain why you think this is a bad idea, and how
values are comporomised by promoting our interests?  If Clinton does
as you intimate, I would, as a Republican, agree with that goal.

Regards,


David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:50:02 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>Is it just me, or is there a teensy little contradiction here?

>It's just you.

>Actually, it's not just you, and because it's not just you, and because there
>are a million such flamers just like you, I think the group is a good idea.
>It's quite understandable why someone might want to post from a conservative
>viewpoint without getting flamed merely for daring to suggest that they want
>intelligent discussion.

    I agree that it's understandable, however that doesn't mean that I 
think the idea has much merit. One might get the impression from your 
statement here that you feel conservative viewpoints are being overwhelmed 
by a million flaming liberals flaming. IMHO this is not the case. For one 
thing, I conducted a poll of this group about a year and a half ago and 
found that over 75% of respondants were conservatives, and most of those 
were Republicans (the balance being mostly Libertarians). Thus, the liberals 
in this group seem more numerous than they really are probably because 
they're just more vocal (or digital, since we're actually conversing with 
our digits).

    To me as a liberal listener of Rush Limbaugh I can't say I have much 
sympathy for the idea of trying to retreat from liberal badinage. I seek 
out conservative badinage, believing in my own arrogant liberal sort of 
way that moderate liberalism has never looked so good to me as it does now 
compared with the politics of Rush Limbaugh. In that same way I would think 
that conservatives would recognize that conservatism never looks better 
than when it's under feeble seige from a bunch of left wing wackos. IMHO 
that's the reason that Rush insists on trying to define the Democratic 
party in terms of it's most outrageous extremists - it makes him look 
good by comparison.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:38:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Here is an even LITTLER little man (man being perhaps too good a 
word to use for a turkey like this!) who has to, as usual with
liberals, resort to name calling - particularly obscenities - in 
a vain effort to make himself (itself?) appear to be of some
degree of importance. In point of fact this post indicates the
extremely low level of ability to think for himself. What a crying
shame - another loser!

-- 

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 00:01:30 GMT


cjburke@gw.syr.ge.com writes about this pesky word:
|inconvenient - not convenient especially in giving trouble or annoyance
|           Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

|As previously stated, I do not object to abortion in cases where
|medically necessary, or where pregnancy is the result of rape or
|incest (especially rape).

|I am not using the word as a buzzword.  I am using it to refer
|to those instances where people are too irresponsible to take
|precautions beforehand.  [...]

So I take it you don't disapprove of women seeking abortions
in the case of contraceptive failure.  You would allow these
women to obtain abortions, but prevent women who didn't use
contraceptives from obtaining abortions.  How would you implement
such a scheme?  How would you separate the condom-users from the
non-users?  How do you decide whether a woman with a prescription
for birth control pills was actually taking them?

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I don't think Christians should use birth control."  
				--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: bparrish@rose.hp.com (Bill Parrish)
Subject: Disclaimers on TV show
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:19:33 GMT
Organization: HP - Systems Technology Division
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

I'm curious... in Sacramento the Rush Limbaugh TV program is preceeded by
a disclaimer... something to the effect that "The Views expressed on the
Rush Limbaugh program do not necessarily reflect those of the staff and
management of KCRA Channel 3, or its sponsors... etc".  I'm curious if this
is done in other parts of the country.  

It's interesting... when the program FIRST came on in Sacramento, the 
word "necessarily" was omitted, and was added after about a week or so.

I wonder if that implies that the views expressed on other shows DO
reflect the views of the staff,  management, sponsors, or whatever...

Bill Parrish

From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:12:17 GMT
Subject: Flush Limburger
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

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.

It appears that this is the new Archie show... the audience is just
the same old beer drinking-nightly news avoiding-football watching
mind set...

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.

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.

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?


all disclaimers apply

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gsh@iti.org (Greg Halbrook)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:45:57 GMT

roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>>I spent 6 years in the Marine Corps and I'll tell you this: If same-sex 
>>couples were authorized to get on-base housing, many, if not all, would be 
>>claiming to be a couple just to get out of living in the barracks.  Therefore
>>I don't foresee this being a likely event.  I personally wouldn't have a 
>>problem lifting the ban on gays in the military.  Sure, there would be 
>>problems, but if the military took a stance as strongly as their 
>>"drugs/racism will NOT be tolerated" policy, gay-bashing/homophobia could 
>>probably be dealt with as efficiently.  This is just my opinion. 
>>   
>>    There is one issue I would like to bring up if I may, and that is what I 
>>see as hypocracy on the part of many who are arguing for the end of the ban.
>>Having been in the military, I know what if feels like to be looked down on
>>and considered second-class citizens, especially by the same people who 
>>expect the military to accept gays with open arms.  It's kind of like saying 
>>to the military "You must accept us and our values, but you are scum and 
>>don't expect us to accept you and your values."  To me, that is blatant 
>>hypocracy.  Well, that's just my opinion and I welcome any 
>>flames/disagreement or discussions on the subject.  Thanks :)

>The two paragraphs above are the most thought provoking (to me, anyways), 
>I have seen in this thread.  Thanks!

>With regard to the second paragraph, I will point out that gay people who 
>are already in the military have accepted "you and your values" and 
>simply want to be accepted themselves for the good soldiers that they are.

>Didn't the "scummy military soldier" idea die out in the 80's or earlier?
>I thought most everyone was behind the military *personnel* in the Persian 
>Gulf, even if they weren't all behind the leaders.  This is an honest query, 
>not a counter-argument -- you know more on this matter than I would.


It's hard to explain the feeling of being looked at like one of those losers
from high school who couldn't get a real job and had to join the military.
--
						Greg.
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush being censored???
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:07:45 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.


In article <BzB3D0.233q@austin.ibm.com>, jpietro@pega7.austin.ibm.com (Jeffrey
A. Pietro) writes...

>Here in Austin, TX, we get to watch Rush's TV show on KBVO, FOX 42,
>weekdays at 12:00 noon (yes, NOON!), the day after it's taped.  This,
>of course, means we see Friday's show on Monday.

Leave it to Austin... 8-)

Chalk up another one for the buckle on the bible belt!

(Last December I moved from Austin to Boston. I still prefer Austin. )

>   "...one conservative, just like ___..."

>Did this happen everywhere?  I'm curious if this was local censorship,
>or if Rush did this to himself.  I seriously doubt the latter.

Well, here in MA, the big bastion of Liberalism, FOX 25 silenced the 'G' word
also. 

Then again, they also silence the 'G' word from G-damn and G-bless. At least
they are consistent.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:08:37 GMT

In article <22580003@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
>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?

It'll never work.  Your potential market is likely to say:

"Turtles is green.  Green ain't white."

:-)
-- 
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
From: spinuzzi@gab.unt.edu (Clay Spinuzzi)
Subject: Re: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: College of Arts and Sciences
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:34:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.074909.5060@umr.edu> S114510@UMRVMA.umr.edu writes:

[stuff deleted]

>Until it can be proven that a fetus is an individual
>using scientific fact and not emotional conjecture, the fetus will and
>should continue to be unrecognized by the laws of this country.

Guilty until proven innocent.

=========================================================================
Clay Spinuzzi           spinuzzi@gab.unt.edu
"When I want your opinion, I'll divine it from your entrails." -- Me
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:04:58 GMT

In article <9DEC199220003748@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>In article <8DEC199220570631@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>, mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell) writes...
>|In article <1992Dec8.230714.941@cs.rochester.edu>, ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) writes...
>|> 
>|>top of a publically funded Christmas tree.  Jesus, the reason for the season,
>
>	An increased tilt in the earth's axis with respect to it's
>orbit around the sun and the consequent decrease in abosorbed solar
>radiation is the reason for the season.

Actually the tilt (23.5 degrees) of the Earth's spin axis *relative to its 
orbit* around the sun doesn't change during the year.

The tilt of the spin axis *relative to the Earth-Sun line* changes from 
66.5 degrees (summer) to 90 degrees (fall, spring) to 113.5 degrees 
(winter).

This is because the spin axis points (for the present epoch) at a fixed 
direction in space (very near the star Polaris), while the Earth orbits 
the Sun, causing the spin axis to alternately tilt towards and away from 
the Sun.

Over a long period of time (26,000 years) the spin axis precesses 
around the vertical axis of our orbit at a constant tilt of 23.5 degrees, 
so that in roughly 13,000 years, the bright star Vega will be near the north 
pole of the sky instead of Polaris.  This precession is much like the 
slow wobble of a fast spinning child's top.

But I guess this is more than anyone wants to know...   :-)


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh