HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley)
Subject: Re: Religious rights and responsibilities
Organization: Computer Technology Group, TAEX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:30:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.194753.25622@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>In article <phurley.45@tamu.edu> phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.194027.27391@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.
>>aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>
>>>Christian principles - isn't that what the inquisition was based on?
>>
>>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?

What I meant to say, I said at the end of the message, viz., don't 
attribute to God what men do because they choose not to listen to God.

As to your specific question. I think people might _claim_ to behave without 
religious motivation but even no religion is religion (just ask the Supreme 
Court).

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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle Smashes Gore...
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:44:58 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

In article <1992Oct14.005736.14928@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
   Well, like I thought would happen, Quayle demoloshid Gore in the debate.  It
   looks like Quayle could be the only thing that might possibly save Bush.  

   Ted K.

Yeh. The Great Quayle Debate Demoloshin' Team done struck again!

Nerk! Nerk!

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..
Revered, now I live on. O did I do no evil, I wonder ever.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 10 Oct 92 03:23:06 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <92283.024551KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
#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.

Nominal, obviously.  He said "largely due to inflation."


Real GNP fell in 1974, 1975, 1980, and 1982.  Real GNP per
capita, though, has been falling since 1989.


I included some numbers in another post.  

Susan
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Clarifying an Argument
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:08:15 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>It has been brought to my attention that my postings
>contain a lack of linearity. I will therefore attempt
>to rectify this for the AR's in our midsts.

    Now this is where I draw the line. This is where I really start getting 
honked off. How is the subject of clarifying arguments even remotely related 
to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh?

    In a.f.r-l we obfustocate arguments; we distort them; we exaggerate 
them beyond recognition. But we do not clarify them.

    Please, drieux, if you want to clarify arguments then take a.f.r-l 
out of your ever-expanding cross-post list.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6661 alt.rush-limbaugh:7095
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Date: 7 Oct 92 07:22:00 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1atlquINNn09@agate.berkeley.edu> henken@ocf.berkeley.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.001338.27975@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says
>>                                                  I think sex should be
>> for enjoyment, not for humiliation, whatever Rush Limbaugh may think.
>
>Perhaps the only thing less apetizing than Ted Danson giving the ecological
>forcast for the decade is Polly Purebread here standing before a goodly
>portion of the civilized world and proclaiming not only her ideas of the
>purpose of sex, but declaring her contempt for those who might not share
>her beady-eyed perspective.

Does that mean you think sex SHOULD be for humiliation, and not for enjoyment?
Just out of curiosity, are you still single, or are you divorced?

Tom

Hey,  it's just a joke...  This message, Rush Limbaugh, and Kurt Ludwick
are just jokes.  Don't you have a sense of humor?   Still chuckling Kurty-poo?
From: phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley)
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion!
Organization: Computer Technology Group, TAEX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:40:34 GMT

In article <7106@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> ccohen+@pitt.edu (Caleb N Cohen) 
writes:

>Friends,
>  Does anybody know what (if anything) Rush has said about the Pons/
>Fleishman team from Univ. Utah and Cold Fusion.  I have heard - through
>the grapevine which included a bunch of liberals that he has
>stated that Cold Fusion actually exists, but that the government is
>supressing it.  Without telling you how utterly ridiculous this
>is, I would like to know if anyone else has heard of this...


>Thanks,
>Caleb

I don't remember hearing Rush talk about the Fleishman/Pons experiment.

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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Clinton Jokes ( and a Perot one too )
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:38:30 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

Here are some more Clinton jokes:

Well, just a thought.

You know, it would be a peachy keen idea for someone to paste the heads of
Bill, Hillary, Al, and Tipper on a porno movie, and doing around the world
several times.

The movie would be called "The Great 'Ol Party"

The repub's talk about the grand old party, but these guys would go at it
24 hours a day.

Why does Hillary have a big mouth?
She likes to bl** whales.

Why does hillary have a grimace on her face?
Bill forgot to take the di*** out.

Why did Bill use the di***?
Because Hillary bit it off!

Why did Gennifer Flowers leave Bill and talked?
Bill had NOTHING to give her!

About the porno film,
                       Slick Willie bl*** the country.

And a Perot Joke:
                  Doesn't Perot look like Radar 30 years later?

And another Clinton joke:

Hillary isn't just butt ugly, she's up-butt ugly!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nordquist@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Subject: TEST
Organization: Washington State University
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:15:34 -0800

TEST******     TEST*****
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Summary Thurs 10/15/1992
Date: 15 Oct 1992 05:11:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



     Today, Rush and his listeners, a bunch of brain-dead sad sacks who
haven't read fifteen books in their lifetimes, will piss and moan about
Bill Clinton, the man who, in less than three weeks, will be elected
President of the United States.
-- 
     Vern Morrison              |    
     aa680@po.cwru.edu          |   read my .sig: join the Clinton/Gore
     vern@cray.csuohio.edu      |               email team!  
     Parma, Ohio: the 'burbs    |     write 75300.3115@compuserve.com     
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Stuff about Clinton
Summary: Stuff the stuff.
Organization: Patrick, Dale Ann, two cats, and an *attitude*.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:11:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.032431.27008@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <Bw349z.18B@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

[I deleted a lot of this, since Simon hasn't got the hang of it yet.  So sue
me.  --PLH]

>>>>--PLH (and I'm only 320 kilometers from this loony-tune?  Gack.)
>>
>>>No, Billis just subhuman.
>>
>>Do you have some proof of that, or is this just another of your opinions
>>pulled out of a hat?
>>
>>>Now, I would guess that you're undecided about who to vote for?? :)
>>
>>I know who I'm going to vote for -- and I'll let you know after November
>>3rd.  (My candidate isn't likely to win.  There's a clue for you.)
>>
>>>BTW, I've voted before, in fact I voted for Bush in 1988.     You seem
>>>REALLY paranoid about this sci-fi story I'm planning.
>>
>>I'm not paranoid about it at all.  You're starting to act paranoid about
>>your thinking that I am, though.  You know, that doesn't surprise me at all,
>>for some reason...
>>
>>--PLH (the more things change...)
>Well, let's see, you must be voting for Clinton or Perot, or Marrou.
>You getting paranoid about me getting paranoid about you getting paranoid :)
>
>Simon

I'll tell you who I voted for on November 4 -- maybe.  Find a paper with the
precinct totals for Harris County Precinct 507, and you just may get to see
my vote sticking out like the proverbial sore thumb.

As far as getting recursively paranoid goes, I'm not paranoid in the first
place.  (A good thing that is, too -- all *this* newsgroup needs is a
recursive cascade...:-)

--PLH (twice five syllables,
       plus seven more, can't say much --
       that's haiku for you...)

-- 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6683 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5254
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Wed 10/14/92
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:41:50 GMT
 <1bitemINNi54@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <1blat6INN5q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>

In article <1blat6INN5q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern
Morrison) says:

>      Sixteen!  Ha!  More like TWENTY-THREE, smartass!  And if that
>chuckleheaded clown is still on the radio in four years, it'll be on a
>50-watt AM station in Fresno.  Have a nice day.

You willing to put your money where your mouth is, O wise prophet?
Send me mail, I'll give you 3:1 odds, minimum wager of $200.  Any takers?

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:47:48 GMT

In article <BvoKoC.F44@news.cso.uiuc.edu> el27166@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (This Space for Rent) writes:
>[Rush taking a jab at Madonna deleted]
>
>The thought of Rush Limbaugh on Madonna is certainly not a pleasant one.

Yeah. AIDS is one everlasting reminder that Madonna could leave for
him. The gift that keeps on giving... 

IMO, Madonna is one step above Sinead O'Connor as far as attitudes go.
(And woah, but that step below is a DOOZY.) 



=============================================================================
! "He's very smart and he does his homework. And you ignore him at your
peril." - Ted Koppel, on Rush Limbaugh. 

! "I'm still trying to sort out what I'm permitted to laugh at and
what is not politically acceptable for me to laugh at" - Feminist
Lawyer Gloria Allred, on Rush Limbaugh. 
 
				- Vanity Fair, May 1992 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:48:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <2659@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.92Oct12165713@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>>	This statement is false. "Liberals" generally (but not always)
>>	favor such absurdities as the Brady bill; a "rule" which
>>	makes no sense and favors only the politically connected
>>	and criminals....people who need no favors over Ms. Average
>>	who wants to be able to defend herself against attack but
>>	often cannot because of "rules" that reserve the right
>>	of firearms ownership only to the rich/politically connected.
>
>If the gun grabbers and liberal do-gooders get their way, the only
>protection a woman will be allowed to carry is a condom.

...and she won't even be allowed that, if the wacked out religious right
gets their way.  Right?

--PLH (say hi to Rasmussen for me, will you? :-)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6845 alt.rush-limbaugh:7366 talk.politics.misc:51631 talk.abortion:42563 alt.peeves:15605
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.peeves
Subject: Let Us Address the Issue of Moral Courage
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:05:55 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

Clinton has not really made me feel warm and fuzzy about
who and/or what he is.... But It is for me clearly a sign
of personal moral courage to have selected Gore as his
running mate, knowing full well that this offers a level
of impetus to certain factions to have him assasinated as
soon as he takes office.....

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Two down... one to go!
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:53:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.014250.4861@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.004510.22586@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>Rush Limbaugh is the MOST listened to on the radio 
>>and the MOST read in the non-fiction books section... In history.
>>
>>If he becomes the MOST watched person on TV, it'll make Rush Limbaugh
>>the absolutely most paid-attention-to person in the United States of
>>America, all around. 
>>
>>The man is a genius. 
> 
>How true - of course, you realize that by stating this you're going to 
>get flamed just as much as Rush does here, and for the same reason - 
>both of you state the simple truth.

Tell the truth to liberals? 

After I debunk and refute a liberal policy or philosophy, I do what
Rush Limbaugh does:

Duck for my life. (As he did on the first Rush Limbaugh TV show.) 

How about this one:
* Liberals: "Health care should be subsidized by the government." 
* Answer: In Canada and other countries where they do that, they pay 40%
of their income in TAXES.

* Liberals: "More taxes and more spending..."
* Answer: They aren't using that slogan anymore for the 1992 campaign,
are they? 

I can't recall other liberal ideologies that have fatal flaws, but
I'll let Rush deal with them in his show. :) 


=============================================================================
Bill Clinton: 
		  Adultery
		+ Drug-use
		+ Draft-dodging
		=================
		= ADD it up 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett)
Subject: Clinton Picture
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:46:51 GMT

   Would anybody by chance know where I could get that picture of Bill Clinton
that rush created in electronic form (a GIF file, for instance) or printed 
form?  The picture I am talking about is the one that Rush shows on his TV
show, that has Bill Clinton in a Russian hat.  It is a very good picture, and
I would like to blow it up to poster size.

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
--------------------------------------------------
      Slick Willie Clinton: JUST SAY NO!!!
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:42:46 GMT
Subject: Re: drieux you, too, buddy (was Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
 >	I agree that "devaluation of language is evidential of a small,
 >inflexible intellect".  If everyone used only their own words, that they made
 >up, and ignored anything resembling a sentence structure, there would be no
 >communication.  Nobody would be able to understand anyone else, and language
 >would be valueless.
 >
 >	I believe that the way "drieux" treats language devalues it, because no
 >meaning is conveyed.
 >Ray Swartz

You have GOT to be kidding.  I am not going to comment on the quality
of the gentlemans writing, but the meaning he wishes to convey is
relatively obvious to anyone who is not critically illiterate.

He clearly prefers a somewhat poetic style of discourse, and while that
can be confusing, in this case it is not terribly confusing as his
meaning is not all that deeply hidden by his metaphors and such.

 
doug
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:31:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

> 
> In fact, almost every day, I'm too damn tired by the time all the kids
> get to sleep to even think about sex.  My husband knows this, and when
> we want to do the nasty, he comes home for "lunch". 

Thanks for sharing...

doug
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:34:50 GMT
Subject: CC limbaugh
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

Last night Rush showed some videos of Gephart commenting
on the debates.  Rush claimed that Gephart looked 
extremely angry and was very hateful.  This is very
curious, because, despite the fact that Senator G. was
engaging in spin doctor nonsense and saying some fairly
stupid things, the senator did not seem to be even slightly
angry, and it was all said in a very calm tone.  Odd.

On the other hand, Rush once again made me confident that
he will eventually earn the appelation I have assigned to him:
Carpet Chewer Limbaugh.

Rush worked himself up into a low level frenzy over how 
people say that America is in decline and over the comments
of the much less angry senator G.  Ok, I am exaggerating.
Rush was not actually salivating and gnawing on carpet, but
if Billy C gets elected, I predict that Rush will continue
to deteriorate in his personal insanity and will eventually
be making snacks out of the carpet.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Why isn't Rush libertarian?
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:28:34 GMT

daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>I once heard Rush say something on his show along the
>lines of, "Liberals  think you are to stupid to decide for yourself.
>Liberals think you are too stupid to run you own life."

    Yes, I've heard him say that too. It seemed kind of ironic yesterday 
when he went on his several minute tirade on how people who would vote 
for Clinton are stupid and idiotic (his words, not mine). If Clinton really 
does win a majority then is Rush going to be a liberal because he thinks 
those people are all stupid?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Wed 10/14/92
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:54:30 GMT
Reply-To: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli) says:

>Today, Rush's critics and their sympathizers, a bunch of bleeding-heart
>liberal know-it-alls who have read sixteen books in their lifetimes, will
>piss and moan about Rush Limbaugh, the man who, in less than three weeks,
>will still be on the radio for the next four years.

      Sixteen!  Ha!  More like TWENTY-THREE, smartass!  And if that
chuckleheaded clown is still on the radio in four years, it'll be on a
50-watt AM station in Fresno.  Have a nice day.
-- 
     Vern Morrison              |    
     aa680@po.cwru.edu          |   read my .sig: join the Clinton/Gore
     vern@cray.csuohio.edu      |               email team!  
     Parma, Ohio: the 'burbs    |     write 75300.3115@compuserve.com     
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh