HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: AIDS Question:
Keywords: AIDS
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:59:45 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:


>I just heard something which I would like to hear more about:

>Jesse Helms (AGGH!! scream the liberals) quoted the Center for Disease
>Control today as stating that the average male AIDS patient has had
>more than FIVE HUNDRED sexual partners.  Can anyone refute or confirm 
>this?  If in fact the CDC has come to this conclusion legitimately
>I would be pretty startled.


>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  


That would not be at all surprising.  Few people realize the incredible
promiscuity of the male homosexual community (lesbians are apparently
not nearly as bad in this regard).  It is not at all uncommon for a
male homosexual to average over 100 different sexual partners in a 
single year.  Homosexuality and prostitution are major vectors for VD
for precisely this reason.  Hemophiliacs require a component of blood
(Factor VIII) that makes up less than 1% of normal blood.  A pint
of Factor VIII requires several thousand pints of blood to manufacture.
Thus, hemophiliacs "experience" a similarly high blood contact ratio.
IV drug users shoot up several times a day.  If they share needles on
even half of those "shoots" they share blood contact with well over
500 individuals a year.  The idea that AIDS is Everyman's disease is
a pretty big lie.  Only those segments of the community that experience
high rates of blood contacts are ever going to be seriously affected 
by AIDS. 

Anyone who tries to use the African example of AIDS plague is overlooking
serious differences.  The very high rate of sickle cell anemia means
African hospitals go through 3 times the blood volume of US hospitals
in OB/GYN wards and transfer units.  Almost no nation tests their blood
supply for AIDS - it would break their meager medical budget.  Promiscuity
is much more commonly accepted in those cultures than in the US.  This
makes any comparisons apples to oranges.

Ditto Thailand.  Southeast Asia is legendary for rates of IV drug use
and promiscuity.  They also have no budget for blood supply testing.

No blood contact, no AIDS.  It's that simple.  The gay community simply
has a tremndous amount of political force in the US, and they're 
wielding it for all it's worth.  ONe could hazard guesses as to why they
have this clout - it may well have somthing to do with the dominant visual
media culture in an increasingly non-literate society.  

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14006 talk.politics.misc:70126
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:03:32 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <C1Hs2M.3DH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>   He was correct, because we tried in vain to buy freon anywhere in town. He
>was finally told that the only place to go was a garage where they have the
>new EPA approved delivary systems for R-12.  The cost for a garage to do this
>$6 job is now $110.  That is a 1733% increase in cost, and it is another
>example of the price we will pay for our environment.

Except it was never a $6 job.  It was $6 for the can, and $200+ for the
environmental damage.  Just because you didn't have to directly pay for the 
damage you did to the environment by wasting away the ozone, doesn't
mean that it was less "costly" before the regulations.

>  I am not against protecting the environment, but should we have to pay
>this type of cost?  Why didn't someone figure out a way to lower the cost
>before they implemented the regulations?

Hey, you can pay the cost either in regulating freon usage so it doesn't
leak and kill the ozone, or you can pay the cost with the extra risk of
cancer to the next ten thousand generations.  Your call.  
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Rush makes _truely_ substantive points w.r.t. Clinton
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1993Jan25.152433@IASTATE.EDU>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:08:28 GMT

So, Tom, why are you shouting?

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..
When I break down just a little, I lose my head. No one can understand a
word that I say..
From: clj6357@summa.tamu.edu (JOHNSON, CARL LYNN, JR)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Clinton's Promises (list request)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:03 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: summa.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Could somebody either repost or e-mail me the complete listing of all 50
promises that RL compiled and the dates of those which have already been
broken.  Thanks in advance.

clj6357@summa.tamu.edu


Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13720 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:212 talk.abortion:57740
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:37:27 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>>All right, so I'm new.  COuld you please explain the sentience thing again, and
>>why it's ok to kill humans that aren't sentient?

>>Thanks

>Well, it sorta goes like this...

>Is it "ok" to kill animals?  I mean *when there is a compelling reason*...
>even when the animal hasn't done anything itself ("innocent").  (here's a
>clue, "food")  Is it normally "ok" to kill another person?  I mean a human
>being who has been living and interacting for a long time...even when there
>is a *compelling reason* but the person hasn't done anything "bad"
>("innocent").  (here's a clue, "murder")

>What is the difference?  In one case we have an animal that is not sentient;
>it doesn't think about its existence all that much, it just exists.  In the
>other case we have a sentient being that thinks about its existence a lot,
>and likes to argue about how "moral" something is.  This is the basic
>reasoning behind *sentience* as the "highest moral existence"--that state
>which must be protected unless its existence is harmful to others of similar
>existence (it is not "innocent").

>>MAC

>-Rob


MAC, Mr. Parker wouldn't know sentience if he had any.  

He, for example, is not aware that people in comas are not sentient, and
MAY never BE sentient.  Mr. Parker would, by his own logic, therefore get
to KILL them.  After all, they are an unwanted BURDEN on society.  

Whereas, an unborn baby, which IS virtually GUARANTEED to be sentient
within 9 months, is STILL okay in his mind to be scraped into a garbage
can.  

Have a nice day,


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers, hates abortion
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13397 talk.politics.misc:69065
From: walsh@via.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Broken Promises Indeed
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:36:43 GMT
Reply-To: walsh@via.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1993Jan20.233707.6700@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.121836.8938@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>> 
>> Good thing Reagan kept his promise to balance the budget
>> by 1984.  Otherwise we'd have a $4 Trillion debt by now.
>
>	Good thing congress kept their promise to cut spending (which they've
>done twice now :), or we'd have a $4 trillion debt.
>
>Brett

You two have convinced me...the Democrats and Republicans have failed us 
miserably.  I assume you'll both be voting third party next election.

--
___________________________________________________________________________
Thomas Walsh 		walsh@via.enet.dec.com		Nashua, NH

:opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employers
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Aargh!!! Rush re-runs!
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:26:23 GMT
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, Bloomington, Indiana
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

What's Rush doing this week?  All I've seen are re-runs of his more
recent shows.

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.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject:  The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Summary: recharging of car air conditions is now big bucks $$$$$$$
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:54:22 GMT
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks

On a recent trip to South Carolina, I helped a friend of mine repair
his car.  One of the things we wanted to do was recharge is air conditioner
system.  So, off to the auto supply store we went to get several cans of
R-12 ( freon ), but to our dismay we were told that they no longer stocked
R-12 because of EPA regulations.  My friend told me he had bought enough
refrigerent to recharge his car several years ago for $6, and worried that
the price might have gone up if the EPA was in the loop.

   He was correct, because we tried in vain to buy freon anywhere in town. He
was finally told that the only place to go was a garage where they have the
new EPA approved delivary systems for R-12.  The cost for a garage to do this
$6 job is now $110.  That is a 1733% increase in cost, and it is another
example of the price we will pay for our environment.

  I am not against protecting the environment, but should we have to pay
this type of cost?  Why didn't someone figure out a way to lower the cost
before they implemented the regulations?

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Straw Man, Take Two( WAS Re: The "Liberal Media" Criticizes Clinton
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:35:24 GMT

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu says:
>>[BTW, there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat in the Rush/Reagan
>>ideology, it is impossible for a Democrat to be moderate. Moderate is
>>such as Jerry Falwell, Phylis Shafly (sp?), Pat Robertson, etc...]

>Not true. Those are conservatives. What planet did you just get back from?

    Well, I don't have any info of vancleef@ohstpy's travel plans but 
I'm tempted to almost agree with the statement that there's no such 
thing as a "moderate" in Rush's world view. In the final analysis I would 
have to say that Rush *does* believe that moderates exist, but whenever 
the term "moderate" arises Rush tends to substitute his preferred term 
for moderism which is "moral cowardice". I'm not sure exactly how Rush 
feels about it, but I get the definite impression that he would prefer 
his adversaries to be outright, bare-faced, heinous liberals than 
moderates. After all, raving heinous liberals make Rush look good whereas 
sane soft-spoken moderates make him look bad. Extremism thrives on 
extremism, but it withers in the face of moderation.

>>Oh please! I thought this kind of juvenile name calling Nazi fear propoganda
>>went out with Ronald Reagan. Rush seems to be doing a good job keeping
>>the faith it seems!

>If name-calling is a Nazi tactic, then most of the posters here are using 
>Nazi tactics.  Talk about name-calling...

    Kurt's right on this one; name-calling is not exclusively limited to 
Nazis. Rush isn't a Nazi and he indulges in name-calling like crazy. I 
would argue that the name-calling doesn't reflect particularly well on 
Rush or on any of the people who parrot the names he calls people, but 
that's not the point.

>>Is it true that Rush urged his listeners that Clinton wasn't really the
>>president, that the US didn't have a president now, and that Clinton should
>>be assasinated? It wouldn't surprise me if it was! He had better be careful
>>making statements like that...

    Incredible bovine fecal matter. Rush made no such statement. Perhaps 
the person who had best be more careful is you before you try to attribute 
to Rush something that he didn't say.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: What's been broken
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:39:13 GMT

gjh2j@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Im a Joker Im a Smoker Im a Midnight Toker) writes:

>Would someone please coninue to post the ppromises that have been broken
>and the date they were broken...I know #18 is out the window.....

>What else is there?

>Ones that should be (tell Rush if he already hasn't) #33, #37, #39

>Ones to watch: #10,#15,,#16,#40,and of course #50


On this topic, could someone post all the numbers and DATES of the
promises that have been broken already?  



Yours truly,


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers, still hates abortion




Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Facts on Gays and Sexual Promiscuity
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:56:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.072352.17320@mic.ucla.edu> rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
>
>since you are on this subject, you (and everyone who claims to know a
>lot about this subject) should read a book titled something like
>'Kinsey, Sex, and Lies'.  The author gives a lot of interesting stats.
>Among others, he mathematically and conclusively proves many of Kinsey's
>stats to be intentional lies, such as the #gays=10% figure.  

Given that Kinsey never said that #gays=10%, I wonder who is really lying.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: How much does your congressman know about you?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:09:08 GMT

In article <C16nDt.FJ0@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:

>>-Congressional offices maitain detailed computer profiles of EVERY voter in 
>>-their district.  The names are cross-listed against voter registration
>>-records for age, sex, party affiliation.  They are also listed against
>>-drivers license records for ethnic background.  Finally, they link up with
>>-church, business, and civic lists to find out religous beliefs, occupation,
>>-and political opinions.
>>-Your congressman has such good files on you that have been called "top-
>>-notch counterintelligence files".

>>Nah, nothing top-notch about this.  It's basic stuff that's available
>>to anyone who wants to get it.  I'm happy about the fact that
>>congresspeople are interested in their constituents' backgrounds and
>>beliefs.  That's what representation is all about!

>     Your congressman will be glad to see that his efforts are working.
>Well, on you atleast.  The only reason that your representitive has such
>good files on you is so that they can win re-election ( the only thing
>most congressmen really care about ).  The records are used to target 
>specific mailing to you.  This mailings are the key tool in winning 
>re-election, and they are done in a dubouis manner.  Whatever is important 
>to you, as determined by your backgound, will be highlighted in the 
>mailings you receive.

>   It is not a genuine concern for 'constituents' backgrounds and
> beliefs' which drives the file keeping and mailing, but a desire to stay
>in office for as long as they wish to be there.

Um, isn't this the way a representative democracy is supposed to work?
Representatives aren't supposed to be doing things out of the goodness
of their hearts; they're supposed to do things to try and get reelected.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13967 talk.abortion:58204
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:26:41 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan27.173349.23024@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>Hmm...That's not what I'm concerned about, really. I'm concerned about
>the logical problems that this brings up. Consider: If, as I say,
>having to register for the draft makes you less than a person,
>then men are made less than people. If women are denied their
>reproductive rights and made less than people, then I don't quite
>see what you're using as a benchmark for what a person is. You see
>what I'm trying to say? I know the argument isn't very clear, but
>I hope it's clear enough. IF not, I'll try to clarify.

What, that by definition everybody is then 
'less than a human?'  Is that what you mean to say?

I believe that the imposition of the 'slavery' we are speaking of (for men,
conscription, for women, forced birth) is a term condition.  Like slavery,
one is less than human when subject to the whim of others (i.e., conscription,
slavery and forced birth) but regains their rights at another time period
(when freed from slavery, conscription or forced birth).

Not that I figure a term of slavery is a good idea or anything.  But it frankly
doesn't make any more sense to me that the government could force men to 
fight for their country against their will (though there is the 'out' for a
conscientious objector) than forcing women to bear children.  If the country,
or the society, is so sick that people who share it with others are unwilling
to fight/bear children, then the country/society is too sick to survive, and
should be allowed to die.  Which is to say, in a 'moral' universe (yep, that's
flamebait, folks) pure self interest would function to create and maintain
nations if and only if nations were a useful social construct.  Ditto birthing.
Therefore, personal choice is the motor behind all social interaction.


Adrienne Regard
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13982 talk.politics.misc:70091
From: michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:33:47 GMT
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US


On figuring the costs to the enviroment:

Skin cancer rates have quadrupled in the last decade.  CFC's stay
in the atmosphere for a ridiculously long time, centuries at
the least.

Now then:  add to the damage done to humans the damage done
to animals and plants.  Just as you wouldn't buy milk from
Chernobyl, you might get a little nervous about food from
Argentina or Australia if the ozone hole gets a little bigger.

Okay, that is a worst case scenario.  Lets compare it with
a few other expenses set aside for the "worst case scenario".
How much was spent on nuclear fallout shelters?
How much do we spend on car/house/health etc.. insurance?

We spend a lot of money on "worst case scenarios" and insurance
companies still _make_ money.  Obviously we spend more moeny
than we need to if _they_ are making a profit off our fears!

Think of it this way:  all the profit the insurance companies
make is _absolute_ waste, whereas money spent to make
the enviroment safe, and incentive and regualtions to insure
competetion promotes new ways of making it safe are
among the best _investments_ we can make.


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"I resolve to make no non-tautological New Year's Resolutions!"
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13918 talk.abortion:58095
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:41:57 GMT

Michael D. Adams (StarOwl@uiuc.edu) wrote:
: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
: >hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang) writes:
:
: >: We all know that heterosexual marriages are heavily subsidized on the
: >: federal level.  Would a married couple pay less taxes than if the two
: >: individuals were to file singly?  Almost always.  Is it possible for
:
: >Sorry, but in the 5 years of our marriage, my wife and I have paid an averag
e
: >of $1000 per year more than we would have if we were living together and fil
ing
: >separatly.
:
: This does not apply to all couples.
:
: There are a few other forms of subsidization which apply to couples which
: have legal recognition of their marriage.  The one I am most familiar with
: is this: if a person in a recognized marriage (formal or common-law) dies,
: hir spouse may inherit from the deceased exempt from estate taxes.  If
: a person in an unrecognized marriage (homosexual or non-traditional),
: hir spouse(s) may have to deal with estate taxes on what the deceased
: leaves them.

Next of kin and survivorship considerations are different from Income Tax 
considerations.  I responded to the latter.
-- 
Mike McAngus                     | Parenthood is too important a responsibility
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org             | to force on anyone.
The Truth is still the Truth     |
Even if you choose to ignore it. |   Sarah Weddington (the above is from memory)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1993Jan22.174046.17956@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:34:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.174046.17956@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes) writes:

<Is it even remotely possible that Clinton truly wanted Baird as AG?  

<Nah!  There's got to some conspiracy to fool the public here.

	Bermes is right; Clinton obviously wanted a confessed
	Federal Felon to be the top law enforcement officer of
	the nation.

	Clinton also obviously wanted a scofflaw who knowingly
	violated the 1986 Immigration law to head up the
	Immigration and Naturalization service.

	Hmmmmm....what was that about "change", again?