HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: IUPUI
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 13:28:22 EST

In article <adams.718292381@spssig>
adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
 
>>1) If she becomes pregnant, it is not "effective birth control".  It's
>>only effective if she does not become pregnant.
>'Effective' is a relative term.  Of course.  But certain forms are much
>more effective than others...
 
Right.  That's why it's "98% effective."  'Effective' is synonymous /c
"100% Effective", making it redundant.  Therefore, you cannot become
pregnant /c "effective birth control".
 
>>2) she is not agreeing to pregnancy, she is agreeing to assume a certain
>>risk of becoming pregnant by participating in the activity (assuming a
>>voluntary coupling), just as he is assuming a certain risk of financial
>>responsibility should the coupling result in a pregnancy.
>Sure.  They are assuming risk, but not agreeing to it!  There is a
>difference.  I walk across the street against the lights, and am hit by a
>truck.  I assumed the risk, but I sure didn't agree to it!
 
You agreed to assume the risk.  If it happens, it happens.  If you are
unwilling to assume the risk of crossing the street somewhere other than the
crosswalk, you have agreed to assume the risk a jaywalker assumes.  If
you cross at the crosswalk and don't look, you agree to assume the risk
that goes /c that and trust the other party is obeying the laws and stopping
before hitting you.  If you are unwilling to agree to the assumption of
these risks, you don't participate in those activities.
From: griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:53:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Michigan State University

>In article <1992Sep27.153806.22425@afterlife.ncsc.mil> acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:

>>The Washington Post Book World for September 27 reports that
>>Limbaugh's book is Number One in Hardback non-fiction, Clinton-Gore's
>>book is Number One in Paperback Non-Fiction. 

A number one book means that x number of copies have been printed and
distributed.  The fact is that a book can go #1 without having sold a 
single copy.  Of course, it will not stay #1 if it doesn't sell because
no more books will be distributed.  

How many people do you know that bought or have read Clinton-Gore?  The
vast majority of people I know are Democrats and are going to probably
vote for Clinton-Gore.  Yet I do not know one single person that has read
'The Comeback Kid' or Gore's book on the environment -- not one.  Yet, I
know quite a few people that have already read Rush's book.  WHen I bought
my copy, the guy had to go into the stock room and open up a new case of
books.  Yet the bookstores are pushing Clinton-Gore like crazy.  Big
displays, they are up on the front counter, but I've never even seen
someone pick one up to look at it, much less buy it.
-- 
Dan Griffin                     "We lost our corkscrew and had to live
griffin@egr.msu.edu              on food and water."  WC Fields
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 22:01:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.034414.21640@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes:

	[re: Limbaughs book vs. Gores book]

>Look, if people wanted to buy those books, they'd buy them.  Quit trying to 
>make excuses.

	I'm completely missing the point of this discussion, but I'm 
following it anyway. I haven't seen anything thats particularly noteworthy,
so if someone could explain what is unusual about all of this, I'd appreciate 
it.

	Rush's book is in the hardcover charts. This is far from surprising,
	he has a dedicated following and the book was just released. The
	dittoheads alone would put the book into the charts, and the only
	real question is how long will it stay there. If the book truly has
	mass appeal, then it will stay in the charts for a while - if it's
	just a must have for dittoheads, it'll start dropping in a week or
	so.

	Gores book is in the paperback charts. This makes sense, given that
	it was also in the hardcover charts for awhile. The publisher times
	the paperback release to ride the wave of the hardcover edition
	without stealing hardcover sales. This means that the stores are
	going to be discounting the hardcover to move the excess stock and
	promote the new softcover item.

	Comparing the two head to head is ludicrus. You could compare them
	based on hardcover sales in the first month, or some other rational
	criteria, and you would find that one sold more copies then the other.
	I would guess that Limbaugh would out-sell Gore, and both would be
	left in the dust by L. Ron Hubbard.

	From this, We can conclude that the next wave in american politics
	is going to be scientology. How fast can you make it to Theta Clear?


	

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992
From: jseaver@banzai.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The End of Rush?
Date: 30 Sep 1992 13:45:43 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: banzai.wpi.edu

In article <1992Sep29.201205.1434@cnsvax.uwec.edu> jaeschcr@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>	I am no fan of Rush's.  I do not care for his style of
>	ignorant, narrow-minded televison showmanship.

	Then why are you on alt.FAN.rush-limbaugh?

>	I merely see a man who enjoys all the controversy that follows
>	him.  Now he is hitting the television market in force.

	Market forces.  People want to watch, it's their decision.

>	Even people who dislike his entire manner can't get enough of the
>	the man...

	Because he's a great entertainer.  Watch & listen to him as that, and
it's pretty tough to complain.

>	One simple solution.  Forget about him. Ignore him.  We, and also
>	the media, will soon live without a man who can't debate an
>	issue without using pseudo-conservative, All-American banter.

	Go for it.

				-Jay
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.perot
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:01:48 GMT

In article <cemXlRe00iUzM0trU2@andrew.cmu.edu>, ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Karl Witte) writes:
|> I say we all call 1800-925-1300 and make Perot thinks he has lots of
|> support so that we can laugh at him when he gets barely more than
|> Marrou/Lord.

Agreed.  I'm going to set up my computer to demon-dial his number all night...

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: IUPUI
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 15:32:55 EST

In article <adams.718034098@spssig>
adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
 
>jseaver@arkose.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>
>>       Very, VERY few people would complain about abortion when the mother's
>>life is in danger.  However, if the woman is pregnent through voluntary sex...
>>Well, you could say she's committed herself.
>
>Not at all.  Assume that she is using effective birth control, and using it
>properly.  She still gets pregnant.  Where did she agree to pregnancy?
 
 
Since today's a football day, the appropriate analogy is that you are
making an end run around some thing and not stating things properly:
 
1) If she becomes pregnant, it is not "effective birth control".  It's
only effective if she does not become pregnant.  2) she is not agreeing
to pregnancy, she is agreeing to assume a certain risk of becoming
pregnant by participating in the activity (assuming a voluntary
coupling), just as he is assuming a certain risk of financial
responsibility should the coupling result in a pregnancy.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:20:33 GMT
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct2.134724.24758@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

>Conservatives, who care about not wasting money, will stop right there if
>they do not feel that it is important enough to continue, which I do.
>
>Liberal, who are used to spending other people's money and teaching others
>to do so do not find this a barrier.

So why are the deficits under Reagan and Bush so much higher than under any
democratic president, ever.  And don't forget,  the President proposes the 
budget,  the congress just agrees to it.
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Deja Vu all over again
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:45:44 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <122460007@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>
>> In article <122460001@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>> >Why?  Is the quote above an example of why you fear him.  Data on ozone
>> >depletion SOUNDS real, and skin cancer rates are on the rise are they not?
>> >I saw somewhere that one good sunburn when you are a child dramatically
>> >raises the chances for skin cancer.  With depleted ozone, it is probably
>> >even more important to be worried about exposure.  Gore's statement
>> >sounds fairly responsible to me.
>> 
>> Odd.  You see this as a responsible comment by someone who cares about the
>> environment.  I see a politically powerful politician who wants to scare
>> children.  
>
>I agree, your statement is odd.  As a matter of fact, I cannot
>say anything whatsoever about Gore's motivations, but the sunburn
>statement was not made by Gore.
>
>I repeat my assertion that data on the deterioration of the environment
>seems to be cause for concern.  There is undoubtedly extremism on 
>the subject (on BOTH sides), but that does not need to effect
>moderate concern.

Whatever the merits of the argument about ozone depletion and sunburn etc.,
teaching children to be afraid of the sky is not a moderate position.  We teach
children to look both ways before crossing the street.  We don't teach them to 
be afraid of cars.  We can teach children to be careful of the sun, or a good
sunburn will do it for us, but we don't need to engage in fear-mongering.  Al
Gore believes in fear-mongering, and this statement is an example of it:  

===============================================================================

"We have to tell our children that they must redefine their relationship to 
 the sky, and they must begin to think of the sky as a threatening part of 
 their environment." [ and that they must elect liberal Democrats to protect 
 them. ]
		  
		  Earth in the Balance -- Al Gore
		  unspoken conclusion provided by

crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com
William Crosmun
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6049 alt.rush-limbaugh:6169
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Liberals" and the Drug War
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:34:10 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,na,alt
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Sep29.140520.23756@news.unomaha.edu> kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger) writes:
>Furthermore, his show is an anti-liberal
>program, but so what?  I can probably name twenty non-news, anti-conserva-
>tive programs. 

Go ahead, we're waiting for the list.  I bet most of them are simply
anti-stupidity and anti-corruption (these just appear
anti-conservative).

>Nonetheless, it is well agreed upon that liberals generally
>oppose the war on drugs because of civil rights violations, mainly against
>minorities.

Where do you get this from.  The war on drugs doesn't even work as well
as the welfare system.  Can I oppose it and not be a liberal, or is that
one of the Rush Lamebrain definitions of a liberal.

>Granted, not ALL liberals think the war on drugs is bad, but the movement

What is this movement, where can I join or protest.

>sure does.  If you disallow generalizations, then you cannot even say that
>such a thing as "liberal" and "conservative" exist.  Clearly these philoso-
>phies based on generalizations are real, though they may not apply to all.

At last, we agree.
>
>Kurt R. Krueger


-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Computer Technology Group, TAEX
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:22:09 GMT

In article <ld1gq9INNelc@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (
Michael Polen) writes:

>After all, what is religion for but to turn philosophical differences
>into holy wars.

"If any man among you seem to be religious and bridleth not his tongue, but 
deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and 
undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and 
widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
					- James 1:26-27
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley)
Subject: Re: Religious rights and responsibilities
Organization: Computer Technology Group, TAEX
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:59:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.061822.9316@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) 
writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.130030.11623@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>
>>What is the "responsibility" associated with freedom of religion?

[Constitution, Article VI, Section 3 deleted]

>Constitution of the United States, Amendment I:

>       Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>       or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

Before passing the First Amendment, it went through 12 different 
iterations. Debate on the floor of the Constitutional convention regarding 
the wording of this section of the First Amendment ranged from Congress 
shall make no law respecting one Christian Society over another, to, 
Congress shall make no law respecting one denomination of Christians over 
another. The intent of the founders is clear, viz., there will be no 
national Christian denomination. Why? because they did not want what England 
had:  domination by a state empowered Christian sect, viz., Church of 
England. Amendment I says we don't want the Anglicans, Catholics, Baptists 
or any other Christian denomination established as a state religion. What it 
does *not* say is that government will be without the direction of religion.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation 
was founded not by religionists but by Christians; not on religions but on 
the gospel of Jesus Christ"
					Patrick Henry

"The church must take right ground in regard to politics. Politics are part 
of a religion in a country as this and Christians must do their duty to the 
country as part of their duty to God. God will bless or curse this nation 
according to the course that Christians take in politics."
					Charles Finney

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this:  that it connected 
in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the 
principles of Christianity."
					John Quincy Adams

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the 
duty as well as the priviledge and interest of our Christian nation to 
select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
			John Jay, first Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court

"Reason and experience both, forbid us to expect that national morality can 
prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
					George Washington
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: matta@lclark.edu (Matt Alexander)
Subject: Re: Summary Wed 9/23/92
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Distribution: usa,na,alt
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:57:59 GMT

In article <92270.004116KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.153311.12472@lclark.edu>, matta@lclark.edu (Matt
>Alexander) says:
>
>>Ah, I see so clearly now.
>>There is only one right way to live...
>>and the right way, obviously, is your way?
>
>So, you don't believe there is a right and a wrong, then?
>
>------------
>Kurt Ludwick
>------------

Oh, I believe in rights and wrongs, alright
I just don't nessesarly believe in _yours_.

For example, You (might) see homosexuality as wrong, I do not.
I see U.S. millitary intervention in Central America and the Persain Gulf
as wrong, you (might) not. (Pardon the assumptions, I'm flagrantly
generalizing conservative opinions)
I'm not asking anyone to conform to my opinions, but when I hear people
spewing about "Traditional Familiy Values (tm)" I also interperet this to
mean "MY Traditional Familiy Values". And to be honest, the kind if values
I saw at the Republican Convention gave me a rash.

- Matt Alexander

"Sure we believe in freedom of religin', you can be Christain, OR Jewish!"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu
Subject: The truth about lies
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:59:47 GMT

     Because Bill Clinton went to Moscow back in 70 does not make him
     a traitor.The interests of the right wingers would have you believe
     he was trying to get a job with the KGB.When the want of peace becomes
     associated with being a communist then it is clear we have not learned
     anything since the conflict in Vietnam.There is no proof Clinton was
     involved in anti-American demonstrations and there is no proof that he
     dogged the draft so anyone who impLIES otherwise is only giving there
     opinion and you know what they say about them.
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: A Note on Book Sales
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:38:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Great Beyond

Just a note to all of the people that gloated that Limbaugh's
book was doing so much better than Clinton - Gore's _Putting 
People First_. 

The Washington Post Book World for September 27 reports that
Limbaugh's book is Number One in Hardback non-fiction, Clinton-Gore's
book is Number One in Paperback Non-Fiction. 

Yeah, I know comparing paperbacks to hardbacks is apples and oranges,
but can the crap about how LImbaugh's book was doing so incredibly
well compared to Clinton-Gore's.
-- 
Proud to be part of the cultural elite!
What the gamemasters wilt shall be the whole of the law.
	- Motto of the Hellfire Club, live-action roleplaying GM's
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist)                        <fnord>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Tue,  6 Oct 1992 15:05:00 -0400 
From: "Jeffrey T. Strnad" <js1j+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re : Rush Words


check rush's book.."The Way Things Ought To Be"...for the chapter entitled
"The Limbaugh Lexicon"...
               it includes gems on such topics as Governor Coomo, as well as
the standard Feminazis and Evironmentalist Wackos...

                                       nad
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mox@vpnet.chi.il.us (William Moxley)
Subject: Re: It gets bigger (was Re: The Big Lie)
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 01:13:10 GMT

Ah Min, did you really have to quote his WHOLE article?  I mean common,
what a total waste of bandwith.  You even left in his whole .sig.  Do
use all a favor and take the time to edit out some of the quoted
material.

		William Moxley
		mox@vpnet.chi.il.us


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 04:13:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.161245.10940@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
>>> Lots of pro-lifers have spouted "Abortion is Murrderr!!!" but I've never
>>> seen any of them come to grips with the implications of their rhetoric.
>
>> Well then why don't you tell us what the implications are?
>
>Murder is a legal term for the deliberate, unlawful taking of a human being's
>life.  The crime is considered a felony and is punishable by life imprisonment
>or the death penalty.  That's the implication of the "Abortion is Murrderr!!!"
>catch-phrase.  Yet I read articles by pro-lifers over and over again stating
>that they do not want to punish the woman, just the abortionist.  This
>inconsistency shows me that the pro-lifers who spout "Abortion is Murrderr!!!"
>have not come to grips with the implications of their rhetoric.
>
>>        Let's try, "a woman has had an abortion for reasons other than
>> physical danger to her life". What other facts do you need? I think that
>> if I was given "person X murdered person Y for reasons other than danger
>> to his/her life", it would be pretty clear cut. 
>

Excuse me, but what does this have to do with Clinton or Bush and why is it
in these conferences?

Please trim your newsgroups once the threads have nothing to do with the
specific political conferences.
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:25:42 GMT

In article <gelpRem00Voq8_wkN1@andrew.cmu.edu>, Randy Eugene Griffith
<rg3c+@andrew.cmu.edu> says:

>So I check out some messages.  It seems that there are far more haters
>of Rush Limbaugh here than fans.  Is this really a fan base?  If all you
>people want to do is lambast everything Rush says, why don't you start a
>alt.critic.rush-limbaugh bb?

Well, you have to realize that the Net is a liberal haven, with a low
percentage of conservatives.  (Don't ask me why, it's just a fact.)
Then it all makes sense.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:33:14 GMT

In article <1ad9meINNbkq@bigboote.WPI.EDU> jseaver@arkose.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>
>	Very, VERY few people would complain about abortion when the mother's
>life is in danger.  However, if the woman is pregnent through voluntary sex...
>Well, you could say she's committed herself.
>
>						-Jay
>
>

In other words, she made her bed now she should be forced to lie in it.
Sounds like punishing her for wanting sex, doesn't it?  Doesn't sound
like any higher beliefs like the fetus is a person, but control and punishment,
pure and simple.  She had sex voluntarily, and therefore must pay.
Has absolutely nothing to do with fetal rights at all.

That's the picture you've painted, Jay.  Care to elaborate?

Jennifer
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc