HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:20:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.072200.3788@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

	[for those who came in late, we're taling about why Rush Limbaugh
has it in for Madonna. I personally think that they're competitors in
the same business]

|> >>                                                  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?

	I think that Sex should be for humiliation *and* enjoyment, and
I'm pleased that I've finally found a way to cross post between 
alt.rush-limbaugh, and alt.sex.bondage.

	Follow-ups, please.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services

	"Light fuse and get away"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Rush Blimp?
Date: 17 Oct 92 03:20:40 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus

In article <1992Oct16.234557.29669@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:

>You know what's sadder than people making fun of the way others look? People
>making fun of the way people no longer look. Granted Rush is still on the 
>fat side, but he has lost at least 40 or 50 pounds - all you have to do 
>is compare how he looks now on his TV show with his Rush III video. 

	Now John, you may be taking this Rush apologist stuff too far -
you're beginning to froth at the mouth (just a bit). Rush (or his supporters)
of all people has no room to critisize others for low personal attacks.

>	 Sure Rush makes fun of how people like Kennedy have red eyes, or 
>Perot's bad haircuts, but at least he is always make some sort of 
>substantive criticism along with it. This seems more than people like
>Uncle Tom can do. 

	So, If I say "Rush, a disgusting fat slob with a monochrome view
of the world", it's ok, right?




-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6967 alt.sex:33122 soc.singles:27909 alt.politics.homosexuality:6464 talk.abortion:42908
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: But who Gets to Sue for Paternity?
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:48:34 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

drieux writes:
>I write:
>] drieux writes:
>] >barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>] >] I write:
>] >] >If a man gets another man pregnant, I'll be rather surprised.
>] >] 	I predict there'll be two guys even more surprised than you!
>] >the subject line sorta says it all....
>] 
>] <looks up> Well, the one who's pregnant, of course.
> 
>Now which of them Should, by default be afforded
>Parental Custody?

Nobody should get custody by default.  The one who isn't sleeping withthe
kid should get it.

>We really need to settle these Issues Before
>the Evil Diabolical Mad Scientists of the
>RadFemSurfNazi's are allowed to take over
>our bodies, our selves.
>
Can they just have our bodies and leave our selves to our selves?

>] Big Al.  Let's see how far we can overplay this...
>
>Was that HiFi or Monoral?
>
Dolby Surround Sound.

Big Al.  Used as a robot by the RadFemSurfNazis.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:32:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.225046.13429@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.212940.16972@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>
>>I can only judge by the film you conviniently mention for me.  Truth or dare
>>was decadence  on parade for me.
>
>I didn't find the movie decadent, because I didn't go see it.

I didnt go see it either.  It came on HBO and I was curious enough to want to
know what all the fuss is about.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham)
Subject: Clinton Guilty of Sexual Harassment?
Organization: ARCO Oil and Gas Company
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:32:32 GMT

Does anyone know what exactly Clinton has admitted about Gennifer
Flowers?

--- Did he for example, aid her in getting a state job?

If this is the case, he may be guilty of sexual harassment.

Sexual Harassment (SH) can be direct and indirect.  If for example,
several people were being considered for the job Gennifer got, and
she was given the job based on suggestions from Clinton that they
would be able to get along REAL well (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), then
Clinton would be guilty of both direct AND indirect SH:  directly
guilty of SH by way of his suggestions to Gennifer, and indirectly
guilty of SH by way of his treatment of the OTHER JOB APPLICANTS.
In other words, a person can be sexually harassed because they were
passed over for a job due to someone else's submitting to sexual
"requirements".

Any ideas out there?

John G.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: rush
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:22:50 GMT

young7905@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>To all Rush's Supporters wherever you are:

>               RUSH MUST DIE!!!!!!!!!

    As must we all.

>                    Bye!

    Yes, good bye.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:56:29 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 3452@wetware.com, diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
>walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>
>] >Orgasms, in the main, are messy things,
>] >and Really are not the sort of things
>] >that decent persons with good personal
>] >hygeine standards would wish to involve
>] >themselves in/with/towards.
>] 
>] 
>] 	Sounds like this person can't get their rocks off to me.
>] Its only messy if you shoot somebody in the face or your so wet that
>] you flood your bedroom.
>]         
>If sarcasm was posted to the net, would anybody notice?
>
>(Well SOMEONE had to say it)
>
>Diana


Form-letter:

Can you please refrain from cross-posting articles like this to 
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and alt.rush-limbaugh?  These two groups
are now getting so many off-topic postings that his fans and
anti-fans have ceased participating.

If you feel you must post it to a r-l group could you only post it
to alt.rush-limbaugh and refrain from posting it to alt.fan.r-l?

Firstrun articles are fine but Re: replies don't add much to these
groups if they are off-topic.

Thank you.  Comments and flames to msako@lsil.com
---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:14:06 GMT
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

>In article <9210081734.AA21296@MIT.EDU>, bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith)
>says:

> *    Bush said last night it's been an ugly political year.

Yeah.   Even Willy Horten said that he can't remember so much nasty mud
slinging.
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:50:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Love to hate him don't just hate him
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, bakerdj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

> 
> 
> I'm a Liberal Demecrate and I like to watch the show becuase it is
> entertainment so what if he is totally Biased. 

I am neither liberal nor a democrat.

>It is fun to watch. He gets up
> there and makes a total ass of himselfe. It is fun to watch his use of retoric
> to bolster his points. It is fun to watch as he calls his distortions the
> truth. It is fun just to hate him! 

Yes, he does have a great deal of buffoon appeal.  I wonder if
he can bite the head off of a chicken.

> 
> He is another of those people who people love to hate.

I don't feel strongly enough to actually hate him.  He is 
vaguely amusing and vaguely nauseating - sort of a mild, video
emetic.

doug
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mlhutche@uncc.edu (Marvin L Hutchens)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush and Columbus
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:49:42 GMT
Reply-To: mlhutche@uncc.edu
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte

In article 39388@sdcc12.ucsd.edu, pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>Just heared Rush missrepresenting in his usual manner the ideas
>behind multi-culturalism. He the received a phone call from Grace
>who read him a passage from Columbus's diary and doubted her
>sources. When she stated she had found this in 3 different
>publications, Rush tried to use arguments like histroy has too often
>been rewritten, I won't argue this with you. It's good to hear Rush
>being humbled, nevertheless his ego makes up for his lack of brain,
>he can't admit that he is wrong.
>I loved it.
>Pim van Meurs
>-- 

Isn`t it regretful that someone of reasonable intelligence must seek 
pleasure in the error of someone else.

Rush simply questioned the sources. Then took a pre-scheduled break.
If he seemed humbled, good.  But, try not to make it sound so 
incredible.  He is human, whether he admits it or not.

As far as the truth stands, there is room enough for both sides to 
hold credible arguments as to the validity of, and benefits of the 
long vanished and much maligned Chris Colombus.

Relax Pim.  Rush is not your enemy, you are.

Marvin L. Hutchens

-------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Marvin L. Hutchens
The Evidence of Prejudice Lies Within.     mlhutche@mosaic.uncc.edu
                                           Get to the Point
-------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:28:54 GMT


In a previous article, crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) says:

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

Quite possibly nothing...

But we have _SEEN_ what Bush has accomplished.

It's time to make a change, and if Clinton screws up as completely as Bush has,
it will be time for another change.

The worse possible thing we can do is maintain the status quo.

>
>>
>>Gimme a break.
>>
>>Clinton/Gore in '92.
>>-- 
>>   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
>>                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
>>             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
>>                              DoD # 0698
>
>
>William Crosmun
>crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com
>
>===============================================================================
>Life is a mystery and it's an unsolvable one.  You simply live it through, and,
>as you draw your last breath you say "What was that all about?"
>                                                          - Marlon Brando
>===============================================================================
>"The computer industry is journalists in their 20s standing in awe of 
>entrepreneurs in their 30s who are hiring salesmen in their 40s and 50s and 
>paying them in the 60s and 70s to bring their marketing into the 80s."
>                                      - public relations wizard Marty Winston
>===============================================================================
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Two down... one to go!
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:36:55 GMT
	<1992Oct10.235313.25807@csus.edu>
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

In article <1992Oct10.235313.25807@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
    [...]
   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.) 

Yeh, them evil liberals are out to get you! (President Clinton won't like
this sort of talk!)

   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.

(Gee, and I wonder if Canada's federal deficit is going to force it to
default by the end of the decade?)

You really crack yourself up, huh?

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

Steve, I know you can do it, so I wish you would quote just one single
example of the *slogan* "More taxes and more spending..." ever used by
ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. Can you do that for us?

And, after they committed political suicide in this manner, what became of
that political organization and their membership?

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

Why not? Hell I thought there would be hundreds of liberal ideologies with
fatal flaws, and all you can come up with is two? I'll wager you can't
even provide substance to these two?

Well, I guess you can always fall back on Rush, and let him do your
thinking. Like a good little Dittohead...

  =============================================================================
   Bill Clinton: 
		     Adultery
		   + Drug-use
		   + Draft-dodging
		   =================
		   = ADD it up 
  =============================================================================

Et hoc genus omne, eh Steve? 
Shall we lapidate you now or later?
	
  -----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	      The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 


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..
I saw God. He rides a motorcycle. He's coming back soon, and He's real pissed.
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Summary: Bryon, get a calculator.
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:19:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <ldbe0oINN5c3@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>>
>>    I would say that there's a lot of value in a job. I suppose I should 
>>try some sort of Rush Limbaugh joke here and note that of the many Americans 
>>who worked at jobs in 1860, all of them are now dead. Basically it's a 
>
>	At the turn of the centry, 95% of Americans worked for themselves.
>
>>silly, irrelevant statistic, just about like yours. Just out of curiosity, 
>>how large is the statistical sample of people who have earned college 
>>degrees and then worked for a single company for 40 years? What relevance 
>
>	The sample is of all Americans who got a masters degree by the age
>of 25 and worked till 63.

So just how did they work for the same company for 40 years if the sample
was taken from ages 25 to 63, eh?

(Data point -- my father, thanks to the fact he turned eighteen four months
before D-Day, didn't get his Ph.D. until the end of 1955, when I was six
months old.  He worked for the same company (though with different
subsidiaries) until he retired in 1986 at age 60 -- and he'll turn 67 in
about four months, up in eastern Kentucky about 120 miles from you.  Would
you like to explain your math to him?  :-)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                  Support term limitations for politicians:
                 two terms -- one in office and one in jail.
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Summary: Bryon, start with some coherent thought.
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:27:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <ldbro7INNdaf@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>In article <Bvv9Ky.BK5@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>
>>So just how did they work for the same company for 40 years if the sample
>>was taken from ages 25 to 63, eh?
>
>	Retires two years early.  It can happen, but not necessary.

You said nothing about that, so don't throw it in now when someone points
out your mathematical blunder.  Just answer the question -- how do you get
40 years in between ages 25 and 63?  No backpedaling, no qualifications --
just an answer, please.

>>(Data point -- my father, thanks to the fact he turned eighteen four months
>>before D-Day, didn't get his Ph.D. until the end of 1955, when I was six
>>months old.  He worked for the same company (though with different
>>subsidiaries) until he retired in 1986 at age 60 -- and he'll turn 67 in
>>about four months, up in eastern Kentucky about 120 miles from you.  Would
>>you like to explain your math to him?  :-)
>
>	Huh?  I said dead or broke, not just dead.  Does he work at all?
>Do you send him money?  Does he have debt?

He doesn't work (unless you consider re-building an old house in a coal camp
work), and he's far from being either dead *or* broke...so maybe you should
try your argument on him.  He'll be about as impressed with it as I am.

>>     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
>			 ^^^^^
>
>i c.
>
Yeah, I'll just bet you do -- I guess it was too much work to decipher
"rice.edu" in the address...

--PLH (hey, eight more months and we drive through Knoxville again...)

--
From: dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Guilty of Sexual Harassment?
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:59:07 GMT
Organization: ARCO Oil and Gas Company

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Internet feed was down for 36 hours, so I'll post this again.
Apologies if you received it twice ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anyone know what exactly Clinton has admitted about Gennifer
Flowers?

--- Did he for example, aid her in getting a state job?

If this is the case, he may be guilty of sexual harassment.

Sexual Harassment (SH) can be direct and indirect.  If for example,
several people were being considered for the job Gennifer got, and
she was given the job based on suggestions from Clinton that they
would be able to get along REAL well (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), then
Clinton would be guilty of both direct AND indirect SH:  directly
guilty of SH by way of his suggestions to Gennifer, and indirectly
guilty of SH by way of his treatment of the OTHER JOB APPLICANTS.
In other words, a person can be sexually harassed because they were
passed over for a job due to someone else's submitting to sexual
"requirements".

Any ideas out there?

John G.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: asmith@vax.wi.edu ()
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:39:35 GMT

In article <BvtL5H.LoL@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>In <9210081734.AA21296@MIT.EDU> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>
>>Distribution:
>>  Org >internet:Clinton-Org@ai.mit.edu
>>  Jock Gill [70670,2477]
>
>Why is a campaign organization allowed to use university-owned equipment
>to further its cause?  Not to mention Internet?
>

This use is legit and legal.

There are four mailing lists relvant to the presidential campaign: clinton-org,b
bush-org, perot-org, marrou-org.  If you want to do work for the candidate of 
your choice, write to loeb@ai.mit.edu and he can put you on the right list.

This use is in line with the internet acceptable use policy.  (The internet 
is not being used for fund raising purposes.)

There will soon be an operational mail server for all four national 
Presidential candidates.  Watch the nets for further announcements.

-bert
bowler@athena.mit.edu
Volunteer Clinton/Gore Email Team
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6982 alt.rush-limbaugh:7611