HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier)
Subject: Re: Valid Space-related research...
Organization: University of Utah - Physics Department
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 08:26:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.222916.24090@mic.ucla.edu>, rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec26.092310.11874@fcom.cc.utah.edu> freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:
|> >  IMHO, there is some valid research going on as far as the space program
|> >is concerned.... it just isn't being done by NASA.  I feel that Biosphere II is
|> >the most important bit of space related research we could possibly support.
|> Only someone TOTALLY ignorant on the whole subject of space research
|> could
|> have possibly made that last statement.  Biosphere II is nothing but a
|> big scam being financed by a Texas(?) millionaire family for political
|> and personal gain.  I challenge anyone to find ONE reputable scientist
|> who thinks that it is a *real* scientific experiment.
|> 
   Regardless of where the funding is coming from or what the intent
actually is, it is the kind of experiment that MUST be done before any
plans for colony projects can even begin.  (Not that I approve of 
colonization plans, mind you.)  I freely admit that if data is not 
being taken properly, then Biosphere is a scam.  In that case, it's 
simply a pity, because it will have to be done over and done right 
eventually.... if not to help the space program, then to further our 
understanding of the biosphere. 
  
   I should perhaps make my biases clear.  I feel that there are
several branches of science we should immediately stop worrying
about.  Among them are cosmology and astrophysics.  (I am not, mind 
you, one of those fanatics who are against all future manned space
missions;  I just believe we have a lot of other things to take care
of first.)   IMHO, these fields are wastes of time and money.  No one
but a dedicated astrophysicist is at all worried about the solar
neutrino problem.... or the high energy cosmic ray problem....  and
solving them will very likely lead to no improvements at all in
our society.  Such productive ways of spending other people's money.
Say... aren't the democrats the ones accused of solving the problems
of a minority with other people's money?
  
   As for your challenge, give me a few days to check my facts.  
But I'm sure that no matter what I say, you will use that "reputable"
clause to complain, no matter how reputable my examples are.   Then again,
your definition of *real* might cause some problems, too.  You probably
think a particular field is not a science if that field's theories
cannot be rigorously quantified or expressed with equations.
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A scary thought
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 03:01:51 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

> In article <1992Dec31.062952.6046@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.
> >The thought that alt.fan.rush-limbaugh = alt.human-sexuality is truly
> >a scary thought
> >
> 
> 
> So is a Democrat in the White House! :-)
> 
> Simon
> 

Not anywhere near as scary as Pat Robertson's vow to conrol the 
Repukelikan party by 1996.

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Clinton-Schoo Family Values (Was ..Secular Reasoning)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:25:16 GMT

kgowen@cie.uoregon.edu (Kevin Gowen) writes:

>In article <1993Jan02.093611.24497@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>
>>>Hillary Clinton et.al. have reasoned, secularly, that children should be
>>>given the same legal rights and representation as adults, including the
>>>right to divorce their parents.
>>
>>    Can you document this?  I haven't heard anything of the sort.
>>

>I believe this comes from an essay that Hillary Clinton wrote that was included
>in a collection titled "Children's Rights: Contemporary Perspectives"
>published by Teacher's College Press in 1979.  Her main thesis was
>that the legal system's presumption of juvenile incompentence should be
>abolished and that a minor should be considered to have equal standing with
>adults unless proven incompetent. "Children should have a right to decide their 
>own future if they are competent" is what Ms. Clinton said back then.
>Therefore, it is necessary to "...reverse the presumption of incompentency
>and instead assume all individuals are competent unless proven otherwise."

>She also said that some decisions "should not be made unilaterally by
>parents" regarding areas "where the decision or lack of one will significantly
>affect the child's future."

Thus, the Schoo's, who left their nine-year old at home to take care of
their four-year old, were merely demonstrating the applicability of 
Hillary's reasoning.  If a judge can determine competence after only
a few days of observation, parents can certainly judge competence after
a lifetime of observation.  Therefore, there is no ipso facto fault with the
parents leaving these children behind while they went to Acupulco, unless
someone determines that the nine-year old was not, in fact, competent.

To argue otherwise is a direct attack on Clinton's (and the entire 
Democratic party's) family values.  The Schoo's were simply good Democrats.

>In this 1979 essay, Hillary Clinton does *not* say outright, "I think that
>children should be allowed to sue and divorce their parents".  But in my
>opinion it can be easily derived from the ideas she presents in this essay.
>  
>>[rest deleted]

>>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         

>-kevin
>kgowen@cie.uoregon.edu


Steve
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11257 talk.politics.misc:66049
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Date: 2 Jan 1993 17:46:43 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <C08L2F.I7F@ddsw1.mcs.com>, karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:


|> Yet, is not one of the founding principles of conservative thought that the
|> government should make fewer laws, and leave people more alone (than the
|> liberals)?

Without commenting on the issue itself, the Colorado Amendment 2 explicitly
forbids the enactment of laws to prevent discrimination based on sexuality,
AND reverses previously enacted statutes in Denver and Aspen. To that extent,
it IS a "conservative" plank, at least by your definition of it.

|> Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:56:18 GMT

aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) says:
> 
>>If you lefties think that this is a contradiction, you should spend some 
>>time over on alt.fan.dan.quayle.  I got kicked out of that group because I 
>>didn't think that dan is as dumb as the media portrays him.
> 
>         I've never before heard anyone claim to have been kicked out of 
> an unmoderated newsgroup.  This ludicrous assertion shows you for the
> bonehead you truly are.  Have a nice day.

While it IS impossible to "kick someone out" of a newsgroup, it's not
impossible for everyone (very nearly) to put that person in a .kill
file and then make it WELL known that it was done...  Just a thought.

> -- 
>     "The biggest problem with reading [Usenet] is there is so much and it 
> is all so interesting.  It is easy to be enamored with it.  Be selective
> about which groups you read.  It could mean your job, your family, or your
> college career."  --Ed Krol, _The Whole Internet User's Guide and Catalog_

Hey, I LIKE that quote.

Jim

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gslars@staff.tc.umn.edu ()
Subject: Re: Valid Space-related research...
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 08:59:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.222916.24090@mic.ucla.edu> rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.092310.11874@fcom.cc.utah.edu> freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:
>>  IMHO, there is some valid research going on as far as the space program
>>is concerned.... it just isn't being done by NASA.  I feel that Biosphere II is
>>the most important bit of space related research we could possibly support.
>Only someone TOTALLY ignorant on the whole subject of space research
>could
>have possibly made that last statement.  Biosphere II is nothing but a
>big scam being financed by a Texas(?) millionaire family for political
>and personal gain.  I challenge anyone to find ONE reputable scientist
>who thinks that it is a *real* scientific experiment.

I'm wondering why there's so much negative energy about this
'experiment'.  Perhaps from the viewpoint of a university researcher
it's painful to see someone blow millions on a worthless pet project,
while they must scrape for everything they get.  Also, in the wake of
the savings&loan crisis, we see some rich slob recklessly spending
money, maybe symbolically representing the problem our country is in.
And other rich folks are mad at him for displaying the reckless
consumption so *prominently* (instead of hiding it), making them all
look bad.




Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Debate in a Vacuum!
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:09:00 GMT

The problem is that it is not possible for people to profitably 
debate in this sort of forum. For debate to work, people must 
have some similar joint axioms on which they will base their arguements.
You can't logically debate, when each participant has different assumptions
Fact is, I would probably agree with conservative views, if I held 
conservative assumptions. Sanctity of human life, principle of 
government non-intervention, belief in god, and many other topics are
examples of such assumptions. Any set of views that people take on such
subjects might be consisteant, and as such non-debatable.

The only way to win an arguement over matters of ideology is to 
change the fundamental way in which your "adversary" views the
world, and thus to make him change his assumptions. Logic is not
applicable here, only emotion.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson)
Subject: Re: Misconseptions of Christianity...
Organization: These are my opinions.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:55:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.102143.4736@memstvx1.memst.edu> dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.171113.9132@u.washington.edu>, ryanm@hardy.u.
washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:>> 
>> I have seen many positions stating that Christians want to supress free
>> speech and everything else.  I will not attempt to explain individual
>> views or excuse others only explain from a Biblical prospective.  I will
>> explain what I have seen in the Bible and is only an interpretation.
>> 
>> 
>> [BIBLICAL VIEW]
>> 
>> The Bible doesn't promote any kind of censorship.  God has never imposed
>> his will on people (Christian, Jewish, other regions or Athiests).  He has
>> placed a free will in everyone to make their own decisions.  If one wants
>> to do something he/she will pay the consequenses in the end.......
>
>Yeah, right. "God has never imposed his will on people..."?  I love reading
>the Old Testament where God wants to get rid of a certain tribe of people, 
>so he gets the Jews to do it for him.  I guess it's much more fun to watch 
>two insects battle it out than just to step on them.  What happened when the
>people of that time stopped believing in God?  He flooded the whole world.
>Wouldn't you call that "imposing his will"?  The way salvation is offered is
>very similar - accept Jesus as your personal savior and live your life the way
>God commands, or else you will burn in hell's fires ETERNALLY!  Would God be
>really that upset if I didn't worship him?  Does he somehow require my devo-
>tion?  This is like a gangster's offer that can't be refused.  Why do people
>even believe that God is a 'merciful' God?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."  John 3:16

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to
save the world through him."  John 3:17

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does NOT believe
stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's
one and only Son."  John 3:18

Everyone is very free to choose.  God owes wicked man nothing; He has 
given His Son, Jesus Christ, so you may live IF you choose to.  You have 
wonderful mercy from God but one must turn from their sin  unto God to
receive it.

Signature follows:
"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."
=========================================================================
David L. Hanson       Internet --> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com
Amoco Corporation     X.400    --> A=attmail,P=amoco,S=Hanson,G=David,I=L
Any opinions expressed are my own!
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10901 alt.rush-limbaugh:12481
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:49:59 GMT

Actually I don't have anything to say, but thought it might be
interesting to write something that 1) wasn't cross-posted to a dozen
different boards and 2) didn't contain any comments on homosexuality,
religion, or abortion.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Rush on Donahue
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:52:55 GMT

cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly) writes:

>I didn't get to see the Donahue Show with Rush, but if anyone did
>and video-taped it, could they lease take the time to post a trans-
>cript of it so that we can ALL "love Rush more" and "HATE Phil even
>more"? <<<SEG>>>
>I for one would appreciate it. Thanks in advance!

Rush replayed just the last few seconds on his tv show a couple of nights
ago.  That was the part where Philly told Rush that he had 17 seconds to say
whatever he wanted.  Rush said goodbye.

Donahue is a world class jerk posing as a mild-mannered, caring,
sharing, touching, feeling kind of guy -- much like Clinton.  This
understanding and caring citizen was shacked up with Marlo Thomas until
his wife finally had enough and dumped him.  For me, watching him is
like running my tongue over a throbbing tooth.  I hate it, but there is
just something fascinating about anything that painful.  What ever
possessed Rush to wander into that lair is beyond me, but I imagine
that he just couldn't pass up the opportunity to introduce a little
common sense to the circus.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: CORRECT VIEW ON RACISM
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:03:31 GMT

bur@ultisol.gsfc.nasa.gov (MAC) writes:



>Well, to get the ball really rolling, I'll crosspost this to a few groups
>who might be interested.  Troll is no ordinary Bozo!

 [flame seeking diatribe deleted]

The fact that this garbage was posted to over a dozen groups, including
misc.test and alt.rap, says as much about the poster as it does about
the original author...assuming they're two different people.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Rush on Donahue
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 14:09:57 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:38:22 GMT, thatcher@vcd.hp.com (Garen Thatcher) said:
Garen> Has everyone seen todays Donahue show yet? Phil tried to
Garen> lay it on thick but I think that Rush really held up under
Garen> a really tired and mundane attempt to dicredit Rush's
Garen> viewpoint.

Garen> Didn't make me like Rush less but made me hate Phil more.....

Unlike Rush, Phil's arrogance is not just part of his act. Donahue is a
genuine supreme jerk, to the bone.

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..
Tularosa: tullies, roses, lava, white sands, and home of THEM! (atomic ants).
From: ghartzog@terapin.com (Garrett Hartzog)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush Limbaugh's radio show
Date: 3 Jan 93 17:40:52 GMT
Organization: BBS

Can someone tell me where in the Bay Area (SF area) Rush's radio show is on and
at what time?

Garrett Hartzog
ghartzog@terapin.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: A scary thought
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:40:09 GMT

In article <1i76s6INNc46@shelley.u.washington.edu> scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper) writes:
>In article <s06RwB8w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>> In article <1992Dec31.062952.6046@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.
>>> >The thought that alt.fan.rush-limbaugh = alt.human-sexuality is truly
>>> >a scary thought
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> So is a Democrat in the White House! :-)
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>>Not anywhere near as scary as Pat Robertson's vow to conrol the
>>Repukelikan party by 1996.
>>
>>--
>>popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
>>Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
>>1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
>
>What do you mean, '96?  This year's (er, *last* year's) election
>made it obvious that Pat Robertson and his loony ^H^H^H^H^Hfundamentalist

There are different kinds of 'funamentalists'. I know a guy who could be
classified as a 'new age' fundamentalist.  No joke!  He's just as hypocritical

Simon

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The CFR
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 06:00:41 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

Tom.Snyder@f157.n363.z1.fidonet.org (Tom Snyder) writes:

> I've listened for several weeks with great interest and general agreement.  B
> 
> --  
>         Tom Snyder  -  via FidoNet Node: 1:363/42
>              UUCP:  -  ...tarpit!tous!business!157!Tom.Snyder
>              ARPA:  -  Tom.Snyder@f157.n363.z1.fidonet.org


And what about the Bilderbergers?  And the Illuminati?  Not to mention 
the Skull and Crossbones Society.

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<LARRY.92Dec25071620@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>
	<BztoJ4.IyD@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 11:23:11 GMT

OK, Jim, let's get simple here. I didn't start this thread.

Do I dare suggest that you retrieve the entire thread and read it before
you begin compelling me to "grow up a little bit and answer your
question"?

The definition I posted earlier was straight out of the dictionary. I
posted it in response to someone's "personal" definition of the word
bigot. (Sometimes it appears we need a New Conservative World Dictionary to
contain all these new meanings for common words around here.)

I even made the point in my earlier post that readers could now decide for
themselves whether Limbaugh was a bigot or not. (In addition, I made a
light-hearted remark wondering how Limbaugh might look in a moustache.)

My point in saying:

>There you have it, folks. Definitive PROOF that Rush Limbaugh is NOT 
>a bigot.

was simply that the absence of a response to this [challenge] so far was
obviously considered to be adequate "proof" [and certainly to any loyal
Limbaugh fan] that Rush is not a bigot. (Ignoring the alternative
condition where no one cared to argue it and produce the hard evidence
that was demanded, in conjunction with the definition of the word bigot.)

Never having insisted that Limbaugh is or isn't a bigot, I do not feel 
obligated to defend either position. Clearly, it would be futile anyway, 
since arguments by those who think he is one are very unlikely to convince 
those who think he isn't one. And vice versa.

So why waste the effort arguing it? Concede. To both sides. I did.

There's your answer, Jim: I didn't care to contest anything but the posted
definition of the word bigot.

Get it now?

This reminds me a little of the Monty Python skit where a fellow paid
money to get an argument. The other man accepted a 5# note, and then
proceeded to argue for some time that he hadn't been paid. Then suddenly
he stopped arguing, and had to be paid another 5# note before he would
continue arguing.

So send me a fiver if you want me to continue arguing.

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..
Oh sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh