HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:55:36 GMT

IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil) writes:

>In article <adams.718292381@spssig>
>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
>>>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.

I go to the corner.  I wait for the little man to turn 'white' (yes, we
have red/white men on our lights, here).  I look both ways.  No cars or
trucks coming or even moving.  I begin to cross.  A truck turns a corner
at high speed and strikes me before I can move.

Did I consent to the risk of being hit?
->Yes, by stepping into the street.  

Did I consent to being hit? 
->No.

Did I agree that if I were hit I wouldn't use all methods available to correct 
the situation?  
->No.

You can't simply remove the remedies when the consent isn't there.  I
didn't consent to being hit.  I would NEVER consent to being hit.  I took
all available precautions (except staying home) to avoid being hit.  

Staying home isn't an option because I have to cross the street to satisfy
my need for food by going to work to earn money to buy it.  Sex satisfies
another need I have.  You don't have that need, fine.  I do.  So do most
other healthy adults.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The truth about lies
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:36:13 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <schlegel.718396030@cwis> schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>kellyb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:
>
>>     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.
>
>In my opinion, the way Clinton got into Moscow is just like the way Hanoi
>Jane (Jane Fonda) got into cambodia, she was sympathetic to the communist
>cause and was anti-war (against the US being in the Viet. war, remember how
>the vietcong used her--photos,etc).
>The soviets saw this young Clinton as a "head full of mush" that they could
>utilize for propaganda.  Of course he was lead about, saw the sights, but
>"never remembered meeting with the KGB", and finally was part of the
>famous `peace train'
>
>Mark
What i would personally like to know is why there are severaal pages mising
out of his passport file.  I wonder both what was taken out and who removed
the relevant sections.  Further Clinton has as much admitted that he did indeed
do everything in his power to "avoid" being draafted.  In my mind this use of
the word avoid is as good as dodge.  And the original poster is indeed correct,
this post is indeed my opinion and I hope that it is percieved as containing
more fact and less bluster.  The original poster, although it should be
obvious, needs to be reminded that his post was his "opinion" as well.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: skwarek@src.honeywell.com (Tom Skwarek)
Subject: Re: Rush burns Hillary, and other things...
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:44:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.175831.22596@news.eng.convex.com> roan@convex.com (Russell Roan) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.160022.1298@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:
>
>>Hillary Clinton did an interview with affiliate WWWE in
>>Cleveland, and when she was asked about Rush Limbaugh's comments
>>on her husband's lack of a college degree she laughed and replied
>>"you know, Rush Limbaugh has this great racket going where he
>>says whatever he wants to say regardless of the facts, because
>>it, you know, it makes news and it's controversial. I mean that's
>>how he makes his living." Hillary then laughs again.
>
>  [ Excerpt from campaign biography deleted in which Clinton
>	muses over not completing his Rhodes scholarship degree].
>     
>>Okay, folks, someone please show me where Hillary was right on this issue?
>>Rush Limbaugh was directly challenged over Gov. Bill Clinton's education,
>>and he read it right out of the biography.
>>
>
>	Uhh, I don't really expect any of you dittoheads to know this,
>	so I'll just let you know that one must first complete an 
>	undergraduate degree before being awarded a Rhodes scholarship.  
>	Thus Bill Clinton must have completed a college degree before
>	even applying for the Rhodes.
>
>	This is typical of the kind of distortion served up by Rush and 
>	his string-pullers the Bush campaign.
>
>	Of course, the way our education president has been campaigning
>	against studying abroad, one would think that he would be 
>	opposed to scholarship of this sort.  Maybe Rush hasn't received
>	his official orders from Bush of how to portray scholars.
>	(i.e, He should be commending Clinton for not finishing 
>	 his studies because they were only "furrin ideas.")
>
>> [Lame attempt to emulate rush-style "humor" deleted.]
>-- 
>Russell Roan	  |"Lord, teach us to respect our political opponents....
>roan@convex.com   | In the hard campaign ahead, help us to never boast,
>Vox: 214-497-4841 | nor to be uncharitable."  - Dan Quayle at prayer.
From: spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: All Hail the mighty Rush...
Date: 4 Oct 1992 00:13:47 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: szechuan.ucsd.edu

In article <lcjempINN568@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>	This guy is great!  We just starting getting his radio and tv show
>around here.  About time!!  For once we get the truth!  If the liberal
>media would just tell the truth, then Rush would be out of a job! ...

Liberal media?  A laugh and a half.

There is no liberal media or conservative media.  The only reason
there are programs at all is to keep you glued to the radio or teevee
set in order to listen or watch the commercials.  If the owners of the
stations and networks could run 60 solid minutes of ads per hour, they
would -- in fact, some do with those infomercials.  The media will run
whatever returns the greatest listeners/viewers per quarter hour to
deliver the lowest cost per thousand to the ad agencies.  Rush will be
out of a job if or when his numbers take a dump.

Truth?  From the media?  As someone who spent ten years in the
broadcast media, I can only have sympathy for anyone who believes
anything the media say.  They're just telling you what you want to
hear.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"If you don't think people are this crazy, you need to move to LA!"
                                     - Gary Stollman
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:16:02 GMT

ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny) writes:

>griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes:
>>>RUSH has more plug-time logged.

>>Gore was on Nightline for an entire evening talking about his book.  (Maybe he

>One evening compared to the daily slot Rush has.

There's a very interesting assumption here.  Read on, and it becomes clear.

>>you define plug-time, especially 'quality' of time.  If I want a book, or CD,
>>or soemthing that is not in stock, I order it.  If someone thinks something is
>>important, they'll get it.

>I never denied that.

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

>Yipes!  I was presenting what I saw as a REASON for Rush's books
>success.  
> 
>I guarantee you, if Clinton/Gore (or anyone, for that matter, who many
>people liked and agreed with) had a daily radio show and a tv show and
>they mentioned their book every episode...they'd be selling more.
> 

You assume, of course, that Clinton/Gore would be able to *MAINTAIN* a
daily radio show and a TV show, i.e. that their ratings would be sufficient
to keep them from going belly-up.  That's a highly suspect assumption.
The simple fact that their political popularity is supposed to be so
incredibly high (according to the polls), that they get SCADS of free air 
time on CNN/Nightly News/newspapers and even Rush's show :] and *STILL* 
no one gives enough of a damn about them to buy their books, says quite
a lot about how well-received the Dynamic Duo are.  

Publicity for a product only works if people have any propensity at all
for desiring the product.  If they couldn't care less about the product
you could hype it from now til Doomsday on every available media channel
and still not sell one bit of it.  The sale of Clinton/Gore books, given
the incredibly wide media coverage those two dipper-heads have been 
getting, may be a very good indication that the polls are not polling
what the pollsters think they are.  It certainly demonstrates that Rush's
conservative audience is a lot more interested in educating themselves
about the people they hear on media channels than are the liberals who
follow a deFlowered Clinton and the Gour(d) Head.

>I thought conservatives were supposed to be rational.
> 
>...e

I, on the other hand, never expected a liberal to understand market forces.
Which is why I had to go through that little explanation above.

>--
> ____                     + Editor, SOUND News and Arts magazine
>|____                     + PO BX 31104, Omaha,NE 68131 (lg SASE for copy)
>|____ D@CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU  + SOUND FTPable: quartz.rutgers.edu(pub/journals) 
>(Ed Stastny/UNO/Omaha,NE) +                141.214.4.135(docs/zines/sound)

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Tue,  6 Oct 1992 19:42:32 -0400 
From: Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country

On 05-Oct-92 in Rush is bad for our country  
user peckman@gacvx1.gac.edu writes: (quoted using >)
>dear Rush fans,
>It would be nice if you would realize that conservatism has led to most of our
>country's current woes 
Conservatism has?  How about:  massive government spending, high taxes,
entitlements, pork, Congress ... do any of these mean anything to you? 
Ah, how we all must long for a return to the Carter era!
>and if George Bush is re-elected, our country will fall
For the record, I would argue that George Bush is not truly
conservative, but there's no reason to get into that.
>even farther behind Japan and Germany both educationally and economically. 
I'd like to add to what Mike Arras wrote about Germany (quoted using *)
*What Germany are you talking about anyway?  The one with
*doubled-digit umemployment and universities where students have to sit on the
*floor because they are so over-crowded.  The Germany with mortgage rates
*above %14 and housing costs that only the truely rich can afford?  The Germany
*with growing Neo-Nazi hate?  The Germany where the tax on all purchases are
*14% and gas costs $4 a gallon?  I'll take Reagan's tax cuts anyday over failed
*socialistic programs.
Germany also has an apprenticeship system.  At age 11, students are
separated into three types of schools.  Grundschule (groundschool) where
they learn really basic history, language and math until age 14 when
they pick a profession in which they spend the next 3-5 years as a
Lehrling (apprentice) working their asses off, making no money, and
permanently relegated to a lower societal class than the students who go
the high school (called Gymnasium) where they are prepared for college. 
There is a small amount of movement between schools, but it is very
limited.  At age 11, your future may be decided.  Do you want that kind
of educational system.  Granted, ours sucks but their system is harsh.
>It's time for a change.
Change Congress.  The presidency has only been Republican for 12 years,
Congress has been Democrat for 60.  (there were a few instances where
Republicans controlled one house for a term or two, but they were rare.
>Our country needs fewer Rush Limbaughs and more Bill
>Clintons.  Rush spouting off about goofy liberals will get us nowhere.  
You spouting off about goofy conservatives accomplishes equally little.
>But Bill Clinton as our next president will offer our country something it has
>sorely lacked in the past 4 years...hope for the future!
If Bill Clinton is elected the only hope I will have is that we survive
his presidency.


Erik Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gardwt@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Rush's CompuServe Address
Organization: Auburn University, AL
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:08:28 GMT

I was wondering if anyone could PLEASE send me Rush's compuserve address.
I would really appreciare it.
gardwt@ducvax.auburn.edu
From: sjs@netcom.com (Stephen Schow)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: When was Bush's interview with RUSH?
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:49:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

I am trying to get a transcription of the interview between and Rush and Bush
that happened a few weeks ago, but I can't remember which day exactly.

Anyone know?

Thanks in advance
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schow    | But you don't have to use the claw, if you
sjs@netcom.com | pick the pear with the big paw paw......
               | Have I given you a clue......?
               |                       - Baloo the Bear
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Feminism
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:19:03 GMT


In a previous article, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says:

>
>	It is sometimes said of RL's use of "feminazi" that there is a
>certain kind of extremist feminist that it appropriately refers to.
>While there are _some_ feminists that can be called extremists, I
>think that RL is trying to smear _all_ feminists, since he has not
>described what he considers legitimate feminist positions.

The problem is, Mr. Limbaugh conciders ANY woman who does not fit the
narrow and bigoted definition of "homemaker" as a radical feminist.
In other words, any woman who works outside the home, or who is in
any way politically active (with the exception of Phyllis Schlafley (who's
picture, I understand, sits beside his bed, and gives him an object on
which to base his sexual fantisies (grin))), is, by definition, a
"feminazi".


>
>	To make myself clearer on this, let us suppose that RL had a
>habit of denouncing "shylock" Jewish bankers. Would it be a legitimate
>defense of him to insist that some Jewish bankers are indeed little
>better than loan sharks? This kind of remark would make it sound like
>he considers _all_ Jews to be the sort of sleazy characters who become
>loansharking bankers.
>
>

That's exactly the kind of logic Mr. Limbaugh uses.
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious rights and responsibilities
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:40:27 GMT
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

Christian principles - isn't that what the inquisition was based on?
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:28:03 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

In article <gelpRem00Voq8_wkN1@andrew.cmu.edu> rg3c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Randy Eugene Griffith) writes:
   So I'm looking through the list of 5000 some bb's one day, and I see
   netnews.alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...  And I think, "Great, more Rush
   Limbaugh fans!"  

   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?

There already is: alt.rush-limbaugh. However, various feeds apparently get
one group or the other or both, so therefore, you see posts of all types
in both groups.

Periodically someone like yourself wanders into alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and
posts the message: "If you don't like Rush, why don't you get off this 
newsgroup!". Which everyone simply ignores.

   As far as I'm concerned, I think the fact that all you people listen to
   Rush seemingly religously, even though you obviously resent the man, is
   a testament to the simple truth of his words.

No thinking required, eh? 

Spoken like a true Dittohead.

   -- Randy "The Apeman" Griffith
   "You gonna be the new worm face now"

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
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Is there a FAQ for this group?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:21:27 GMT

Well, is there?

I ask because I have some questions that I'm sure would be in a FAQ if
it existed, and I want to save myself the humiliation.

Thank you.

Michael
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:18:58 GMT

	[Rush denegrades Madonna, deleted]

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone, after all, Madonna makes more money
then Rush, is better looking then Rush, can sell more books, records, videos
then Rush, and isn't even as old as he is. By his own standards, she's more
sucessful then he is, and I'm sure it pisses him off.

-- 
                               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

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6084 talk.abortion:39477
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (9/19/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:21:15 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Sep28.162532.29712@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> From the Summary for Tuesday, September 22, 1992:
>
> Phone   Paul from Ridgefield, CT
>
> Paul also gives Rush some good news - if each of Rush's 13
> million listeners takes a friend to the polls and they both vote
> for Bush, then Bush will win. Bush won the 1988 election with 25
> million votes, so this means that "Rush could make it happen."
> Rush is astounded that Paul would suggest such a thing since his
> show would never tell people how to vote since he is totally
> objective and unbiased in all things.
>

For the record, if each of Rush's 13 million listeners takes a friend
to the poll, and they all vote for Bush (the only votes for Bush,
say) then Bush would lose worse than Dukakis did.  Bush won in 1988
with 48.8 Million votes.

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6125 alt.politics.elections:14759 talk.abortion:39638 alt.sex:31451 alt.politics.clinton:7959 alt.politics.bush:7320 talk.politics.misc:48786
From: jseaver@arkose.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 30 Sep 1992 22:28:30 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: arkose.wpi.edu

In article <1992Sep30.195132.6469@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>>  Question for you, Erik: what do you suppose made this woman desperate
>>>  enough to risk her life to not be pregnant?
>
>> That is missing the point.
>
>That is evading the question.  Try again?
>
>> If she really could not afford (not monetarily speaking) to become
>> pregnant, she shouldn't have risked pregnancy by having sex.
>
>I wasn't aware that death was an appropriate consequence for having sex.

	No, death isn't.  Having a child, however, IS.

	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



Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh