HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: rush and george
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:01:55 GMT

mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>In article Nathan Engle writes:
>>We may not be Jack Kennedy's,

>maybe the plural is "Kennedies"?

    Maybe. My mom would know. (Too bad she isn't here) I'm sure that 
you're correct for words that aren't "Proper" nouns (i.e.- exact spellings 
of somebody's name), but I'm not sure what I'm really supposed to do with 
names.  Is there an English major in the house?

>>but at least we're not Rush Limbaugh.

>Yes, you have no ability to laugh at a Democrat.

    Now that's not true. I find both Democrats and Republicans to be 
extremely amusing. I may even find it easier to laugh at Democrats than 
you because I don't get enraged when I think of all the dumb stuff they 
want to do. That allows me to enjoy the artistry of their goof-ups without 
getting my bile up over what they're doing.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:48:56 GMT

In article <MDL.93Jan24171647@ak.cypress.com> mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.214221.19382@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	   And how _does_ one tell the difference between "moral
>   teachings" and "cultural aberrations"? There's isn't much of a line
>   drawn in the Bible :-) 

>Of course, there wouldn't be a discussion if there were a clear line
>drawn.  You may be confusing those who believe in the literal word of
>the bible (or their interpretation of the literal meaning) with others
>that believe God gave man a brain for a reason.

	And if one concludes	 that the Bible is in error somewhere,
then what?

	Isn't it very disappointing that the Bible contains no book
entitled "How to Interpret Me"?
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: loweaa@o231-23.Rose-Hulman.Edu. (Anthony A Lowe)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Pre-inauguration
Date: 22 Jan 1993 06:19:09 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
NNTP-Posting-Host: o231-23.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

	Did anyone catch the HBO special for the "Inaugural Opening  
Ceremonies"? I though it was a pretty impressive display put together by  
Quincy Jones. For those of you that missed it, it opened with the armed  
forces band playing the Olympics' opening theme as Slick Willy slid in (I  
find all of this ironic considering that Bill is considering giving Pink  
Slips to most of the guys in the band). Well all was moving and beautiful  
and whatever but then James Earl Jones came on to introduce the the events  
and get this title. "New Beginnings, Renewed Hope" WHAT? I do not get this  
one! For one new beginnings does not mean improvement and Two when did  
America ever loose hope? I know I did not. Look back to say... LAST YEAR!  
I think hope was doing pretty well as we pounced some little Middle East  
dictator! Well here goes to show on the Political opinion of our guys at  
HBO. Remember this next time you watch and HBO special.


loweaa@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
From: @nx01.mik.uky.edu (Michael J. Chilton)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush is anti-American
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:52:17 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences


	I was a frequent listener to the Rush Limbaugh program, a 
 
nd liked the words he said very much, but all that has changed. Now that he is on the case of Bill Clinton, the President of the United States of America, it is not funny anymore. Rush can find something to be funn 
 
y about that would help to unite America instead of to divide it. He is only making the problem of an un-united nation worse.the United States of America, it is not funny anymore. Rush can find something to be funn

-- NewsGrazer, a NeXTstep(tm) news reader, posting --
M>UQR=&8P7&%N<VE[7&9O;G1T8FQ<9C!<9FYI;"!4:6UE<RU2;VUA;CM<9C%<
M9G-W:7-S($AE;'9E=&EC83M]"EQM87)G;#$R,`I<;6%R9W(Q,C`*7'!A<F1<
M='@Y-C!<='@Q.3(P7'1X,C@X,%QT>#,X-#!<='@T.#`P7'1X-3<V,%QT>#8W
M,C!<='@W-C@P7'1X.#8T,%QT>#DV,#!<9C!<8C!<:3!<=6QN;VYE7&9S-#A<
M9F,P7&-F,"!<"@I<9C%<9G,R-"`)22!W87,@82!F<F5Q=65N="!L:7-T96YE
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/871I;VX@=V]R<V4N"GT*
`
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: johnr@mik.uky.edu (John S. Roberts, Jr.)
Subject: New Mind
Reply-To: johnr@mik.uky.edu (John S. Roberts, Jr.)
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:14:46 GMT

I interested in the ideas.  Is There a FAQ?  When can I hear the broadcast?  

Young and open minded,
John

--
-=+ John S. Roberts, Jr.       FACTS Center  McVey Hall  Room 100  +=-
-=+ Communications Consultant  Work: (606)257-2275  Home: 272-1417 +=-
-=+ University of Kentucky     Ham: KD4UBM   DoD: 727   '85 Shadow +=-
-=+ Computing Center           HomeUUCP: johnr%agnostic@ms.uky.edu +=-
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:51:29 GMT

In article <1jl5l9INNm63@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> symanzik@egr.msu.edu (Edward Symanzik) writes:

>So now you have stooped to name calling?  Perhaps you have
>run out of arguments.

With Pinkas?  Well, it's pretty darn close, anyway.  He doesn't listen
to *anything*.

>>why choose to rail against homosexuals, as
>>opposed to putting one's efforts into something else?  I'll
>
>My "railing" is not directed toward individuals who are h/l
>simply because they do not know God.  My "railing" is directed
>at those people who use the Bible to try to defend it.

"Defending" homosexuality being defined here as arguing that the Bible
does not openly attack it?  God, what a sorry excuse for a person
*you* are.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Gay rights vs. homophobe rights? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:38:20 GMT

In article <1jpb13INNlje@transfer.stratus.com>, markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
> P.S. To Walter - I hate to say it, but I find myself growing 
> increasingly intolerant and hostile.  I think Melinda and Robert
> and Loren and others have done more to harm their cause and make
> enemies than any gay-basher.

  What a suprise. "Oh, Oh, somebody is challenging my irrational
beliefs, and, and, I don't have a rational response to it!" So
what happens? Does he check his premises and correct contradictions
in his beliefs? No. He becomes "increasingly intolerant and hostile."
And where does the blame lay for his bigotry? The victims of course!
  And to think I had doubts where the seeds of gay bashing come from...
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Gay rights vs. homophobe rights? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:31:15 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: eomer.hw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan21.225302.5272@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1jm6pcINNekg@transfer.stratus.com> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>
>>What a shame that Robert and Melinda, who have such a high regard for the
>>civil rights of others, including homosexuals, have such a disdain for the
>>rights of those religious men and women who do not agree with them.
>
>	So being for the rights of gay people is being against the
>rights of homophobes? "Oh, no! Those pesky gay-rights activists are
>denying us homophobes the right to hate gay people!!!"
>
>
>-- 
Get with the program Loren!  Your response was, well, just plain ignorant
of what has been occurring on this thread.  No one said anything like you
decided to make it sound.  Robert and Melinda have openly attacked
others based solely on their beliefs.  I never advocated viloence
against anyone, yet I have been blasted for my beliefs.  So, next time
you decide to put your 2 cents in, don't...or at least show some
measure of intelligence.
mc

P.S. To Walter - I hate to say it, but I find myself growing 
increasingly intolerant and hostile.  I think Melinda and Robert
and Loren and others have done more to harm their cause and make
enemies than any gay-basher.
mc
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: control
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:57:25 GMT

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <2cq31_g@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) says:

>>So then your primary concern is not the "life of the child" but the
>>notion of enforced responsibility?  This seems to be Holtsinger's
>>position as well.

>You're trying to imply that I want to punish people for having sex, I think.

No, Kurt, I'm not.  The "enforced responsibility" justification is one
I've not seen much of around here, and I'm trying to explore the limits
of it.  Just how much responsibility do we enforce?

>(At least, that's the implication which I am inferring. :)  You're not going
>to get me to say that, because it's not true.  My primary concern is that
>it's wrong to sidestep any consequences an action may have by taking an
>innocent life.  I'm more concerned with the taking of life for convenience's
>sake; not in trying to force people to do what I want.

Don't bring up "convenience" unless you wish to be asked how "inconvenient"
your last pregnancy was.  I had a normal, uncomplicated pregnancy, and
I can assure you it went far beyond "inconvenient".

>>Do you wish to outlaw smoking?  What about dangerous sports?  If you

>Smoking in public places is irresponsible, and IMHO should be restricted, yes.

As I said, smoking can be considered "irresponsible behavior" which can
"take the life of an innocent person".  Or so it has been argued in court.
So, by your standards, we should outlaw it.  Do you agree?

>I'm not sure why you bring dangerous sports into this, unless you're concerned
>with innocent bystanders possibly being injured or killed by the players.

I'm talking about "irresponsible behavior".  Lots of people have died
skiing, and mountain climbing, and hang gliding.  I doubt that any of these
people believed that they would die, which seems to fit the definition
of "innocent".  Arguably, we might save lives by outlawing this behavior.
So should we?

Or is abortion the only "irresponsible behavior" that you would outlaw?

>Of course, the more analogies we bring into abortion discussions, the better!

Kurt, read carefully.

These are not analogies.

These are real behaviors, which may be irresponsible, which definitely take
innocent lives.  

Should we outlaw them?

Again, these are not analogies.

> Kurt  E.  Ludwick     

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Clinton & the Press
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:58:43 GMT

tendico@hubcap.clemson.edu (Todd Endicott) writes:

]Hi there. I'm just curious about how the conservatives view the recent
]ragging of Clinton in the press; seems to me this kind of weakens their
]standby complaint about the "liberal media". Comments anyone?

Clinton primarily has gotten ragged over procedural issues, not
policy issues. As such, it doesn't change my view of the liberal
media.

I should also point out that the media has suddenly discovered 
that the rest of the world exists, which they ignored throughout the campaign,
and yet they haven't apologized or seemed to even notice their lapse. What
a coincidence that foreign issues were Bush's strongest area.

The Baird issue is interesting.... first of all, she is attacked for
a "character" issue - wasn't the press telling us during the campaign
that is was issues, not character that mattered? It also turns out that
she is the most conservative of his appointments, and that some Republicans
support her (Orin Hatch) while many democrats oppose her. She is also
pro-tort-reform, something that is anathema to the democratic elite
and also the press elite.

When we hear the press screaming about all the campaign promises that
Clinton broke, then I'll grant them just a little bit more consistency.
If they EVER complain about any LIBERAL policy, then I might believe
that at least a few of them are not liberal.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nrmendel@unix.amherst.edu (Nathaniel Mendell)
Subject: Re: SCREW Les Aspin!
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:13:01 GMT

I just hope he doesn't pronounce it like all the good old boys in congress...
you know, "newcueler."

Nathaniel
amherst colleg
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14719 alt.politics.clinton:20818 alt.politics.bush:16210
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:18:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <1993Jan21.011931.26204@netcom.com> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>                                                        You are
>obviously not ready to do that, so why not kill homosexuals?  Thousands
>of devout christians stoned sinners to death, IAW biblical law.  Are
>they in hell now?  If so, Christianity is bullshit.  IF NOT,  WHAT
>HAVE YOU GOT TO LOSE???  KILL THOSE PORK-EATERS NOW!!!  

Rhetoric aside,  I would just like to point out that a consistent practice
of biblical law would not require putting "pork-eaters" to death.  Only
the biblically ignorant would suggest, or sanction such punishment.

Do not confuse sin with crime.  There are lots of things that are sinful
that were never considered criminal under biblical law, e.g., lust.  It's
only when sin manifests itself in criminal behavior (as defined by the laws
of the state), that punishment is required.  Homosexual activity is sinful
and, in a civilized society, should be considered criminal as well.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 1/25/93
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:08:30 GMT

Just to be fair, it wasn't Bentsen making the comments, it was a guy who
called the show and Rush thought he sounded like bentsen so he taped a few
sound bites (live).

				Craig

right on for everything else.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (C.J.K.)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:35:40 GMT

elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:

>-----, ----, suppose you had a married brother who suddenly died.
>Would you follow the custom of marrying his widow and trying to
>father children with her?  In Biblical times this was considered
>the _only_ right thing to do.  Today we would consider it incest.
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Really?  I've known of instances of divorce and one person marrying
the ex-spouse's brother/sister.  I've not heard incest mentioned.
?!?!?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What I write does not necessarily represent the view of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:00:11 GMT

In article <1k3nbaINNq0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <C1G1tt.Gus.1@cs.cmu.edu> tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith) writes:
>>The role of state law is to protect people
>>from the acts of other people.  (Incidently, this does not preclude the 
>>outlawing of abortion, if you start from an assumption that the fetus is a
>>human being.  Then you are protecting what you feel is a person from 
>>destruction by another person).
>
>Uh, it also covers allowing women to *have* abortions, since the fetus
>isn't just some little dot that remains a little dot for the course of
>9 months.  A fetus can and does create all kinds of stresses upon a woman's
>body, and a sensible government would recognise that, if another person
>did what a fetus does to a woman, she'd have grounds for a self defense
>killing.  Thus....
>
>>				Tom the non hacker
>>				An imperfect Christian trying to reach a
>>				compromise between his principles and his
>>				senses.
>
>
>OK, so it's a tangent.  You were doing a very good job of discussing moderate
>christianity, and only let your agenda slip in there once.
>
>Adrienne Regard
>
I wasn't trying to present a full case for pro-life.  I was merely trying to
point out that my argument did not preclude the outlawing of abortion if you
start with certain assumptions.  I put those ifs and assumptions in to avoid
exactly the response you're making on the point.  I did not intend to promote
the pro-life agenda in my post (although I am pro-life).  I merely wanted to
avoid having someone later claim that my argument about the purpose of law
made me pro-choice or precluded me from taking a pro-life stance, so I attached
the disclaimer.

I'm continually amazed at the vehemence of the pro-choice lobby in insisting
that any argument against abortion must somehow be the rabid foamings of
extreme Christians who don't care about women.  The only thing necessary to
hold a pro-life view on abortion is the belief, from whatever source, that a
fetus is a human life, and is deserving of the same protection that would be
afforded other humans under the law.

				Tom the non hacker
				tsmith@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
				return address is set wrong, send personal
				replies to the above address.


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14805 talk.abortion:57325
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:49:30 GMT

In article <1jn80uINN4j0@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>> I think it's perfectly okay for someone to quote Leviticus about
>> homosexuality, as long as s/he follows it himself/herself.  So has s/he
>> given up:
>> Diapering his/her granddaughters?
>> Blended clothing?
>> Rare meat?
>> Shaving and cutting the hair at his/her temples?
>
>Evelyn, what is your religious upbringing?  Were you taught any of 
>the tenants of Christianity, from the point of view of any denomination
>in particular, or any at all?  Do you really not have any understanding 
>as to why laws like those from Leviticus are not still followed, while 
>sexual morality/conduct ones are?   
>
>Walter
>

Wally, Baby, suppose you had a married brother who suddenly died.
Would you follow the custom of marrying his widow and trying to
father children with her?  In Biblical times this was considered
the _only_ right thing to do.  Today we would consider it incest.
Do you still believe that we follow Biblical laws even in the
areas of sexaul conduct?  (BTW Evelyn gave a counter-example.)

--Frank
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:33:41 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1993Jan21.063950.13555@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
>
>Paul, being an apostle, had equivalent authority with Jesus in the
>early Church granted by Christ himself in the Gospels.

    So what do you have to do to get to be an apostle, anyway?
From what I understand, Paul never even _met_ Jesus - why should
he be considered an authority on anything?

    -Phil the Apostle.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Gay rights vs. homophobe rights? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:52:19 GMT

In article <1jpb13INNlje@transfer.stratus.com> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:

>I think Melinda and Robert
>and Loren and others have done more to harm their cause and make
>enemies than any gay-basher.

My opinion that you don't even begin to understand the human condition
is strongly bolstered by such specious comparisons.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14707 alt.sex:42750 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13345 alt.politics.correct:6310 alt.politics.equality:130 alt.politics.homosexuality:9961