HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:44:20 GMT

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

]In article <1993Jan24.115550.22354@athena.mit.edu> grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg) writes:

]>In article <john.727818706@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
]>writes:
]>
]>>Do you really believe that there are not large areas of the major cities
]>>where one's skin color (especially a white skin color) makes one
]>>a target of violence? If so, I'll give you a few addresses to walk around. 
]>>If you survive, drop us a line:
]>>  most of Washington, DC

]I guess, then, that most white people who live in Washington, DC,
]should consider themselves targets.  If, that is, "most of" the area
]is such a demilitarized zone.  Gosh ... has the National Guard been
]notified yet?

I suppose you don't realize that few white people live in Washington, DC,
or you wouldn't make such a statement.

I don't know why I bother. I thought that every American who wasn't
dead knew the most of DC was a dangerous place to be. Ignorance can
be deadly, Tim.

]Probably, these personal observations will be muttered off by Moore
]and company as "coincidences."  That's fine, since he seems to think
]that the ashes cause the flame.  I'm perfectly happy to conclude that
]neither of you have a clue of what you're talking about.

That's fine, Tim, but it is obvious that you don't have a clue. It is
certainly possible (in fact, probable) that you will survive an
occasional visit to these places. However, it is also true that you
would survive most visits to battlefields! All I can say is... it's
amazing how far you will go to argue a point where you are obviously wrong.
Are you really trying to convince us that it is NOT dangerous to be a white
person in many places in America, or are you just flapping your jaws
for the fun of it?
-- 
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
 - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:56:22 GMT

In <1993Jan28.015226.11462@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1993Jan24.195017.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:
>>
>>	Oh, I see.  Let's not follow the Christian guidelines becuase it might
>>actually have some morality to it!!!  If you have sexual intercourse, it should
>>be to conceive a child.  The fact that sex is used for pleasure is sin--it
>>should never be used for self-gratification!
>>
>>	Oh, but I forgot--we don't follow Christian doctrine and morality. 
>>Guess that shows that Christians ARE the better people because of their value
>>of life--rather than selfish, gratification-seeking hypocrites!

>Why are you spending your time posting to the Net that could be better used
>making babies for your favorite deity?

>Could it be because it's (gasp!) ... self-gratifying???

>								- Kevin

Very good, very logical, very adult, very revealing, very convincing,
very thought provoking, very very.

To answer the legitimate question in the other post (so save bandwith), the 
Christian bibilcal position should be that:

No, man places degrees on sin, God rejects all sin, and sins that God makes 
special comments about are generally not the sins that man gets worked up about,for example: rejecting Jesus Christ, blasphmey against the Holy Spirit, etc.

(The question was addressed to the world, so I answerd with my opinion)

Now, before someone tries to use this as yet one more "weapon" to Christian
bash, let me pointout a difference between gluttony and abortion.  From the
pro-life prospective, there is a victim, (unless you consider choclate a 
victim).

				Xraig,



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: Free at last!!
Keywords: Liberals, Republican Prez, Why?
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:05:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.153103.17132@news.nd.edu> fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck) writes:
>We are free at last from an executive branch which believes
>that it is above the law, and that its purpose is to enrich
>private individuals.  At least I hope that will turn out to
>be the case.  We're free from a guy who calls himself a
>conservative, but who has taken initiatives on any number
>of occasions to increase the size and power of his own
>branch of government.  We are free from someone who caters
>to the right wing, e.g. Rush Limbaugh and the TV preachers.
>We are free to tell our children that the way to the top is
>not the way of crime.
>
>f.deck
>

HUh??????????

Free from an executive branch that's thinks they're above the law???

Can you say Zoe Baird??????

-----------------------------------------------------------
J.R. Ordon
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15316 talk.politics.misc:70140 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14035
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Basic Rights for Gays? (was Re: Your own words, of course != big
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:38:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan22.171427.4398@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>In article <N9BqXB6w165w@major.panix.com> Dave O'Shea, dos@major.panix.com
>writes:
>>Actually, I fully expect to see affirmative action programs within the
>>next few years requiring employers to hire a certain quota of people
>>from each weight class. Stupid? Yes, but that's what we have congress
>>for.
>
>Is =anybody= seriously considering or proposing expanding Afirmative Action
>(i.e. quotas)?  Contemporary liberal thinking seems to be that it's too
>difficult to do away with once it has served it's purpose (as it has for
>blacks), so we need to find more self adjusting system.

Contemporary liberal thinking is what?  I have never heard a contemporary 
liberal say anything of the sort.  Do you have a specific example?

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15047 alt.politics.clinton:21107 alt.politics.bush:16328 alt.politics.homosexuality:10213
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:18:34 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1jmp5mINNptg@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>And I'd love to believe that most homosexuals are tolerant, loving, open-minded people.
>The net posters give me absolutely no reason  to believe this, though.  Who's more 
>tolerant and open-minded?  Tim Pierce, or Mark Christensen?  Who's more 
>likely to resort to foul language and personal attacks in their posts? 

Neither.  Tom Peregrin is.

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:01:23 GMT

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?
	The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's
	daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs
	is thine own nakedness. (Leviticus 18:10)
Blended clothing?
	Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon
	thee.  (Leviticus 19:19)
Rare meat?
	Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood ... (Leviticus 19:26)
Shaving and cutting the hair at his/her temples?
	Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou
	mar the corners of thy beard. (Leviticus 19:27)

And if one wants to quote Paul in Romans, make sure s/he also quotes him
in Timothy (no braided hair, gold jewelry, pearls, or expensive clothes):
	And in like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest
	apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair,
	or gold, or pearls, or costly array; (Timothy I 2:9)

And also in Acts (looks like rare steaks are still forbidden!):
	But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of
	idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from
	blood.  (Acts 15:20)

If someone is violating these commandments, then what is s/he doing
preaching to others about which ones *they* should follow?

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
-Nathan Engle
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15354 alt.sex:43378
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Most Qualified (was Re: Clarence Thomas)
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:14:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

I think that this thread is the perfect place to voice my question.

Do any of you pro-Clinton (and especially anti-Thomas) types believe 
that Zoe Baird is the BEST, MOST QUALIFIED person to be attorney 
general?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:19:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.185006.21836@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>
>Actually, this addresses a question I've been asking all
>along, which is:  If it's homosexual behavior that you all
>have big problems with, why are celibate/unpartnered/
>virginal gay people treated as badly as those who are 
>sexually active?  

I have no idea. However, I would suspect that it is
related to the fact that it is hard to know if someone is
sexually active or not.

>
>Here's an oft-mentioned experiment:  try wearing a t-shirt
>that implies that you're gay.  Don't commit any homosexual
>acts, just try to suggest that you might be homosexual.
>See how you're treated.  Did you get harassed on the street?
>Did you get beaten up?  Did your coworkers treat you 
>differently?  Is this difference in treatment due to your
>having committed any affront against God, or because
>those around you think that you might have feelings (acted
>upon or not) towards someone of the same gender?

Not a very smart experiment (which is weird coming from 
one of the smartest people on the net: Melinda).
If you suggest to others that you are X, then, it is
logic that the other would assume that you also do all
the things that X's do. 
Now, you should never confuse what some book says with 
what people who read the book believe the book says.
Reading a book is an act of creation almost as big as writing
the book, because everytime you read a book you are
re-writing it. So, one thing is what the bible says
and another thing is what everyne who reads the bible sees
on it. There is no unique word on there.


>And if you take a look at the material coming from the
>religious right (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and so
>on), you'll see that they aren't attacking homosexuality,
>they're attacking homosexuals.

Well, maybe because homosexuality can exist if
there are homosexuals. Unless, of course, you believe
that homosexuality is something like a soul.


You called me A
> AAP a buffoon, 


And do not forget about clown and old something!


>--
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

Kisses for you,

AAp
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & the Press
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:15:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Ken Barnes writes:

>If I were to rank the broadcast news organizations on their overall
>biases, certainly CBS (Evening News) and PBS (McNeil/Lehrer)-NPR
>(All Things Considered, Morning Edition) are the most liberally biased,
>by far, in terms of their editorial judgement about what the news is,
>.and why. NBC (Nightly News), CNN, and ABC (World News Tonight), probably in
>.that order, are the next most biased (or the least biased, depending
>on how you choose to look at it), and C-SPAN is the closest thing to
>"unbiased" coverage one can find from any perspective, since on straight
>news stories there is no one "holding your hand" to "help you" make
>sense of it.
>
>I'd be interested to hear how my observations/rankings match up with
>others out there across the fruited plain... 

I'd rank 'em exactly the same.  But I get a kick out of Dan Rather, unable
to get his eyebrows painted the same thickness from one day to the next, or to get
their coloring to precisely match that of his hair.  He's been insufferable 
the last few days, all a-tremble and almost gloating, barely being able to 
suppress his grins as he sits oh-so erect, his veneer of caring sincerity tempered by desert-camouflage toughness, giving him the panicky aura of one trying to frantically 
clinch his sphincter a split-second too late, the aroma pervading the studio
atmosphere as he tries to maintain a studied calm, ignoring it, and pretending it
wasn't him.

Sadly, I have also noticed that Mr. Clinton is a mouth-breather.

	Dave
From: mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Draft-Dodging Rush?
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 26 Jan 1993 23:36:07 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: chezmoto.ai.mit.edu

In article <1k48lbINNn8o@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>, roderir@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU
(richard roderick) wrote:
[mindless drivel deleted]
> Rush's alleged (sp?) draft dodging doesn't matter 'cause he isn't trying to
> run the military. He says let the military run the military.
> Bill on the other hand thinks he knows whats best for the military by
> allowing homosexuals in, yet he has never had anything to do with the
> military, other than campagining AGAINST it when he was younger. (and
> yes I believe what we do when we are young is not what we always do when
> we are old.)

Why should we let the military run the military? THE MILITARY HAS NEVER RUN
THE MILITARY!!!! It has ALWAYS been run by a civilian, i.e. the President,
who is responsible to the rest of us CIVILIANS. Many presidents have not
been soldiers, and even despised war, and still they have been effective
commander-in-chiefs. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind as an example.

Also, please bear in mind that protesting a war is NOT the same as
protesting the military. I don't particularly approve of wars; however, I
do see the need for a strong military. I'm sure the Pres. Clinton does, as
well.

You must listen to Rush a lot, 'cause you sure seem confident in spouting
off questionable ideas.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Walker                                    mwalker@novell.com
All opinions expressed are of the author.
Novell, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this article.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Rush Military Record
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:13:49 GMT


> Well my military service aside for now (even though I think I'm the only
> one on the NET here who has served his nation)  

	USMC 69-71

> I remeber the 60s.  White boys used to show up with all
> kinds of medical stuff like this to avoid service.

	I'm white and *alot* of white boy died in Vietnam. Some of them 
	were my friends. I wonder if one of my friends died because some else
	didn't honor their draft notice?

> And about wasting the taxpayers money Mr Switzer, I don't use the tax payer
> provided NET

	I pay $35 a month to a network provider, My Unix system cost *me* 
	close to $10,000. My leansed line is $40 a month, so Jim what does 
	clinton@uark.ark.edu charge you to post?

Nobody wanted to go to Vietnam, but when your country calls you go. Unless
of course you think that you are better than everyone else.

jim shirreffs
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Broken Promises/Anit-Clinton sentiment growing
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:35:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

gp2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gary James Patalsky) writes:
: 
: As well they should, many Americans are asking "What have we done" in
: reference to the election of Bill Clinton.  With him breaking at least 5
: promises before serving 1 day, I've seen numerous anti-Clinton articles
: and letters to the editor of our local paper.  What should really scare
: you people is that we are one heartbeat away from having Al Gore as
: president.
: 
: ------------------
: Broken Clinton Promises: here are the broken promises that come to mind
: - add to this list as it grows (and it will grow).
: 
: 1.  A 10% middle class tax cut.  Clinton has already nixed this idea.
: 2.  No middle class tax increases.  Clinton is working on raising the
: gasoline tax (a regressive tax that will affect the poor the hardest)
: and the unseen value added tax.
: 3.  Reduce the deficit by 50% in four years.  Slick Willie is talking
: about a 44% reduction now.  The evils of Reagan and Bush are already
: affecting his policy :)
: 4.  Less special interest in his administration.  He then nominates Ron
: Brown, one of the biggest special interest corporate lawyers in the
: country.
: 5.  Open up the US to the Haitian refugees.  He has already said that he
: will send them back.       

I'm not going to argue that Clinton is not a liar- all politicians
are liars, in my experience, and I'm just grateful that he seems
to be less of a liar than George Bush.  He may yet prove me wrong.
However, two of your five points of light don't wash.  Clinton
could appoint ten Ron Browns and still have a less corrupt cabinet
than Reagan or Bush, and he hasn't said he will send all Haitians
back; only that he won't change the policy at once, for fear of
a massive boatlift for which nobody would be prepared.  He will
change the Haitian policy in some way, shape or form.  

Bill

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tel002@dunix.drake.edu (Tim "Spock" Larson)
Subject: Good discussion on another group
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:39:31 GMT

Hey, we're having a good Rodney King discussion on alt.rock-n-roll.metal.
metallica.  I'm telling the truth about what happened to all those young
minds full of mush (following a joke that somehow connected RK and some
Metallica lyrics...sorta humorous), and of course I'm getting flamed for
defending a harmless little fuzzball (RL).  So come over and join
the fun.

Tim
tel002@acad.drake.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:06:28 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.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.

Yup; and how bigoted they are against those they claim are bigots...and 
how rabidly Christian-ophobic they are, while accusing others of being 
homophobes, etc.  You become what you hate?  

> I detect some hypocracy (and definately
> some hostility) here.  

Understatement of the year so far..;-) 

> You two appear guilty of the very acts that you
> are railing against.  

But Mark, they're _so_ PC; how could they be guilty of anything? ;-) ;-) 

Walter
(I really shouldn't post on 2 hours sleep, my sarcasm switch gets stuck..)

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & the Press
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:33:52 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <1993Jan21.074948.28660@mic.ucla.edu> rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
>The press (1) is pro-liberal;
>(2) is anti-incumbent; (3) will criticize almost anyone (except some of
>the gods they worship, like that communist M.L.King Jr.) if it sells
>advertising time; (4) will point out most things that are glaringly true
>even if they would rather not because not doing so would make them look
>stupid. 

If we amuse ourselves by adopting, for a moment, Brian's argument, the truth
is that all four apply to Clinton, as he is the subject and the press is
covering him. Thus, Brian has a little conflict between 1 and 2.

Of course, it could be that Clinton is not a liberal, but it's a safe bet that
Brian thinks he is, so the conflict remains. Probably to Brian, anyone to the
left of Pinochet is a whale-hugging psycho faggot.

Dan
----
deherrin@ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:54:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.153123.29171@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>In article <1993Jan17.204021.11161@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro) writes:
>>But the
>>many writers who appear here seem to feel that gays have such a monopoly.
>
>Nope.  But try taking a look at the groups that we're
>posting to, and try to figure out why we happen to be
>talking about gay bashing.
>--
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

Well, I tried.  rush.limbaugh, fan.rush.limbaugh, sex, politics.correct.  I
can't figure it out.  Are these groups supposed to have some significance to
gays that I can't grasp?


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15314 alt.politics.clinton:21389 alt.politics.bush:16405 alt.politics.homosexuality:10383