HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Debate in a Vacuum!
Date: 4 Jan 1993 16:23:19 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucc.umass.edu

In article <1i7l1fINNbjs@rave.larc.nasa.gov> rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland) writes:
>Up front, to let you know my reference points, the three 
>books are:
>
>1)  "The Way Things Ought to Be"  Rush Limbaugh (of course!)
>
>2)  "Illiberal Education"  Dinesh D'Souza
>     (The politics of race and sex on campus)
>
>3)  "Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong"  William
>                                              Kilpatrick
>     (Moral illiteracy and the case for character education)
>
>Any of you that are active in the arguments currently 
>threading through this newsgroup would be WELL ADVISED to 
>find, buy, and study these books.  Especially the ones by 
>D'Souza and Kilpatrick.  As it turns out, Limbaugh's book 

You've GOT to be kidding! You seriously want *me* to give *MY* money
to these vicious reactionaries you mention?! This kind of argument
about how you have to read such-and-such reactionary tract before you
can argue responsibly is just tripe.  There are 3 million books
published in the US each year.  Frankly, I don't have any intention of
reading all of them... and at least a good 2 million of them are
higher on my list than the books you mention.  Given that you probably
haven't read MOST of the two million books which are better than the
three you mention, perhaps it is YOU who is in no position to argue on
the boards. ^)
-- 
    _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
   _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:30:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.195235.23012@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan06.004608.22218@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>
>>My point was that lesbians [women who have sexual relationships 
>>exclusively with other women] do not necessarily lack experience
>>in hetero relationships by observation or by participation.
>
>True. And the very fact that they have abandoned the "het world" and
>its lifestyle strongly suggests that they found it to be quite distasteful.
>So their advice to other women is NOT going to be "useful advice on
>how to live your life among men", but rather more like "how to shaft
>those male scum, and live like us!"

really?  gosh, in my experience (and just how many
lesbians do *you* *know*, robert?) what they have found 
is that they are not physically or romantically attracted
to men.  period.  

and i'm still trying to find this "het world".  

lesbians are always being accused of trying to convert
straight women.  when i appeared straight, i kept 
hoping it would happen, but it never did.  <sigh{

>>IE, you see that if many of the leaders of the feminist movement and 
>>publishers of feminist magazines are lesbians who happen to hate hets,
>>then these lesbians will preach anti-het hate?
>
>That would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.

but for this to be true, you have to establish first, 
that they are *het-hating* *lesbians*.  and you haven't
even established that they are lesbians.  

(and don't throw andrea dworkin in my face.  most 
lesbians i know think she's a kook.  again, how many
lesbians do *you* know?)


peg

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Equal -numbers-
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:46:14 GMT

From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)

-Why does it matter?  Feminists came along and said "everyone should be
-free to follow their own interests, and this is not true for women, so
-things need to be changed."  

I've been considering this some more, and I still cannot agree with
it. I originally posted that this was not what feminists "came along"
and said, but upon reflection, this is not even what is being demanded
today. There is no movement for equal opportunity, the movement is for
equal -numbers-. 

This is the only place where I have heard any claims about "everyone should 
be free to follow their own interests". 

Politics is folowing the holy grail of the sacred body count. 

-                                Then the anti-feminists said "that's not
-true at all, no one is *stopping* women from being in math (etc.)." Then
-the feminists said "but look at how few women there are in math;
-something *is* stopping them."  Now we're stuck in the argument of
-whether or not women are inherently bad at math, which was one of the
-concepts that caused the problem in the first place.
-
-Muffy
---
-
-Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
-muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
-"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
-not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breadth?~ - Bruce Cockburn
-

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Why I am Not An Egalitarian
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:15:04 GMT

twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:

>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>>And your use of the word "intuition" makes me nervous. It's a female,
>>>non-objective thing.

>Intuition is not "a female thing." 

>Intuition is a human experience, and our culture's most famous 
>incidents are documented in biographies of mathematicians and 
>scientists. 

>Intuition is perhaps the most badly misunderstood of all the 
>human mental processes (and yes, it is a mental process).  What 
>it is *not* is some kind of "vague feeling" but rather a sudden 
>illumination when bits of knowledge that have been sitting in our 
>unconscious are catalyzed by a brand-new bit of information that 
>gives us insight particular to the problem we've been mulling 
>over and allows us to form a conclusion. 

>--Barbara 

I just remembered, when I read this. There's a famous book describing
the process of mathematical thinking, by a very successful
mathematician, Jacques Hadamard. His insights are similar to yours.

Lenore Levine
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 11 Jan 93 01:20:05 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <24837@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>In article <michael.726266706@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>>Was that like a political aside? :)  It certainly had nothing to do with
>>what I just said.  You had just said that we won't see her fighting for
>>an equal draft, and then I pointed out that the unequal draft is an
>>unfairness against men and that it is men who whould deal with it.
>Yes, a political aside.  

>I wouldn't call a man only draft unfairness against men exactly.
>There are feminists, women and men who would like to see a draft that would
>include women.  There are also those that do not.

Good point there.  It can indeed be an unfairness against women.  Then
let me rephrase.  Those of you men who don't like being singled out for
the draft as well as those of you women who don't like being excluded
should be the ones to do something about it if you don't like the
current system.  Bitching because someone else won't fight your battles
is pointless.

>To me I would leave the ball in the feminist court and let them have it
>as their political issue.

But you haven't done this.  You've complained yourself.  That's why I
said that if *you* have a complaint, *you* should do something about it
*before* complaining about others not doing it for you.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7050 soc.men:22538
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:11:47 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: The Immoral Minority

In article <C0nDLL.4rK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>>All of that is true, but what have been the major changes 
>>in your definition of "good"?

>It depends on how you define "good" in the first place. 

How *I* define good????

>Just that governmental or other nonprofit institutions *can* work.

Please distinguish between government and nonprofit institutions;
the government is much much stronger, and this power attracts the 
people who abuse power.

Anyway, a broken watch *can* show twice per day the right time,
but usually it is pretty much useless.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu (Texas Aggie)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 4 Jan 1993 22:03 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

|In article <1992Dec30.191743.7958@asl.dl.nec.com>, dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
| All I am saying is that unless you can show me that homosexual sex
| can create life (as the heterosexual sex act does) than it is an
| un-natural act. Homosexual sex uses a human output device (waste
| disposal) as an input device. This is not natural and therefore
| should not be considered normal and should not be taught as an
| alternate lifestyle. 

	Come on, saaay it.  "A-N-A-L  S-E-X"  It's not too hard to 
pronounce, and you don't need to be afraid to say what you mean.
'snot just for Gays anymore.  Never was.

	An act of sexual pleasure does not have to produce life to
be natural.

	If something /is/ unnatural, it does not follow that it is not
normal, nor that it is morally wrong.  Diet Coke is unnatural, it serves
no natural purpose (no sugar, and contains caffeine, a dehydrant).
It is quite common and quite normal.  But I guess it's wrong.  Give me that
can you pervert!

n Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson G 
Gasdon Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gad 
n Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson G
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13129 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11695 alt.politics.clinton:19685 alt.politics.bush:15607 alt.politics.homosexuality:9032
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:27:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan1.065155.5726@netcom.com> teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.204741.11263@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>In article <C03vn5.77K@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>>> >Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, the
>>> >statement that it is a lifestyle choice is scientifically questionable,
>>> >but if it is, so what?  Christianity, meat-eating, and monogamous
>>> >marriage are not dictated by nature--they are all lifestyle choices.
>>> 
>>>I don't know who wrote this but a lot of folks are taking it at face
>>>value, I would like to this statement supported. I for one do not
>>>believe it.  *every*  I think not.
>>
>>Yeah, like how about whales, especially Blues, Sperm Whales, Dolphins,
>>Porpoises, etc.  I do know that lesbian activity has been observed in many
>>apes (Bonobos), and monkeys (Rhesuss), what about male homosexual activity?
>>I don't ever remember hearing about that.  
>>
>
>It has been widely observed that the Sea Otter demonstrates such behavior.
>I was at the San Diego Sea World Sea Otter exhibit and observed along with
>about 40 other people, the servivors of the Exxon Valdiz disaster freely
>performing felatio on each other while floating around on their backs in
>their tank.
>
>
>
>Ciao!
>	John S. :^)
>	teddybur@netcom.com
>__

I saw a show on PBS that showed an example of gang rape in a certain species
of whales.  Three whales trap a female and each take turns having sex with
her.  Does this mean that we should accept gang rape "because it is seen
in nature"?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (jesse fuchs)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:18:25 GMT

Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
> In article <1993Jan05.180438.5289@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec31.181358.17099@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>  
> >| That is the whole problem. Teachers in sex ed. and drug ed. classes are
> >| told not to tell children what is right and wrong, to just present the
> >| facts. This has the opposite effect of what they intend.
> 
> >This assumes that the purpose of sex ed and drug ed classes is the 
> >spread of propoganda rather than information.
> 
> Actually, to support Fritz's line of thought, I'd like to mention an article
> I read in Scientific American about two years ago or so, on our nation's
> drug policy and attitude toward drugs, over the past one or two hundred
> years.  It came to the conclusion that the best results are obtained when
> there is a realistic presentation of the facts, not overstated, not under-
> stated, not moralized.  When the bad effects of drugs are exagerrated, or
> moralization about drug use is used, it's just not taken very seriously by
> a lot of people.  The same goes for sex education.  If you stand in front of
> a class of teenagers and preach about the evils of sex before marriage, and
> the virtues of abstinence, most of the kids will not take you very seriously
> (this applies to a church as well), and you will fail to successfully
> encourage either abstinence or safe sex.  Give people the facts, and by and
> large things will work out better than if you don't.
	Not to mention the fact that maybe I don't _want_ my kids to learn 
that, say, pot, is morally wrong - or at least any more than any other 
substance that can be abused. Personally, I think smoking pot and having pre-
marital sex is not only condonable, but to be explicitly encouraged. These are
my morals, and then deserve just as much representation as any other person's
in our school system. Also, if creationism is to be taught in school, I want
the Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim theories of Creationism to be given equal
weight to Christianity. As for prayer in school, I support it, as long as the
breaks are given at the proper times so as to allow the proper method of 
prayer to Mecca.
	Only Allah knows why guys like Doug think their morals are so superior
to everybody else's that they should be taught to our kids.
					-jesse
> 
>   - Dave Borden
>     borden@m5.harvard.edu

--

"Where imagination is sucked out of children by a cathode ray nipple
 T.V. is the only wet nurse that would create a cripple
 On television, the drug of a nation
 Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation."
				-Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Marriage Reform (was Re: Your own words, of course != bigot)
XXXDate: Fri, 8 Jan 93 16:04:58 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A772F43A11010614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 08 Jan 93 16:05:38 GMT

In article <CINDY.93Jan7203143@solan10.solan.unit.no> Cynthia Kandolf,
cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no writes:
>The law under consideration here in Norway  which as far as i know is
>virtually identical to the law already in place in Denmark  gets
>around the problem very neatly...  Gay and lesbian couples can enter
>into a contract that gives them all the "benefits that marriage
>partners get" (except it will not include the right to adopt children,
>at least not this time).  Each church can chose for itself whether to
>allow a marriage ceremony, or some other form of blessing, for these
>couples.  In short, it seperates the legal aspects of marriage from
>the religious ones.  Such a seperation already exists, of course:
>straight couples can get married at City Hall instead of in a church
>if they chose.

Once again the Scandanavian countries show themselves to be light years
ahead of The United States with regard to issues of sexuality.  I hope your
law is adopted... it could set a splendid example for the rest of us.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 18:12:02 GMT

>In article <1993Jan8.185341.14427@b30.ingr.com> dash@skyy.b30.ingr.com writes:
>
> Look.  If you get taxpayer money in the form of vouchers accepted by
> private (religious) schools, then they should also abide by government 
> (and supreme court decisions) regarding school prayer. Don't like them
> apples, then don't accept vouchers.....
>

Seems to me you don't care about a good education and/or educational
environment, only that we indoctrinate as many of our young people
as possible in the secular social agenda of the day.  If a private
"religious" school does a better job of training young people for
life in the real world, why are you so opposed to it?

From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:26:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh



	i think alot of the talk/argument/inane babblings on
	amendment 2 seem to shift to the extreme ends of the
	spectrum (much the same manner as the abortion *debate*).

	personally, i find amendment 2 rather ridiculous in that
	it focuses on one particular group-- homosexuals-- and
	says these people can't have *special rights*  this tends
	to paint the supporters of amd_2 as gay-haters...  if they
	were concerned w/ *special rights* why didn't the amendment
	simply ban *special rights* for everybody??


pjm.
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 7 Jan 93 12:40:15 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

In article 8836@afit.af.mil, wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>
>Well, Miss Chelsea Clinton will avoid going to public school this 
>year by virtue of her parents' money and connections.  As Mr. Limbaugh 
>pointed out today, Gov. Clinton opposes school choice for middle and 
>lower class people, but not members of his own economic class.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>-- 
>
>Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.
>
>Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.



Of course, they have a right to send their kid anywhere they want; it only
appears unusual because of the pro-public school flag-waving of the 
Clintons.  What I find disturbing is the reason given for the decision-
that the "mandatory" pair of Secret Service guards would cause disruption in
a public school.  Why wouldn't they cause similar disruption in a private
school- are private school kids somehow less disruptable?  And why wasn't
there similar disruption when Amy Carter went to a public school?  Somehow
that reason given appears, in the absence of any other offered facts, somewhat
flimsy.

	Dave
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's Bigotry
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:37:03 GMT

Nathan Engle (nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu) wrote:
: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
: >Jim Graham writes:
: >>The irony of Jesse Jackson, to me, is that he claims to be a "reverend".
: 
: >>Hogwash.  Nobody that deliberately causes divisions can be considered
: >>a peace-maker by any stretch of the imagination.
: 
: >>White, or black.
: 
: >I understand that Jackson is an ordained minister, but is he a practicing 
: >one? Has he had a regular congregation in the last 20 years, one in which 
: >he knows many of the common faithful on a personal basis, having attended 
: >their births, baptisms, funerals, having consoled families on their losses 
: >or confusion?  If not, exactly what does he do for a living?
: 

I grew up in Chicago, where Jesse Jackson often acted as a minister.
He was also very involved with "operation push" which I have heard
(not confirmed) is no longer in existence.  Jackson was extremely
influential in the Clinton- like "winning office through the back
door" election of Chicago's first black mayor, Harold Washington
(fwiw, he gained office with a vote total in the low 30% range).


:     Well, not unlike Pat Robertson or my old favorites Jim and Tammy Baker, 
: I would imagine that Jesse has a very demanding schedule of TV appearances.
: And I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he has been putting out feelers 
: for some sort of position in the Clinton administration (which would put  
: him, like many other Americans, in the category of 'seeking employment').
: Didn't he also have rumors of a TV show beating in the wings?
: 

Jackson has a TV show called something like "Both Sides Now" weekly on CNN.
It's been on the air for at least a year(ish).  Jackson has no interest
in an administration job, since the very first act of the new congress was
to give him a vote, as representative from D.C.

:     If you think that such activities are scarcely appropriate for a man of 
: the cloth then I might possibly agree with you, but I would note that he 
: appears to have had less influence at the Democratic convention than Pat 
: Robertson had at the Republican convention. Congressmen and lawyers are 
: certainly at or near the bottom of the list of people who command respect, 
: but televangelists are still hanging in there.

Jackson's silence at the convention was bought and paid for already.

: 
: --
: Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
: Psychology Department               Indiana University
: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh