HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:05:55 GMT

rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:

 >In article <gsh.724014665@hela.iti.org>, gsh@iti.org (Greg Halbrook) writes...
 >|rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
 >| 
 >|I spent 6 years in the Marine Corps and I'll tell you this: If same-sex 
 >|couples
 >|were authorized to get on-base housing, many, if not all, would be claiming
 >|to be a couple just to get out of living in the barracks.  Therefore I don't
 >|foresee this being a likely event.
 
 >        I mean, heterosexuals can claim to be a couple just to get
 >housing benefits.  I don't know how many do, but it might be worth
 >knowing.

As I recall, about the only way an unmarried military member of either
gender can move into on-base family housing is if that person has a
parent or child who qualifies as a legal dependent -- meaning the
military member is the sole support of that person.  It's a major
effort to have someone approved for this category, and the category
does _not_ include significant others.

 >        With all the resistance to letting Gays in (officially), I
 >think that it will be quite a while, if ever, before the straight
 >ranks start rushing in to declare themselves as Gay.  Who knows.

It's fascinating to me that today homosexuals are trying very hard to
get in (and stay in) the military, but during the Vietnam war there
were straights who claimed to be homosexual just to get out or stay
out.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Lead Scout for the Baby Boomers    | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Jury Duty (Was: Thewindbag Against Mo)
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:49:33 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:

>In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:

>> Anyone who fails to register to vote just to avoid this
>> civic responsibility shouldn't be allowed to vote.

>Your point being that anyone who does something to avoid doing something else
>should be legally prevented from doing the thing he stopped 
>doing voluntarily so that he could avoid doing the second thing.
>Also, NOBODY who doesn't register is allowed to vote
>regardless of their reason for not registering.

Um, yes...let's try that again.  What I intended to say was that those
who purposely avoid jury duty obviously have so little regard for their
civic responsibilities that they shouldn't, in my opinion, be permitted
to vote.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:25:33 CST
From: David E. Thomas <U47526@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Conservative vs Liberal Discussions...
 <nate.949@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>

In article <nate.949@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu
(Nathan Engle) says:
>
>ryanm@stein.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:
>>What I dislike (extreemly) is when the discussions begin as fruitful but
>>end up as a name calling thread that you send to never-never land.
>
>    I really do sympathize with your distaste for name-calling. Whenever
>it happens it's deplorable. I might want to extend that farther than
>you'd care and say that I think that even some of Rush's name-calling is
>deplorable, but that's not really the point here.
>

I believe it is A point.  I believe you have to take Rush's name-calling
behavior into account when analyzing the name-calling behavior on this
group.  (See below)

>    I've seen a lot of accusations here that name-calling is "typical
>liberal behavior", but I'd like to suggest an alternate interpretation.
>Name-calling is immature behavior; whether it's done by 5 year old kids
>or 20 year old college students or 40 year old talk show hosts. Sometimes
>it can be funny, but it very rarely adds anything to a discussion so I'd
>like to think that we usually manage to avoid it here.
>
>    In my opinion the reason that we're seeing more of this behavior from
>liberals is that those particular liberals are young and immature. I would
>also add that people seem to have a greater likelihood of being liberal
>when they're young and conservative when they're older, so liberals just
>end up with the lion's share of the immaturity. But it's not so much a
>liberal trait as it is of the immature. Just in case you've never seen
>this, I now include
>

I think an important factor that you leave out, is the nature of Rush's
show.  He's not exactly the epitome of dignity, decorum or diplomacy
when he refers to anything even remotely liberal.  Obviously this is
going to bother liberals a great deal more than it does conservatives.
It is difficult for these liberals to respond to Rush directly so this
group becomes the next best thing.  They are simply responding in kind
(at least from their perspective).


David E. Thomas
University of Illinois at Chicago

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Reply-To: hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:39:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.070737.1013@news.ysu.edu>
   ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>In a previous article, hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) says:

>>Just wait until Rush can stop saying, "think about what Clinton's
>>going to do" and start yelling, "Look at what Clinton's doing!"
>>It'll be business as usual, perhaps even better.
>
>Just wait until Limbaugh has to start telling blatant lies instead of
>carefully composed half truths to be able to sustain his rhetoric.

I think Rush is a little too intelligent to resort to blatant lies.
Blatant lies will give people *legitimate* reasons to petition radio
and TV stations to drop his program.  When he just gives opinions,
it's free speech and no one has the right to tell radio and TV stations
which programs to run.  If a station wants to run the program, fine.

Blatant lies, however, cross the line.  I don't think Rush would do that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)
.sig in search of new, witty quote.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10526 alt.rush-limbaugh:12024
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY!!!
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:39:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.204349.1@gacvx1.gac.edu> cnordstr@gacvx1.gac.edu writes:
>In article <168B9D70B.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU>, VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
>> In article <1992Dec10.192800.13725@csus.edu>
>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
  
>I agree that racial equality will never be achieved by quota, but we all know
>what wouldv'e happened had George Bush NOT chosen a black man/woman to replace
>Thurgood Marshal: he would've been branded a racist forever, and liberals would
>again take up the battle cry of "Republican racism strikes again!". The
>hypocrisy on the left recently HAS been blatant. Two examples (other than
>Thomas/Hill) are:

Well, this may be true, but we will never know, will we?  I don't 
suppose Bush (or Reagan) could've had the foresight to nominate a black person 
a little earlier to fend off such a claim...  They had three other chances.
But wait -- that would mean 22% blacks on the Supreme Court which is 
GREATER than in the general population and we certainly can't have that!! :-)

>1)  The rape charges against William Kennedy Smith. Why didn't we here outrage
>from the feminist camp on this one? Answer: WKS's uncle Ted might've been
>damaged, and we all know how he stands up for the rights of women (just ask
>Mary Joe Kopekne).

I heard plenty of outrage (my own included).  Where were you?  On vacation?
From what I've read, I think Ted Kennedy and Repub. John Towers from Texas 
will be bunkmates in the afterlife!  :-)

>2)  The sexual harassment charges against Senator Inoway (D-Hawii). Again, why
>no demand from the NOW gang for justice? Same reason as above.
>The liberal media and the Democrat-controlled congress are hypocrits.
>'Nuff said.

I don't know on this one.  Perhaps the thought of an old, ugly person 
being a sexual harasser just makes everyone ill, so they avoid the thought? :-)



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Jury Duty (Was: Thewindbag Against Mo)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:31:10 GMT

wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>This is if you think that avoiding jury duty is the right thing to do.

    Well, I didn't say that my workaholic friends thought that it was 
*right*, just that it would have taken away time from their burgeoning 
careers. 

>Anyone who fails to register to vote just to avoid this
>civic responsibility shouldn't be allowed to vote.

    Well, at least in the state of Indiana anyone who fails to register 
to vote for *any* reason isn't allowed to vote.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The "C" word
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:53:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <1992Dec19.115239.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> whan@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>A very wise person posted an incredibly interesting and intellectually
>devastating definition of the word 'liberal' as "a politically correct person
>with puke for brains."  After reading this arresting description of the much
>discussed but seldom defined word, 'liberal', I decided to submit my own
>definition of what is often considered the opposite of the 'liberal', which is
>of course the "conservative".  After much contemplation, I finally decided that
>it would be utterly futile to attempt to encompass all the positive qualities
>of the 'conservative' within a single definition but nevertheless I have tried
>to come up with a description.  Here it is...
>
>Conservative: a pathetic near sighted person who lacks individuality to such   
>    		an extent that they must channel their misdirected lives       
>		through another individual, such as Rush Limbaugh, who knows
>		how to effectively manipulate these brainless persons.

Ah, so once again we see the tolerance and compassion of liberals - if someone
doesn't agree with you, and you are unable to respond substantatively to 
them on the issues, then insult them personally, assume they are not 
intelligent, assume that the only reason they disagree with you is because
they are too stupid to come to their own decisions. At least conservatives
admit the possibility that liberals may have good, ableit misguided, 
intentions. What a shame that so many liberals refuse to believe such 
a thing is possible with their political enemies. Are liberals so insecure
if what they claim to believe that this is the only way they can deal with
those who don't agree with them. 
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
From: kyeh@remus.rutgers.edu (Kung-Ching Yeh)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Which is the party of diversity and free thought?
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:59:10 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

At the Democratic National Convention, the pro-life governor of Pennsylvania was not permitted to speak.  At the Republican National Convention, those who held a pro-choice position were permitted to address the convention.  There is a fundamental difference here----Conservatives think for themselves.  Liberals seem to have a latent defacto ministry of information which under the guise of political correctness limits what they may think and say.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gsh@iti.org (Greg Halbrook)
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:09:41 GMT

wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:

>rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:

>>	But with all the worry about Gays distroying morale and combat ef-
>>fectiveness, I would think that those opposed to Gays would think them
>>more of a risk in draft/wartime, when the consequences of combat ineffect-
>>iveness are more dire.
>>Gadson Sandor

>Not true.  Except for an occasional screw-up (play on words unintended), the
>military has not knowingly drafted, enlisted, or commissioned anyone whom
>they knew to be homosexual.  Those who are later found to be such are quickly
>separated.  Admittedly, my experience only goes back three decades so I
>can't address what the policy was prior to that.  The "need every bit of
>help they can get" argument sounds more like a Billary initiative.

This statement is not entirely true.  When I was in the military I read a 
newspaper article about a member of the military (Air force, I think, if it 
matters) who was recruited some 20 years ago.  He readily admitted 
he was gay but apparently his recruiter needed the quota so he was recruited
anyway.  After he did his tour he re-enlisted, again never denying his 
sexuality.  After spending some 19 years of his life in the military and 
looking forward to retiring, suddenly his sexuality became an issue.  I don't
recall what happened (if he ended up with a BCD/other than honorable or 
he retired) but this is clearly f***ed up on the militarys part.  He did his
time, kept out of trouble and performed his duty as expected.  He never lied
about his sexuality so fraud was never commited on his part.  To me this
is more than one of those "occasional" screw-ups.  This is a whole careers
worth of looking the other way.  

     Another story which I believe I read in the "Navy Times" was about the 
Marine who won the "Marine of the year" award, not just unit/battallion but 
Marine Corps wide.  This Marine "came out of the closet" after winning.
The story has a humorous side as I recall.  They couldn't kick him out until
they could prove he had broken a law.  Just claiming to be homosexual wasn't
enough.  His dilemma was that in order to prove he was homosexual, he had to
commit an illegal act and be caught.  Again, I don't know what ending this 
story had.  

Both of these stories go to show that a persons sexuality needn't get in the
way of performing ones duties.  Marine of the Year is not just another award.
This guy had to be able to prove he could walk on water.
--
					Greg.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: Posts by Rush? NOT!
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Date: 15 DEC 92 07:40:50 EST


In article <1gba0fINN6dp@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>,
andersmc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes...

>70277.2502@compuserve.com
>Problem is, I've never been able to get through with that.  I get all my mail
>returned. I maybe doing something wrong? who knows.

Nope. You're fine. His account fills up. 

The problem with sending mail across the net to CI$ is that it is a crap shoot
as to when it will actually arrive at CI$, and whether or not the account has
room for another message. If his inbound mailbox is full, the message gets
rejected and bounced back to you. 

If you have a CI$ account and try to send it, it would fail too, but you would
know right away and could keep trying while online. I have never had the time
to do this.

I have tried to FAX him, but even on continuous redial, and trying for 10
hours, I never connected. I have also never been able to connect via phone
during his talk show. 

Well, with over 14 million listeners per week, and over 3 million at any 1
time, I guess that its just a matter of the odds. So it goes. 

I guess that if it were really that important for me to express my opinion to
him, I could send him a letter or telegram. 

So it goes...

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: jeff@MicroUnity.com (Jeff 'Giga-hurts' Kaskey)
Subject: Re: The Religious Right (was: Somalia
Distribution: world
Organization: MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:29:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.180445.3366@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:

|> USAToday took a poll at the Republican convention and found that a majority
|> (I believe ~54%) of the delegates would consider themselves "born-again
|> Christians."
|> 
|> Scary food for thought.
|> 
|> Tino
|> -- 

Just passin' through, but thought I would add to your survey results. In 
Dec. of '91, USNews and W.R. published Gallup poll results of American
religious beliefs.  I don't know the sample size.  They divided people
up as believing in either:

1. Strict Creationist View (God created man in his present form at one
    time within the last 10,000 years)

2. Centrist View (Man has developed over millions of years, but God has
   guided the process)

3. Naturalist View (God had nothing to do with it)

			1	2	3
All Americans		47%	40%	9%
Men			39%	45%	11.5%
Women			53	36	6.6
College Grads		25	54	16.5
No High Sch. Diploma	65	23	4.6
Income above $50K	29	50	17
Income below $20K	59	28	6.5
Whites			46	40	9
Blacks			53	41	4

Interpretation is left as an excercise to the student...

tfk
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:53:58 GMT

In article <1gtcs6INNl3m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly) writes:
>
>Here is an even LITTLER little man (man being perhaps too good a 
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    
>word to use for a turkey like this!) who has to, as usual with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>liberals, resort to name calling - particularly obscenities - in 
>a vain effort to make himself (itself?) appear to be of some
                                ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>degree of importance. In point of fact this post indicates the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>extremely low level of ability to think for himself. What a crying
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>shame - another loser!
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>-- 
>
Nice to know none of you bold, clean conservatives would
EVER resort to those "liberal" name-calling tactics.

                         --The Grim Reaper
                           (SCYTHE@U.WASHINGTON.EDU)


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Organization: UMCC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:06:33 GMT

Why this was cross-posted to talk.abortion, I'll never know.

In article <1992Dec14.180141.734@news2.cis.umn.edu> prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
> (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>>prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>
>>>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>>>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>>>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to be popular,
>>>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>>and stupid.

Transition periods are always awkward.  Clinton won't take office for
five and a half weeks, and it's hard to attack somebody who isn't
doing anything...yet.  By mid-February -- my prediction -- Rush will
be back in full flood.

>> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"?  That's an example of how he's fooled
>> the people and the press.  He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a 
>> total liberal.
>
>You don't get the point. It doesn't matter what he *really is*; what matters
>is what he appears to be. My point is that he appears to be a moderate and
>that makes him an unsuitable candidate for rhetorical attacks.

If you really knew about Rush, you'd know that showing people up for
what they really are is Rush's *specialty*.  Having the Dems in power
figures to give Rush *more* ammo for his show, rather than less,
especially if things take a turn for the worse in any respect.

Just wait until Rush can stop saying, "think about what Clinton's
going to do" and start yelling, "Look at what Clinton's doing!"
It'll be business as usual, perhaps even better.

If the media ever gains a right-wing bias, Rush will do a quick
fade, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

-- 
Kevin J. Podsiadlik          | 
Vaporware Engineer 2nd class |    "But, Master, what if we behave badly?" 
E-mail: hampton@ais.org      |    "You go to Detroit."
CompuServe: 71460,3602       |
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: Posts by Rush? NOT!
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Date: 15 DEC 92 07:45:57 EST


In article <1992Dec11.184001.4543@memstvx1.memst.edu>,
kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes...

>> 70277.2502@compuserve.com

>For one thing, you need a comma <70277,2502> instead of a dot.

Right and wrong. If you are online with CI$, then you use the comma as the
account number. If you are sending via email, you need to replace the comma
with a period.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/