HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 93 04:01:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.dtcc.edu

In article <5067@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:

>Can't get much worse in a lot of inner-city schools!?

  Make that inner-city PUBLIC schools.  The inner-city privat schools seem
to do pretty well, historically.  That may change tho, as their incomes
drop drastically they may be forced to abandon the cities, not for lack of
success, but for lack of sponsorship.  Just as many of the inner-city 
churches which supplied so much of the societal infrastructure may be forced
out also.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: 12 Jan 1993 12:50:33 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Robert Johnston writes:

>As far as having a pro-choice litmus test for appointments, this makes
>sense. From the pro-choise point of view, this is the same as having a 
>non-anti-semite litmus test, or an anti-murder litmus test. Abortion
>is

Yet pro-choice partisans were quite vocal in denouncing the Thomas
appointment, citing his assumed pro-life stance, and ascribing a political
motive.  How come it's OK for a pro-choicer to be named on that basis,
but somehow political, and tainted, for a pro-lifer?

>As for Ron Brown, do you know that he isn't qualified? Hold judgement
>until you have some evidence. I have no idea whether or not he will make 
>a good secretary of commerce. With that being the case, I'll wait and see.
T>

Why don't we have the gift of prescience with regard to Brown, and are willing
to give him a chance, but with Thomas we know, we just know, that he will be
a bad justice?  

	Dave

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13098 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11647 alt.politics.clinton:19667 alt.politics.bush:15591 alt.politics.homosexuality:9013
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:14:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

In article <1993Jan5.181623.11348@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.192133.8061@asl.dl.nec.com>
>dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>
>>>>Unlike heterosexuality, which is dictated by nature, homosexuality
>>>>is a lifestyle choice and should not be presented as such to school
>>>>children.
>
>>>Incorrect, as well as irrelevant.
>
>>In your opinion.
>
>Wrong.  Do you also think homosexuality in animals is a
>"lifestyle choice"?  Do you have any facts, arguments or evidence
>of any kind for your opinion?
>

Check previous posts, some articles where listed by another person.

-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:01:19 GMT

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:

>>Specifically, you said:
>>   And it was designed in a country founded upon a belief in God.  The 
>>   country founded upon atheism and a belief in man no longer exists.

>>Your connection of the two facts implies a placing of the blame on
>>atheism for the downfall of the USSR.  If you intend to sidestep and
>>deny this after-the-fact, then you're definitely politician material.
>>Then again, you've made several statments that didn't actually say
>>anything, so perhaps this case isn't so unique.

>The rooster crowed.  The sun came up.  I guess you think I imply that
>the rooster's crowing caused the sun to rise?  I can't help the fact that
>your logic is faulty.  I admit, I relied on it, to be truthful.  I've
>been deliberately baiting you to see how long it would take you to catch
>on.  :)

A claim of faulty logic from a Christian?  Novel concept...

You're ignoring the context under which you made your assertion.  You
may continue your side-stepping all you wish, but that doesn't change
the facts to fit your current claims.  Oh, I forgot.  Christians are
fond of rewriting history to fit their claims and cover their
mistakes.

>>That still doesn't prove that the country was founded on a "belief in
>>God".  The values, views, and opinions of the founding fathers who
>>believed in a "Supreme Being" conflicted quite a bit.  There were very
>>few common religious opinions among them.

>>You still haven't provided any evidence here.  Let's see some examples
>>of uniquely Judeo-Christian values that form the foundation of this
>>country.  You're going to have a hard time finding them, I assure you.

>I have no idea why you insist that I prove something I did not assert.

You claimed this was a country founded on a belief in God, something
which you still can't prove.  You can't just duck out now because
you've discovered your personal attacks don't work to discourage those
who disagree.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Followup-To: sci.math
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:32:56 GMT

In article <C0Az1r.CGu@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>
>Pardon.  Perhaps you are unaware of Godel's work.  He demonstrates that
>there can be *NO*, nada, zero, zilch, empirical evidence and/or line of
>theoretical reasoning which can show _a_priori_ that a logical system is
>valid.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  This is not what Goedel proved.

Goedel's incompleteness theorem proved that any *sufficiently powerful*
formal system cannot be proved consistent *within that system*.

There are many results that have proved the consistency of various
formal systems.  For example, Gentzen's proof of the consistency of 
"pure number theory", and its generalizations by Takeuti.  Presburger
proved the consistency of a theory involving only addition of numbers.
Reference:  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics, 2nd edition.

There must be more popular misapplications of Goedel's theorem than almost
any other theorem in mathematics.

Follow-ups to sci.math.

Jeff Shallit

"The trouble with people is not that they don't know but that they know so
much that ain't so."
	Josh Billings' Encyclopedia of Wit and Wisdom (1874) 

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:29:36 GMT

In <5971@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.155238.7975@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>The woman hung out a sign that said "baby welcome" when she had sex.  It 
>>is one of those laws of nature, when women have sex, babies will result.  
>>Not always, but sometimes.  Therefore, if the baby would be an intruder, 
>>then don't hang out the welcome sign.

>The woman hung out a sign that said "rapist welcome" when she went outside
>her home.  It is one of those laws of nature, when women go out in the world,
>rape will result.  

Rape is the act of a free-willed actor, not the consequence of a law
of nature.

>Not always, but sometimes.  Therefore, if the rapist
>would be an intruder, then don't hang out the welcome sign.

>--Teddi

Mark Pundurs
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equali
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:12:54 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

> In article <Jan10.080748.71220@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.
> >	And an employer is not violating a homosexual's right to life unless he
> >slips some Anthrax virus in the guy's coffee during the interview.  Get real
> 
> I find it funny to see some white, het men foam at the mouth when they
> think they're the victims of AA, and yet the rest of us should just
> learn to live with the discrimination we encounter.  "I'll raise holy
> hell if AA causes me to lose one scholarship to college, but those
> queers should just calmly accept their second-class status."

Quite the contrary; being white and male in an industry where
affirmative action is a real thing is the closest thing to guaranteed
success; it means that you had to succeed in spite of your skin color,
and, in the case of, say, a NYC cop, you had to score 8% higher than the
highest-scoring minority member to get appointed.


--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 04:25:04 GMT

[alt.politics.bush and alt.politics.clinton crossposts deleted]

kellmeyer steven l (kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

[many deletions]

: >    What about that "empirical evidence"?  Where's the empirical
: >evidence to back up religious reasoning?
:
: Pardon.  Perhaps you are unaware of Godel's work.  He demonstrates that
: there can be *NO*, nada, zero, zilch, empirical evidence and/or line of
: theoretical reasoning which can show _a_priori_ that a logical system is
: valid.  You are asking for that which cannot be obtained - it matters not
: whether you ask that of science or of religion.  It appears that whether
: one is a scientist or a priest, one necessarily operates on faith.

This argument is dealt with in the alt.atheism FAQ, so now people bring it up
in other newsgroups that have not dealt with the subject before.

A layman's formulation of Godels Undecidability Theorem is:
"All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable
propositions." (from "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter).

I submit that religion is not a "logical system" and is certainly not a system 
on a par with number theory.

[for days and days I deleted to get to the end]
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Rush's patent on words..
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Distribution: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:14:38 GMT

I couldn't help but giggle today when Rush erupted about the headline 
saying "symbolism is the substance of the inauguration". Rush seems 
to think he has a patent on the words symbolism and substance used
in the same sentence. 

Now if someone could explain to me what possible connection exists between
that article and Rush's contention that liberalism is symbolism over
substance, I'd be real interested to hear about it.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Time to find out what's in the other half of Rush Limbaugh's brain.
Now where's my cleaver?
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13244 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11840 alt.politics.clinton:19805 alt.politics.bush:15669 alt.politics.homosexuality:9143
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 7 Jan 1993 20:10:43 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

 (Jody Norman) writes:
> Now, maybe I'm just reading you both all wrong, but I've
> read every post in this conference for the last three weeks, so, please,
> could one or preferably both of you explain these differenceds to me?  I'd
> really appreciate it.

Jody, 

I'm not real sure myself....I think he and I have somewhat the same 
view on not legislating religious-based 'morality', but have different 
ideas on the 'casualness' of sex.  

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: vanya@leland.Stanford.EDU (john tillinghast)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Summary: God doesn't stop genocide
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 10:29:06 GMT

In article <C0Ax5F.9K6@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
> ...  Genocide is much simpler to reason away to your 
>fellow man than it is to the unwinking eye of God, as Hitler, Stalin,
>Hussein, and Pol Pot have already shown.
>...
>Steve Kellmeyer

God never laid a finger on any of those men. Hitler's genocide was ended only by the crude instruments of
man (and at great expense and human cost); Pol Pot's and Saddam Hussein's have been stopped for now by
similar means. Stalin's ended when he died at age sevety-four from a stroke. In other words, your poetic
summary is completely meaningless, as well as insulting to all of the people who died trying to stop 
the monsters listed above.

John


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:08:04 GMT
Organization: UNC Charlotte

Unless we are to take all of Jefferson's references to God as mere rhetorical
flourishes and/or sops to the conventions of his day, I think that we can con-
clude that, while he was probably not a Christian, he was at least a Theist or
Deist.
 article <1993Jan4.031518.8457@netcom.com>
teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
 
>
>In article <C0B0Cu.Eu7@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>
>>>"SLK>" is "kellmeyer steven l"
>>>"LCF>" is "Lawrence C. Foard"
>>
>>>SLK>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning?
>>
>>>LCF>I'm sitting 10 feet from a machine that can produce 3d images of your
>>>LCF>internal organs, it was designed by secular reasoning.
>>
>>>SLK>And it was designed in a country founded upon a belief in God.  The
>>>SLK>country founded upon atheism and a belief in man no longer exists.
>>
>>>REALLY?  Since when?
>>
>>>The USA was founded mainly by atheists, and laws were put in its
>>>charters to keep it that way.  Since then, we've moved farther away
>>>from religious influence, not closer.  Take a look at the number of
>>>judgements in the last few decades restricting things like prayer in
>>>schools, etc.
>>
>>Greg, I have no idea where they attempted to teach you history, but
>>I don't think those NoDoze worked.  Not by *ANY* stretch of overblown
>>historical imagination were the founders of our country atheists.
>>That's simply wrong.  The judgments given in the last few decades prove
>>not one thing about the founding fathers of this country - who would
>>undoubtedly be appalled at the incredible way their ideals were twisted.
>>
>
>Excuse me, but to my recallection Thomas Jefferson was an ATHEIST.
>
>
>
>Ciao!
>        John S. :^)
>        teddybur@netcom.com
>__
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: COMPETENCY
Date: 4 Jan 93 10:23:00 GMT
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

From Steven Kellermeyer:
Furthermore, all individuals in a court of law must prove competency.
Always have had to.  The simple test is age - you have to be at least
X years old where X used to be 21.  If you're that old or older,
competency is assumed unless someone questions it, at which point proof
of competency has to be shown.
------------------------------------

Sorry, that's wrong. An individual is presumed competent until
proven otherwise. Some states have rules that children of a certain
age, maybe 5, are not competent to testify in court--but these laws
are changing, especially with the increasing attention paid to
child physical and sexual abuse.
                                                                                                      
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13209 alt.sex:41217 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11811 alt.politics.correct:6098 alt.politics.equality:24
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:29:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan6.222856.27434@anasazi.com>, briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes...
| 
|But in either case, I think just as Assault and Battery laws prohibit
|physical attacks against another except in the most extraordinary
|circumstances (self-defense), and makes no distinction as to sex or
|sexuality of the victim or perpertrator, cannot we come up with
|anti-descrimination laws of equal universality?

	Certainly.  Why not say something like: "No person shall
	be deprived of employment, housing, or economic service
	simply due to his or her actual or perceived sexual ori-
	entation - regardless of what that orientation may be."

Any additions or suggestions?  Let me know.

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__    
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jackies@fc.hp.com (Jackie Sheddy X6958)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 08:48:14 GMT
Organization: The Edge of the Final Frontier
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.3 PL6]

ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU wrote:
: To consider the Rev. Mr. Peters as representative of all Christians
: is as unfair and innaccurate as considering the members of ACT-UP or
: the stereotypical "screaming queen" as representative of all homo-
: sexuals.
:  
: There is enough hatred and bigotry in the world already without our
: adding to it.

	Excuse me, but I never said I considered  the Rev.  Peters to be
	representative  of all  Christians.  I  simply  stated  that  he
	advocates death to homosexuals.  The "person" is a MINISTER!  He
	preaches  this  sh*t to people  that live not 15 miles  from me.
	Personally, I would be happy if all Christians were as caring as
	they claim to be.

--
Regards,

Jackie
jackies@hpxxx.fc.hp.com
Hate is NOT a Family Value!!

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush