HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Nothing to do with Re: GayBashing question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:28:12 GMT

fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:


>In article <C1JBBG.3xL@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>|>yal@cltr.uq.oz.au (Yvette Lian) writes:

>|> Maybe I called you
>|>>a slimeball because I think you're obnoxious and try to invalidate my
>|>>arguments by suggesting that I'm just a man-hating feminist who thinks
>|>>white men created all the evil in the world.  That's just poor
>|>>argumentative technique on your part.

>First he calls someone else immature

Call a spade a spade.  

>|>
>|>Hello, Yvette?  Wake up in there.  The guy you are responding to is
>|>NOT the guy you called a slimeball.  I'm the guy you made yourself
>|>look so immature to insult.  

>Then he states

>|>Oh... I don't seem to remember calling feminists hairy-legged lezzies...
>|>The feminist leaders in OUR country DO hate men.  They have repeatedly
>|>called marriage slavery to men.  

>When you say THE feminists leaders, you must mean all feminists leaders.
>Do you have any documentation of this hate ?  Do you have more than one
>quote (you did say "repeatedly") from even one feminist leader ?  

Guilty as charged.  Blatant generalization rescinded.  Certain feminist
leaders have said this.  

>Rather than a diciple of Rush Limbaugh, Im beginning to believe that you
>are a diciple of Pat Robertson.  (see his quote about feminist in Iowa)

Never watch him... don't really like him... sorry to burst your bubble.

>(OK, I scolded him before for using the name of Hillary Clinton as an
>insult.  Now Im using the name of Pat Robertson as an insult.)


>|>
>|>>And here you go again with the "you liberals" business.  Lump me in with a
>|>>group you don't like and you think you can throw piss-poor arguments at me.
>|>>Give it a rest.
>|>
>|>This is a valid complaint on your part.  But you'd better get used to
>|>lumping conservatives and liberals into groups on this news group.
>|>It is just the way things are done.
>|>

>Which news group is that ?  The header states

>|>Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
>|>alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality

I can never keep this cross-posting stuff straight... what a pain.

>--
>Tim Fogarty (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
>Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2



Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:38:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.141110.20152@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ktoepke@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Kevin M Toepke) writes:

>In article <1jmp5mINNptg@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>
>>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? 
>
>The oppressed can't be totally tolerant if they want to get rid of the 
>oppression.

More like: the oppressed can't always be totally tolerant if they want
to retain their sanity.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:40:24 -0500 
From: Anatole Wilson <aw3a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--etc.

The thread is too long for me to decipher who said what, but the theory
that sex is only moral when used for procreation is waaaaay off base.
Re-read "Song of Songs." Joyful and pleasurable sexual relations between
a married couple is highly ENCOURAGED, and in this section of the Bible,
is used as a metaphor (many scholars believe) for God's relationship
with humanity. 

Just trying to set the record straight...


Anatole
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15368 alt.sex:43407 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14066 alt.politics.correct:6397 alt.politics.equality:181 alt.politics.homosexuality:10414
From: stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber)
Subject: Re: Clinton & the Press
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:03:18 GMT

In article <21755@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:
> 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
> 

     The fact is... most people consider themselves to be moderate or
undefined (~40 percent) followed by conservative (~25 percent) and then
liberal (~18 percent); the other percentages tend to be far left or
far right.  So when the average person says someone is liberal or 
someone is conservative, it is generally from their point of view.  I
tend to look at it in terms of the baseball outfield.  It is my
belief that Clinton, his image consultants in the media, and his 
pals in Hollywood all think that he'd be a gold-glove centerfielder,
who could very easily range his way over to right field whenever he
wanted to.  However, the influence of Hillary and his standing on issues
social (IMHO -- mind you, this is MY opinion; last time I checked, this
was not being banned by the P.C. thought police) tends to place the
President in about the second or third row of the left field bleachers,
selling peanuts and Billy Beer.

     The location of other prominent politicians and other folk would
be as follows:

     Jack Kemp -- the TRUE gold-glove CF; has a great arm.
     Edward M. Kennedy -- stuck at a tailgate party in the LF parking lot.
     Rush Limbaugh -- seats on the first base side (and is happy with them.)
     
     (open this point up for others' input -- no EMail, please)

     Then again, that's just MY opinion.

"Oh... You're from the sixties...."
     -- Terrence Mann to Ray Kinsella, _Field of Dreams_

Kevin L. Stamber
Purdue University
GET WELL MARIO!

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: control
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 18:19:22 GMT

In article <93024.034039KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.173939.18362@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) says:
>
>>>>But it's ok to deal with the consequences of a rapist's act by taking
>>>>an innocent life?
>>>
>>>In my opinion, yes, since it wasn't any deliberate act of the woman to cause
>>>the situation.
>>Normally, in our systems of law and morality, the only time deliberateness
>>becomes an issue is when the intention of the deliberate act is to cause the
>>proscribed result. If a hunter were to accidentally shoot another hunter in
>>the woods, thinking that the movement in the bushes was a deer, then the
>>issue of deliberateness does not come into play (although the issue of
>>recklessness would)...
>
>But the hunter -is- responsible for the consequences of his own recklessness,
>no?  To extend the analogy (oh boy, another fun analogy!), what if the hunter
>were to dispose of the body of his unintended victim, so that it wouldn't be
>found by the authorities, so nobody would know what he'd accidentally done.
>Would that be okay?
>
Exactly what restrictive abortion laws would force women to do.
Welcome to the pro-choice camp.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14861 alt.politics.clinton:20969 alt.politics.bush:16267 alt.politics.homosexuality:10062
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:37:53 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
> The "tenants" of Christianity?  That's a good one!
> Do you mean those passages of the bible where people "rent" their garments?
> Sounds like somebody needs to look up the word "tenet".

Maybe a spell-checker would do the trick...;-)  Oh, well..

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:51:49 GMT

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!

No, it shows that you're an arrogant self-righteous prude. 
Christianity has no monopoly on the "value of life".  For 
you to claim otherwise just shows what an ignoramous you 
happen to be.


> Daniel Rouse, Jr.
>
> And now...the moment we've been waiting for.  GamePro magazine and EGM
> magazine proudly present:  The Arcade Champion!

Playing arcade games for self-gratification?  Isn't that a 
little selfish--you could be donating that money to charity.


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Subject: Re: Subsidizing porn?
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:08:40 GMT

In article <1937@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
# detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
# : 
# : Regardless, the Director of the National Endowment of the Arts should be
# : someone who evaluates each item or works or presentation for its value
# : as ART, not its political theme.  
# : 
# : Any item, work or presentation which is explicit in any reason, be it
# : sexual, violent, etc. is NOT entitled to funding by the NEA.  The whole
# : policy and procedure of this agency needs to be examined and evaluated.

# Hmm?  Excuse me?  Bullshit, man.  Either fund art according to
# artistic merit, or don't fund it at all, but don't tell me that
# nothing may be funded which offends your sensibilities and those
# of your friends.  If we start down that route, we're going to 
# end up funding a lot of those cute paintings of kitties and duckies
# to put on the wall and the Motel 6; except, of course, that those
# offend me.  Maybe the poker playing dogs would be OK...

The NEA does some patently good things, like making Met tickets (almost)
affordable for mere mortals like myself.  It also does quite a few
questionable things.  Expecting a bit of civility towards one's patrons is
hardly too much to ask--it hardly requires avoiding all remotely offensive
subjects.  As it is run now, I wonder how many projects are funded that are
offensive to the fashionable special-interest groups...

It's nothing more strict than what previous patrons have demanded.  Can we
say that the current system has produced more lasting and non-trivial art
than those in the past?  Is it likely to do so any time soon?

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Re: A Small Thought Experiment
Organization: UMCC
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:24:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.222856.29318@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>It seems a little mentally stressing to some to 
>understand the difference between 'hate crimes'
>and the generic type.

Largely because any given crime perpetrated by a majority race against
a minority race can be labelled a hate crime these days.  It's so
easy to do; you can never prove that you punched that guy because he
insulted your family and the fact that he was black had nothing to
do with it.

>Then folks talk about the matter of 'motive' in
>regards to sentancing.....
>
>This is made even More Commical by those who are
>Trying to defend the UnBornGrandParents who are
>OBLITERATED at In vitro fertilization centers,
>as those UnBornGrandParents were NOT selected for
>implantation in a Donor and then Deleted as medical Waste,
>even though these UnBornGrandParents were actually
>concieved Persons_In_The_Petri_Dish.
>
>{We shall now see if edward will resolve the above...}

Does "resolve" here mean translate into English?  I wish "edward"
best of luck.

>Now the thought Experiment:
>
>1. Evil Must be Stopped.
>
>2. Sin is Evil
>
>3. Homosexuality is a Sin
>
>therefore:....

Posting to Eight Different Groups (Including at Least One, And Arguably
Five or More Inappropriate Groups) Must be Stopped.

Q. E. D.

-- 
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.rush-limbaugh
From: bdewey@grok116.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Bob Dewey)
Subject: Zoe Baird's withdrawal
Organization: NCR
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:54:59 GMT

The interesting thing to watch now that Zoe Baird's has witdrawn her nomination is how
Doonesbury is going to handle it.

-- 
Bob Dewey                       e-mail: Bob.Dewey@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM 
Customer Satisfaction, MSBU        fax: (803) 739-7317
MCPD Columbia                    phone: (803) 791-6425 or VoicePlus 632-6425
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Gay rights vs. homophobe rights? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:55:11 GMT

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

>Sounds remarkably like Tim Pierce's blaming

You know, Walter, for all that I say and I do, one thing that I almost
*never* do is to gratuitously drag someone's name into a discussion in
which they have not been participating.  You're a hell of a person to
be laying the charge of "immaturity" on others.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Basic Rights for Gays? (was Re: Your own words, of course != big
XXXDate: Fri, 22 Jan 93 22:14:08 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A785BFC060040614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:14:27 GMT

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.

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.
From: Treble@asc.slb.com (John Treble)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:59:32 GMT
Organization: ASC-Austin
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: asc438.asc.slb.com

In article <1993Jan19.224958.22833@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>,
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) wrote:
> 
>>> > I wrote:
> >Behavior-based privileges?  Is this not dangerous territory?  Where does
> >the defining line fall?  If a homosexual decides to abandon the gay
> >lifestyle, then does that person become an nonminority. (I know the
> >inherent gene argument will surface, but the jury is still out on that.)
> >
> >Deciding minority status on the basis of behavior opens the door to chaos
> >in our legal system.  Suppose a person wants a job and is turned down.  If
> >that person claims to have been rejected due to homosexuality, does the
> >person have to prove it?  How?  In front of the judge and jury?
> >
> >treble@qasc.slb.com "My debate teacher said that whoever resorts to name
> >calling first loses the debate because they ran out of ideas."
> >The opinions expressed by this writer do not reflect the views of his
> >employer.
> 
> This is interesting...You mean that if gay-rights groups have their way, 
> and get homosexuality recognized as a valid minority, qualified for 
> Afirmative Action, all I have to do (as a white-male-of-european-heritage) 
> is to CLAIM to be gay and I am in line for set-aside jobs or can get 
> extra points on my employment application?
> 
> How would anyone at my prospective place of employment know if I were 
> gay or not?
> 
> Ted
> 
Heck Ted, you wouldn't even have to CLAIM to be gay, but just that you have
gay tendencies!  Hmmm, where does that leave bisexuals???........Oh
boy...what a mess......

treble@asc.slb.com "My humble, but accurate, opinion does not necessarily
reflect that of my employer. I get full credit for my insightful and witty
comments!"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mjkugel@iastate.edu (Michael J Kugel)
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:21:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.114201.1411@cltr.uq.OZ.AU> yal@cltr.uq.oz.au (Yvette Lian) writes:
>In article <C0yHH3.5JD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>Let me put this another way.  When are you liberals gonna start screaming
>>about all the "White Bashing" that goes on every day?  NEVER.  Because
>>you believe white heterosexual men are the source of all evil and deserve
>>whatever we get.  I would wager that more white hetero men are victims of
>>hate murders than gays, although I can't substantiate this.  
>>
>>When I hear the ACLU standing up screaming at "White Bashers" I will 
>>then accede to the term "Gay Bashing" (which is stupid in the first place
>>since it should be called murder or attempted murder).
>>
>>Liberals love to label things to give them special status over non PC
>>issues.  White men get jack sh*t from you guys when we are victims of
>>discrimination in job quotas, hate murders, etc.
>
>Hey, when you get someone beating you around and calling you "fuckern lezzo
>bitch" (this hasn't happened to me - I'm recalling a friend's experience),
>talk to me.  
>When you get pack-raped by a bunch of ignorant guys because it will "teach
>ya what a real man can do", talk to me.
>When you get your guts kicked in and bashed to within an inch of your life,
>simply because you're gay, talk to me.
>
>Meanwhile, don't start spouting about "us liberals".  In case you hadn't
>noticed, people are getting killed, for no other reason than who they are.
>Not because they have money.  Not because the killer knows and hates them
>(not that either of these are good reasons).  Simply because the victim was
>SEEN TO BE gay by the perpetrator. (Their sexual preference here really is
>irrelevant - the basher only has to think they're gay to initiate the
>bashing.)
>
>If someone walked up to you and kicked the shit out of you because you're a
>white straight male, you might speak differently about this.  You might
>even say something along the lines of "they have no right to hurt me in
>this way - they beat me up because I'm a straight white male.. I didn't do
>anything wrong".
>
>And you'd be right - they beat you up because they hated what you are...
>not who you are.  
>
>Question - how many times have you heard of a white person being beaten up
>while having something along the lines of "you fuckern white person, I hate
>all whiteys" yelled at them?

Around six times in the last year (all, believe it or not, in Ames, IA).


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14803 talk.abortion:57324
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Advocating Armed Resistence?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:57:55 GMT

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:

] drieux writes:
] 
] >p4: the Get out of JAIL card for the Roman Catholic Church
] >in this matter is for them to ACCEPT that the LAW OF THE LAND
] >is the LAW OF THE LAND and that they are NOT the Arbitors of
] >what the LAW OF THE LAND is.
] 
] The round-up and incineration of Jews was the law of the land in
] Nazi Germany.  The Catholic Church ushered thousands of Jews out
] of Europe by means of an "underground railroad."  Thus, the Catholic
] Church defied the "LAW OF THE LAND" in favor of what it perceived to be
] a higher LAW, and helped the innocent.  I can see no difference in
] its position to save, in this case, the unborn innocent.


Hum...

I hate to dredge out Stalins line about the Pope,
but How Many Divisions did The Pope Field to
Liberate the KZ camps?

So, are you recommending that we expect the
use of Force to Liberate the Modern KZ's????

Now lets turn to the other question:

"When does the Unborn get Ensouled?" 

Hum....


Until they get to the point of showing that the 
Unborn are the Born, I think you will also have
some problem selling us that there is a Similarity
between a STATE SPONSORED POLICY AGAINST BORN PERSONS,
and an Individuals right to carry out their own
freedom of religion.


ciao
drieux

ps: want to address the conflict between the RC position
on abortion and traditional Jewish Law, while we are playing here?



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh