HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 1 Jan 1993 17:31 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1hqmklINN24o@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...
|snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
|> How about heterosexuality where fathers rape their daughters and 
|> where women aren't able to walk at night because of the heterosexually
|> dominant practice of RAPE....Maybe we should teach people that rape as a 
|> heterosexual ritual is alright!!!
| 
|I can see this is going to be a productive conversation...

	Okay, so why don't you answer his question.  He brings up a point.

	That is that there is no need to equate homosexuality with beastiality.
If we teach tolerance of homosexuality, it does not follow that we must 
teach the acceptance of other sexual activities.  After all, we are 
selective about what kinds of heterosexual activity we find appropriate to 
tolerate.

Gadson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:48:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

| 
| Unlike heterosexuality, which is dictated by nature, homosexuality
| is a lifestyle choice and should not be presented as such to school
| children.
| -- 
| Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.

You wouldn't, by any chance, happen to have any scientific citations to
back up those assertions, would you?

Also -- patriotism is quite thoroughly a lifestyle choice (as is loyalty to
"the home team" (BLEAHH)), and these are rather strongly marketted to
school children... My 5-yr-old came home from kindergarten singing
"We love the flag, the red, white, and blue".  They have the little kids
pledging allegience to the flag, and the kids can't even tell you what
"pledge" or "allegience" mean.

   Fritz

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12441 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10863 alt.politics.clinton:19206 alt.politics.bush:15029 alt.politics.homosexuality:8529
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:06:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec26.090633.11646@fcom.cc.utah.edu> freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:
>
>|> |> It does exactly bring into question the activities in the bedroom, because 
>|> |> sexual preference is a direct correlation with same-sex parents.  Please, 
>|> |> show me 3 same-sex couples who are heterosexual.
>|> |> 
>|> |> Can you say "touche?"
>|> |> 
>
>Well, let's see.... I could 'show' you some, but you don't live in my 
>neighborhood, so... howabout the TV examples?  "Kate & Allie", "My Two Dads",
>and "Full House" (oops, that's a same-sex triple).
>
>I hope you don't dismiss these as pointless examples.  Two men (or women) with
>children from a previous marriage might indeed form a stable family.   And
>sexual preference has nothing to do with it.

Sorry, I do dismiss these as pointless.  IMO, not only do these not apply 
because none of the parents are homosexual (I know, I didn't specify that 
in my description, mea culpa), but sitcoms are, in many cases (read that, 
Murphy Brown and many others) designed to change the public's opinion of 
certain subjects.  If you don't believe me, simply ask Linda Bloodworth-
Thomas.

I should have better defined what I meant in my original post by "same-sex" 
couples.  I meant only (or mostly) homosexual couples, and my point was 
that the sexual preference displayed by parents in the home has an 
enormous effect on the sexual preference of children in the home...to the 
extent that, children raised in a homosexual-parent home will be extremely 
likely to be homosexual.  Anyone have any stats?  Any examples of straight 
children coming from a home where the parent(s) had exhibited homosexual 
behavior since the child was very young?

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12605 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11024 alt.politics.clinton:19327 alt.politics.bush:15184 alt.politics.homosexuality:8661
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: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 31 Dec 1992 14:51:50 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> Hey lets rename the discussion,"Walter's obsession with animals!"

How about "Bil's obsession with distract-by-flame"?  At least if you're 
going to use absurd exaggeration of what people say as a debating 
tactic, you could be good at it...

> You didn't expand the conversation you tried to create mayhem so the 
> discussion at hand couldn't be discussed.....

Bil, just because *you* viewed it that way, doesn't mean that's what 
I was trying to do.  I asked a straightforeward question as to what 
other types of sexuality should be discussed in school along with 
hetro/homo sexuality.  If you can't handle a straightforeward question 
like that, and get thrown off into "animal obsessions" by such a 
question, that's your problem, not mine. 

> we will just call you slick walter from now on...

That's Mr. Slick to you, son..=8^O.

Walter

From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:46:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: The "L" word
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

In alt.rush-limbaugh, (J.R. Ordon) writes:

	[many beliefs deleted to save bandwidth]

> Number 12.  Job employment should be based on ability and qualifications,
>             NOT quotas. This puts me against Affirmative Action.

	in the end, i do believe that a person should be hired
	based on their ability/qualifications alone.  BUT the
	education system today is not set up to permit trashing
	AA programs just yet.  for example, a great number of
	female students disdain math/science from an early age.
	some studies suggest this is due in part to classroom
	participation or lack thereof...  minorities consistently
	score lower on *standardized* tests... why is this??
	many hypotheses but no real answers or solutions have
	been put forth.  until we revamp the education system,
	particularly K-12, we will need AA programs to give people
	with disparate backgrounds a fighting chance to prove 
	themselves.  i understand that this is done to the detriment
	of the *white male*; this is unfortunate.  BUT, we
	are not yet to the point where we can say every child is
	getting an adequate education.


happy holidaze to all,
pjm.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
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: 31 Dec 1992 15:39:29 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
> 
> >> I would like for my child to bring up from day one
> >> to love all humanbeings......
> >
> >Ditto here.  
> 
>     Even though you just *know* that those pesky queers will fry....

Does it make you feel better to see loathing when there is none?  Does it 
justify to you that all the 'phobes are out to get you, and all the 
Christians just can't wait to see you fry?  You obviously have *no clue* 
as to how Christians think about things like this.  I've stated my 
personal views on that, but by your response, you either didn't read 
them, or just prefer to feel hated for some reason. 

> >Ooooooo...I guess I'm just an evil, Rush-loving, gay-bashing, breeder-'phobe..
> 
>     You said it; I didn't.  But I agree.

I'm not suprised...

Walter
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus and Indians: Whats the point?
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:04:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

car@access.digex.com (Mr. Blue) writes:
: 
: Why does this subject get debated so much? What is the ultimate goal
: of those who bring it up? That we should give back the land? That we
: are all evil eurocentric racist homophobic bigots? It's history, it
: happened, and it's gone on since man came out of the trees. Let it be.
: An Politically Correct types out there feel free to give your house up
: to an Indian, or an Aztec. Why dont you really say what you mean: Our
: ancestors were brutal conquerors so now we should feel guilty and give
: minorities preferential treatment over the great satan, the white
: European Male?????  Isnt that what this is all about?

Not to me, Mr. Blue.  My interest is in honest historical inquiry.
And please refrain from tossing gratuitous insults around; if you
don't call me politically correct, I won't call you a fascist.
deal?

Bill    
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
Date: 28 Dec 92 05:10:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1186@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> Sigh.  I don't think that forging articles is a "harmless joke."

It hasn't been demonstrated that Steve Chaney's article
was indeed a 'forgery'.  He never intended to deceive 
anyone about the source of the article, hence no
'forgery' existed.  I think you complained about his 
posting so that he would be punished.

> I was told that it was CMU policy to report any forgeries of a CMU address, 
> regardless of the circumstances.  When Chaney/Hall forged a header
> of one of his posts to make it appear that I had posted it, I
> forwarded the entire article to my sysadmins.  

How hard would it have been to simply ignore the article?

> I thought that I'd let my sysadmins decide if it were worthy of 
> reporting to CSUS.

In other words, you forced the CMU sysadmins to contact CSUS,
since the sysadmins would be openly violating CMU policy if
they hadn't contacted CSUS.  Had you simply ignored the article,
nobody at CMU would have known that you had seen it.  But you 
forced the issue out into the open, where the sysadmins would
be required to deal with it.

> They informed me that they were reporting it, that they didn't find
> the joke to be funny, and that they doubted that the CSUS sysadmins
> would find it funny, either.  

And I bet you got a big laugh out of it, knowing that Mr. Chaney
might be punished, huh?  

> I don't know what CSUS did, but 
> Chaney/Hall ceased forging articles (as far as I know) after.
> I've never personally been in contact with the CSUS administrators.

That's right, just wash your hands of the whole affair.  No need
to dirty those little hands with a 'net.censor' label when you
can easily get your sysadmins to do your dirty work.  

> Holtsinger, on the other hand, posts the names and street addresses
> of corporate officials when he thinks that a user at a .com site
> has overstepped the limits of propriety.  

But Ms. Garvin, the user in question didn't object to my posting
of the street address of his company.  In fact, he found it
hilarious.  

> I'm still somewhat 
> amused that he would complain about me obeying the rules of
> my site.  

Oh yeah, you were just 'obeying the rules'.  What a cop-out.
You could have easily ignored the article, and nobody at CMU 
could have possibly known that you had seen it.   Admit it,
you wanted to see Mr. Chaney punished. 


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:11:22 GMT

 >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.

jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12840 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11287 alt.politics.clinton:19491 alt.politics.bush:15388 alt.politics.homosexuality:8829
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
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: 3 Jan 93 03:34:11 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1993Jan2.235727.5838@netcom.com> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Dec29.233922.2539@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>>> 
>>>All people are asking is that unless you can come up with some
>>>*secular* reason for why their lifestyle choice is bad, you grant
>>>them the same rights they are willing to grant you: the right to
>>>live their life without persecution.
>>
>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>>
>
>Because not everyone gives a damn about religion.  The majority of the
>world population isn't Christian.  (Although Catholicism is the
>largest single religion).  Besides, 'religious reasoning' sounds like
>an oxymoron.  
>
>Andrew Jackson had a lot to say about avoiding religious arguments
>pertaining to legislation.
>
>> [loads of opinionated attacks on secular reasoning deleted]
>
>Look, whatever your opinion of secular reasoning, religiously
>justified 'reasoning' has a pretty poor history as well.  The Catholic
>church is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths alone.  Look
                                       ^^^^^^^^^
>at Hezbollah for a good example of religious 'reasoning'.
>
>-Howard
>
>
Shouldn't that be millions?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: NEC America, Advanced Switching Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:01:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.013945.14341@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.194335.8233@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>
>   [concerning whether homosexuality is a choice or not; DD asserts the
>former]
>
>>I didn't say they were opinions and not facts, you did. I have read
>>articles that support what I wrote.
>
>    Please cite them.  I know that everything in print is right, and
>anxiously await your sources.

I do not maintain a file of everything I have read, however, do as I
did and visit your local library and do some research. If I do come
across them again I will post the sources.

-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:39:53 GMT

Howard Black made mession of "hate crimes" agaist gays in this country.
The following are some thoughs:

Sex crimes represent a moral dilemma for J/C persons such as myself.

If I feel that homosexual sex is wrong, then how can I condemn "gay
bashing", and other "hate crimes". They are immoral people, they
deserve it. Unless I am willing to accept gays, then I, almost by
definition, am a supporter of the perpetrators of "hate crimes".

I usually get out of this by claiming that "I didn't do anything" and it
is not "my job" to judge anyone.

But I am not comfortable with that position, this is a very pragmatic
world, very few of us (including me) are truly Christain in our
actions towards others.

Therefore I am left with the real world choice of either condoning
"hate crimes" or accepting homosexual lifestyle as the moral equivalent
of my own.  The proverbial rock and a hard spot. Up till this time,
I've chosen the former, primarily because I *really* haven't seen gays
persecuted in any way. At least not institutionally. As a conservative,
I am not going to attempt to fix a problem if I don't think there is
one. If you can show that society is unjustly persecuting homosexuals
*then* you will force me to make a real world decision.

I should warn you that the Gay Leaders, the radical proponents of the
homosexual life style (the ones that have sex on the floats in San
Francisco during parades) are *NOT* going to get much sympathy from
me, and up till quite recently those where the only gays voices I have
heard. I am beginning to suspect that there is a "silent majority" of
homosexuals in this country, if so I want to tell them that they are
being *very* poorly served by thier political leadership.

I would like to hear the homosexual community condemn the promiscuous,
deviate behavior that it's leadership advocates. Then I would be *much*
more willing to rethink my position on homosexuality.

jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:21:44 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec30.042419.2105@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
| ]
| ]Since there is no RIGHT to participate in the military, why was it important
| ]to integrate blacks into the military in the 50s and not important to 
| ]integrate gays into the military in the 90s ?
| 
| Because blacks constitute a significant segment of the population;

Could you quantify "significant"?

| because blackness is not a behavioral trait.

So, it would be proper to not integrate members of non-Christian religious
groups into the military?

| And how many times must it be said that having open gays in the military
| leads to a number of problems that having closet gays does not.

Actually, I see a lot more problems that get reduced.  The potential for
blaickmail, for example.

| ]And if you have every been in a public shower, odds are that you have taken
| ]a shower with a homosexual.  Would it have really made any difference if
| ]you knew that that other person was a homosexual ?
| 
| I believe that for many service people the answer to that is yes.

Could you possibly elaborate on this?  I have, literally, no idea what
your problem is.

   Fritz

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 92 06:25:35 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec30.192133.8061@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>
>In your opinion.
>
>The point is, I don't want someone teaching my children values that
>do not reflect the christian values that this country was founded on.

    Phah.  Those "Christian values" are specifically excluded
from the documents that founded this country.

				-Phil


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
From: w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: How to find radio Rush?
Date: 21 DEC 92 09:07:34 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER
NNTP-Posting-Host: msnews.wustl.edu

How can I find if a local radio station carries Rush's
radio show??  The newspapers never seem to list ANYTHING
concerning radio broadcasts.

JC



_______________________________________________________________

Jim Cook
W95_COOK@wums.wustl.edu

_______________________________________________________________

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12357 talk.politics.space:1621 sci.space:18325
From: tyersome@cavebear.Berkeley.EDU (Randall Tyers)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: 29 Dec 1992 02:07:12 GMT
Organization: Plant Biology
Distribution: usa, world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cavebear.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec23.110509.22141@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary
Coffman) writes:
[...] 
>
>Large scale imports from space face a dire problem in any event. What
>are we going to do with all that extra mass? Earth's gravitational 
>field will so increase that no one will be able to stand if we bring
>in too much from space. Ultimately we have no choice but to use and
>reuse the materials here on Earth. Fortunately that is getting easier
>and easier as technology advances.
>
>Gary

If this was a joke (it has to be right?? doesn't it?) you should have
indicated this in some manner. (eg. :-) or ;-) )  As your statement
stands it raises doubts about your comprehension of very basic
physics.  

A table tells me that the mass of the earth is ~6x10^22 tons!  If I
recall corectly the formula for the strength of a gravitational field is
g=GMe/Re^2 where e stands for earth thus the surface gravity of the
planet increases in direct proportion to its mass ie g is proportional
to M.

Thus to get a 1% increase in g you would need to increase the mass of
the earth by 1% or 6x10^20 tons.  This would be a rather ambitious
project :-) and a 1% increase in g probably wouldn't be a major problem
anyway.

Randall Tyers