HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Rush on the Right?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:39:38 GMT

In article <BzJpI0.H6K@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>When he brought up the Ten Commandments, he had a valid point.  Can you
>name one other set of principles that would solve ALL the world's problems
>better, if everyone just believed in them?

	Sure I can.

	As it harm none, do as thou wilt.

	That's much more comprehensive than the Ten Commandments,
which teach the wickedness of working every seventh day (Omigod!
Laziness!!) and also of making statues of _anything_.

	And are you willing to throw out the rest of the Bible?
Consider that the conquest of the "Promised Land" was accompanied by
the Israelites murdering and stealing on a massive scale, and Jesus
Christ fatally weakened the Sabbath one. Prohibition of murder and
theft are things that are sometimes used to advocate the Ten
Commandments, but they are only the first in a long series of laws
that are commonly given nothing but contempt (Oh no! Contempt for
God's law!!), such as the one about how one must not climb onto an
altar because one would expose oneself to it if one did.

	Personally, I think that there are _much_ better reasons to
frown on murder and theft than waving the Bible around.

Granted, they are religious
>ideas, but they are also the moral foundation for just about all of our
>laws, and make sense.

	WRONG. Our legal traditions have _many_ sources, such as
Anglo-Saxon, Greek, and Roman. Trial by jury is an Anglo-Saxon idea
that is nowhere to be found in the Bible, and certainly not in the Ten
Commandments.

	[On supposed disrespect for fetuses...] It figures from a
fetus-worshipper. The Bible nowhere contains any of the
anti-abortionists' fetus worship.

>His bottom line was we have to start teaching values, be it in school,
>or better yet, in the home and church, or we're in deep trouble.  When
>people like Maxine Waters start calling a riot a rebellion and try to
>rationalize lawlessness, we've got a problem.

	I don't want to defend the rioters, but let us not forget that
George Washington might be considered a criminal by some standards. He
lead a rebellion against a legitimate ruler, King George III, let us
never forget.

... When people condemn a
>bunch of cops beating up on a black man, but don't show the same
>condemnation of black men beating up on a white man, there's a problem.

	And it's a terrible problem when it's the other way around, also.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12265 alt.politics.clinton:19099 alt.politics.bush:14915 alt.politics.homosexuality:8446 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10690
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 24 Dec 1992 23:52:22 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1hdge0INNbl2@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> 
|> The reported increase in attacks on homosexuals is being used to support 
|> the 'hate state' notion against Colorado, and the boycott of the state. 
|> The "something on the order of" is my words, since I don't recall the 
|> *exact* percentage that was given, and didn't want to misrepresent the 
|> figures.  So from what you are saying, can we assume that you are against 
|> those figures being used to say that #2 has had a tangeable effect on 
|> the safety of gays in Colorado?  Why/why not? 

Since you havn't given me anything to go on, you can't assume anything.

You are asking me to comment on your loose paraphrase of a unquoted
report from un-named sources.

I'll wait until I hear authoritative figures on reported incidents.

In the meantime, I note that Navy officials reported last Monday 14th
that a Chicago Heights 22-year old sailor may have been killed by
shipmates because he was gay.

He was found beaten to death in a park near Sasebo Naval Base in 
Japan on October 27th, and two of his shipmates have been arrested in 
connection with the crime.

A Navy spokesman said that the sailor had recently reported to his
commanding officer that he was Gay, and was due to receive a discharge
at the time of his death.

A report about this appeared on UPI December 14th.

jon.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12287 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10712 alt.politics.clinton:19112 alt.politics.bush:14928
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,a
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 05:12:53 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:

> I saw this posted on USENET today.  Since my kids are homeschooled, they
> are NOT subjected to sodomites, socialists, and other liberals but for those
> who children are incarcerated in the public socialist system, this
> information will help you to protect them.
> 
> Astute readers will notice on my previous post that I forgot the all
> important NOT.  Be assured that there are no sodomites, socialists, or
> any species of liberal in our home. Only fundamental Christian parents
> teaching the children to love their enemies and to hate their enemies'
> wretched sins.
> 
> 
> =========================================================================
> David L. Hanson       Internet --> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com
> Amoco Corporation     X.400    --> A=attmail,P=amoco,S=Hanson,G=David,I=L
> Any opinions expressed are my own!

I think your opening remarks, either with or without the not mark you as 
more of a hater than you wanted to admit.  Such harsh, shrill, overbroad 
generalizations make me hope that your kids can rise above the views and 
outlook on life you hold.  How sad.

Pope Charles   SubGenius Pope Of Houston.    "Bob" loves you.

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:10:10 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
: Bill Anderson writes:
: 
: >As for the B of R- it most certainly was enacted to limit 
: >majority rule, since the government is an instrument of the
: >majority, in theory.  
: 
: No, the Bill or Rights very explicitly limits the power
: of the government.  It says or implies nothing about
: protecting any minority interests.  Note that in many cases
: the government does not represent the majority interest.  Of
: course in those instances the laws are usually made by the
: courts, not by elected officials.  Thus, the government may
: or may not represent the interest of the majority.  What it
: always does is to represent the interest of the government.
: 
: Other than that, what do I care what devil worshipers want to
: do on public property, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone?
: 
: Note that Secular Humanism has been recognized as a religion
: by the US Supreme Court.
: 
: 	Dave        

Yeah, I've heard that a lot- gimme a cite on it.  Not that I'm 
disputing it; I'd like to see the decision.  
Your argument above is circular: the court decisions which do
not recognize the rule of the majority are based on the very
constitutional provision which are intended to protect against
a "tyranny of the majority," as one a those guys (Hamilton)
said.                  
And if you don't care if Satanists use public property, then we
have no argument.  I don't have a problem with religious displays
on public land, as long as (a) the government doesn't sponsor it,
and (b) it's available to all religions.

Bill
From: mdc@crash.cts.com (Milo D. Cooper)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 2 Jan 93 00:56:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA

In article <C05DqL.9pz@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
-> 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.

	Same here.

-> 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.
->
-> jim shirreffs

	Personally, I would not want to be mentioned in the same breath
as someone like Adolf Hitler, who engaged in notorious "hate crimes"
against the Jewish, especially since I am a black American, and therefore a
"minority."  That is to say, my friend, that I do not agree that
disapproval reasonably and logically precedes wanton derision, which is
what "bashing" is, and which is ultimately useless and which often cul-
minates in adverse effects.  People have a fine record of reacting ad-
versely to badgering.  As a Christian, and, I truly believe, a reasonable
one, I too am no advocate of homosexuality.  However, wrongness of opinion
deserves civil argument and correction, and no amount of excessive scorn.
Immorality is often a product of one's honest beliefs, and not of willful
contradiction to an opponent's doctrines; this is the case with most, if
not all, homosexual individuals.  You will recall that Jesus Christ him-
self pleaded with God to forgive his persecutors on the basis that they
actually did not realize what they were doing.
	It is anyone's job to judge others based on his/her ethical val-
ues.  But judgment must be without passion, just how America, a country,
an idea, founded on Christian principles, was designed to mediate.

						 _m d c_
			  Milo D. Cooper  '92   | 1992  |  mdc@crash.cts.com
						`-------'
-------------------------------- end of file ----------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12422 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10839 alt.politics.clinton:19195 alt.politics.bush:15007 alt.politics.homosexuality:8517
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: 30 Dec 1992 02:05:56 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> And I replied with a question to you if you feel that children should
> be taught the heterosexual 'sexuality' of rape of women/children?

Which (I hope) was a bad joke.  

> I wasn't tieing them together, just thinking with the same logic as you
> are....Please answer this....we are all waiting...

Bill, as I already said, I wasn't tying the 2 together.  So what is it 
you are waiting for me to answer? (hate to keep "you all" waiting...) 

> Nope, most of the people you wanted to hook were smart enough to see
> a bigot when they read your posting....

Ah, now I see.  Like Owen and his 'baiting'...Bill, I wasn't out to 
'hook' anyone, although you seem remarkably game to be baited.  I'm 
sorry that you saw what was meant as a legit, non-flamebait question 
as a 'hook'.  Maybe you just were looking for an excuse for a flame, 
who knows.  But don't transfer your eagerness to be baited into my 
desire to 'hook' you...
 
> Hey I was just tieing things together with your type of logic.....
> Can't stand the heat can you?

Please...

> >And if a substantial chunk of the tax dollars gets vouchered off to 
> >private and parochial schools, they'll have less money to do their jobs. 
> >And money is part of the problem. 
> 
> Rush would not agree with you on this one.  

*gasp*!!!!!!!!!

> I did not bring it up at all.  You brought it in to confuse the issue.
> It is hard for you to focus or to reply when someone uses your same
> logic jumps......

Wow, you're really have an appetite for flames...you jumped into this 
discussion, and that was part of the discussion well before you did. 
If you missed some of it, it aint my fault, jack...

> Walter you are so funny.... I think that is why I am still posting.

Yeah, you just enjoy a good flame sooooooo much.....

> You still after three postings have not once refered to my original
> posting when I supported the 'values' of a man who didn't agree with
> my lifestyle.  That is what I was talking about.....You still haven't said
> you agree....YOu just bring in bestiality, teaching, church, and paying
> parents to be better parents.......

Oh!  You want me to explicitly say when I *agree* with you!  Oh, OK. 
Sure, I have no problem with you supporting the 'values' of someone who 
doesn't agree with your lifestyle.  Is that all you wanted to hear? 

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12532 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10953 alt.politics.clinton:19271 alt.politics.bush:15112 alt.politics.homosexuality:8602
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
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: 30 Dec 92 23:33:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1ht6oaINN69f@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>> But as I was stating in my last posting, why did you bring it up?  We

Hey lets rename the discussion,"Walter's obsession with animals!"
Then I will be happy to discuss that one.  If you want to discuss
with me the topic of seperation of Church and State then I will be 
happy to.  I just would like you to occasionally focus.  Occasionally
address the topic matter at hand......

>
>Oh, I get it...the actual things to be discussed should be left up 
>to you, and people who were already involved in the conversation that 
>you were a latecomer to should check with you before expanding the 
>conversation....thanks for explaining things better, Bil..:-)

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


>
>Yes, so you say...and you find it 'fun'?  Sounds like a bizarre 
>thing to derive enjoyment from, but I guess some people *do* love 
>manipulation and hostility.   

And you are such a pro----- that is why you never answer questions.

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

>
>> It is working for me....I mean I have others around me watching this
>> converstation and we are just having a grand time with you!!!!
>
>Glad to hear I'm keeping you entertained..:-) But if I do *too* good 
>a job, I may have to start charging you for the entertainment services..:-) 

Naw, then I will just go back to Rush and get it for free!  Well after
he sales all of his products then gets to his 5 minute show!


>
>Walter
> 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12788 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11207 alt.politics.clinton:19455 alt.politics.bush:15353 alt.politics.homosexuality:8794
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 17:15 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1hq9obINNqpi@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...
| 
|Now that's a good idea.  Any schools that you know of currently training 
|their guidance counselors to handle (in a proficient manner) this?  Or 
|would you rather see a counselor who specializes in such things?  
|Anyone here ever talk to their school counselor about 'sexual confusion' 
|and have any success in getting help? 

	Guidance counselors often have had general psychological training 
in college which prepares them for sexual orientation issues foro teens and 
adults.

	My husband (Gay) is an educator in a public school system.  Of 
course he is not "out" there, and does not teach anything regarding 
homosexuality.  He once had a student who made several comments which 
suggested that he was having difficulty in dealing with his orientation.
My husband simply informed the school counselor, who set up a general
counseling session with the kid.  Where it has gone from there, I don't
know.

	Here at this university, the campus gay group offers panel 
discussions to psychology and health classes to give these future 
counselors (and non-counselors) some insight into orientation issues.
They generally work well.

Gadson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 24 Dec 1992 22:52:06 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1hdd8sINNap1@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > Why would I be suspicious of *reported* incidents?    If such incidents
|> > have been reported to the police, then they are on the same footing as
|> > other crime statistics.
|> 
|> Yes, continue...
|> 
|> > If someone claims increased attacks on Gays, but adds that no-one ever 
|> > reported them, then I would be just as sceptical as when someone claims
|> > Gay sexual harrassment in the military, but says it was never reported.
|> 
|> One would hope...
|> 
|> > I don't know about Mr Smith, but I would say "Put up or shut up".
|> > Either give us the facts and try the accused, or stop using unreported
|> > incidents as a way of victimizing a minority.
|> 
|> Ok, so what do you make of the report that there has been something on 
|> the order of a 4-fold increase of assaults on homosexuals in Colorado 
|> since amendment #2 passed? 

I don't "make" anything based on vague reports with no source, especially
when they contain phrases like "something on the order of".

However, we are being asked to accept unreported incidents as part of
the basis for excluding Gays from professions.     Excluding a group from 
certain professions is a bit different to "what do you make of these 
reports?"

jon.
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: 02 Jan 93 02:17:58 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1993Jan1.150532.19814@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <1i003kINNf0j@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>
>>I have sex with my neighbor's wife; we've both consented to it with 
>>each other, no one's twisting my arm or hers; immoral? 
>
>    No, according to the morals of the involved people.  In fact, I'd be
>interested in a logical argument that it is immoral, without resort to the
>biblebook or other religious dicta.

     I'd like to see any argument about morality that doesn't
ultimately devolve into some kind of religious argument.
     But, if you assume that both marriages in question were monogamous
agreements, then you could make some kind of "breach of contract"
argument out of it - add "lying" to the list if the other spouses
aren't aware of the act.  I'm not sure if Walter's original parameters
specified monogamous (although I expect they did, even if it wasn't
explicitly stated).

			-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.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Bisexuality (was Re: [a long list of subjects])
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 04:37:41 GMT

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

Evelyn C. Leeper (ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com) wrote:
: In article <1hsme2INNdu@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) w
rites:
: > twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
: > between teaching same-sex families, vs teaching families where one or both
: > of the parents are active bisexuals.  It is the question of sexual monogamy
.
: > Most people I know of think that marriage should be monogamous.  Not that
: > it always is, but *should* be; we're talking an ideal.  Active homosexual p
arents
: > can be monogamous, but by definition, the appearance is that active
: > bisexual parents cannot, unless they are married to a male and a female.
:
: Monogamous means that you choose to be faithful to one person.  It does not
: mean that you stop finding other people attractive.
:
: It is a source of constant amazement to me that men who are attracted
: to both blondes and brunettes have such difficulty with the concept that
: bisexuals can be monogamous.

Me thinks Mr. Smith/Pierce (I'm unsure who wrote the "between teaching ..." 
stuff) meant 'bisexuals who are enjoying sexual relations with people of both 
genders' when he said "active bisexual parents".  If we use this definition for
"active" bisexuals, then an "active" bisexual can't be monogamous unless s/he 
is engaged in a relationship with an hermaphrodite :^).
-- 
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