HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:50:54 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes ...
>>Sex for pleasure is sin?  What Bible does this person read out of?
>
>Since when have "Christians" been overly concerned about what is or is
>not in the Bible?

This identifies one of the biggest problems among Christians today...not
only concern over what is or isn't in there, but what to do with the info
that is....hence the huge number of denominations....

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
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: bcd@fang.att.com (Brendan Dwyer)
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: AT&T Tax Systems Development, Maitland FL
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:46:21 GMT

From article <jhansen.727720299@convex.convex.com>, by jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen):
> In <1993Jan21.060221.18670@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:
> 
>>	It should be handled like a murder.  All murders are *hate* crimes.
>>The fact that he was gay should not make any more important or any less
>>important.  When sentencing time comes for the culprits, the sentence
>>should reflect what they did, not who they did it to..
> 
> Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen.  Case in point being Judge
> Hampton's sentencing a man to a lesser degree because the victim was
> gay.  This occurred two or so years ago in Dallas.  The bastard was just
> re-elected this November.
> 
> --
> James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen
> CONVEX Computer Corporation                              jhansen@convex.com
> 3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851
> Richardson, TX 75083-3851                              Phone: (214)497-4802
This is a good point.  I don't believe in hate crimes, but when the murder 
of a homosexual is treated as something less than the murder of a 
heterosexual then I have a major problem and I stand shoulder to shoulder 
with the gay community.  Murder is murder.

Brendan Dwyer



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: Rush Military Record
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:02:28 GMT

I'm not sure that I'm understanding part of this posting where:

larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>>>>>> On 19 Jan 93 00:38:53 GMT, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) said:
>   [...]
> 
> And how's your own military record, JRS? Are ya Class of 65, Viet marine?
> Or have you ever been exposed to the military draft, with your country at
> war and your high school buddies coming back for closed casket burials?
> Did you come home to long haired dope smoking hippies who were spitting at
> you and calling you a baby killer? All while the rich college boys had
> them "educational" deferments, driving Corvettes and chasing the sorority
> girls? What do *you* know about the Vietnam war, anyway?
> 
> After all, it would appear that you are quick to defend the great Rush
> Limbaugh, clearly someone who believes the draft dodging and other
> character defects make Clinton unfit for the presidency. Seems like anyone
> with such a strong viewpoint ought to be able to point to his own military
> service as some example. Or shut up permanently about Bill Clinton and 
> Dan Quayle and their draft dodgings.

Okay, here's the problem ... Are you pointing to John's comments
when you say that people should "shut up permanently," or were
you refering to Rush's character slams against Clinton?  I don't
know John well enough to defend him and his general viewpoints
posted about the subject, but if your slam was directed against
Rush, I think it was a little strong.  After all, Rush has said
time and again that he's not interested in getting into politics.
For whatever reasons, he doesn't feel that he is appropriate for
a position in politics, he just [usually] has the logic to see
things for what they are and isn't afraid to tell people what
it is that he sees.  I'd have to argue with his 97% success rate
at seeeing things for what they really are.  I'd have to say that
his success rate is a little lower than that, although still well
above 50% (IMO, although I've got a few bits of argument against
him, as well.)  Rush is an entertainer, not a politician.  Just
because I can look through my window, see it raining, and say
"hey, it's a nasty day outside, and looks like it'll last a
while," doesn't make me a weather forecaster.  Perhaps it is
within these bounds of logic that Rush _isn't_ a politician.
And perhaps all of my posting here is moot, anyway, if you were
picking a bone with John, rather than Rush.

Mostly just wondering where your argument was directed ...

Jim

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Gay rights vs. homophobe rights? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:53:02 GMT

In article <1jm6pcINNekg@transfer.stratus.com> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:

>What a shame that Robert and Melinda, who have such a high regard for the
>civil rights of others, including homosexuals, have such a disdain for the
>rights of those religious men and women who do not agree with them.

	So being for the rights of gay people is being against the
rights of homophobes? "Oh, no! Those pesky gay-rights activists are
denying us homophobes the right to hate gay people!!!"

	So being for the rights of Jews is against the rights of Nazis
and other Jew-hating bigots. And being for the rights of black people
is against the rights of the Ku Klux Klan and other anti-black bigots.
And punishing people for robbing others is depriving these people of
the right to rob others whenever they see fit. I think that that's the
gay-rights position, that the rights of non-gay people end where gay
people's noses begin.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14912 alt.sex:42915 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13552 alt.politics.correct:6326 alt.politics.equality:141 alt.politics.homosexuality:10126
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:56:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Sex for pleasure is sin?  What Bible does this person read out of?

MAC
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Re: Draft-Dodging Rush?
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 25 Jan 93 08:18:49 PST

In article <21724@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:
>Who can confirm or deny that Rush Limbaugh used a student-deferrment to
>dodge the Vietnam War?
>
>Dan

You moron.  How stupid can a person be?  I have heard so many people say
this same thing over and over.  First of all, a student deferement is a
completely honest, legal explanation for not going to war.  If you
think that it is wrong that the student deferement option exists at all
for any students to ever use (as your post implies) then say so.  I am
not explicitly arguing that here (although I would).  That is a
completely different argument than supporting the existence of student
deferements but just getting mad at Rush for using it.  I wish that
people at least understood their own arguments even if they don't
understand those of others.
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rush and george
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:40:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <5289@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>In article Nathan Engle writes:
>>but at least we're not Rush Limbaugh.
>
>Yes, you have no ability to laugh at a Democrat.

We were too busy laughing at Republicans *before* RL came along. What with
him and the Dittoheads going around parroting everything RL says, we're one
giggling, guffawing, happy bunch!

Dan
---------
There isn't enough time in the day to smirk at all the inane actions
and comments conservatives make in a day.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: rush and george
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:21:06 GMT

mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>Nathan Engle writes:
>>every time Rush gets on a roll about the heinousness of liberalism or 
>>the moral cowardice of centerists it makes the Democrats look that 
>>much better.

>Yes, tell us how Saturday Night Live parodies made Bush and Quayle
>"look that much better".

    Hey, you'll get no argument from me on that subject. I agree that 
the SNL people seemed to develope a definite vicious streak in dealing 
with Bush and Quayle - especially Quayle. The skits might have seemed 
amusing at the time, but political humor of that sort loses its humor 
quickly with repetition and passage of time. When was the last time you 
heard a Spiro Agnew joke? Thus, not only were those skits mean-spirited, 
they also suffered the drawback of being unlikely to withstand the test 
of time.

    Fortunately people seem to realize that the authors of SNL are a 
different organization than the Democratic Party, and SNL's slams haven't 
really discredited Democrats so much as they have discredited late night 
pseudo-political comedians. That could change if Bill or Hillary start 
turning up as regular guests on SNL, but I'm not expecting that to happen.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Draft-Dodging Rush?
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:10:25 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <93024.120541KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>Never mind that National Guardsmen were eligible to be sent to war.  Silly
>little facts like that ruin an otherwise decent point, don't they?

Quayle was assigned to an administrative company that would never have been 
called up for vietnam, as it was needed in Indiana. That he was put into that
company (which had no slots open) rather than into another company that could
have conceivably been called to Vietnam (like the one that had 11 slots open)
is the basis of the argument for calling Quayle a draft-dodger.

Silly facts? Why don't you try them sometime?

Dan
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: drakon@shell.portal.com (Harry Benjamin Gibson)
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: Portal Communications Company
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:30:49 GMT

I stand corrected Gadson re: motive is what defines whether a killing is murder or say self defense. But putting someone in jail for more time because of who
they killed is not so much a statment that the victum was more important to 
society than others. It says that that particluar motivation or reason for the 
killing is more repulant and less consistant with societies views of itself and
requires extra to stamp out an attitude such as that.

Political assisinations are not just murder of someone important, it is treason,
and telling the people of a democratic country that you know better than they dowho is a good guy to have in service.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:51:46 GMT

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

]I don't recall ever feeling like a target because of the color of my
]skin walking the streets of either New York or Boston.  My earrings
]tell another story altogether.

What counts is whether you ARE a target, not whether you feel like one.
Do you really believe that there are not large areas of the major cities
where one's skin color (especially a white skin color) makes one
a target of violence? If so, I'll give you a few addresses to walk around. 
If you survive, drop us a line:
  24th street and broadway, Phoenix, AZ
  much of south central LA
  most of Washington, DC

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:51:59 -0500 
From: Anatole Wilson <aw3a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Dole promotes big, intrusive government!

deherrin@ucdavis.edu writes:

>> stuff about Robert Dole sponsoring a bill to create a national police force.
> 
>There are, already, "federal police." They police federal property, including
>some Army posts. (to my knowledge, and to their credit, these people don't
>work on Air Force bases -- to the credit, that is, of the Air Force). They
>tend to do traffic patrol and other typical cop duties on the Army posts; 
>weapons storage security and such are still handled by active-duty MPs and
>line troops.  
> 
>Where else has anyone seen the federal police? In the US, I mean. There is
>an extensive federal police force in Germany; local police forces seem
>(and I believe are, practically nonexistent there). There is also a 
>national paramilitary force in Italy -- carabineri -- who are usually not
>to be messed with.
> 
>While the sight of someone strolling the streets with a machine gun may be
>disturbing in the US, fact is that in Germany, the "police presence" is
>much, much less than in the US. No patrolling squad cars, etc. I'd take that,
>punctuated with a few minutes of a carload of Uzi-toting federal police
>booking past, to the stream of local, regional and state cops (amply assisted
>by the FBI, ATFB, INS, IRS, and what have you) who blanket the countryside in
>the US in their late-model US-made sedans.

I'm not sure I got your point. I can understand some type of federal
police on military bases, if for no other reason than to avoid
jurisdictional hassles.

But Dole alluded to this national police force as part of a "strong
crime bill." What purpose would this new force--or at least enlarged
force with greater responsibilities and jurisdiction--serve? 

I didn't hear any suggestion that this federal force would replace any
other federal, state, or local enforcement agency. It sounds to me like
it's just another organization that will add to the confusing
bureaucracy, with even more instances of agency in-fighting and tripping
over each other's shoelaces.

Do we really need another federal, intrusion into our lives?

Anatole WIlson

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:29:51 GMT

In article <jtamdor.727817123@vincent2.iastate.edu> jtamdor@iastate.edu (Jason T Amdor) writes:

>
>>Not a very smart experiment (which is weird coming from 
>>one of the smartest people on the net: Melinda).
>>If you suggest to others that you are X, then, it is
>>logic that the other would assume that you also do all
>>the things that X's do. 
>
>NOTE: this is not meant to be a flame remark...just want to make a
>point..
>I am 90% German. Does that mean I kill Jews and homosexuals? No, but I
>suppose that people ASSUME that I do.
>I am 10% Irish.  Does that mean that I eat a lot of potatoes?  No,
>actually I really don't like potatoes.
>I am affilated with the local gbl group. Does that mean I'm homosexual?
>ASSUME away, folks...
>

Well, to assume what a group as a group does and what YOU or ME as
individuals do, is different.
We assume that you, writing from an edu site, know how to study and that
you actually are related to an educational activity (teaching or studying),
and, that because you are a human being, you do some stuff.
Now, the fact that you are German or Irish does not mean that you kill
or eat potatoes, because that is not related to the fact of being 
one or the other,
ON the other hand, if you are Gay, we can assume that you are attracted
to people of your same gender and that you would like (or you have) sex
with people of your same gender, because that is intrinsic with being
Gay.

However, I would say that being Gay goes beyond having sex, but is a 
way of BEING. So, I think that one has to distinguish among the
several definitions of Gay, and I would definitely drop the one that says
that Gay is the person who has sex with another person of the same geneder,
because that reverses the causality.

AAP

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Gay rights vs. homophobe rights? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:37:48 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> In article <1jpb13INNlje@transfer.stratus.com>, markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
> 
>   What a suprise. "Oh, Oh, somebody is challenging my irrational
> beliefs, and, and, I don't have a rational response to it!" So
> what happens? Does he check his premises and correct contradictions
> in his beliefs? No. He becomes "increasingly intolerant and hostile."
> And where does the blame lay for his bigotry? The victims of course!

Sounds remarkably like Tim Pierce's blaming his attitude on his being 
repressed, eh?  Just your wording shows what complete disregard for 
OTHERS views that don't match yours you have: " somebody is
challenging my irrational beliefs".  To you they seem irrational,
so they must be, eh?  What's that about open-mindedness?  Oh, it's 
only for those who agree with you, I see.  

As for Melinda/Robert/Evelyn/ etc challenging religious beliefs, 
if these silly arguments about polyester and diapers seems 
challenging to you, you might want to learn a little more about 
the subject.  You might find just how silly those arguments 
are.  Try hopping over to soc.religion.christian. The only 
arguments I've seen on this subject that come close to dealing 
in an intelligent way with it have been by "Hot Young Star".  
Melinda/Robert/Evelyn sound more like they should be talking 
to someone who is Jewish, instead of Christian. 

Walter

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:11:07 -0500 
From: Anatole Wilson <aw3a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Dole promotes big, intrusive government!

I was watching C-SPAN this morning and saw Sen. Robert Dole talk to the
Senate about a new crime bill he wants to sponsor. One of the components
of this bill would be a *Federal Police Force*. 

Isn't this inviting yet another big, bureaucratic mess while adding yet
another security force to intrusively monitor and control the American
people? Aren't the FBI, CIA, NSA and IRS enough? 

It's always seemed to me that liberals encourage government growth in
social areas while conservatives encourage government growth in the
military and enforcement areas, and increasing the power of the
Executive office.

 Are Phil Donahue's (the Dittoheads Anti-christ) predictions of a
stormtrooper police force enacting federal policies coming true? Can
anybody give me a good argument as to why a federal police force is
desirable or necessary?



Anatole Wilson                  "If anyone objects to anything I say,
-----------------                I am prepared not only to retract it,
                                 But to deny under oath that I ever said it
                                 in the first place."     
                                                               

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: control
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:50:40 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan25.170323.20141@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.212300.9323@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>> In <C1CFKw.4r8@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>> >In article <1993Jan17.225747.26775@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>> >>Can you point to any laws in our society which permit a person's bodily
>> >>resources to be taken away without their consent?
>> >
>> >Easily.  Forced fatherhood and child support without the consent of the
>> >father to the birth.
>> >
>> >Unless, of course, you don't consider a person's mind and body (muscle
>> >power) to be a bodily resource.
>>
>> I don't consider a person's wallet to be a bodily resource.
>
>Must be nice not to have to work (and use one`s mind and/or body)
>to have money!

I wouldn't know, but what does that have to do with the difference between
bodily resources and financial resources?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15323 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14037
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Blacks on TV (was Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!)
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:58:28 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C1H2u8.Cu9@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.025815.8046@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>	Or perhaps the whole idea is absurd.  Who cares is cosby is 
>>	a hypocrite?  Hell, anyone who didn't figure that out when he
>>	started complaining about the media portrayal of blacks on
>>	television (meanwhile, he just finished up the last season on
>
>Well, I think he had a point.  Give me one example of a positive black person
>on TV, other than Tibbs on In The Heat Of The Night.  Most blacks on TV are
>portrayed as idiots, dumb, worthless, etc.  Look at In Living Color, or any
>of the other dumb Fox programming.  Look at the major networks.  We used to
>have an intelligent investigator on Matlock, but he's now gone.  I usually
>watch intelligent programming, like Rush ;-), so I'm not up on all of it,
>maybe someone can give me some good role models for blacks on TV.

Lt. Uhura, Lt. Cmdr Geordi LaForge, Cmdr. Ben Sisko...
'Tis a pity we have to go to the 24th century to find them, though... :)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh