HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
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 23:17:20 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> |> 
> |> 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.

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? 

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Conservative forum?
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:47:58 GMT


Well, has alt.conservative.forum been created or not?  Has discussion
moved to news.groups for the creation of a talk.politics.conservative 
newsgroups or is the alt hierarchy the future home of net.right.reason?


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Intertesting quote noted en passant
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:20:49 GMT


I noticed the following while looking for something quite unrelated.
Conservatives who complain of the biased media have nothing on the 
following author:

        It is a melancholy truth that a suppression of the press
        could not more completely deprive the nation of its bene-
        fits than is done by its abandoned prostitution to false-
        hood.  ... the man who never looks into a newspaper is 
        better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who 
        knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is fill-
        ed with falsehoods and errors.  He who reads nothing will 
        still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

Now, name the author ...


                                   --  Thomas Jefferson
                                       Letter to John Norwell
                                       14 June 1807

Amazing, isn't it?  Now, what if _this_ private correspondence were 
treated with the same importance as Jefferson's private letter wherein
he promulgated the ``wall of separation'' dogma -- a dogma he himself
ignored in the Louisiana Territory ...


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
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: Sexuality
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:33:27 GMT

>Now...are yo willing to allow a class on sexuality that shows
>homosexuality and heterosexuality in the same unbiased light, a
>class that would be optional....?

What a waist of tax dollars! Pre-schoolers? If you insist, ok, but let us
not forget the *optional*.

jim shirreffs
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12390 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10806 alt.politics.clinton:19171 alt.politics.bush:14983 alt.politics.homosexuality:8490
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: 29 Dec 92 18:47:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <29DEC199212481513@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov> bwood@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (William Wood) writes:
>> 
>>My children are a precious gift that God has given my wife and I.  We have 
>>been entrusted with the responsibility of raising our children in a manner
>>consistent with the teachings of our faith.  Jesus Christ is as real to us 
>>as the keyboard that I am using at this moment.  When the school teaches that
>>homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, it operates in direct conflict with the 
>>values I attempt to instill within my children.  
>> 
>>These are my beliefs.  I don't expect you to adopt them, nor do I expect you to
>>accept them.  All I ask in return is that you give me the same respect in
>>return.

You are doing fine to this point.  I mean so far you are asking the viewing 
audience to respect your values.....key word here is "YOUR". 

I feel that if sex education is to be taught in school it should be optional
and it must include homosexuality as an equal sexuality.  I do feel that
all school should be required to have Counsoling for 'sexuality confused'
students.  I am tired of the suicides of Gay teens in this country.


  In my view, teaching my children views which are in direct conflict
>>with our (my wife and I) values is a violation of this respect. 

And of course you feel the same way about pray in school activities?
You must respect other's values in the school also, the Jew, the Hindu and so
on.  I mean I pray all the time at work, even on work time.....

>
>
>>You know bub, Jesus may be real to you (as he is to me), but HE IS 
>NOT TO THE JEWS!!  AND MILLIONS OF OTHER RELIGIONS!  SO GET OFF YOU
>DAMN SOAPBOX!! 

But this Bub is allowed to have his beliefs, no matter how foolish they
may seem.  I took this posting as a discussion in values...maybe I
came into the middle of something I shouldn't have come into.

Bil Snodgrass III

P.S.  My only issue with this supposed Christian is his claim to be a 
Christian....but that is another topic matter....
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: Sexuality
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:26:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.194545.8342@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.194703.3067@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com>, 
>>dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>|>
>>|>Unlike heterosexuality, which is dictated by nature, homosexuality
>>|>is a lifestyle choice and should not be presented as such to school
>>|>
>>
>>What evidence do you have of this ?  And how do you dismiss the scientific
>>evidence that suggests otherwise ?  I would really like to know.
>>
>
I'm a little out of date on the science of sexuality, but when I was young
the social scientists claimed that one early sexual experiences had an
inordinate amount of influence on the eventual sexual orientation of an
indivual. In short if someone as a child had homosexual experiences then
they were more likely to grow to be a homosexual. Now I don't know if this is
true, but when I was young it was accepted as scientific fact. Now you are 
claiming another scientific fact that directly contradicts what I learned.
Very confusing. Which is fact? Or are they both right and at the same time 
both wrong? Science is not God, it is our current best guess, let's keep 
that in mind. My best guess is that the Oilers are going to win the 
Super Bowl!

jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rodney the Great (was Re: RUSH=FAG!)
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:43:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec30.152346.15892@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> djrea@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (david.j.rea) writes:

>"Can't we all just get along?"  -Rodney King

Quite ironic that Sir Rodney the Great said those famous words about three 
weeks after he was arrested for beating the shit out of his wife?

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:12718 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11127 alt.politics.clinton:19412 alt.politics.bush:15285 alt.politics.homosexuality:8741
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 23:43:59 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>     The difference, of course, is that the judgements of people of your ilk
> cause us direct harm and unhappiness.

Nope.  People of my 'ilk' will find it equally, if not MORE immoral 
to cause 'you' direct harm.  The unhappiness part, nothing I can say 
about that.  I certainly hope my views don't cause you unhappiness; 
I know (just look at your comments above) that your view of people 
of my "ilk" is plenty low; people of your 'ilk' say that people of 
my ilk make your people kill themselves.   But ultimately, I am 
responsible for my *own* happiness, as are people of my 'ilk'; 
as are you and people of your 'ilk'.   


Walter

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12792 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11212 alt.politics.clinton:19459 alt.politics.bush:15357 alt.politics.homosexuality:8798
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 17:48 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec30.171740.7835@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes...
| 
|Homosexuality may be a valid lifestyle from a legal standpoint, but it is still
|in direct conflict with those values we teach in our home.
|
|I will teach my children that choosing a homosexual lifestyle is wrong.  
|I will teach them that there are many individuals in this world who choose
|to live lifestyle which contradict ours, but that does not make it OK.

	Okay.  Calculus may be a valid mathematical discipline, but it is 
in direct conflict with those opinions (values) which I teach in my home.

	And, I'll teach my opinions to my children about the dangers of
inductive reasoning on which calculus is based.  Since calculus is a
contrary to my opinions (values are opinions), do I have a right to
ban calculus from the schools because of my opinions (religion)?

	Just musing on the thought.
	

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|If one of my kids turns out gay he turns out gay.  When he reaches the age
|of 18 and leaves my home he may live as he chooses.  If he chooses to live
|a homosexual lifestyle I will still love him, but I will not accept his 
|behavior.  I'd have the same reaction if he decided to become entangled with 
|pornography or drugs.  If he decides to take the "easy way" out rather than
|dealing with his problems what can I do?  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	If your kind of love means that you say "I love you, but don't
bring your husband home for Christmas, and don't call me wanting to talk
about those objectionable parts of your life," then your kid will not
be taking any "easy way" out of anything.  

	I'm not suggesting that you'd be this way, but I know many parents 
who have.  Being Gay can be quite difficult for many when having to live
without even partial parental acceptance.

Gadson



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Self-similar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 02:27:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.014238.2554@fcom.cc.utah.edu> freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:
|
|     Careful.  Better make that Deist values.  Most of our founding
| fathers were not Christian.

Would you please document that?  Jefferson was a non-Christian deist
and I think that Franklin was also, but that is only two men.  What 
about Hamilton, Alexander, Jay, et al?  Even if Jefferson was a deist 
he could (and did) assume that Christian values dominated the culture.

Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:56:17 GMT

In article <C04vuJ.6E5@andy.bgsu.edu> jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>
>     Hi.  I'm in a bit of a predicament for a couple of reasons,
>and I'm not sure what my response to the situation should be,
>and besides, this might open up another thread of discussion (Oh
>NO!!!)  <grin>
>
>     I'm ex-military (for those who don't know me from Adam yet),
>and when I returned to the States and Civilian life, I was quite
  <monolog deleted>
>Well, any comments or such are obviously being solicited, so
>would be most welcome.
>
>Jim
>

That is this group turning into, Dear Abby? 

Jim be happy I'm a conservative and not a flammer.
Get your hair cut, get damn job, and don't brother us 
until you can make these tuff decisions for yourself. 

jim shirreffs
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12499 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10919 alt.politics.clinton:19237 alt.politics.bush:15074 alt.politics.homosexuality:8567
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: 30 Dec 1992 20:43:18 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>.Now are you willing to allow a class on sexuality that
> shows homosexuality and heterosexuality in the same unbiased light, a
> class that would be optional????

In which grade? 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: lambertn@tirith.carleton.edu (Alas, my love, you do me wrong...)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Carleton College
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:53:00 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.40    
Reply-To: LAMBERTN@CARLETON.EDU
Distribution: usa
X-Posted-From: tirith.acc.carleton.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Dec30.212615.9029@asl.dl.nec.com>, dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes...
>In article <30DEC199214481979@morgul.carleton.edu.> LAMBERTN@CARLETON.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com>, dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.
>>com (Doug Dillhoff) writes...
>>> 
>>>Unlike heterosexuality, which is dictated by nature, homosexuality
>>>is a lifestyle choice and should not be presented as such to school
>>>children.
> 
>Let me clarify this. I do not think that children should be taught
>that the homosexual lifestyle is normal. I respect the rights of all
>human beings, I just believe that the homosexual lifestyle is
>wrong (IMO).
> 

If homosexuality were proven to be biological, would you still think it was
wrong?

>>I DON'T FIND MEN ATTRACTIVE.  Tell you what, Doug--if you *choose* to find men
>>attractive and _succeed_ in doing so, *I'll* become straight.  Deal?
> 
>What??????????
> 

Simple.  You think I chose to be gay.  Well, prove to me that people can
_choose_ a gender to be attracted to.  If you can choose to be attracted to
men, then I will take that as proof that I can do the same and will become
straight.  do we have a deal?

>-- 
>Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                And Phyllis Schlafly's, of course...

~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------~
| Nikita "Kii" Lambert           |        LOVE IS THE LAW  --Queer Nation     |
| major: Classical Studies       ~--------------------------------------------~
~--------------------------------~   Gin I were a baron's heir,               |
|lambertn@morgul.acc.carleton.edu|   And could I braid wi' gems your hair,    |
~--------------------------------~   And make ye brauw as ye are fair,        |
|"O I forbid ye, maidens a'      |   Lassie, would you lo'e me?               |
| That wear gowd in your hair    ~--------------------------------------------~ 
| To come or gae by Carterhaugh  |  Love and scandal are the best sweeteners  | 
| For young Tam Lin is there..." |      of tea.                               |
~--------------------------------~--------------------------------------------~
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Flash! Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes (was: The Fr
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:15:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.205006.17535@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.215032.18325@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec17.220703.410@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>
>>>Nobody in science seriously doubts that global warming is happening.
>>
>>Here we have it folks.  The intelligent poster claims that NOBODY seriously 
>>doubts that global warming is happening.  Since I'm sure that this poster 
>>claims to have read ALL the scientific journal articles on the topic, he must 
>>believe that all of the completely credible scientists who have written that 
>>global warming is NOT occuring (not to mention the thousands who believe that 
>>humans have nothing to do with it) are lying??? 
>
>Given the fact that it is an observed phenomemon, it's pretty hard to 
>dispute.  From what I've read, the debate centers around the following
>questions (primarily):
>
>- Is the observed trend actually an emerging long-term trend?  Or, is
>  it a temporary blip?
>
>- Given the current recent trend, what will the magnitude be of any
>  future warming?
>
>- What will be the effects (if any) be on climate and weather?
>
>- Is the observed trend caused by man?
>

Sort of on this one, you forget to mention, Are we returning to a more
natural global temperature, or is the climate of the last X years the norm?
(choose your own value for X)

There was a period of time from about the 800 to 1400 AD in which the
global temperature was significantly warmer than today.  Such a rise and
fall in temperature facilitated the rise and fall of Viking marauding due
to calmer sees.  Also, in 1820 something, Tambora exploded and it actually
snowed in someplace like London or New York, in JULY!  

So key to the whole "global warming" debate is what is Earth's "normal"
temperature, along with the what kind of "normal" deviations should be
expect over what period of time.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12421 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10838 alt.politics.clinton:19194 alt.politics.bush:15006 alt.politics.homosexuality:8516
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 01:56:14 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
> Do you seriously think that the voucher system will allow people
> without children to stop paying taxes to support public schools?

No, but it will allow those who disagree, for whatever reason,
with what the public schools are teaching, to yank their kids 
out and send them somewhere else, which will take needed money 
away from the school system.  Not to mention feed the polarization 
that seems to be such a problem already. 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
In-reply-to: smithw@col.hp.com's message of 30 Dec 1992 00:32:06 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Distribution: usa
Date: 2 Jan 93 23:14:33

In article <1hqqm6INN3o0@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:


>   Well, first of all, I don't know *anyone* who just "hands their kids
>   over to the chuch".  Nice but of anti-religious-slam, though.  As for 
>   their opinions being in the majority, I think the opposite is true. 
>   I think the majority things homosexuality is not a 'good thing', but 
>   also think that diversity should be tolerated, and people should not 
>   be harassed or persecuted for it.  
>
>   Walter

Well done, Walter.  You claim that you don't know anyone who exhibits
a particular behavior, and then parlay that into a "Nice bit of
anti-religious-slam."  A current child abuse case in Jackson, Michigan
arose because of that very behavior: parents let their kids go on the
church bus for hours.  I think you owe Greg an apology.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality