HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: 12 Dec 1992 04:09:46 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec12.025414.10456@netcom.com>, teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
|> In article <1gauo3INNa7h@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <11DEC199211232238@zeus.tamu.edu>, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
|> >>
|> >> 	What about you?  Have you ever showered "public" with the gender
|> >> to which you're attracted? 
|> >
|> >Good question, and one that shows that the whole "shower" argument is
|> >quite bankrupt.
|> >
|> >Anyone who is Gay has been showering with people who are *potentially*
|> >sexually attractive most of his or her school and college life, not
|> >to mention any fitness centre or military training they might have
|> >joined later.
|> >
|> >If this was a real problem, rather than a hypothetical problem in
|> >what we must, from politeness, refer to as a bigot's "brain", we'd
|> >surely have heard about it before now.
|> >
|> 
|> Yes, it is just as hypothetical as the misconception that everyone who goes
|> to a CO beach gets sexually excited.    
|> As a new person to the CO situation, you probably are very turned on but
|> you soon learn to put the surrounding bodies in purspective and go about
|> your business with out any undue involvement of your emotions.  Soon you
|> find the lack of clothing on the individuals around you not to be very
|> exciting.  Eventually you realize that it is the desire and the interaction
|> of yourself and another person that becomes the turnon for you and not the
|> nakedness of the individual.

I know that you probably thought you were agreeing with me, or at
least confirming what I said, but I don't think I can go along with
this.

I am not sure what 'CO' means, but let's assume it has something to 
do with nudism.   Well, nudism is something people go in for 
extended periods of time, so the analogy with a quick shower isn't 
the best.

Secondly, when I said "problem", I meant behaviour, so it's really
not necessary to go all the way to denying what's in people's heads.
In fact, it seems downright unwise.   In talking about public policy,
it seems to me that it's *always* unwise to lay down the law about
what's going on in people's heads.

If all you meant to say is that nudism does not involve mass pillage
and rape, then that's fine.

jon. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11630 alt.politics.bush:14556
From: polant@cps.msu.edu (Bradley N Polant)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:52:50 GMT
Reply-To: polant@cps.msu.edu (Bradley N Polant)
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Originator: polant@cuttlefish.cps.msu.edu

In article <1992Dec8.180915.6300@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
>In article <1992Dec3.221228.1302@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec3.172812.8457@umbc3.umbc.edu> haddaway@umbc5.umbc.edu (Mr. Todd Haddaway; ADMIN-COMP) writes:
>|> 
>|> >If you look over the history of mankind you will see that the acceptance of
>|> >homosexuality and kiling of children (abortion) has been the start of 
>|> >the destruction for a culture. i.e. Greece, Rome, Sodom, Gamorah ....
>|> 
>|> I also note that as the far-right-christians gain power in this country
>|> (Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, David Duke) crime is on the rise, literacy
>|> is down, and the debt is way up.
>
>But wait Tom, it was only a month ago that you were pointing out on this very
>group that none of these guys had any power.  
>
>You continue to ignore the fact that the founders of this nation (including
>Jefferson and Franklin) would be labled by those such as yourself as
>"far-right-wing-christians".  The change began when FDR's SC began redefining
>the Constitution and began the wrenching-away of Christian values from
>education and American life.

  I beleave what tom is trying to say, is that rising crime, worry about
the future, and the decline of education is the main problem, and men
like pat "trick-knee" buchannan and david are like flies riding a wave
of trouble.  It is true however, that many small municipalities are
being plauged by the christian coaliton and there ilk.  Right-wing
cristianity has become a powerful force of oppresion in this country,
from the bottom up.  As far as jefferson and franklin being right wing,
jeffersons apponents claimed that if he were eleceted he would ban the
bible, and introduce free love.  Not true of course.  Both him and
franklin were very liberal minded however, and freethinkers.  Franklin
was a notarious womanizer (a right-wing republican/fundamentalist
trait), but he also advocated many liberal causes of the time.  
   As far as blaming everything on FDR, I find it insane that the people
of this country can still drink the poison of fifty years ago and call
it truth.  The "social changes" he was attacked for include icreased
civil rights for blacks and jews, and social security.  In truth pal,
things arn't what they used to be, and they never were.

>
>Well said.  BTW, isn't it wonderful to see your fellow humanists in India
>being so "tolerant" of their Moslem neighbors?
   This situation exists because so many people have made race and
religion a sick focus of there lives.  Evefryone in india is either
afraid or incesnsed of there nieghboirs.  If we want america to afll to
peices too, continue on this course of fundamentalism.C
>Doug Page
>
Brad Polant
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 13:28:08 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
 <1992Dec18.134437.25502@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>
 <1992Dec19.010347.23286@anasazi.com>

In article <1992Dec19.010347.23286@anasazi.com>, briand@anasazi.com (Brian
Douglass) says:
>                          Black soldiers have been part of the US military
>since the civil war, and did not truly obtain integration and equal status
>until the 60s and 70s.  So, yes it will evaporate as quickly if not quicker
>than black soldier, and that was over 100 years.

So then we shouldn't bother? Should we not have bothered to integrate the
military racially, either? I mean, it took over a hundred years, and (according
to you) there was chaos and disaster and assaults and general awfulness,
and those are the only reasons you propose for not integrating homosexuals.

>Also, don't think I'm saying that homosexuals are implicitly cowards.  I'm
>instead trying to put you, the reader inside the head of an 18 year old
>recruit, probably from a lower middle to low income background that is
>being told by a drill sergeant that he is a wimp, a pansy, a moma's boy and
>that when he comes out of boot camp, he's going to be a lean-mean-killing
>machine, warrior-god, or any other euphimism a sergeant likes to describe
>himself by.  After all that, how is that 18 year-old going to view an open
>homosexual?

Well gee, maybe this is an argument for changing what the drill sergeants
say, eh? (I can hear the "Politically Incorrect And Proud Of It" crowd
readying their flamethrowers already...)

>will power to choke down his fear, and get on with the job?  Personally, I
>think a properly trained gay soldier stands as much chance to get the job
>done as a straight soldier.  But I'm much better educated and older than
>the average soldier.  Will he?  Will that 18 year old I described above
>think so?  I doubt it.

I thought it was the evil liberals who were so contemptuous of the average
citizen's intelligence. I imagine you'd be surprised at how people can adapt.

Look at all the other nations of the world that have struck down THEIR
anti-homosexual provisions: you don't see reports of massive defection and
military collapse, do you? Of course not. That, IMHO, is the strongest
argument against keeping the ban.

Six months after Clinton lifts the ban -- and there's no way anyone's going
to stop him, better accept it -- this will be a dead issue. Nobody will care
any more. The military won't collapse, there won't be any more assaults than
usual, the sky will not fall, and life will go on.

"Thank you, Dr. Science."

[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Lift the ban on shower curtains :-)
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:12:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec12.024608.9829@netcom.com> teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.190639.6287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.175624.11765@cs.uwp.edu> evans@cs.uwp.edu (Randy Evans) writes:
>>>: 	Do the Gays who are currently showering with Hetero men in the
>>>: military get turned on?  For that matter, I have been told that Gays who
>>>: shower at gyms which are predominantly Gay do not get turned on.
>>>
>>>I have showered with both straight and gay men at gyms and have had no 
>>>problem with getting turned on.  This was both in group showers and shower
>>>stalls.
>>
>>If this is such a big concern why not install shower curtains?
>>
>>Or does showering together in the nude do something for male bonding :-)
>>
>>hmmmmm...
>>-- 
>
>As far ago as the middle 1960's the US Air Force did use shower curtains
>in the barracks of the bases that I was station on for the many years of my
>service with the USAF.
>The act of taking a shower was as private as it could be given the public
>accomodations of the barracks.

The bases I was stationed at for 4 of the 5 years in my career did not 
have curtains, and this was in the late 70's, early 80's.  Were you an 
officer?

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:11561 alt.politics.clinton:18540
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:29:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec10.130254.17300@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>In article <grendel.723936369@camelot> Alyosha Bourgea,
>grendel@camelot.bradley.edu writes:
>>Suspending someone's likeness
>>in a jar of urine does not necessarily mean "I, the artist, hate this
>>person."  You could take it to mean "I, the artist, see this person being
>>dumped into a jar of urine by society."  In other words, it means whatever
>>you want it to mean.
>
>That is an excellent point, and one that had not occurred to me.  It points
>up the fact that most of those who were "upset" by the piece were not
>concerned with "interpreting' it.  They were merely upset that somebody
>would place a symbol of their faith in a jar of urine and then put it, or
>even an image of it, on public display.

A nice idea, i'll admit, but too bad it is not true.  The first time I 
heard of "Piss Christ," I also heard, on the same tv news report, that 
the artist's motivation was to show his distain for Christianity.

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
From: js43+@andrew.cmu.edu (James William Stepanek)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: How many gays are there anyway?
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:30:44 GMT
Organization: Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Well I have been following the gays in the military thread here and one
of the most common pro arguements is that it will improve the military
by increasing the manpower pool. I would just like someone to post how
much of a numerical difference letting the gays in will make. Can
someone post what percent of the population is homosexual. Please post
it don't send it to my account, I'm running a bit low in the memory.
James Stepanek
esp
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: Jim.Shirreffs
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:18:25 GMT

|Let's put on our imagination hats, now.  (By the way, this is not my
|original idea, but I am expanding a little.)

|Picture it.  We are somewhere in the future, a Soylent Green kind of
|future where the population will no longer fit into Texas (thanks,
|Ted) but has overgrown all rational bounds.
etc ....

Putting the shoe on the other foot is aways a good tactic. 
Hopefully mankind will never suffer the fate you've oulined. In a 
few hundred years there should be plenty of planets to go around.
So I am probably a little ahead of my time when I critic your post with
a "Man, What planet are your from?"

jim shirrefs
i speak for myself an only myself
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11693 alt.politics.clinton:18662 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10179 alt.politics.bush:14583
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: An Apology to Ted
Date: 15 Dec 92 04:21:17 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <YOUNG.92Dec14123619@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>Ted, in the past I have named you The Asshole, and I do now humbly
>apologize for that.  An asshole becomes such with a will,
>intentionally.  After reading more of the corpus of your posts, I can
>see that this is clearly not true of you.  You truly can't help it.
>
>I am sorry.
>
>Peter

Ted is typical of Arizona...

The state that elected Evan Mecham, biggest boob since Dan Quayle
	(impeached by the AZ house of representatives for terminal stupidity).
The state with the big "votes for bucks" scandal
The state with communities with no-school taxes built into the city charter
	(and you can't move in if you are under 50 yrs old)
The last state to pass a Martin Luther King day
A state where zoning is considered theft
Charly Keating's state
etc...

And now the republicans of this "fine" state are trying to have Barry
Goldwater's name chiseled off of the dedicatory plaque of the State
Rebooblican Headquarters (sounds like Stalinist revisionism?).
Why???  Because he supported a moderate democrat over a far right
fundie republican.

Ted is in good company down here...
If you have to say sorry to anybody, say sorry to me, because I have
to live with him and his type..

Tom

By the way, it's not true that Ted stayed up all night studying for
a urine exam.  He just said "piss on it".
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Madonna (was Re: Rush just looks at the pictures (was: Summary Wed 12/2/92))
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:26:14 GMT

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>Ah, yes, but there has still been more money spent on Madonna's book than
>on Rush's!

...and cocaine is more expensive than aspirin.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Lead Scout for the Baby Boomers    | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: hamilton@hitler.chem.uab.edu ()
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Organization: Chemistry Department, Univ. of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:14:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.024217.16878@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.150741.14224@cis.uab.edu> hamilton@hitler.chem.uab.edu () writes:
>>It just occured to me that even if gays can change their orientation
>>this does not make them different from people of whatever appearance,
>>as witnessed by sex-change operations or Michael Jackson.  If people
>                                                            ^^^^^^^^ 
>>are discriminated against, it is because they stubbornly refuse to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>change.
> ^^^^^^
>>Tracy P. Hamilton
>
>I'm just a tiny bit curious here Trac. The fault of being discriminated
>against lies with the person/people who have to suffer the discrimination?
>Well the next time I see a minority I guess I will just clue him in and let
>him know that all he has to do is adopt the "proper" culture, the "proper"
>religion and to get his skin color changed and then he'll never have to worry
>about being discrimated against again. 'Course you'll have to let me know
>exactly what and how to change  so I don't give out any wrong instructions. 
>Did I get it right or did you really mean to say something else?

Actually you make my point quite well.  I left the smiley off due to
my inexperience.  I was trying to show how absurd it is to expect the
person who is discriminated against to bear any blame.  You saw that
it was absurd, but did Galvanek, Moore, etc?

>
>
>Stan Knight
>|Love your server name| 

You should deal with my machine!  Then you would know it is rather
dictatorial.

Tracy P. Hamilton
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11406 alt.politics.clinton:18420
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:24:30 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Dec8.203109.22379@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted Krueger,
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>>However, on the matter of school prayer: it's a bad idea because it
>>violates equal rights.  
>
>How does a voluntary moment of silence violate equal rights?  How does 
>studentlead voluntary prayer violate equal rights?  Where are you 
>guaranteed the right to lead a life without being exposed to any religion?
>

Voluntary moments of silence, without religious connotation,  are widely
practiced and perfectly legal.  

Voluntary, studentled prayer which does not promote or exclude any faith
would not be a violation, if such a thing were possible.  However, calling
it a "prayer" pretty much does that, doesn't it?  Let's also make the
distinction between a prayer at a student assembly (unacceptable) and one
shared between consenting individuals in reasonable privacy (perfectly
acceptable and legal).

There is no right to be isolated from =anything=.  Just the right to avoid
it, if you so chose.

>>The purpose of school is to educate, and every
>>student, be they fundie, Muslim, pagan, Jewish, atheist, or indifferent,
>>should be allowed to pursue that goal in peace.  If students want to pray,
>>that is certainly their right; however, they should do it individually.
>
>You apparently believe that this is true.  Let me attempt to convince you 
>that it is not.  A blind, gradeschool girl was quietly praying her rosary 
>beads on the school bus.  The bus driver took them away and the school 
>forbade her from praying the rosary (even quietly) in public.  In Florida, 
>the principal tore the page depicting the Bible Club from all copies of 
>the yearbook.  He then apologized to the Spanish Club, whose picture was 
>on the reverse.  Examples, after examples, followed by more examples that 
>the most descriminated against group in public schools today is Christians.
>They most certainly are not allowed to pray individually in many schools.
>

These are, if true (they don't sound very plausible, but there are lunatics
everywhere, I suppose), episodes of misinterpretation of law and ethics. 
Just because a few zealots get out of line doesn't mean that they are doing
so with the sanction of the law or of society.  Show me a court case where
one of these people's action was exonerated and I'll believe that there is
some cause for concern.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11396 alt.politics.clinton:18410
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:46:47 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec10.213807.1008@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Dec9.214456.20571@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>]>I once watched a group of my company mates beat a
>]>"scrounge" (Navy term for one who doesn't bathe) until his back was broken.

>]Holy shit!  What kind of revolting little leech would just stand by and
>]let a bunch of assholes cripple someone else in his group?

>Fuck you too, charlie. You had to be there. It becomes more and more
>obvious that you live in some sort of ivory tower and have no appreciation
>for how the world really works. An no, in spite of your verbal masturbations,
>Since you want to call me a revolting little leech (which is pretty
>amusing considering that I weight well over 200 pounds),
>It becomes imcumbent on me to call you a moron who
>jumps to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence, and then publicly
>calls people names. Does the term "asshole" apply here?

Some questions: Could you have done anything to try to stop them?  If so,
why didn't you?  And afterward, did you do your best to see that the animals
were court-martialed and locked up?  If not, why didn't you?

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh