HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:39:06 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> >"Most" Christians can look at a law that prohibits multi-fabric 
> >clothing and see that it is ceremonial, and laws about sexual relations 
> >and see that they are about morality.  
> 
> "Everybody knows it" is not an acceptable answer.

Then I guess it is fortunate that the NT clears up the issue, by 
saying that Christians are not under the letter of the Mosaic 
Law, and that it re-states which things Christians should follow. 
What does "sexual immorality" mean to you?  

Walter
From: roderir@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (richard roderick)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Draft-Dodging Rush?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 20:58:19 GMT
Organization: ECE Dept.,OSU,Corvallis
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobo.ece.orst.edu

In article <21829@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:
> The kind of people who didn't smoke dope (ref: Marilyn
>Quayle's 1960's comments) and who didn't dodge the draft are looking for
>conservative leaders. Among others, they have found RL. His history doesn't
>suggest that he's worthy of their attention. Since conservatives still consider
>Clinton's potsmoking an issue, why not Rush's? Since they consider Clinton's
>draft-dodging an issue, why not Rush's? Both are in the public eye; both are
>influencing opinion. Both are being considered for 1996.

Well, there is a big difference between Rush and Bill.  Rush told the truth!
Also, Rush has said flat out that he thinks it was wrong and that it was
stupid, Clinton just said he "didn't inhale."

Now, I don't see Rush as having many qualifications for being President.
I believe the presidents' job is foreign affairs and neither Rush NOR
Clinton seem to be qualified in that area. Bush was!
Oh, I am not the only one who believes the presidents job is foreign affairs
so does the U.S. Constitution, read it.

Rush's alleged (sp?) draft dodging doesn't matter 'cause he isn't trying to
run the military. He says let the military run the military.
Bill on the other hand thinks he knows whats best for the military by
allowing homosexuals in, yet he has never had anything to do with the
military, other than campagining AGAINST it when he was younger. (and
yes I believe what we do when we are young is not what we always do when
we are old.)

Richard
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14676 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13326 alt.politics.clinton:20789 alt.politics.bush:16196 alt.politics.homosexuality:9952 alt.sex:42736
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 18:15:18 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: eomer.hw.stratus.com


Hmmmmm!  Seems to me you have read my posts but haven't READ my posts.
Perhaps you should go back and look at how I explained that I have
no hatred for homosexuals as people or how I don't condone violence
against them.  But no! You choose to believe what you will.  Because I
stand against homosexual behavior as sin, and despite my explanation of
how this differs from hating homosexuals, you still choose to
propogate this myth that they mean the same thing.  Well, Melinda, I
am now at a point where I don't think I'll "cast pearls before the swine".
You can now go on your one woman crusade, but I have better things to
do than to demonstrate to a stone statue (by this, I mean someone who just
does not listen) that there are indeed Christians
who are not as you try to portray them.  I do hope that you someday
get over your hatred and bitterness and perhaps truly try to
understand what God's word really says.  Oh, and thanks for the name
calling.  I hardly think I am an idiot (person with low mental capacity).
mc
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Blacks on TV (was Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!)
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:39:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

(Brad Green) asks:
> 
> 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.  

	examples:  	Roc (an example of dumb Fox programming??!)
			Fresh Prince & his extended family
			Martin
			Bernard Shaw

i'm sure there are others...  what TV have you been watching lately,
nickelodean reruns of leave it to beaver??!?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: scooby@cheshire.oxy.edu (Brian Geoffrey Hagen)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 10:18:21 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:53:19 GMT

In article <john.727479603@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu alt.rush-limbaugh:15315 alt.sex:51084 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13840 alt.politics.correct:4078 alt.politics.homosexuality:10487
>Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!emory!europa.asd.contel.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!anasaz!misty!john
>From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
>Subject: Re: GayBashing question
>Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
>Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 21:40:03 GMT
>Message-ID: <john.727479603@misty>
>References: <C0yHH3.5JD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1993Jan16.204819.6594@vpnet.chi.il.us> <1993Jan17.053946.12851@EE.Stanford.EDU> <C11owr.MuJ@unix.amherst.edu>
>Sender: usenet@anasazi.com (Usenet News)
>Lines: 22
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>].In article <1993Jan17.053946.12851@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>
>].>>Please give us a list of
>].>>the places in this country where I, as a white man, am in danger of
>].>>being murdered just because I am a white man.
>].>
>].>ask reginald denny (truck driver) about Normandy St. in south
>].>central Los Angeles, among other places...
>
>].Okay.  Normandy St. in South Central Los Angeles is out.  One place
>].down, approximately fourteen million to go.  Any others?
>
>Most major cities of the United States. Here in Phoenix, don't go
>anywhere in South Phoenix or one of the gangs may blow you away
>for being a honkey in their 'hood.

Add Walter Simpsons homes area and the lower South Side of Knoxville, TN.  
Although you are less likely to get shot, than beaten to death.  
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: Subsidizing porn?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 21:27:54 GMT

In article <1937@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
>: 
>: >According to the Jan 23, 1993 issue of _The Advocate_:
>: 
>: >"Gays and lesbians are pressuring Clinton to...make the following
>: >changes
>: 
>: >-> Appointment of a National Endowment for the Arts director who
>: >will provide grants to artists who produce sexually explicit gay-themed
>: >works."
>: 
>: >Comments?
>: 
>: If my memory serves me correctly, The Advocate is a magazine/newspaper
>: produced for Catholic readers.  It also seems to me this publication has
>: not been very vocal during the past election, unless they have not been
>: widely quoted.
>: 
>: Regardless, the Director of the National Endowment of the Arts should be
>: someone who evaluates each item or works or presentation for its value
>: as ART, not its political theme.  
>: 
>: Any item, work or presentation which is explicit in any reason, be it
>: sexual, violent, etc. is NOT entitled to funding by the NEA.  The whole
>: policy and procedure of this agency needs to be examined and evaluated.
>: 
>: 
>: -- 
>: David De Trolio                     (detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
>: --------------------------------------------------------------------
>: We can have increased revenue in the United States without punishing
>: those who have obtained economic success and personal achievement.     
>Hmm?  Excuse me?  Bullshit, man.  Either fund art according to
>artistic merit, or don't fund it at all, but don't tell me that
>nothing may be funded which offends your sensibilities and those
>of your friends.  If we start down that route, we're going to 
>end up funding a lot of those cute paintings of kitties and duckies
>to put on the wall and the Motel 6; except, of course, that those
>offend me.  Maybe the poker playing dogs would be OK...
>
>Bill
>

Hmm.  Sounds like yet another vote to eliminate all funding of the
NEA to which I say "YEA".
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15140 alt.sex:43148 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13810 alt.politics.correct:6368 alt.politics.equality:162 alt.politics.homosexuality:10276
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Date: 25 Jan 1993 21:34:04 GMT
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov


In article <1993Jan24.115550.22354@athena.mit.edu>, 
grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg) writes:

|>In article <john.727818706@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)

|>>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.
[list deleted] 
|>
|>I could add to that... If you have a chance, Tim, also visit [list deleted]
|>Choose a place you like most
|>and go there, because I am afraid you won't be able to visit
|>anything else after this trip.

So what ?  Anyone can go into a place where they are known to be hated,
and get bashed.  In many parts of the country if you venture into a 
strange neighborhood you are taking a risk.  You dont have to have a different
colol of skin.  The gang violence in LA is often blacks attacking blacks or
latinos attacking latinos for being from the wrong neighborhood.

"Bashing" in the original context of this thread is people going out looking
for someone of a specific race/religion/sexual-orientation to beat up, often 
driving into those specific neighborhoods.  Going into the wrong part of
town is different than minding your own business in your part of town.

Gay bashing is often white adolecents from the suburbs driving into the gay
sections of town looking for someone they assume to be gay to beat up.

Now what was the original question ?

--
Tim Fogarty (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2
SRL-1:  STS-59, launch date April 14, 1994
SRL-2:  STS-68, launch date December 1, 1994          (finger for details)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, religion
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:20:48 GMT

[massive cut]

Basically the argument can be reduced to the question of where to draw the line
conception or birth.  We seem to all agree that an unfertalized egg/sperm is
not a person/human life.  We have many volunteers to point out the logical 
inconsistancies with conception as the line, and I will grant that it is not
a rock solid line, but birth is not a rock solid line either.  For example,

1. A doctor breaks a childs arm while the child is still in the birth canal, if
on the jury for the malpractice suit, would you accept the argument that he
did not injure a person and therefore did not commit malpractice?

2. Yes, we have heard many times that a woman may give up the child after its
born, however the woman must do so in a manner that does not harm the child,
This analogy is not consistant with the concept of aborting a pre-born where
the child/fetus is affected is a most detrimental manner.

3. Even if we draw the line of personhood at birth, the fetus is a living
entity much different than say a piece of skin.  I have heard the argument
that as long as its in the mother, no limit on abortions.  I consider that
very extreme, A nine month "fetus" meets all the qualifications given in a
biology class for being alive that a newborn does.  If we have laws dealing
with how you can and cannot kill animals, then the nine month "fetus" IMO 
deserves something.  Yes, there is an abortion process which would releive
the mother of the responsibility and yet not kill the child, its called a 
C section.

4. Birth is still an arbitrary line, I would argue that there is the only valid
argument for defining birth as the line for personhood is because it seems
like a very defined line (and the conveniance that it fits in with the 
pro-abortion position).  Remember the joke about the guy looking for his car
keys over by the lamp-post because the light was better over there.  The two
year old birthday is just as definate of a line.

5. A person asked if the memories/experiances of a person counts for nothing,
even a fetus has memories/experiances (once again in latter stages).  There
have been several studies to prove this, ie: placing a clock to simulate the
mothers heartbeat, the newborn recognizing the voice of the mother and father,
the newborn being comforted by a song that was played over and over while it
was in the womb.

Using a nine month fetus to counter arguments on birth being the line is just
as logical as using fertalized eggs to counter arguments on conception being
the line.  It doesn't take much imagination to find examples which unlimited
freedom to kill before birth is just as "logically inconsistant" as life
at conception.

				Craig
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Blacks on TV (was Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!)
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:41:57 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <16B62B9F5.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU>, VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
[........]  
> What about good role models for whites?  For every black role model that
> you feel is bad, I could probably find you at least three that are white.
> The problem is not a racial one.  The problem is the role model herself/
> himself?  Who decides what a bad or good role model is?

Good point.  My personal beef: How many shows can we name that stereotype:

 -- all businessmen as evil, murderous, environment-raping fools
    who are ALWAYS wrong
 -- all environmentalists as well-educated, intelligent, supremely
    noble, and *NEVER* in the wrong

Yuppers, these are the role models that define what our kids are expected to 
believe.  And Hollywood never lies, and it's always right.....
  [this is sarcasm, for the emotively impaired]

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:28:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.172659.10734@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>>In article <1993Jan21.191924.22566@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>>
>>>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. 
>
>If you see someone with a police uniform...
>If you see a bunch of people dressed as firefighters...
>If you see a person dress as a nurse...

I am a human.  I eat spicy foods.  Does it follow that because you are
a human, you eat spicy foods?

>So, if you see someone who has a t-shirt that says: I am Gay, you will 
>assume that he/she is Gay (or Lesbian), and that he or she is attracted
>to people of the same sex, and that, in case of having sex, he/she will
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>have sex with people of the same sex.

Bingo.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 06:39:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan15.191220.6749@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>In article <1j6o9kINNnq4@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> symanzik@pigeon.egr.msu.edu (Edward Symanzik) writes:
>>He would probably quote from Romans 1.  Here are some excerpts:
>
>Ahem.  Romans contains Paul's words, not Christ's.  Paul
>also had some remarkably unenlightened views on women and
>sex in general - if you're going to honor Paul's
>injunctions against [male] homosexuality, you should
>probably be expected to honor his others.
>--
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

Paul, being an apostle, had equivalent authority with Jesus in the
early Church granted by Christ himself in the Gospels. As for
being "remarkably unenlightened" that's just the hubris of our age
talking. Every civilization thinks that it's the kindest, most
benevolent, most enlightened, etc...Paul's views on women, race,
status of non-Jews in the Church were amazingly enlightened 
considering that they came from a formerly ultra-conservative
member of the Jewish ruling religious class.

If you're thinking of using Paul's injunction to wives to be subject to
their husbands as an example of his attitude towards women you ought
to consider the next verse which exhorts husbands to "love your
wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for it". The
inferrence being that Christ, although he was God, gave up his 
rights and position as such to be a servant and ultimately sacrificed
his life. Paul's calling for mutual submission which is a key to
successful Christian relationships.


*******************************************************************************
*  "I've a good mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it!"      *
*   - Groucho Marx                                                            *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pot anyone?
From: lrvanh00@nx38.mik.uky.edu (lee r vanhorn)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:25:09 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

In article <1jo3uuINN64u@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>  
loweaa@o231-23.Rose-Hulman.Edu. (Anthony A Lowe) writes:
> 	Hey yall! Here is one we did not catch before the election. It  
> starts with Bill and his appointment to the Attorney General. Well she  
is  
> a firm believer in the legalization of pot for medicinal uses. So she is  
a  
> hippy feminist who still is not read the research proving the couple of  
> hundred of chemicals in each joint does more damage than a pack of  
> cigarettes and THC does permanent brain damage, the good part is Bill's  
> response. He says that if he were to smoke pot today he would inhale.  
> Watch for smoke in the White House!
Sorry my friend, but you are wrong.  All studies showing that pot does  
brain damage have been proven wrong.  They were li ke the stuidies that  
said LSD changed your DNA...propoganda.  Also, cigarrettes do much more  
damage to the system than marijuanna.  In fact, marijuanna usage can  
reduce a cigarrette smoker's risk of lung cancer.  You see, your  
conservative fascist views are not only based on an incorrect idealism,  
they are based on incorrect data too.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Nothing to do with Re: GayBashing question
Date: 28 Jan 1993 01:37:51 GMT
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov


In article <C1JBBG.3xL@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

|>yal@cltr.uq.oz.au (Yvette Lian) writes:

|> Maybe I called you
|>>a slimeball because I think you're obnoxious and try to invalidate my
|>>arguments by suggesting that I'm just a man-hating feminist who thinks
|>>white men created all the evil in the world.  That's just poor
|>>argumentative technique on your part.

First he calls someone else immature

|>
|>Hello, Yvette?  Wake up in there.  The guy you are responding to is
|>NOT the guy you called a slimeball.  I'm the guy you made yourself
|>look so immature to insult.  

Then he states

|>Oh... I don't seem to remember calling feminists hairy-legged lezzies...
|>The feminist leaders in OUR country DO hate men.  They have repeatedly
|>called marriage slavery to men.  

When you say THE feminists leaders, you must mean all feminists leaders.
Do you have any documentation of this hate ?  Do you have more than one
quote (you did say "repeatedly") from even one feminist leader ?  

Rather than a diciple of Rush Limbaugh, Im beginning to believe that you
are a diciple of Pat Robertson.  (see his quote about feminist in Iowa)

(OK, I scolded him before for using the name of Hillary Clinton as an
insult.  Now Im using the name of Pat Robertson as an insult.)


|>
|>>And here you go again with the "you liberals" business.  Lump me in with a
|>>group you don't like and you think you can throw piss-poor arguments at me.
|>>Give it a rest.
|>
|>This is a valid complaint on your part.  But you'd better get used to
|>lumping conservatives and liberals into groups on this news group.
|>It is just the way things are done.
|>

Which news group is that ?  The header states

|>Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
|>alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality

--
Tim Fogarty (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2