HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Flash! Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes (was: The Fr
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:29:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM Rochester
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

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??? 
|> 
|> God!  The smugness of the sky-is-falling crowd never fails to amaze me.

Ted, you should post a GIF file so we can see if you look 
as stupid as you write!

The debate in the scientific community is over what is causing 
global warming, not whether it is happening or not.  It may not
even be a bad thing.

Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: georgere@microsoft.com (George V. Reilly)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:08:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
) Meanwhile, homosexuality is also a valid, life-affirming form of
) existence.

Yes.

) You *believe* that it's wrong, but then two centuries ago
) we believed being Black was wrong,

Yes.

) and in Ireland Christians and Protestants are killing each
) other over issues of doctrine so tiny that Belfast must be
) the safest city in the world for Jews to live in right now.

No.  They're killing each other over political differences.
For historical reasons, the Catholic population of Northern
Ireland is largely nationalist (want a united Ireland), while
the Protestants are largely unionist (want to retain the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).  Most (all?) of
the IRA are excommunicated.
________________
George V. Reilly   <GeorgeRe@Microsoft.Com>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:49:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec28.180753.664@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
| 
| I am willing to allow you the right to live your life the way you see fit, even
| if I believe that your chosen lifestyle is immoral and deplorable!  It is your
| life, you make the choices AND you deal with the concequences!!
| 
| HOWEVER, I will not allow you to teach my children ideals which are in direct 
| conflict with our family beliefs.  Introduce the curriculum in public schools, 
| I'll put my kids in private school.  Force it on the private schools, and I 
| teach them at home.  Try to bring it into my home and I'll meet you at the door
| way, my NRA approved home protection kit at my side!

Excitable, aren't you...

I understand that you would like to be able to define gays as "immoral" for
your children.  The schools have to define some things as immoral, but,by
and large, this should be limited to libertarian-style force-and-fraud
issues.

However, you have *no* right to insist that your children be sheltered from
knowing that gays exist, form families, and raise happy children.  
This is especially because your children may become gay (hey -- if it 
is true for Phyllis Shlafley's son, it can be true for your kids).  If
that is so, then the school system has failed if sie has not been exposed
to the notion that gays exist, and exist happily.

   Fritz

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Bisexuality (was Re: [a long list of subjects])
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:32:26 GMT

In article <1ht9o8INN7iv@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>> It is a source of constant amazement to me that men who are attracted
>> to both blondes and brunettes have such difficulty with the concept that
>> bisexuals can be monogamous.
>
>That is why I used the wording "active", saying that the person 
>currently practiced bisexuality.  
>
>Walter
>
Gee, walter. It seems that you really like missing the point. A person can 
be involved in a monogamous relationship and still be bisexual, just as
one can be married to a member of the opposite sex, have children, and
still be a homosexual. Sexual activity does not always correspond to
sexual orientation.
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 1 Jan 93 20:05:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1299@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> Sorry - I'll add a warning to all future posts pointing out that
> [Mr.] Holtsinger will immediately make an inane reply.

Ms. Garvin, just WHO are you talking to?  Yourself, perhaps? 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12550 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10970 alt.politics.clinton:19286 alt.politics.bush:15128 alt.politics.homosexuality:8615
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 01:51:28 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> >> >I've seen articles saying 
> >> >that if a friend can only 'tolerate' your homosexuality, and not accept 
> >> >it as ok, then you shouldn't be their friend.  I really think this 
> >> >is too bad. 
> >> 
> >> My friends love me and visa versa....love me....visa versa....LOVE ME...

So what does this mean?  What are your feelings/views about people who 
think homosexuality is wrong, but think tolerance should be the key? 
Would you stay friends with someone who expressed that view?  

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:28:19 GMT

In article <dlhanson.21.724970319@nap.amoco.com> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
>I saw this posted on USENET today.  Since my kids are homeschooled,they
				     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>are subjected to sodomites, socialists, and other liberals but for those
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Didn't know you had it in you, David :)

-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                       			   howard@netcom.com
Disclaimer:  I have been put into an evil trance by Ricardo Montalban.
It happened late at night whilst watching the 'Mr. Rourke hypnotizes the
devil' episode of Fantasy Island.  These words are his, not mine.
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:09:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec31.181358.17099@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>
>That is the whole problem. Teachers in sex ed. and drug ed. classes are
>told not to tell children what is right and wrong, to just present the
>facts. This has the opposite effect of what they intend. Kids tend to

    I was told nothing of the kind.  University professors usually aren't,
btw.  And my class learns exactly what I intend...that's why I teach it
that way.  Or, maybe I'm wrong...just what *are* my intentions? :-(

>be more promiscuous and use more drugs. Please read 'Why Johnny can't
>tell right from wrong' by William Kirkpatrick (recently published).
>Another book is 'Moral Illiteracy' (I believe that's the title)
>by William Bennett. You wanted references, well now you have them.

    And some fine, nonbiased authors, too!  We wanted references to back up
your worn-out old assertion that het=normal and homo=choice.  We're still
waiting for them.

>Start reading.

    The ball is still in your court wrt the above refs.


-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12259 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10686 alt.politics.clinton:19095 alt.politics.bush:14912 alt.politics.homosexuality:8442
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: 24 Dec 1992 22:27:41 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1hct9mINN5of@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> >In other words, is it important to have the book say 
> >'it is ok for a family to have 2 adults of the same sex', or is 
> >it important for the book to say 'it is ok for a family to have 
> >2 gay adults of the same sex'.  
> 
> It's important for the book to say "it's all right for a family to
> have two gay adults of the same sex."

To a first grader, what do you feel the difference in message would 
be between the first and the 2nd example?   ie, to a 1st grader,  
what differences would they grasp between 2 adults who care a lot 
about each other, but have seperate rooms, vs. 2 adults who care 
a lot about each other, but go to sleep together at night? 

Walter
 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12044 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10537
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Madonna (was Re: Rush just looks at the pictures
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:39:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec16.174629.8496@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>In article <crb2.724523499@Ra.MsState.Edu> Chad R. Berthelson,
>crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu writes:
>>>According to aa article in the Houston Chronicle a few weeks ago, 
>>>Madonna's book "Sex", bumped Rush's Book off of the New York best
>seller 
>>>list.
>>
>>That is true, BUT it only lasted two weeks, Madonna's book sold more it's
>>1st and 2nd week out than rushes did in it's 6th and 7th (If you compare
>>Rush's 1st and 2nd it beats madonna's total), but in madonna's third week
>>Rush pulled out ahead again and remains that way today!
>>
>
>Ah, yes, but there has still been more money spent on Madonna's book than
>on Rush's!
>
>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".


-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
XXXDate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 18:25:28 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76889289A020614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:26:46 GMT

In article <C03nLM.Fup@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
mykes@shell.portal.com writes:
>This is an utterly emotional argument that disregards the most obvious.
>Space is not any kind of frontier.  It has been explored and what we know
>is that it is not inhabited by life, uninhabitable by humans without adding
>extraordinary cost to the proposition, and incredibly finite due to our
>technical inability to go very far.

A lot like the Americas in the 1400's, complete with the same misconceptions.

>Exploration of space requires a huge
>amount of costly technology, while exploration of the new world was possible
>using existing technology  sailing ships, canoes, backpacks, sleeping bags,
>and rifles.

What this boils down to is that we have =more= to gain by space exploration,
regardless of whether we actually  find anything useful out there (besides
natural resources and real estate, which is pretty much inevitable).  The
technological advances =alone= are worth the cost of the trip.

>That said, I repeat that unmanned space exploration makes a lot of sense,
>is much cheaper, gets a lot more bang to the buck, allows us to look at
>weather patterns, gather intelligence data, look out into space from beyond
>the atmosphere, build maps of entire planets, and so on.

Unmanned exploration =is= the logical first step, and the one that is
currently being undertaken.  But we must not lose sight of the fact that to
=go= forth is the inevitable goal.

>I also repeat that Star Trek is a fantasy.  We have no ability to travel 
>at 9x the speed of light, and all scientific evidence is that it is simply
>impossible.

Correction, current theories, based on contemporary technological abilities,
suggest that FTL travel is not possible.  Still, we have (or very nearly
have) a choice of technologies that will allow us to go anywhere in the
universe that we can aim ourselves at.  We just need the vision and the
motivation.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | 
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date:  3 Jan 93 21:41:48 GMT

In <C07DBw.1oE@math.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:

Whats next, if we can be intolerant toward people for what the beleive but
not what they do, whats next.

Why is wrong to rob a grave, have sex with animals, children, would it be wrong
to spike a pregnant mothers drink with RU42 (or whatever it is), why is
blackmail wrong and taxation not?  Fact is that we have to make moral decisions
and when it comes down to it, you have to assume something.  If I choose to 
believe the Bible and find it to be a workable basis for me then why don't you
practice some of that toleration

                                 Craig

Why ask why?
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12195 alt.politics.clinton:19057 alt.politics.bush:14884 alt.politics.homosexuality:8398 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10642
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
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: 21 Dec 92 23:36:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec21.212616.26592@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>
>Yes, in the military mixed showering shouldn't be a problem.  I have yet
>to see any evidence that mixed showering per se is considered sexual
>harassment, so unless you actually have such evidence, please refrain
>from assuming it to be the case.  (At which point, of course, your entire
>line of reasoning falls apart.)
>

Actually, here at the U of AZ they have a policy which basically caters
to the most sensitive person in any working group.  So, if there was one
woman who was super-sensitive and a man looked at her in the shower in
some menacing or sexual way, she would have grounds to complain.  This
is because they leave terms like "uncomfortable workplace" open for
interpretation.  There are no specific guidelines for what is/isn't 
considered harassment.  One of the reasons I brought this up is because
(in another thread) there was a reference to the sexual harassment consent
form that was posted in our physics department.  This was considered a 
violation of policy because it created an "uncomfortable workplace" which
was not conducive to work or some BS like that.  This would probably be
the case for the military.  One person complaining loud enough would probably 
be enough to change the policy.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:52:40 GMT


In article <1992Dec21.190050.7745@mis.mi04.zds.com>, 
ryonkers@mis.mi04.zds.com (Russell Yonkers) writes:
|>
|>If it is ok for gays and hetero's to shower together then it should be ok
|>for males and females to shower together.... opps I forgot that would
|>be sexual harrassment for males and females to shower together because
|>the males may find the females attractive and lust after them.  

If both parties are mature, professional adults, I see nothing wrong with
mixed gender communal showers.  Males are able to spend time with naked
females at nude beaches and nudists camps without getting hard-ons.

|>This 
|>would not be PC in the least so we must have seperate facilitys for 
|>the females.  But we know of course that the gays would never find a 
|>hetero attractive because he is not gay and would never lust after 
|>him.  I guess this is equal rights.  We know that the PC crowd is
|>totally fair and just (NOT!). 
|>

There are already gays in the military taking showers with straights.  There
are gays at health clubs, high school gym class, public pools.  Whether a gay
person find a straight person atractive or not is immaterial.  Whether that
person acts on such feelings is.  Changing the military policy with regards 
to homosexuals will not cause an increase in the number of passes being made
from gays to straights.

--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:25:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec31.201649.10590@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>
>Please indicate items of legislated bigotry.  If you were to mean Prop 2 in

    Marriage, along with the many benefits assoc. with it.  Adoption.

>Colorado, my reading of the amendment is that it prohibits legislated
>protection for gays as an expressed minority.  It does not attack, merely
>prevents protection.  Sort of like forcing the settlers outside the fort.

    Cute analogy.  However, gays need protection, just as african-americans
needed it awhile back.

>Personally, I am as opposed to laws that single out groups to prevent
>protection as I am to laws that single out groups for protection.  In

    Does this mean that you are against the civil rights laws that were
enacted for the protection of blacks, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act?  If so, please say so, since it will make understanding
your positions much easier.

>either case they have the same effect of labeling, stereotyping, and
>seperating a group of people into a separate but supposedly equal class.
>And any such seperation is the fertilizer of prejudice.

    You have the cause and effect reversed.  It is the prejudice that
necessitates the protection.
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12789 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11209 alt.politics.clinton:19456 alt.politics.bush:15354 alt.politics.homosexuality:8795
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 17:24 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1hqmklINN24o@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...
|snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
| 
|> I shouldn't pay for breeders to continue to have children
|> they cannot afford to clothe house and feed.  I shouldn't be paying for
|> spousal insurance through my premiums for Child birthing and Spousal
|> Benefits.....How dare your type call me equal when it comes to taking
|> money from me but don't allow me basic human rights.  
| 
|Yeah, this is gonna be *real* productive...do you call your mother 
|and father 'breeders', too? 

	Okay, okay.  In less inflamatory language, why should Bil
pay for projects which promote heterosexuality in the schools?  What if
it is in contradixion to his religious beliefs?  Should the schools
tearch home-economics unless they are taught for his kind of home unit too?
What about those social studies text books that depict heterosexual
family units?  Should he pay for those?

	Should Bil pay taxes which allow for tax-breaks for opposite-
gender parent family units?  What if that's against his religion?


Gadson