HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pauljo@microsoft.com (Paul Johns)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:39:20 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec14.184223.25697@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu wrote:

> No need for flames.  You simply know very little about the military.  When 
> women were allowed into the military, millions of dollars were spent in 
> order to provide separate facilities for them.  Likewise, dollars will have 
> to be spent to provide separate facilities for gays.  Before you answer, 
> "They can use the same facilities as heteros." let me ask you:  Who will 
> decide that?  So far, gays (and a few simpathizers) want to shower with 
> heteros, and don't think it will be a big deal.  Most heteros (esp. in the 
> active duty now), will think it is a very big deal.  

How do "most" of them currently feel?  They're already showering with gays.
How will removing the ban change that?  Answer: it won't, and the argument
is a smokescreen because the bigotry that underlies it doesn't work as an
argument, either.

All these big tough fighting men who'll be so afraid of dropping soap in
the shower....

> This leads us right 
> back to a point I made about a week ago.  Nobody cares a lick about how 
> the heteros will feel about this.  We are not PC.  We do not matter.

Poor baby!!  And how much do YOU care about someone who's denied the
opportunity to serve the country they love?  Or don't THEY matter because
they're not hetero?

I certainly support all the counseling that heterosexuals (or anyone) needs
to get over their homophobia.  So I do care.  But it's time to end this ban,
so let's figure out how to do it with as little disruption as possible instead
of making things worse by fighting about it.

// Paul Johns
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:50:17 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Dec16.153124.16186@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted Krueger,
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>In article <1624@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
writes:
>>Well, how about that!  By an amazing coincidence, I happen to
>>deeply resent my tax dollars being used to to fund corrupt defense
>>contractors, the subversion of democracy, the destruction of old d
>>growth forests on public land, and the oil depletion allowance!

>Sorry, national defense is specifically included (as the most important ?) 
>as a duty for congress.  Public funding of art is not.

Interesting that you would be so broad minded as to see the billions wasted
on those abuses as being relevant to the national defense, but be inclined
to such a narrow view of art funding.

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".
From: bill@bcserv.wustl.edu (Eldridge (Bill))
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: "My Cabinet" by Clinton (was Re: Affirmative action is dead)
Date: 29 Dec 92 01:52:24 GMT
Organization: Washington University in Saint Louis, MO USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bcserv.wustl.edu

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>Anyone remember Clinton saying "My cabinet will more accurately reflect 
>the public?"

>I wonder how many of his cabinet members will represent the 57% who did 
>not vote for him.

My, are you back again?
-- 
William M. Eldridge			bill@bcserv.wustl.edu
Biochemistry Department Box 8231	(314) 362-3436
Washington Univ. School of Medicine	(314) 362-7183 (fax)
660 S. Euclid, St. Louis, MO 63110
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Ted.Schafer@bbs.rn.com (Ted Schafer)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 08:06:54 EST
Organization: Gator Communications - Feeds-R-Us 219-289-3745 
Subject: bush should be impeached,for the pardon of the good old boys!!!
Distribution: world
Reply-To: Ted.Schafer@bbs.rn.com (Ted Schafer)
X-Posting-Software: UniBoard 1.10b S/N 145921

The pardon is the biggest screw job done on the american public in
twenty years.We can only hope bush is the last republican president.
             happy new year to all
             Ted Schafer
p.s. If charactor matters so much,I think we picked the right guy two
     months ago.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:51:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.232628.27092@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:

[deleted stuff]
>my values....I would like for my child to bring up from day one
>to love all humanbeings......I agreed to the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Closed
>Minded should be able to send their children to school and not have them
>being taught values that conflict with the values they have in their
>home.  

Don't you think being taught to treat all fellow humanbeings should be
treated equal, is different than exploration of homosexual and hetrosexual
lifestyles/behviour's?  Being taught to treat the black child the same as
the white, the child with disfiguring scars the same the pretty child,
etc., that's not an issue.  Society already accepted this as a moral norm
for this country ("We hold these truths to be self evident;  That all men
are created equal.")

The question is at what age and under what circumstances should
homosexuality and hetrosexuality lifestyles/behaviours be discussed?

Pre-school?  I don't think so.  Before graduating High School?  If parents
allow attendance.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sexuality
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 2 Jan 93 17:41:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan1.142508.5901@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>
>    Cute analogy.  However, gays need protection, just as african-americans
>needed it awhile back.
>

Do they now?  It's funny but for all this talk of the supposed discrimination
of gays, I can't but help to remember another article in Newsweek I read
not so long ago.  The article was about a new mail order catalog aimed at 
gay consumers and couples and in it the gays that were starting this
venture cited a few stats that led them to believe their product filled
some need.  Among the numbers they mentioned were the "facts" that gay
couples had generally higher incomes than their het counterparts, had
larger percentage of their income that was considered disposable (absence
of children as a rule), had generally higher levels of education and 
substantially higher rates of employeement etc etc.

I'm really curious, since I don't as a rule see roving gangs of unemployed 
homeless homosexuals on my city's streets, in what form does this
societal oppression express itself.  As far as I can see, it's only 
the fact that you can't make people accept your behavior and that 
the more gays "come out" and the louder they yell the less people generally
think of them,  that really bugs them.

PSG	

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12771 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11182 alt.politics.clinton:19447 alt.politics.bush:15338 alt.politics.homosexuality:8786
From: triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 1 Jan 93 20:11:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: weber.ucsd.edu

In article <1993Jan01.090813.28515@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1hvjgsINNah5@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>Partially right; it was set up to not have a state church, but it 
>>was also largely based on what can be called 'Christian values'.
>>
>
>     Walter, describe these values and cite quotations from the
>founding fathers indicating that this country was founded on
>anything even remotely Christian.  I've seen one quote go
>past already that explictly states that the country was _not_
>founded on those Christian values (was it John Adams?  I think so.).
>Collect your evidence, then come back and prove your statement.
>
>				-Phil
a few points of interest:

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian
doctrine"--George Washington

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are twenty
gods or no gods.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg"
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature"
--Jefferson again

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by
the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of.  My own mind is
my own church"--Thomas Paine

and for good measure "The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is
not my religion.  I could never give assent to the long complicated
statements of Christian dogma"--Abe Lincoln

all quotes culled from "Salvation for Sale" by Gerard Thomas Straub
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 17:06:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec31.140107.15228@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>
>I do not maintain a file of everything I have read, however, do as I
>did and visit your local library and do some research. If I do come
>across them again I will post the sources.

    You are the one who claims that your "facts" are backed up by research.
It is your obligation to cite such research, not mine to discover that
there is none.
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Rush Courts the FAAAR Right
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:20:25 GMT

In article <BzMHzG.KvM@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>In article <YOUNG.92Dec21123342@ssdd475a.erim.org>, young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes...
: In article <BzIwzv.Msz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
:  
: >   Not to get into a religious debate, but people could interpret the ten
: >   commandments as good, common sense, irrespective of any religious
: >   affiliation, couldn't they?
:  
: No.  "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."  "Thou shalt [observe
: the Sabbath and keep it holy]."  (Not sure of the wording on this
: one.) How do you make these non-religious?  Or even
: non-denominational?
>
>Ok.  I thought about these after I posted.  You're right.
>
>But, what I said still holds for the rest, such as "you shall not kill",
>"you shall not steal", "you shall not commit adultery", etc.

	That's not comprehensive enough. A whole host of things are
not mentioned, like being rude and abusive and disrespectful to others.

>How about "The Eight Commandments"?

	Preferably with the rest of the Bible gone, since there are
violations of the nontheological favorites (do not commit murder or
theft) glorified in the rest of it. Consider the conquest of the
"Promised Land" where the Israelites murdered and stole on a truly
massive scale, and where this murder and theft was considered VERY
honorable.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:15:18 GMT

In article <C0B0Cu.Eu7@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>
>>"SLK>" is "kellmeyer steven l"
>>"LCF>" is "Lawrence C. Foard"
>
>>SLK>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>
>>LCF>I'm sitting 10 feet from a machine that can produce 3d images of your
>>LCF>internal organs, it was designed by secular reasoning.
>
>>SLK>And it was designed in a country founded upon a belief in God.  The 
>>SLK>country founded upon atheism and a belief in man no longer exists.
>
>>REALLY?  Since when?  
>
>>The USA was founded mainly by atheists, and laws were put in its
>>charters to keep it that way.  Since then, we've moved farther away
>>from religious influence, not closer.  Take a look at the number of
>>judgements in the last few decades restricting things like prayer in
>>schools, etc.
>
>Greg, I have no idea where they attempted to teach you history, but
>I don't think those NoDoze worked.  Not by *ANY* stretch of overblown
>historical imagination were the founders of our country atheists.  
>That's simply wrong.  The judgments given in the last few decades prove
>not one thing about the founding fathers of this country - who would
>undoubtedly be appalled at the incredible way their ideals were twisted.
>

Excuse me, but to my recallection Thomas Jefferson was an ATHEIST.



Ciao!
	John S. :^)
	teddybur@netcom.com
__

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12613 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11032 alt.politics.clinton:19335 alt.politics.bush:15192 alt.politics.homosexuality:8669
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 15:21:46 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
> >
> If you can think that homosexuality is wrong, and remain unbiased
> against homosexuals, then you are truly a rare human being. I don't know 
> of anyone capable of being totally objective about such things. 

Well, *total* objectivity is almost an oxymoron.  But most people 
I know think homosexuality is wrong, but also think people should 
be free to do what they want without being discriminated against. 
What exactly do *you* mean by 'unbiased' in practice? 
 
Walter
From: roderir@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (richard roderick)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Just my musing....
Summary: Obviously you agree
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:55:58 GMT
Organization: ECE Dept.,OSU,Corvallis
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobo.ece.orst.edu

In article <1992Dec22.085718.6333@desire.wright.edu> f0358@desire.wright.edu writes:

>		Rush Limbaugh is a MORON!!!!!!!

>Peace on earth and Goodwill to men (if that's not too liberal for y'all)

Obviously you agree with Rush because only a conservative facist pig
would say Goodwill to men instead of Goodwill to people.

Merry CHRISTmas everyone!!  :)
                        \/
Richard A. Roderick
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
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: 19 Dec 92 21:59:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <16DEC199223251060@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>In article <1gnoriINN4bl@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...
>
>|So should families where one parent is a crossdresser be shown? 
>|Or both are?  Does a distinction need to be made between 2-male families 
>|and households where there is a father and a male (non-gay relation) 
>|sharing the house (to share expenses) where they sleep in *different* 
>|rooms?  Do we need to show families where daddy and the family dog are 
>|very close?  Do we need to show families where mommy and daddy are 
>|swingers, and occasionally have someone else's mommy/daddy sleep over 
>|instead of the usual mommy/daddy?  How about when daddy and daddy are 
>|swingers, and swap daddies now and then?  I realize I'm going to an 
>|absurd length here, but do you see the point?  
>
>	Why do you feel it necessary to portray families as based on
>the specific sexual practises?  Isn't it sufficient simply to show families
>as based on gender differences (or similarities) alone?  In other words,
>showing a family with two male parents doesn't even bring into question
>the activities in the bedroom.  And I think that's where alternative
>family education in schools should end.

It does exactly bring into question the activities in the bedroom, because 
sexual preference is a direct correlation with same-sex parents.  Please, 
show me 3 same-sex couples who are heterosexual.

Can you say "touche?"

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:12485 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10905 alt.politics.clinton:19226 alt.politics.bush:15057 alt.politics.homosexuality:8552
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:57:29 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

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.

Incorrect, as well as irrelevant.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:06:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec31.144540.16605@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>I want to teach my children that all christians should be shot. Do I have 
>right?

You sure do...

>I want to teach my children that America is an evil place, and they should 
>strive to overthrow the government by any means necessary. Do I have the 
>right?

Yeppers sure do.  You have the right teach them anything you like including
this and more.  As long as no one acts on these belief and harms another who's
going to stop you?

>IMNSHO, harmfull to our comminty not to teach general tolerance of all
>people, to all people. I feel that EVERY school, public or private, should
>have to teach such things. No one has the right to keep his children
>from becoming tolerant, productive members of society.

And here we have the ultimate goal of the left on display.  The government
should tell us how to think, what to think and when to think, because us 
stoopid 'mericans can't get it right for ourselves.

Just keep pushing this forced "tolerance", where the only thing that's
tolerated is a far left political view.  See what it gets ya.  Tolerance,
what an absolute abuse and distortion of the meaning of a word.  Only in
this day and age could stifling debate, dismissing a range of views, 
opinions, beleifs and feelings, the mocking of deeply held religious 
convictions and the denial of parental rights in favor of state sanctioned
brainwashing and political indoctrination of children, be described as
tolerance. 

Having read this group, as well as alt.sex and others, for the last 5 years
I have come to the conclusion that as a group homosexuals are without 
question the most intolerant people when it comes to respecting the rights 
of others.  Force me to believe what you want, HA!  Don't bet on it!

PSG
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dsl24@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Just my musing....
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:19:43 GMT

In article <1h89ueINNki3@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> roderir@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (richard roderick) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.085718.6333@desire.wright.edu> f0358@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>>              Rush Limbaugh is a MORON!!!!!!!
>
>>Peace on earth and Goodwill to men (if that's not too liberal for y'all)
>
>Obviously you agree with Rush because only a conservative facist pig
>would say Goodwill to men instead of Goodwill to people.
>
>Merry CHRISTmas everyone!!  :)
>                        \/
>Richard A. Roderick

What is wrong with referring to mankind as "man" ?  I'm sure the intent
wasn't to wish goodwill to only males.  As for semantics, Webster
defines "man" as referring to mankind, and doesn't mention the
male species until his 3rd definition.

Doug Lassiter
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12051 alt.politics.clinton:18980
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 19 Dec 92 22:33:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec17.201956.3794@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.155115.15000@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted
>>Krueger, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>>>
>>>I disagree.  When gays are having sex on floats in a parade down the 
>>>middle of Main Street,  
>                          
>I think someone reads a little too much Penthouse Forum.
>
>Alan

Ok.  I can see that you lefties will not give up on making distastefull 
allegations about me until you have had your fun.

There was a Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco which had several floats and 
the like.  On one (or more) floats, one gay man did, in fact, give oral 
sex to another.  I am not sure if it was actually on Mail Strees, but it 
was on the course of the parade.

This was discussed on an episode of "Donahue."  The gay-rights activists 
answer was, "Not all gays are like that."

OK.  Now are you satisfied?

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
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality