HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
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: 18 Dec 1992 21:13:53 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1gsp4fINNd7r@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > I think you need to do a bit better than "As it was described to me".
|> > 
|> > One of the problems about the current dispute in New York is that the
|> > way Church and other groups are describing the book is rather different
|> > to what the book actually is.
|> > 
|> > jon.
|> 
|> Jon, 
|> 
|> This was as it was described to me by someone who is homosexual, and not 
|> someone trying to distort the book.  I think you need to think before you 
|> knee-jerkingly assume things like that. 

I'm not assuming anything.   The New York Times had an article on Sunday
- you can easily look it up - in which it was claimed that many of the
things that church and other groups complain about in the famous book
simply are not in it.

Now I am waiting for you to produce quotes to substantiate your claims.

jon.
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush's "ultimate sacrifice"
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:25:33 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program

Rush spent about ten minutes of his opening monologue
explaining that he has made the "ultimate sacrifice" to
bring us today's show.

It seems that he was in Washington, D.C. last night, and
his return flight to New York was cancelled.  The poor
man had to stay in a "standard" ($150/night) hotel room,
because all of the suites were booked.  The room service
menu was far below his usual standards, so he had to go
to the hotel restaurant.  While in the restaurant, two
"commies" from California *deliberately* told anti-
conservative jokes just loudly enough that Rush, at
another table, could overhear -- and one of them later
had the nerve to ask for an autograph.  He had to use an
inferior brand of cologne, because he had neglected to
bring his own toiletries.  And his hair is flat today
because he had no blowdrier.

David
"You people don't know the hardships I've had to endure
just to get here to do this show." -- Rush Limbaugh
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:29:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <grendel.724112278@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <1992Dec9.195705.14181@brtph560.bnr.ca> chrisf@brtph316.bnr.ca (Chris Fulmer) writes:

>>One thing which is apparent is that there is a significant
>>amount of disagreement with regard to allowing homosexuals 
>>in the military.  One of the arguments against is "Unit 
>>Cohesiveness," which more-or-less implies that a homosexual
>>soldier is significantly more likely to get left on the
>>battlefield, shot by his fellow soldiers, etc....

>Not necessarily.  Homosexual soldiers would only be victimized by homophobic
>soldiers.  Those homophobic soldiers who victimize homosexual soldiers would
>be punished for it.

And likewise, heterosexual soldiers would only be victimized by heterophobic 
soldiers?  I think not.  But, as you have expressed, every act upon a homo 
will BE SEEN TO BE VIOLENCE AGAINST A HOMO.  If three guys are having a card 
game, and one cheats, he will probably get punched.  If the cheater is gay, 
he (or gay-rights activists) will scream "homophobia!"

>>It seems to me that because of that line of reasoning,
>>the military is not yet ready to be integrated.  I expect
>>that if you were to have full integration and immediately
>>have a war, then a significant number of the gays would be
>>killed in the above situations.  And, that's not something
>>that we want to risk.

>Who's "we"?  The army is a volunteer organization.  If a gay is in the army,
>it's because he or she wants to be.  They're willing to risk their lives to
>serve their country.

OONK! Not entirely correct!  Many gays want to enter the military to 
attempt to change society through judicial activism.

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:11906 alt.politics.clinton:18861 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10443 alt.politics.bush:14735
From: turnert@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Thom F Turner )
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: An Apology to Ted
Date: 18 Dec 92 09:19:53 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1992Dec16.174347.17899@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.042117.3695@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>>Ted is typical of Arizona...
>
>>The last state to pass a Martin Luther King day
>
>You left out, "The only state to pass a Martin Luther King Day Holiday by 
>popular vote."
>
>-- 
>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



Hmmm...
It is interesting that someone in our CONSERVATIVE physics department
has SOOOO much time to post to UseNet.  I guess since we students (especially
us Lesbian and Gay Students at the UA) helped topple the right-wing
department head this semester, there hasn't been much leadership or
focus in the department, so the faculty/staff spend their time posting
here.  Curious.
 
Thom Turner
University of Arizona Student 

--
LLLLLLLL LL  LL  LLLL  LL   LL  | Thom Turner, Co-Chair
   LL    LL  LL LL  LL LLL LLL  | Nat'l Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Student Caucus
   LL    LLLLLL LL  LL LL L LL  | 815 15th St. NW Suite 838/Washington,DC 20005
   LL    LL  LL  LLLL  LL   LL  | E-Mail: turnert@gas.uug.arizona.edu        
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 18:11:56 GMT

In article <449@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1g3b9fINNkpl@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jr Phillip S Buckland) writes:
>#wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>#
>##In article <294@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#
>##| Saline abortions are no longer done in the U.S.  (I guess people
>##| who get their information from NRLC pamphlets are unaware of
>##| things like newspapers and medical journals.)
>
>##What is the preferred method of child-killing these days?
>#
>#	The "preferred" late-term method is as follows:
>#
>#	Manipulate the fetus until it has crowned (that is, so the top of
>#	its head is partly through the cervix).  Insert a suction hose into
>#	the soft spot in the head and suction out the brain tissue.  Continue
>#	with either induced birth or a forceps delivery.
>
>Do you have a source for this?  
>
And if you manage to find one, kindly include gestational age of the
fetus...

>##| No skull is crushed in over 90% of all abortions.  
>#
>#	Debatable - while it is true that the protective tissues around
>#	the brain do not calcify until well after the 1st tri, the suction
>#	abortion performed in the 1st tri still has to essentially shred
>#	whatever material is present.  Once a head is distinguishable in
>#	the embryo, these protective tissues which later calcify into bone
>#	are present - so it would be valid to apply "skull" to this material
>#	early on, even though it be uncalcified.
>
>In your opinion, Buckland.  You might also claim that the fingers
>and toes are destroyed when a fertilized ovum is removed by
>menstrual extraction.  I find both claims equally ridiculous.
>
What he seems to be saying here is that since it could eventually
become a skull, it's a skull now. Sounds like just another variation
on the old pro-force "since it could become a baby, it's a baby now"
line.

>Have you recovered from childbirth yet?
>
>Susan

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:25:51 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec11.194647.1926@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
]Some questions: Could you have done anything to try to stop them?  
No.

If so, ]why didn't you?  
It wouldn't have worked. 
And afterward, did you do your best to see that the animals

]were court-martialed and locked up?  If not, why didn't you?

No, I didn't. I wanted to live out the remainder of boot camp.
Like I say, you had to be there.

Some questions: Have you ever been in military boot camp? Navy? Marine?
Do you understand the situations that occur there?

Another question: do your questions have anything to do
with gays in the military? If so, what?
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Clinton: "Read my lips: We will bring utopia, at no cost to you!" - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:57:24 GMT

In article <1gnlvvINN36l@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> > particularly care why some people prefer strawberry ice cream to
> > chocolate either, but in any case, it would be a singularly stupid
> > issue to base hiring, promotion, housing, or public accomodations on,
> 
> Agreed. 
> 
> > and it would be considered ludicrous to say school textbooks should
> > show only chocolate ice cream cones.  
> 
> Meaning....?  

I thought it was obvious, but this *is* the Net, so:

It is ludicrous to say school textbooks should show only the type of
family you prefer--in particular, only families which consist of one
male parent and one female parent each.

I trust that is crystal clear now.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Life Under Clinton/Gore '92:
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:07:51 GMT

In article <xvf2sz=@rpi.edu> mcgead@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Ineptus) writes:
>
>Do Rush Limbaugh fans REALLY want this bozo speaking for them?  The BorgBoy
>is everything that Limbaugh fans are always ACCUSED of being.

No, I'm just making fun of you die-hard anti-life liberal tree huggers
in the SAME fashion that you make fun of us. 

Seeing as that some of my predictions were taken directly from
documented news events, it doesn't seem that my predictions are that
far off.

>Darren McGeary -  mcgead@rpi.edu          Freedom of religion means freedom 
>PRO-CHOICE - THE AMERICAN WAY             FROM religion!!

Correction::
PRO-CHOICE - the COMMUNIST WAY. Read up on Russian history before you
	     say this isn't true. 

>Banish religion from government!          -These are my opinions. They just
>Atheists Unite!!                           happen to also be the right ones.

Da, Komrad.


=====================================================================
--Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0--
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11634 alt.politics.clinton:18609
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:44:00 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1992Dec12.213120.28125@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>]You just stood by and watched your bunkies break another one's back and
>]_I'm_ the asshole? 
>Yes, for jumping to such conclusions and calling me names based on them.
>Your false conclusions include:
>  -I knew they were going to break his back (I didn't - he fell out of the
>bunk while they were giving him a blanket party).
>  -I could have stopped them if I did know.

Still, you didn't even try...

Can I at least assume that you cooperated in the court martial which
followed, named names?

>]>It is a social experiment. It hasn't been done yet, has it? That makes
>]>it an experiment. And no, gays are NOT accepted as equal members
>]>of society - try being gay and adopting a kid.
>]
>]And this is the perfect time to try that experiment.  For people who have
>]the balls.  People who haven't probably needn't apply anyway.
>Oh, now you admit it is an experiment. Now, pray tell me why now is the
>perfect time to try that experiment? Do you have some capability to
>foretell the future and you can see that the military won't need unit
>cohesion for a while? Considering that just today the US military was
>involved in combat, I think you are a bit off. On the other hand, other
>comments of yours make it clear that you are a brick short of a load, so
>why should I be surprised?

Fool.

The likelihood that we're going to be fighting for our lives in the
near future is minimal.  Maybe we should start by integrating gays into
non-combat roles, work at making further progress later.

On the other hand, we could just go on mumbling with touching simplicity
that "They aint like us, nope nope, so we can't have them fight by our
sides.".

On the OTHER hand, people without the courage to fight beside people
who they aren't exactly comfortable with probably don't belong in the
military to negin with...

   don
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11761 alt.politics.clinton:18762 alt.politics.bush:14624 alt.politics.homosexuality:8044 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10263
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: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:42:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <00964F02.484AF800@vms.csd.mu.edu> 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>
>Is it written in stone somewhere that recruits HAVE to shower together?
>Showering seems to be the big problem with having gays in the military.
>Hasn't anyone thought of putting up curtains?  Most women's locker rooms
>have them.  This fear of the shower is IMHO given too much emphasis since
>many persons in the military live off base anyway.  I agree privacy is
>important and the issue should be dealt, but accommodating privacy can
>be done without banning gays.
>
>Flame away!

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.  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.

In addition, you imply that a large percentage of military live off base.  
You might be surprised to learn that the overwhelming, vast majority of 
single people in the military live in barracks (or in dorm situations on 
ships, etc.)

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.politics.clinton
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 10:01:49 GMT

In article <1glf73INNa02@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.093547.16763@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE>, k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
>|> In article <14DEC199213373618@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>|> >In article <645@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes...
>|> >| 
>|> >	There is a distinction between Gay identity and Gay behaviour.
>|> [...]
>|> >
>|> >	Gays are like Blacks in that there is something about them,
>|> >irrespective of thier behaviour, which they cannot seem to change.  In 
>|> >particular, Gays are sexually responsive to members of their own gender.
>|> >They cannot love members of the opposite gender in the same capacity.
>|> >This is a trait which they are either born with or acquire sometime before
>|> >they have an awareness of it.  
>|> >
>|> >	Blacks cannot, without much effort, change their skin colour,
>|> >and Gays cannot change their gender attraction.
>|> >
>|> On the contrary, I have known several "gay" people who rejected 
>|> homosexual practices and are now heterosexuals. Whether or not
>|> they still feel "attracted" to same gender relationships is a point
>|> of debate (they claim to me that they're not).
>
>Jeepers.   Talk about missing the point by a mile.
>
On the contrary, I have a very clear idea of what the original point was/is.
I was merely trying to point out that the analogy may not be totally
consistent. If anyone missed anything here I believe it was you.
 
*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
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...                             *
*******************************************************************************
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:46:48 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Peter Young writes:

>Seriously, though, folks, what about responding to the questions in my
>original response?  To what Secular Humanist symbols do you refer?
--

I don't know that I ever referred to Secular Humanist symbols, unless I
said something I didn't mean to say.  Since I'm not a follower of that
particular non-religious religion, I'm not aware of what particular symbols
it may use.  The only clue I get to the SH Gospel are when words like Science
are capitalized.

I might go farther and say that Secular Humanism is intolerant of religious
symbols by its nature.  More specifically, as longs as religious symbols are
not those of large religions, they are OK... no one complains about Totem Poles
on Interstate Highway rest areas, for example.  

If Secular Humanists were impartial wrt religious symbols, they wouldn't get bent
out of shape if 70% of the population wanted to use otherwise unused public,
government land (ie, land owned by those people themselves) now and then.  THe
SH would just think those religious people somewhat silly.  However, such tolerance
is seldom seen among a large portion of SHs, who instead seem to take personal
affront at what should be just silly rituals that are nevertheless, er, Human.

Dave
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11395 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9926
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: MurderPhobes, RapistPhobes, etc. (was: Re: antihomosex...)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:50:37 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Dec14.133529.4593@mic.ucla.edu>, rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec14.171835.22346@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
|> >In article <1992Dec12.163349.8934@mic.ucla.edu>, rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
|> >|> A solution to the rhetorical confusion here:
|> >|> 
|> >|> Since gay rights activists have chosen to define homophobes as
|> >|> anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a completely
|> >|> normal, moral, and admirable life-style (and if they
|> >|> deny this, they are LYING), then let us:
|> >|> 
|> >|> coin the term MurderPhobia to describe the viewpoint that murdering
|> >|> other people is wrong.
|> >|> 
|> >|> coin the term RapistPhobe to describe anyone who is so
|> >|> closed-minded as to deny rapists the right to live how they want.
|> >|> 
|> >|> coin the term TheftaPhobia to describe that unbelievably
|> >|> primitive attitude that stealing is wrong.
|> >
|> >All of these crimes hurt other people.  How does being homosexual
|> >hurt someone else?  Why should you disapprove of them?  Is it your
|> >job to judge them?
|> >
|> >Like shooting stupid fish in a barrel...
|> 
|> If that's the only response you can come up with, then just
|> replace Murderers, Rapists, and Thieves with Prostitutes,
|> (adult)Pornography advocates, and Drug Users.  It is just as easy to say
|> that these people don't hurt others, when in reality they do.

I never said these people don't hurt others.  Prostitutes spread 
VD and AIDS, Porno types degrade and use women, and Drug Users
can easily go out of control and kill someone.  You have just made
a perfect "Limbaugh".  You refuted an argument that I didn't make.
You're argument fails miserably because you haven't given any proof
how homosexuals hurt others.
 
|> The "we don't hurt others" line is the only line that gays have that
|> even comes close to being a substantial argument, but it quickly falls
|> apart.

How does it fall apart?  And get your foot out of your mouth 
before you answer.

How about, "we are humans and we have rights too."  That's pretty 
substantial.


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh