HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ccohen+@pitt.edu (Caleb N Cohen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:09:23 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: ccohen@unixd2.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1992Dec14.180838.838@news2.cis.umn.edu> prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu
(Satya Prabhakar) writes:
> (John Switzer) writes:
>>(Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>>
>>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
>>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>>
>>I'll make you the same bet that I've made every other idiot who can ignore
>>reality - $100 that at the end of Clinton's 100 days, Rush will still be
>>on the TV and radio, with at least as many affiliates that he has now.
>

Hmmm... Rush just said on the radio show that his book sold more copies in
this past week than in any week since it has been introduced... doesn't seem
to me that he is fading....Hmmm

Caleb

begin 644 .signature.uu
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C/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/0H]

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Clark University
Date: 17 DEC 92 14:49:43 GMT

In a previous article, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) wrote:
>In article <1992Dec7.233224.16046@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu
> 
>How are they different?  To kill a new born child is unquestionably
>murder.*  What happened in the few hours of the birthing process the
>unborn child into a person?  

Before the birthing process the fetus is using and living inside a woman's 
body.  After birth it becomes an independent, legal person, no longer 
occupying a woman's body.  It's a significant difference.

>Where in the changes from conception to
>adulthood does the concepta become a person?  There is no bright line,
>no change we can point to that clearly marks this boundary, except
>conception.  

Why not birth?  Seems like a very "bright line" to me.

>The only firm footing I can find to separate the non-person
>(which you can kill) from the person (which you can not) is biological. 
>The zygote is biologically a human being.  So to answer your question, a
>zygote is the same as a born person in that they are both biologically
>human beings.

I agree that both are biologically human.  However, you are overlooking the 
woman involved.  If these fetuses were turning in to babies in an artificial 
womb I'd agree with your arguement.  If a fetus is using a woman's body 
against her will, there is a significant difference between that fetus and 
your typical born person.

>* Legally at least.  I note with alarm that it seems more and more
>people are questioning even that -- I see this an inevitable result of
>legal abortion

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?  How many is "more and more"?

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
In-reply-to: john@anasazi.com's message of Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:22:22 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec8.203109.22379@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
	<1992Dec11.193907.1831@m5.harvard.edu>
	<1992Dec12.062222.14183@anasazi.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 12 Dec 92 15:11:34

In article <1992Dec12.062222.14183@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>   Dave, my kind of people are already denied this "opportunity" - we are
>   too old. If age is a valid reason for discrimination, why not sexual
>   preference? I contend that I would be a better radio operator and
>   electronics tech than I was in the Navy 25 years ago! But, I'm not
>   allowed in. Could it be that the military NEEDS to discriminate in
>   order to operate effectively? Could it be that this same rationale
>   might apply to sexual preference? Can you deny it?

But were you persecuted for being old?  Were you hunted down and
dishonerably discharged because you were old?  Or are you using age as
a convenient point upon which to hoist your argument?

>   New slogan: Service for Fogies! Let us back into the military! It's
>   out right! Discrimination is wrong!

If you wanted in so badly, you never should have left in the first
place.

--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11603 alt.politics.clinton:18578 alt.politics.bush:14545 alt.politics.homosexuality:7972 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10083
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: What is a Lifestyle? (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 13:45 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rigel.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec10.155115.15000@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes...

|Oh!  Is that why they are forcing homosexuality down the throats of 
|children in public schools?  Now I understand.  I guess if Christianity 
|was a sexual orientation, then public school instruction in it would 
|be mandatory.

	So, do you really not understand the difference between one's
sexual orientation and one's lifestyle?


|I disagree.  When gays are having sex on floats in a parade down the 
|middle of Main Street, I believe that gays are attempting to force 
|acceptance down my throat (no pun intended).

	I have not decided if this constitutes forcing anything on you.
What are you doing at a Gay rights parade anyway?  But if it does, 
do you object to heterosexuals "forcing" their lifestyle and behaviours 
on Homosexuals when they do things like display affections in public?  

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__    

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11888 alt.politics.clinton:18849
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: 16 Dec 92 20:35:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec16.131014.5570@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.210221.28136@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted
>Krueger, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>
>>Which wholesale discrimination do I espouse?  I have never said that I 
>>wanted to keep anyone out of the military except in two cases. 1) Anyone 
>>who is not physically strong enough to perform essential tasks should 
>>not be allowed, and 2) people who are sexually attracted to
>foxholemates 
>>should not be allowed.
>
>Yes, your second case is =precisely= the wholesale discrimination that we
>are talking about.  It's only purpose is to accomodate those who are
>"uncomfortable" around them.
>
>I think this statement pretty well speaks for itself.  It implies so many
>flawed assumptions.  The assumption that members of the military cannot
>be expected to behave with the same degree of civility as those in the
>private sector.  The assumption that, just because someone =could= find a
>coworker sexually attractive, they =will=.  And the assumption that even
>when cases arise where they do, that they could not behave with the
>appropriate decorum.
>
>The bottom line is, the "problem" with gays in the military resides
>completely and entirely in the minds of those who oppose it.  It is,
>ultimately, their choice whether they are determined to remain entrenched
>in their ignorance or advance with the rest of us.  

Well, I think we have become convinced that those of the opposing position 
are dogmatic.  I guess that, since Slick Willie is about to be Prez, we 
will soon find out which point of view will turn out to be more correct. 
If you are correct, you will have my submission.  I trust that the 
converse is true.

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
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Gays in the Military... what nobody is talking about
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:44:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.183446.25587@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted
Krueger, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>>This and other studies have brought the scientific community into
>>substancial agreement on the issue.
>
>Which other studies?  What scientific community? And if you agree with
this, 
>how do you feel about the interpretation that the differences in size of
the 
>hypothalamus (which I am not convinced of) indicate that homosexuality,
at 
>least as measured by the size of the hypothalamus, is an abnormality?
>

I really wish I had time to digest all the medical information that is
available, but I have to rely on other sources to summarize.  One source
that I like is Dr. Dean Adell (sp?), who has a nationally syndicated
radio program.  He is rather outspoken on the subject and =does= provide
professional references.

Perhaps someone else here can provide names of some of the professional
societies that have concluded that homosexuality is not a disease.

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".
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 07:37:31 GMT

: |>  	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
: |> 	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
: |> 	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
: |> 	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
:


This country does not do enough basic research as it is. The space 
program, and the defense department have done a great deal of this. 
Their research has led to such things as the computers we are using. 
The first electronic computers were developed by the military. I
beleive they were using them to crack codes. 

Felix Gorney
From: daj20@amdahl.com (Daniel A Jatnieks)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military: How's the debate going?
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:50:45 GMT

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:

>The issue of gays in the military has gotten a lot of bandwidth on this
>forum.  I'd like to get some feedback on how effective this discussion has
>been.

>I'd like to open up this thread for the following people:

>1) Those who have been following the debate but have not yet formed a strong
>opinion one way or the other.  I'd like their opinions on the quality of the
>arguments presented by both sides.

	could use more objective discussion and less hot-headedness.


>2) Those whose attitudes have been changed in any way by the arguments
>presented in this forum.  How were they changed and why?

	i've come to believe, after reading many of the opinions back
	and forth, that the real issue is not simply "should gays be
	allowed in the military" - they already are in the military and
	will continue to be.  the question really is then, to me, "to
	what extent can the military accept openly gay members"?  Not
	accepting them will not make them go away, but accepting them
	raises an whole mess of new questions and issues.  i believe it
	is time for the military to confront and accept (at what level
	i don't know) gays in the military - not an easy task for many
	groups in the past (e.g. personal families, government), and
	especially difficult for a group such as the military in which
	it's nearly all same-sex members are called to depend on eachother
	for their very lives.  very different than accepting gays openly
	into the typical office workplace.  still, it's because it's such
	a difficult and painful task (acceptance is) that it must be 
	done.


>I respectfully ask those who =have= participated in the debate to limit
>their participation in this thread to eliciting more and clearer information
>from those in the above categories.

>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".



danj.
--
dan jatnieks.                      i'll take these opinions if no-one else will.
daj20@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com

Seinfeld, Star Trek TNG, The Simpsons - that's all I need, I don't need anyth...
From: daj20@amdahl.com (Daniel A Jatnieks)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:44:15 GMT

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:

>I find it ironic that as long as a symbol is Christian, it can't be allowed by
>the government.  Yet, the economy benefits- and hence the government through
>tax revenue- from the holiday season.  In fact, the media shows no shame in
>bombarding us with tales of desperate merchants, large and small, who hope upon
>hope for us to spend lots of money during this Christian holiday.  In other
>words, the overt government sentiment is, let's pretend this Christian celebration
>does not exist, while the covert sentiment is, please, please please, O Secular
>Spirit of the Season, let people act as though it does exist.
>	Dave


	you seem to be advocating government participation in a religious
	holiday (beyond recognizing it as a holiday).

	and your reasoning is that it makes economic sense?

	i assume then that you are willing to let the government get
	involved with other non-christian religions and their holiday's
	too?

	let me ask you - what feeling do you have for a government such
	as that of Iran, which is esentially run by the religious leaders?
	is it good or bad?  

	oh and you do mis-state the reason the government stays out of
	Christmas - it's not because it's a "Christian symbol", it's
	because it's a *religous* symbol.  the government plays no
	favorites in supporting or not-supporting religions, and that's
	the way it should be even if this country is predominately
	Chistian and even if this country was predominately Christian
	when the founding fathers created it.  People calling for
	greater religious involvment in government must be forgetting
	that even the white Chrisians who formed this country didn't
	do so ... and with good reason.


danj.
--
dan jatnieks.                      i'll take these opinions if no-one else will.
daj20@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com

Seinfeld, Star Trek TNG, The Simpsons - that's all I need, I don't need anyth...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: MurderPhobes, RapistPhobes, etc. (was: Re: antihomosex...)
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:33:48 PST

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.

After all, anyone who would say that they are against these
sort of actions is REALLY just secretely afraid that, deep
down inside, he/she/it actually wants to commit them too.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11842 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10380 alt.politics.clinton:18824 alt.politics.bush:14690 alt.politics.homosexuality:8126
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: 17 Dec 1992 23:44:36 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1gqcq1INNiho@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
|> > 	Well now, since I have not read the book, you'll have to tell me 
|> > what the "last part" shows.
|> 
|> Oh, I was under the impression from your response that you had been 
|> following the discussion about the book.  I have not read it, either; 
|> as it was described to me, the last part is (picture of one man under
|> the covers and the other turning off the light) "daddy and his roommate
|> go to sleep together".  

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.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11963 alt.politics.clinton:18911 alt.politics.bush:14770 alt.politics.homosexuality:8215 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10489
From: keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker)
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: 19 Dec 92 15:51:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Dec17.202942.21376@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>Keywords: 

>In article <1992Dec17.162102.22240@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>]
>]I don't know what ship you served on, but most of the people on my ship,
>]married and single lived off-base (or "on the beach" as we called it).
>Not while they were at sea!
>]
>]And even for those of us (including me) who had to live on board, the
>]enlisted men's head (aka the bathroom) had individual shower stalls.
>]Every ship I ever went on (a bunch) had individual shower stalls.
>]
>]Yes, the showers at bootcamp were "open" like in a gym's shower, but
>]you are only in boot camp for a short period of time compared to your
>]entire enlistment, and like some other poster said, homosexuals don't walk
>]around with some kind of sign on.

>That's nice, but my barracks that I lived in while in the Navy
>had no privacy when sleeping (8 men to a cube that had no door),
>and common showers with no privacy.


And were you ever attacked or assualted or harassed sexually?  No.  Then, 
gees, that shows that a good deal of gays just as you hets, can show 
restraint, and be more concerned with their jobs than their dicks!


>-- 
>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
> - - Comment too controversial for management - Deleted :-) -
> - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
-- 
;^) -Karin
keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
From: bcbrooks@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: New Group Proposal
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:22:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


>I would like to formally propose a new group, alt.conservative.forum, 
>a moderated group to discuss conservative values and assorted political
>goings-on from a distinctly right-wing standpoint.

>Rationale:  Let's face it:  the net is infested with liberals.


While I agree with your statement that "the net is infested with liberals," 
I do not agree with your solution.  I thought that alt.rush-limbaugh was a group
established to discuss topics -- which are not necessarily limited to politics -- 
but not necessarily from just a conservative view point.

I am a Conservative and tend to agree with Rush Limbaugh on many subjects.
I find the LIBERAL viewpoint hard to understand and wish they could explain it
to me.  In the same light, I wish to explain my CONSERVATIVE viewpoint to them.

Only through this discussion can we begin to understand the other.  Hopefully,
LIBERALS will see our point and cross over.

But to completely shut out the LIBERAL viewpoint from the net, would only
bolster their position that we -- CONSERVATIVES --  are wrong...

Let's just ask those LIBERALS out there who wish to have discussions on topics
to post away.  If we just get "giberish," then what's the harm.  They only prove
our point for us.

So, I challenge the LIBERAL/MODERATE/CONSERVATIVE crowd to only post
intelligent discussion.  Let's stop the name calling shall we.


Just my opinion.....

david schiffman
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:13:06 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec19.160235.27810@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker) writes:
]Your friends won't be the only people who thought they were gay or are
]homosexual leading heterosexual lives.  But are they being true to 
]themselves, to their spouses?  Will there be a divorce down the line
]when they realize they need to be true to themselves and who they are? Or
]will they just realize that living in the closet, living as a heterosexual
]is much easier than thinking about facing a world of people like Ted
]Krueger.. 

More likely they were bisexual but didn't realize their attraction to
the opposite sex as soon as they realized their attraction to the same
sex.

]Let's stop a moment and put in some definitions:
]homosexual: someone who is attracted to members of the same sex.
				     ^primarily or exclusively
>gay:  someone who accepts this, and who strives to be part of a culture.


-- 
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
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc