HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Ear implants and the deaf community
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  world
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:56:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.204928.18105@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes...
>This has been bothering me for a while and I just now am getting
>around to posting about it.  I am having a really hard time with
>the so-called deaf community's criticism of parents who choose to
>have their children implanted with hearing implants. 

Yes.  This mystifies me, too.  Of course, I suppose we would have to
be deaf in order to understand the reasoning, but I really don't think
so.


>I have 
>watched shows discussing the topic and I can't understand their 
>criticism.  The only thing that I can figure is that they are 
>buying into the same philosophy that says that they don't have a
>problem, they're just different.  I think this type of reasoning
>stands in the way of finding ways to remove this impairment.  Just
>another example of how we are no longer allowed to call a spade a 
>spade.  The deaf community wants to act like there's nothing wrong
>with them.  They are deaf.  They can't hear.  They have no sound
>responses.  I am not trying to dimish the disability but I think
>that their criticism of people who are using technology to overcome
>this limitation to better interact in society is wrong.

I have a paralyzed foot and ankle, requiring the use of a brace, and
I will soon have an artificial leg instead.  

But, I certainly don't disapprove of trying to give amputees artificial
limbs, so that they can do more than they can without them.

I feel the above analogy holds for deafness, or for any other disability
(oops, how un-pc.  I meant "physical challenge") :-)

>PS.  I posted this to get away from discussing homosexual's and the're
>problems.  Let's find some new topics. 

Amen!

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12886 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11369 alt.politics.clinton:19522 alt.politics.bush:15424 alt.politics.homosexuality:8865
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: 4 Jan 1993 06:12:04 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com


Phil, 

(I'm typing this from home, pardon the ugly editor job...:-) 

Re: sex between people married to someone else, if their marriage 
didn't preclude such a thing....
If the spouses knew and consented, it was done with respect towards 
all involved, responsibly (ie, birth control) then I would not endevor 
to make an argument against the morality of it, without referring to 
my religious beliefs.   (hows that for a semi-answer?)  In other 
words, I find it quite questionable morally (I'd find the whole 
situation that would lead to such a position questionable) but that 
is only because of my religion.   

Re: Sex being more private than our golf score...
I don't golf either, does minigolf count? ;-0  Some people might 
refer to the physical (ugh, I can't come close to putting this 
into adequate words)...but I don't see anything wrong with 
nudity.  But I do see it as one of the most intense, personal 
things you can do with someone else.  On quite a different scale 
than golfing with them...

Re: Robbery being worse than rape:
Either my writing is worse than I thought, or you got what I was 
saying backwards.  If our sex lives were as 'unprivate' as our 
golf scores, one wouldn't expect the reaction to rape to be so 
much worse than the reaction to robbery.  But it is; the only 
thing that is really comperable that comes to mind is murdur; rape 
is one of the worst crimes imaginable.  I know, someone's thinking 
"rape is an act of violence, not sex".  Try comparing a beating 
to a rape...

Anyways, hope that at least clears up what I meant by the 'rape' 
thing, and the morality thing.  I'd try to do a better job on 
the 'private' part, but dialing from home is a drag...

Walter


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (jesse fuchs)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:27:15 GMT

Gregory O. Harp (harp@netcom.com) wrote:
> jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (jesse fuchs) writes:
> 
> >	BTW, ever see a "Kill a Queer For Christ" bumper sticker? They're
> >very popular down in the South...my ex-girlfriend, who's from Alabama, got me
> >one as a gag gift for my birthday (Along with a tape called "Rappin' for 
> >Jesus" and a copy of "Final Exit" - we're talking about someone who really 
> >thinks on my wavelength here.)
> 
> I just wanted to point out that, while I spend a lot of time driving
> around Dallas, Texas and I have traveled a great deal the surrouding
> states, I have never seen one of these stickers.  I've never seen one
> in a novelty store, either.  To describe them as "very popular" is
> just plain incorrect.
> 
> Maybe I just haven't had enough coffee yet today, but I'm getting
> rather tired of the slams that the Southern U.S. constantly receives
> from others.  If these slams were targetted at an ethnic group they
> would be denounced as bigotted.  But Southerners are prejudiced,
> homophobic hicks who marry their siblings when it comes to
> joke-writing time.  Oh, we're supposedly Fundamentalist Christians,
> too.
	Sorry - didn't mean to slam the South. Personally, I quite like the 
South, and was basing my statement on the facts that A. She told me they
were popular (maybe it's just her area,) and B. That she was able to purchase
such a thing in the first place. No offense intended.
> -- 
> -----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
>   "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
>   Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
>   you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
>   And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure

--

"Where imagination is sucked out of children by a cathode ray nipple
 T.V. is the only wet nurse that would create a cripple
 On television, the drug of a nation
 Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation."
				-Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: BIRTH/CONTRACEPTION
Date: 4 Jan 93 10:17:00 GMT
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

-> I'll say it again.  So what?  A sperm donor is "a man somewhere in
-> the process" but no sperm donor can EVER be held liable for child
-> support. The only functional difference between one and the other is
-> whether or not the woman knows the guy's name.
-> You are clearly wrong.  No man is part of the birth process.  No man
-> is responsible for birth, according to secular reasoning.  Only women
-> can be responsible for birth since only women allow birth to occur,
-> and it is only at birth that a human being exists, according to the
-> same secular reasoning.
----------------------------------

Um, actually, sperm donors have been able to assert parental rights,
and have been successfully sued for knowingly donating defective
semen.

Only women allow birth to occur? Wow. I didn't know we could terminate
a pregnancy by clicking our heels together three times and shouting
"I don't want a baby!" Or are you saying that only women run OR
blockades, pass laws forbidding abortion, or insist that women bring
children to term? Is abortion free to all in YOUR state? Isn't in mind.
/s/mine/mind
                                          
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:27:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.143318.5823@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>In article <B74VwB1w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>>entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one) writes:
>>
>>> In article <C0Ax5F.9K6@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer
>>> >howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>>> >
>>> >>Because not everyone gives a damn about religion.  The majority of the
>>> >>world population isn't Christian.  (Although Catholicism is the
>>> >>largest single religion).
>
>Sorry but Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity.  It isn't a seperate
>religion.....
>

Let me explain simple math to you.  If I have one cantelope and 150
assortes apples, kiwi fruits, strawberries, pomegranates, bananas and
oranges, the cantelope is the largest single fruit, even though it's
not the majority of the fruit.  Catholics, like cantelopes, make up
the largest single entity, while the rest of the fruits make up the
greater part of the whole.

-Howard

-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard "Pasty-faced" Berkey                       	   howard@netcom.com
		    I just don't want to know, anymore.
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:45:51 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1993Jan8.111923.1101@calmasd.prime.com> jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:
]> 20 and 40 years ago, before widespread public sex ed, teenage sex rates,
]> illegitimate pregnancies, VD were at a certain level.  Today, after a 
]> good amount of exposure to sex ed, these rates are much, much higher.
]
]I've read that rates as a percentage of population for teen
]pregnancies are pretty much the same.  
Even if this is so, 40 years ago the teens had few birth control
measures, whereas now they have the pill, so if the pregnancy numbers
are the same, then the rate of screwing is way up!
]
]Well the "sexual revolution" also occurred in the last 25 years.  I
]would imagine that more sex lead to higher rates.  I'd also argue that
]useful sex ed for preventing STD's and pregnancy has been around for
]less than 10 years. 
I had sex ed in 1963 that was quite explicit in that regard. Again,
when I was in the Navy, we were specifically educated in avoiding STD's.
That was in 1966 and 1967.

]Your final comment is one that makes the rest of your argument totally
]pointless.  The only protection against AIDS is education.  Part of
]AIDS education has to include sex education.  

What a bunch of nonsense. The protection against AIDS is 
abstinence, sex with noninfected people (generally achieved by a low
level of promiscuity) or the use of a barrier. AIDS doesn't care
how well educated you are.
]
]The reason that the number of AIDS cases continues to increase is lack
]of education about how the virus is spread.  The federal government
](read Reagan) had decided that AIDS was a "gay disease" and refused to
]enact a national education program until the late 80's.  The current
]administration has also refused to inact the recommendations of its
]own AIDS commission.

This is utter hogwash. Today everyone in america who doesn't live
in a cave without TV knows how AIDS is spread and that condoms reduce
the risk. Even so, studies show that there is still a high rate of
unprotected sex - even among promiscuous young homosexuals.

What is needed is a change in attitudes. Unfortunately it is hard to
convince adolescents that they are mortal!

]Do you not believe that HIV would be spreading even faster had no
]attempt at education had occurred?

I think it would be spreading faster in the gay community. I don't think
education has had any effect in the het community (where the spread
is quite low anyway).


-- 
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
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
XXXDate: Thu, 7 Jan 93 01:00:36 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A77220441B020614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 08 Jan 93 01:01:18 GMT

In article <7JAN199309294308@zeus.tamu.edu> , rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>	Certainly.  Why not say something like: "No person shall
>	be deprived of employment, housing, or economic service
>	simply due to his or her actual or perceived sexual ori
>	entation  regardless of what that orientation may be."

I +LIKE+ it!!!  It's clear, brief, and it applies to everybody, so it
doesn't create any groups to whom "special rights" can be assigned (as many
rather paranoid people fear).

In other words... it doesn't have a prayer.

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,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:46:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.075724.27802@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.234500.21163@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>
>>Tell that to a smoker.  Clearly this is a lifestyle choice, and yet
>>non-smokers have persecuted them out of most public places.  Why?  Because
>>non-smokers find smoking offensive, smelly, and possibly dangerous to their
>>health.
>
>Yes.  I object violently to people smoking in such a fashion so as to force
>me to partake of their habit.  But:
>
>1) I don't mind if you do it in your home
>2) I don't mind if you exhibit "smokers behavior" in public
>3) I wouldn't mind you smoking in public if I had to watch you doing it BUT
>	as long as you keep your smoke off of my body.
>
>Using your analogy for homosexuals;
>
>1) I don't mind what they do in their homes
>2) I don't mind them exhibiting "gay traits" in public
>3) I wouldn't mind them kissing, etc., in public, as long as they don't
>	grab my tushy.
>
>(My rule of thumb is;  if I wouldn't mind seeing a male/female couple doing 
>this in public, why should I care if two females or two males do it?)

Truly a most tolerant attitude.  And while some will decry "tolerant"
attitudes, they clearly leave both sides in a live and let live proposition,
due to the lack of DISTINCTION between the sides.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:18:18 GMT

    I just wanted to note here that the main reason I'm responding to 
this article is so that I could chop about a half dozen newsgroups out of 
the NNTP header. It looks like we're in the midst of another plague of 
cross-posting, so anything anybody can do to reduce the traffic is much 
appreciated.

jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
>|> Mt 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within
>|> ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

>WOW!!   The bible predicts Robertson, Buchanon, Bush, Quayle, 
>Reagan and Rush Limbaugh in a single stroke.   It must be 
>right!!!!!!

    Actually I thought that passage described me pretty well. I've had a 
couple of really nice compliments in this group in the past month or so 
(for which I'm grateful), but I hope that people realize that although 
I'm a fairly soft-spoken scoundrel, deep in my heart I'm a scoundrel all 
the same. Don't let the slick manners fool you.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:39:27 GMT

In article <1isr7gINNc55@male.EBay.Sun.COM> birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>Loren I. Petrich Writes:

	[Did Ted Krueger Do Any Systematic Research?]

>Get real Loren this is the NET. Expecting a biliography with each
>post is not only absurd but would prove incredibly boring.

	What an excuse.

	[Anecdote about one's daughter being taught about anal sex...]

>With 2 decades of Sex Education in the Public Systems what are the results?

	Have you spied on any sex-education classes? There is plenty
of anecdotal evidence of total failure in many places.

>1) STD's have reached epidemic levels.

	STD's have been around for a heck of a long time. Several
STD's are curable if caught early, and I am very annoyed that
treatment is not available with the level of moralism typically
associated with (say) car accidents. I've never heard of anyone
treating a car-accident victim as anything but a victim, even if they
had been driving drunk at the time. Nobody says: "That accident was a
punishment for their sins", as with STD's.

>2) Teen pregnancies have continued to increase.

	I agree that that is a deplorable state of affairs, but
European teens manage a similar rate of sexual activity without such a
great teenage-pregnancy rate. Are the Europeans smarter than we are
about sex?

>3) A Million + Abortions every year.

	Then push to make birth control _more_ available. And not act
like it will keep sin from being punished. Nobody tries to get rid of
seat belts on the ground that they keep sin from being punished in
accidents.

>4) AIDS.

	Gay men having unprotected sex with _lots_ of partners and
unchecked blood banks and unsanitary conditions.

>5) Single mothers now have the distinction of being the largest block
>   of families living under the poverty line.

	You have NOT rigorously demonstrated Cause and Effect. And
please don't whine "I don't have to be rigorous about it. If I wish to
scapegoat our public schools' sex education, I'd like to do so without
-- 
/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: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
In-reply-to: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu's message of Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:27:01 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec30.185545.26789@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
	<C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1993Jan2.235727.5838@netcom.com>
	<C0Ax5F.9K6@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:56:40

In article <C0Ax5F.9K6@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>   [Interesting and likely correct assessment of the debt science
>    owes to religion deleted for brevity.]

>   Certainly, many deaths have been done in the name of religion.  I will 
>   merely point out that more people have died in "secular" wars than in
>   any combination of religious wars you care to name.  If you wish to 
>   compare infinities of violence, "secularity" will not come out the better.
>   I would furthermore argue that this violence is much harder to justify
>   and continue using Christianity as the foundation than it is using
>   secular reasoning.  Genocide is much simpler to reason away to your 
>   fellow man than it is to the unwinking eye of God, as Hitler, Stalin,
>   Hussein, and Pol Pot have already shown.

I missed that.  When did God give us the messages about Hitler,
Stalin, Hussein, and Pol Pot?  I must have been asleep.  Arguably the
most momentous occurance since Adam and Eve walked with God in the
Garden.  And I missed it.  Damn.  Oops!  I mean, "please look upon me
kindly with your unwinking eye."  Did He say anything new about
whether Jesus really was the Christ?

Oh, well.  I guess I'm just not among the chosen.

--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13508 alt.politics.clinton:19982 alt.politics.bush:15767 alt.politics.homosexuality:9275 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12096
From: woodard@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard)
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: 6 Jan 93 02:55:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of South Florida, Department of Computer Science and Engineering


Gee, if _that_ kind of sodomy is illegal, then how is it we've got any
military people LEFT?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality