HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Gay Marriages (was Re: Your own words, of course != bigot)
XXXDate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 17:55:13 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76DC81142020614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 04 Jan 93 17:56:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.004804.21349@novell.com> Brendan B. Boerner,
bboerner@novell.com writes:
> In article <1992Dec31.135710.867@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> 
> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
> >I have heard an suggestion that might, in principle, satisfy both camps. 
> >Since marriage (at least the definition of marriage that excludes gays)
is a
> >religious institution, perhaps the solution is to say that one may not
grant
> >benefits, rights, or privledges based on marital (i.e. religious) status. 
> >This would open us up to the creation of a form of "contractual" (i.e.
> >legal) spousal relationship that would make one eligible for such things
as
> >employment benefits.  This way, one may be "married" in a religious
sense, a
> >legal sense, or both, at the individual's option.  After all, the whole
> >issue of samesex marriages arose because we made the mistake of using a
> >religious ceremony in a nonreligious context.
> 
> Nope, it wouldn't satisfy the camp opposed to leaving the gay community
> alone  we ALREADY have the ability to distinguish between a
> "religious" and a "legal" marriage.  For instance, you can get married
> by a JP which is legally binding and never get married in a religious
> ceremony.  On the flip side, I imagine you can have a religious
> ceremony but never be legally married (at the weddings I've been too,
> the couple signs something in front of the minister and a witness
> before the ceremony is over, presumably this is to create a legal
> marriage at the same time as the religious one).  However, even if a
> couple does get religiously married and not legally, then the common
> law of some states might kick in and they would be considered legally
> married.

The best argument for gay marriages is that such life partners are not
eligible for benefits that marriage partners get.  The best argument against
is that, since marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, to allow
marriages contrary to religious morality would be blasphemy.  
 
> In any case, I would think that those opposed to granting "special"
> rights to gays would still insist that legal marriage for gays is a
> "special" right.

You're right, of course.  The real root of this problem is that so many
people see equal treatment for gays as some kind of "special right" to which
they are not entitled.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | tFreedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you offa.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:13:34 GMT

jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> If you feel that your skills are good enough to tip the balance for 
>> you then by all means keep your long hair. In some ways it might be a 
>> psychological advantage in that it sort of projects the image that *you* 
>> think your skills are good enough that your hair doesn't matter. Maybe 
>> that's enough.

>     Which is exactly as I'd wish to be judged by an employer
>at an interview, by skills and abilities alone.

    Unfortunately skills and abilities are about the hardest thing to gauge 
in an interview, particularly if your first interview with the company is 
with someone from Personnel rather than Engineering (all too common, I'm 
afraid, especially in large companies). The poor stooge working in personnel 
probably doesn't know a compiler from a hole in the ground, and you can bet 
that person is going to form a first impression based on the things that 
were important when they hired in (and in personnel appearance is almost 
the only thing that matters; sorry about that).

    If you're lucky you'll end up like Rush (or me) and get a job in which 
your success can be based on just being yourself.

>  I'm confident in
>my abilities as a programmer, within the bounds of that which
>I've already learned and know, although I can admit that I've
>still got a lot to learn when it comes to programming, as well.

    Well, if you were just coming out of school with no real prior work 
experience then I'd say that you sound a little unrealistic, but I'm not 
sure what your background was in the armed services. If your college work 
has been anything like mine, then I wouldn't bet too heavily on the 
applicability of what you learned in classes to what you need to know in 
the business world.

>But then, is it possible for any programmer to truly know it
>all?  There may well be a small few, but I'm forced to think
>that it would be almost impossible.

    If any programmers really knew it all then they wouldn't be programmers, 
now would they? No way, they'd be national talk radio hosts with burgeoning
footholds in the late night TV market...

>     Well, hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to post some really
>GOOD news.  But keeping with proper net protocol, I'll stick it
>on alt.good.news...

    Best of luck!

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:14 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan5.174811.3015@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes...
| 
|I'm sorry you feel this way.  My point was not to discuss the existence/
|non-existence of God.  I know he exists, you seem to doubt it.  We'll one
|day learn the answer if I am right, and never learn the answer if I am wrong.

	Well, I don't know.  If you're wrong, that still doesn't mean
there's not G-d, or that there's no afterlife.  Zeus might be up there
ready to zap us all for being wrong.  Y-hw-h could be up there ready to
zap all the Christians, Jesus could be ready to judge the Jews and Moslems
and everyone else.  Who knows, Bill?

Gadson
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's Bigotry
Date: 5 Jan 1993 14:34:23 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Nathan Engle writes:

>    If you think that such activities are scarcely appropriate for a man of 
>the cloth then I might possibly agree with you, but I would note that he 
>appears to have had less influence at the Democratic convention than Pat 
>Robertson had at the Republican convention. Congressmen and lawyers are 
>certainly at or near the bottom of the list of people who command respect, 
>but televangelists are still hanging in there.

	Since Jackson is a US citizen, I guess he has as much right to
make his voice heard in the democratic process as anyone.  Or does one, by
virtue of his job, be it minister or welldigger, have more or less right
to participate in the process, whether by voting or speaking to a political
convention?  My question was not about appropriateness of Jackson's actions,
but about his current standing as a man of the cloth.  Not for me to defend
Robertson, but I understand he is a practicing minister, and therein draws
his income.  So, is Jackson a minister, or is "Reverend" an honorary title from
a previous role, much as retired judges are called "judge," or retired
colonels are called "colonel?"

	Dave

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13051 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11560 alt.politics.clinton:19632 alt.politics.bush:15557 alt.politics.homosexuality:8981
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:08:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Quake Public Access

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.  

Tom Paine was an open atheist and the rest of the founding fathers were
"deists".  That in practice (though not in theory) amounts to the same thing.
Anyway, this is a silly line of argument.  Even if you are 100% right and
all of the founding fathers were members of the Catholic Church (tm) in good
standing, that still doesn't imply that the MRI/CAT machine exists on the
basis of religious ideas.  I would say that it exists in spite of them.

>>You'd, of course, be using your own religious criteria, since you
>>place so little weight on "secular reasoning."

>Right now we're using _you're_ religious reasoning, only they call
>it "science".  Science is as dependent on faith as any other form of
>human thought.

That is nonsense.  Can you "prove" this?  On what grounds?

>For your information, no representative of the Catholic Church has ever  
>stated categorically that ANYONE is in Hell.  

I seem to remember a LOT of such claims about specific people being made 
prior to the reformation.  I don't know about since then, but I would
assume that the church has not renounced the idea of hell all together, has
it?

>Christians have the right to
>judge actions, not the right to judge people - only God can consign someone
>to Hell.  Anyone who attempts to arrogate God's prerogatives to himself or 
>herself is guilty of an offense against God, but how that offense is 
>judged, how God's infinite mercy combines with his infinite wisdom and
>infinite justice and renders up a verdict, is unknown to me and to
>everyone else. 

Perhaps it is only an infinitely wise mind which can understand how
justice and mercy (two diametrical opposites) can be expressed simultaneously
and in infinite quantity.  Perhaps yours is up to it.

--Brian
From: tareyno@nmws22.mnet.uswest.com (Toni A. Reynolds)
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Organization: U S WEST Communications
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:15:23 GMT

In article <7JAN199309294308@zeus.tamu.edu>, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
|> In article <1993Jan6.222856.27434@anasazi.com>, briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes...
|> | 
|> |But in either case, I think just as Assault and Battery laws prohibit
|> |physical attacks against another except in the most extraordinary
|> |circumstances (self-defense), and makes no distinction as to sex or
|> |sexuality of the victim or perpertrator, cannot we come up with
|> |anti-descrimination laws of equal universality?
|> 
|> 	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."
|> 
|> Any additions or suggestions?  Let me know.
|> 
|>      ____                _
|>     /    )               /          
|>    /    /               /       
|>   (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
|> __    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
|>  /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
|> (___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__    
|> 
|> 
This suggestion has been made by a journalist for the Rocky Mountain News
in Denver, it's called the "May amendment" I disagree because it stil doesn't address the issue of hate crimes. You hets don't seem to realize how real
a threat that is to us. If you can come up with something that says I can prosecute some jerk who beats me up because I'm queer I'll agree. Sure, I'm
supposed to be able to prosecute for assault now, but the reason hate crime
laws were enacted is because sometimes that doesn' work. It's also more than assault and battery most white heterosexuals have probably never had to worry
about being intimidated by the police, or had names screamed at them in public.

I also don't think this would have been an issue if any other minority
group would have been named other than gays. We are still the only group
in the USA that it's OK to bait, bash, or otherwise malign. And don't start in
on the lifestyle _choice_ routine. Who out there can honestly say they sat
down at whatever age it was for you and said "Oh, I'm attracted to the
opposite sex. I guess I'll become a heterosexual." Puhlease, we are what we
are and why can't we be allowed. I've recognized being a Lesbian over half my
life, all but a few months of it has been spent out and open to my family, my friends, and my workplace. I'm not crawling into some closet because some
close-minded bigots disapprove of me.

Toni Reynolds                     NEVER AGAIN
My opinions are my own            |||||||||||
OVERTURN 2!                        |||||||||
HATE IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE          |||||||
BOYCOTT COLORADO                     |||||
                                      ||| 
                                       | 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 20:46:50 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <dlhanson.27.726175240@nap.amoco.com>, dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
[stuff deleted]
|> 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!!!!!!

Jared "throwing out my Nostradamus books" Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
From: cpg@cs.utexas.edu (Carlos M. Puchol)
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
Subject: Fonts in non-openwin X servers
Date: 9 Jan 1993 22:19:47 -0600
Organization: Department of Computer Sciences, UT Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: trurl.cs.utexas.edu

I am sure this has to be a question with a simple answer for those
with some insight in the X and Openwin world. Please throw some light
in the problem:

For some reason not related to the case I have to display my
application in an HP machine once in a while. They recently
upgraded (suposedly) the X server. Now, when I try to display my
application in it, this is what I get:

XView warning: Cannot load font '-b&h-lucida-medium-r-*-*-*-120-*-*-*-*-*-*' (Font package)
XView warning: Cannot load font '-b&h-lucida-medium-r-normal-sans-*-120-*-*-*-*-*-*' (Font package)
XView error: Cannot open connection to window server: ar-rimal:0.0 (Server package)

ar-rimal is the HP machine.

These fonts used to be in the machine before, since it did not
give any problems. So I have two questions:

0) How to make XView (by means of .Xdefaults or xrdb or whatever) use some
	other font available in the server (listable with xlsfonts).

1) How to make the system load these fonts to the X server.

I sure would appreciate your help a lot!

-- Carlos
cpg@cs.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
From: downey@inmet.camb.inmet.com (Terry Downey)
Subject: Problem with TTY subwindows
Organization: Intermetrics Inc, Cambridge MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:22:48 GMT

I'm having a problem with TTY subwindows in an XView application which uses
a TTY subwindow to get keyboard input from the user, and also to display
the output of certain commands.  The problem occurs when the application is
invoked by our "global shell" which, among other things, re-directs stderr
to a common error log.  This re-directing causes any keyboard input from
the user to NOT be echoed, even though the commands are accepted, and the
output from commands is still written to the TTY subwindow.  Yet, when the
application is invoked outside the global shell, it works just fine.

Does anyone know what could be causing this problem?  At this point, I'd
welcome any advice, speculation, hunches, etc., that might point me in 
the right direction.  Thanks.

Terry
From: jacs@aiai.uucp (Julian Smart)
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
Subject: Re: Redundant repainting of XView canvas
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:14:52 GMT
Reply-To: jacs@aiai.uucp (Julian Smart)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1993Jan8.114558.2535@maclaurin.bioch.ox.ac.uk> liqun@bioch.ox.ac.uk (Liqun Wang) writes:
>
>I noticed that each time the frame which contains a canvas gets resized, the
>canvas repaint gets called twice at least. Is it supposed to a feature of XView
>or am I doing something wrong? Any enlightenment is greatly appreciated. 
>
>liqun

No enlightenment, I'm afraid, except to say that several other people
on the net including myself have noticed this but have been able to do
very little about it. The problem seems to be exacerbated if you have
the frame footers enabled.

Looks like a `feature' of XView!

Julian Smart
jacs@aiai.ed.ac.uk
From: kss8l@roxanne.bme.Virginia.EDU.noname (Kevin S. Spetz)
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
Subject: Re: Mem leaks in Xview?
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:01:12 GMT
Reply-To: kss8l@roxanne.bme.Virginia.EDU.noname
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article Dny@animal.er.bell.ca, alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney) writes:
>
>I seem to be seeing a 4k memory leak everytime i do a
>
>	xv_set( scroll_list, PANEL_LIST_STRING, row, string );
>

xv_set needs to be null terminated.
Try:
	xv_set( scroll_list, PANEL_LIST_STRING, row, string, NULL );

---
Kevin Spetz
kss8l@mtaac.bme.Virginia.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
From: bdenton@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (robert.a.denton)
Subject: Help! ttysw_output() and multiple TTY's,
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:42:49 GMT

Help.


I am trying to write an application that creates 2 frames, with
a TTY asssigned to each.

TTY1 to frame1 and TTY2 to frame2.

A function has the following calls:

		ttysw_output( TTY1, .....)
and		ttysw_output( TTY2, ....)

yet all the output goes to the TTY that was created last.


Anyone know why???


Thankx:


	Chris
	att!ihlpb!cds
From: halazar@media.mit.edu (Michael Halle)
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
Subject: Re: how to put resource to server db from XView?
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:57:38 GMT
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory



I'll take a shot at explaining why your programs don't do what you want.

When an application starts up, it reads the RESOURCE_MANAGER property
from the root window, and forms a Xrm database from the string.  That
is the "db" associated with the Display structure.  Adding another
resource to the database doesn't change the RESOURCE_MANAGER property;
it in effect changes your copy of the parsed string.  No other
application can see your change.

xrdb does the right thing (adds a resource specification to the
RESOURCE_MANAGER property), but you left out a ":" in your example:

system("echo \"OpenWindows.KeepTransientsAbove:\" \"true\"  | xrdb -merge");
                                              ^

However, olwm also only reads the RESOURCE_MANAGER property when it 
starts up (or restarts), so changing the property won't alter the
window manager's behavior.  You must do that before olwm starts up
(or restarts).  Not as easy as you'd like, I'm sure.

I don't have the answer on how to do what you want.

Good luck.

						Michael Halle
						MIT Media Lab
						halazar@media.mit.edu
From: gonzo@st-elsewhere.Eng.Sun.COM (James Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
Subject: Zombie Process
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:52:06 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: gonzo@st-elsewhere.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: st-elsewhere.eng.sun.com

Hi -

	I've got an xview application that was developed with DevGuide. I fire it
	up with a shell script. The problem is that the process doesn't die after
	I select the "Quit" menu option.

	Any ideas???

	The application has one window and 3 popup windows and *sometimes* doesn't
	hang when the popups aren't showed.

	Thanks for any advice.

- James Todd
From: dansmith@Autodesk.COM (Daniel Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
Subject: how to put resource to server db from XView?
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:22:41 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA


	For whatever reason, the olwm OW 3.1 changed the default
from "true" to "false" for this:

     KeepTransientsAbove (boolean)
          Specifies whether olwm should attempt to keep transient
          windows  above  their  owner  window.   Default  value:
          false.

	I want to assure that this is set to true when running my app.
One thing that I tried (and failed at) was:

	display = (Display *)xv_get(text_frame, XV_DISPLAY);
	XrmPutStringResource(&display->db, "OpenWindows.KeepTransientsAbove",
				 "true");

	This also fails:

    system("echo \"OpenWindows.KeepTransientsAbove\" \"true\"  | xrdb -merge");

	Interestingly, if I run xrdb -merge from outside (from an xterm),
it works...go figure.  I've taken to scanning the sources for xrdb to figure
out what to do.  Any ideas?  I'm trying to avoid making the user change
their ~/.Xdefaults.

				Daniel
-- 
 dansmith@autodesk.com       daniel@world.std.com       dansmith@well.sf.ca.us
        Daniel Smith, Autodesk, Sausalito, California, (415) 332-2344 x 2580
Xref: sparky alt.toolkits.xview:1173 comp.windows.open-look:4952