HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Political-Statement: Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice about Oregon, watch out for Ohio and Idaho
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:45:59 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>[Wonderful tirade by Drieux deleted]

>Is your [shift] key acting up or something?  You did a remarkably
>explosive job of failing to understand my point.  This is in part my
>fault for not being more clear, but I suggest you find yourself
>a sugar substitute and some decaf coffee tomorrow.

For those of you who haven't already figured it out....

drieux is a rather interesting net.figure.  Sie frequently posts
messages vaguely related to some heated discussion on a newsgroup,
that usually comes out as either irrelevant to the thread, nonsense,
or surreal, depending on your own interpretations.

I consider them surreal, myself.  ;)

Only the net.newbies or the net.clueless take drieux' postings (too)
seriously.

Oh, Edward?  Did you know that flaming a person because of hir
spelling, hir grammer, and/or hir use of the old standard of typing
completely in lowercase is bad form and another sign of a 
net.clueless person?

--
Michael D. Adams	      | Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	      | for themselves.  -- Abraham Lincoln
an692@anon.penet.fi	      | We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting
NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv  | it at home.  -- Edward R. Murrow		
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14835 alt.politics.clinton:20945 alt.politics.bush:16255 alt.politics.homosexuality:10035
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:04:13 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> I don't think most Christians follow all the morality/conduct laws in
> Leviticus.  Do the women use mikvehs each month? 

No, that's part of what makes them Christian and not Jewish...

> And if you'll notice, for the benefit of those who say the NT
> superseded the OT, I pointed out that rare meat (blood) is forbidden in
> the NT as well,

Yes, you pointed it out; but your interpretation that "abstain from 
blood" means no rare steaks makes about as much sense at the Jehovah's 
Witnesses saying it means no blood transfusions. 

> Even in the NT, it seems to be that people pick and
> choose not only what they will follow, but what they will insist others
> follow as well.

The "insist others follow as well" is the key, of course.  Which are 
the things you see Christians trying to insist on you following, 
and how is the Children of the Rainbow's stated goal of "Children 
must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects" of homosexual 
households different in spirit?  

> (Oh, my upbringing is a combination of Jewish and non-demominational
> Protestant with a fair amount of Pentecostal and Baptist on top of that

So you do understand why Christians do not follow the Mosaic Law, and 
therefore why arguments like "why don't you discriminate against people 
wearing polyester" are meaningless to a Christian?  

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Perfect Birth Control? (was Re: rights and responsibi)
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: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:27:01 GMT

In article <C1AAtw.KrA@eis.calstate.edu>, kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes...
>bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>> In article <cpma9u7@Unify.Com> tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman) writes:
>> 
>> >If you want to have sex, there is no 100% way to guarentee a pregnancy free
>> >romp in the hay. (except for not doing it)
>> >

Oh, I don't know...

I can think of two off the top of my head...

1.) Hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries.
2.) Castration.

Any more?

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.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:09:16 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Good discussion on another group

In article <1993Jan25.173931.445@dunix.drake.edu>, tel002@dunix.drake.edu (Tim
"Spock" Larson) says:

>Hey, we're having a good Rodney King discussion on alt.rock-n-roll.metal.
>metallica.  I'm telling the truth about what happened to all those young
>minds full of mush (following a joke that somehow connected RK and some
>Metallica lyrics...sorta humorous), and of course I'm getting flamed for
>defending a harmless little fuzzball (RL).  So come over and join
>the fun.

Why don't you just cross-post it?  Two good groups that come to mind are
alt.rodney-king and alt.rush-limbaugh.  Makes sense to me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Political-Statement: Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice about Oregon, watch out for Ohio and Idaho
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:22:13 GMT

markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>>My problem, you see, is that I have never seen Levitical writings used
>>as explicit reasons against *any* sort of behavior other than
>>homosexuality.

>You mean like witchcraft or adultery or murder or etc.  C'mon, of course
>it has been.  Besides, the NT also condemns homosexual behavior.

The New Testament as a whole, or just Peter and Paul (and their students)?
After all, Peter and Paul (or whoever wrote the letters of Peter and Paul)
were human, and are therefore fallible.

Paul also condemns divorce...unless you are in the same circumstance in
which he had to get a divorce (when he converted, his wife couldn't accept
it; so rather than continue a failing marriage, he divorced her).
Paul could also be considered as discouraging heterosexuality -- he advises
people to avoid engaging in *any* intimate [sexual] relations, and only
to get married if they can't resist their urges; but try and resist those
urges as much as possible.

--
Michael D. Adams	      | Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	      | for themselves.  -- Abraham Lincoln
an692@anon.penet.fi	      | We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting
NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv  | it at home.  -- Edward R. Murrow		
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14955 talk.abortion:57524
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:50:47 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
 <1993Jan19.193411.3636@advtech.uswest.com> <93020.184628KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1993Jan21.213829.24794@advtech.uswest.com> <93022.170546KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <#jl3d9a@rpi.edu>

In article <#jl3d9a@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) says:

>>No, that's what you're inferring.  Big difference.  What I'm -clearly-
>>saying is that it's not OK to side-step consequences of an act by taking
>>an innocent life.

>But it's ok to deal with the consequences of a rapist's act by taking
>an innocent life?

In my opinion, yes, since it wasn't any deliberate act of the woman to cause
the situation.  (Anyone who doesn't already know the forced kidney donation
analogy, ask me.  That's the same idea I base this opinion on.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 1/25/93
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:22:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.110120.26392@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>From the Summary (Mon 1/25/93):
>> o       Lloyd Bentsen, America's new Treasury Secretary, was on
>> one of the Sunday talk shows and confirmed that it's "bye-bye,
>> middle-class tax cut" and "hello, consumption taxes." Rush joked
>> last Friday about how Democrats will soon be taxing air, but the
>> latest Clinton economic plan comes really close to this absurdity
>> by taxing energy according to BTUs expended.
>> 
>> "You people don't even now the scope of what's ahead of you,"
>> Rush warns. He notes that EIB recently had a "quite candid"
>> discussion with "Lloyd Bentsen," and he plays a couple of sound
>> bites from that interview. On the middle-class tax cut, "Bentsen"
>> says "those fools in the middle class buy that tax cut line every
>> time." On the deficit, "Bentsen" said "$18 billion - why, that's
>> nothing."
>> 
>> Rush notes that only his show can produce this sort of candor in
>> America's elected officials.
>
>I think it is interesting compare/contrast Rush's (and many other 
>Conservatives) reaction to Bentsen's comments with Wall Street's.
>
>Rush (and others) comments have been quite negative (see above).
>
>Meanwhile both the Stock market and Bond martkets continue to rise.
>A story in the Wall Street Journal yesterday (Tues, Jan 27, 1993,
>page C1) tells how investers, after fearing last Sept that a Clinton
>presidency would result in exploding deficits, are now convinced 
>that Clinton is will reduce the deficit and that interest rates will 
>remain low.  Long term (30 year) interest rates continue to fall.
>Small stocks (small buisnesses that create most new jobs) have 
>especially been going up as Wall Street bets that those buisinesses
>will have increasing profits.
>
>I think the contrast is quite striking.  It may explain the public
>perception that Conservatives don't know how to handle the economy
>and that the country's economy will be better with Clinton in the
>White House.
>-- 

HA! Stock Market going up????

Why don't you check todays Wall Street numbers, 5 days does not a rally
make. 

I saw a report on 20/20 a while back dealing with Wall Street investment
Advisors, 20/20 wanted to find out if they were any good. As a comparison 
they put the entire listing of the exchange on dart board and threw darts
at ramdom. They picked their stocks based on what the darts hit, and guess
what, they did better than most of the "experts".
I'd trust those Wall Street "gurus" about as far as I can throw them.


------------------------------------------------
J.R. Ordon

"Don't blame me, I voted for Bush!"
From: birmingh@fnalo.fnal.gov (Phillip J. Birmingham)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Dole promotes big, intrusive government!
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:23:39 -0600
Organization: Deep Thirteen
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <1993Jan25.230220.27919@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, saari@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Jonathan Saari) writes:
> In article AfM01vm00UhW01RI18@andrew.cmu.edu, Anatole Wilson <aw3a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> I was watching C-SPAN this morning and saw Sen. Robert Dole talk to the
>> Senate about a new crime bill he wants to sponsor. One of the components
>> of this bill would be a *Federal Police Force*. 
>> 
>> Isn't this inviting yet another big, bureaucratic mess while adding yet
>> another security force to intrusively monitor and control the American
>> people? Aren't the FBI, CIA, NSA and IRS enough? 
> 
> Get your facts straight... name one instance of the CIA and NSA operating within 
> the borders of the USA (provide proof.. not opinion)

         Operations Shamrock and Minaret. These are documented in _The
    Puzzle Palace_, by James Bamford (secondary source.) That covers the
    NSA. The CIA, I know nothing about.

>>  Are Phil Donahue's (the Dittoheads Anti-christ) predictions of a
>> stormtrooper police force enacting federal policies coming true? Can
>> anybody give me a good argument as to why a federal police force is
>> desirable or necessary? 
> 
> It is not necessary... just relax the gun laws and let people take care of 
> themselves. What country has the highest per capita level of gun ownership?
> Answer: Isreal... Their whole country had fewer murders last year than Los
> Angeles had last weekend... GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!!! PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING
> TO SHOOT OTHER PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM!!!

         I agree, but I can understand why people living in Cabrini Green are
    willing to trade RKBA for a bullet-free environment.

-- 
 Phillip J. Birmingham   birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov  
 I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:40:31 GMT

>>>"Everybody knows it" is not an acceptable answer.
>>
>>But it seems that "It is the right thing to do" is an acceptable one.
>
>And how do you know that "it is the right thing to do"?
>
>Ah, i see.  "Everybody knows it".

Er...what exactly are we talking about here?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "A degree in Computer Science from Berkeley didn't much qualify me to uphold
  the banner of Chaos against the forces of Order."              - R. Zelazny
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15128 alt.politics.clinton:21203 alt.politics.bush:16356 alt.politics.homosexuality:10266
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:03:19 GMT
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Header-1:    Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice
X-Header-2:    about Oregon, watch out for Ohio, Idaho, Michigan, Maine, and
X-Header-3:    Florida.
X-Header-5:    Beware lunatic actuaries in the night!

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

>>The point that Evelyn is bringing up is that those people who
>>claim to adhere to the *literal* word of the Bible (i.e. most
>>of the Fundy Christian activists) are essentially hypocrites
>>unless they also avoid diapering their granddaughters, wearing
>>blended clothing, eating pork, shaving, etc.

>If you think that the scripture refered to is talking about diapering 
>your granddaughter, then you are foolish.  It is talking about having 
>sex with them.  Read the history.

So people are allowed to use little details such as this to some of
the "laws" in the OT (like 'uncovering your son's daughter...'), but
people must accept other of these "laws" (like the laws supposedly
against homosexuality) without using history to interpret these
passages?

*Of course* I know that the passage about 'uncovering your son's daughter...'
does not mean that diapering your grandaughter is a sin, just as I know
that homosexuality in and of itself is NOT a sin.

The point I am trying to make is that people who claim homosexuality
is a sin, is wrong, is immoral, etc. simply because "it says so in the
Bible, and that's good enough for me" have a hypocritical view unless 
they feel that other actions or traits are also sinful, wrong, immoral,
etc. based upon the *letter* and only the *letter* of the Biblical "law."

--
Michael D. Adams	| Since when do you have to agree with people to defend
University of Illinois  | them from injustice?	-- Lillian Hellman
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	| Religion has done love a great service by making it a
Standard Disclaimers    | sin.			-- Anatole France
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Political-Statement: Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice about Oregon, watch out for Ohio and Idaho
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:39:00 GMT

gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>This is a typical example of the circularity we so often see in such
>arguments, in fact.  How do we know the prohibition belongs to the
>"moral" rather than the "ceremonial" law?  Why, because we *already
>know* that homosexuality is immoral.  

Mind if I reword that?

"Why, because we *already know* that some people believe that homosexuality
 is immoral."

Sorry...that last sentence hit me funny....

--
Michael D. Adams	      | Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	      | for themselves.  -- Abraham Lincoln
an692@anon.penet.fi	      | We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting
NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv  | it at home.  -- Edward R. Murrow		
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:30:20 GMT

In article <1k79i6INNn2a@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> cscdc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Dan Carpenter) writes:


>
>
>It is said that Homosexuality is an "Alternate Life Style"; Fine, let me
>be with my "Traditional Life Style".   I'm not trying to *force* my TL

You aren't?

1.  I pay taxes to send your TLS children to school
2.  I pay taxes to feed 1 out of 5 of the TLS children who go
    to bed hungry
3.  I pay taxes to house single mothers and their children
4.  I pay higher premiumns on my insurance at work so you can
    put your wife and family on the insurance plan.
5.  I pay higher premiums on my health insurance because I
    have to help you pay for the child you cannot afford to
    give birth to.
6.  I have to pay higher taxes to pay police to protect my
    neighborhood (a losing proposition) because your skin-head
    and Gang children are shooting up our streets.
7.  I am pay more money as a tax payer to help you to pay for 
    day care, more and more.
8.  I am paying taxes to help pay to the courts where your
    people continually clog up with your petty divorces.
9.  I am paying the police to rid my neighborhood of prostitutes


The list could go on and on about what your lifestyle is costing  me!

He didn't even have balls to sign it.....
tsk, tsk.

Bil Snodgrass III
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: drakon@shell.portal.com (Harry Benjamin Gibson)
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: Portal Communications Company
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:42:58 GMT

The thing that bothers me about this issue is whether or not you can make too
much out of murder. Murder is murder, one of the worse crimes that you can     
commit against another human being. By classifying a Murder as a Hate crime,
you are saying that the Murderer is a bigot, an irrational and dangerous
person who is a clear and present hazard to society at large.

Now the Supreme Court says that a hate crime law is wrong because, as I 
understand it, while you can prosecute an action, you can't prosecute a  
motivation for a crime. Murder is Murder, why the person did it is irrelavent
in the eyes of the laws. We can't make some motivations worse than others
because then some motivations become less worse. Then we would have to judge
a crime by its motives while the body is just as dead.

For now, Murder is Murder. While it might be okay in some circles to kill a 
"fag" simply because he is a "fag". As it stands, it is still Murder. While 
we may consider some peoples beliefs and ideas repugnant, vile, and in 
complete opposition to what this country(the USA, sorry to our readers over
seas) is about or the principles it is supposedly founded on. But to attack 
those ideas instead of the crime corrupts those principles just as bad.

Hate crime laws are a trap. Though well meaning, a trap none theless. Those
people who propose these laws are trying to make a statment about what this 
country is about. They are just going about it while the simplest and most
direct fashion, they are going about it the wrong way.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:06:00 GMT

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

]In article <Treble-190193120015@asc438.asc.slb.com> Treble@asc.slb.com (John Treble) writes:
]>In article <C13wFz.1nz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D.
]>Adams) wrote:

]This is interesting...You mean that if gay-rights groups have their way, 
]and get homosexuality recognized as a valid minority, qualified for 
]Afirmative Action, all I have to do (as a white-male-of-european-heritage) 
]is to CLAIM to be gay and I am in line for set-aside jobs or can get 
]extra points on my employment application?

]How would anyone at my prospective place of employment know if I were 
]gay or not?

Well, it goes like this...
  First gays get Affirmative Action
  Then a lot of hets abuse it
  So the government responds with the sex police... in order to get rid
    of the abuse, they require people to have sex once with a member of the 
    same sex with the sex police watching
  Some hets do this anyway.
  As a result, sting operations are set up.... those claiming to be gay
    are enticed by undercover agents of the opposite sex. If they show 
    sexual interest, they lose their privileges.
  But then, the bisexuals raise holy hell so this tactic is thrown out
  Finally, the issue is solved with sex quotas: one must have sex with
    a certain number of people of the appropriate sex(es) a certain number
    of times per month (with witnesses) in order to get the privileges.
  But then the celibate gays get upset... they don't want to have sex
    with anyone! They point out that sexual preference is the not the
    same as behavior, and that it is the sexual preference that is
    protected.
   

:-) :-) :-) (only half in smiles.... this shows the idiocy of creating
preference-based governmentally recognized groups)
-- 
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