HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Blacks on TV (was Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:49:19 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1993Jan26.025815.8046@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	Or perhaps the whole idea is absurd.  Who cares is cosby is 
>	a hypocrite?  Hell, anyone who didn't figure that out when he
>	started complaining about the media portrayal of blacks on
>	television (meanwhile, he just finished up the last season on

Well, I think he had a point.  Give me one example of a positive black person
on TV, other than Tibbs on In The Heat Of The Night.  Most blacks on TV are
portrayed as idiots, dumb, worthless, etc.  Look at In Living Color, or any
of the other dumb Fox programming.  Look at the major networks.  We used to
have an intelligent investigator on Matlock, but he's now gone.  I usually
watch intelligent programming, like Rush ;-), so I'm not up on all of it,
maybe someone can give me some good role models for blacks on TV.
 

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14928 alt.politics.clinton:21047 alt.politics.bush:16300 alt.politics.homosexuality:10139
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
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 23:08 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <C1A36J.A0L@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes...

|Lev 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an
|abomination.
| 
|Lev 19:27: You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the
|edges of your beard.
| 
|How are these two passages distinguished that makes one worth
|pursuing, but not the other?  Furthermore, where in the Old Testament
|does it define this taxonomy?

	It is on the authority of St Paul that some Christians believe
that some OT prohibitions are still in effect, while others are not.

	It is interesting to note the ambiguity in these passages.
Jews believe that as long as a man has never allowed a beard to grow in the 
first place, it's okay to shave the stubble since it doesn't comprise
"corners of a beard". 
	The meaning of the passage depends on the person reading it.  
Likewise, the meaning of "lying with a man as with woman" also depends 
on the reader.  A Gay man doesn't lie with a woman carnally.  Therefore,
for Gay men, Leviticus is a prohibition against sleeping with a man under 
pretense (which is how he would sleep with a woman if he tried to have sex 
with her).  There is much room for differing readings, and it's all up 
to the individual.  Meaning is subjective.  G-d is subjective.

Gadson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1993Jan22.050832.7757@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:49:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.050832.7757@cbnewsj.cb.att.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?  Do they refrain from
   intercourse for a full week after the woman's period?  Do they follow
   all sorts of other laws which are considered morality laws?  (Do they
   even realize these are considered morality laws?)

no, how is a cultural abberation of the time the bible was written
have anything to do with morality? (I realize I'll get plenty of
disagreement from fundamentalists, just playing devil's advocate)

   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, and in the same verse that many people quote about
   fornication.  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.

I think a lot of women (and men, including me) would cringe upon
reading Timothy.

[rest deleted]
--


Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15389 alt.sex:43432
From: cscdc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Dan Carpenter)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 27 Jan 1993 18:07:01 -0600
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

In article <1993Jan26.151451.14067@bsu-ucs> 00mlschmalz@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>In article <john.727819560@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>
>> :-) :-) :-) (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)
>
>There is a de facto recognition of a sub group, but the point of all 
>of this is to eliminate the artificial separation that the ignorant 
>and the fearful create in the workplace, et al.  There is more recognition 
>and separation in making rules whereby one CAN be separated and 
>discriminated against than there is in trying to integrate the separated.
>
>The only people I've ever met that want specially recognized divisions 
>are the heterosexuals who see this discrimination as something "morally" 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^See HOMO's  wrong.  The real problem is that the
Christian/Moral Fiber is getting Flush down the Camode.  


>right.  Those of my friends who are homosexual don't want segregation, 
>separate regognition, or special treatment. They want acceptance and
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  It's not Homosexuals as a whole that irritate me so much, as it is the
few that want more than just acceptance and integration; they only see
their rights as rights taken from the Hetrosexuals.

But that principle is not limited to the Homo sexual subject either.

Americans have lost thier tolerance and respect for another persons
beliefs, ideology, preferances.  It's not an attitude of "Common Good
for All", but ME, I, US*, and WE*.
  * Special interest groups - Homosexuals, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life,
Pro-Prayer/Non-Prayer in the Schools, This Group/That Group.  I think
you get my point now.

I'll step off the first level of my soapbox before I get another step up
and really get going.

>integration.
>
>-- 
>   Sparky!!
>   marc@bsu-cs.bsu.edu   00mlschmalz@virgo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  
>   "I'm a carton of hate."  "I'm a wedge of spite."
>            -Milk and Cheese, Dairy Products Gone Bad


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:16:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.115550.22354@athena.mit.edu> grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg) writes:

>In article <john.727818706@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
>writes:
>
>>Do you really believe that there are not large areas of the major cities
>>where one's skin color (especially a white skin color) makes one
>>a target of violence? If so, I'll give you a few addresses to walk around. 
>>If you survive, drop us a line:
>>  most of Washington, DC

I guess, then, that most white people who live in Washington, DC,
should consider themselves targets.  If, that is, "most of" the area
is such a demilitarized zone.  Gosh ... has the National Guard been
notified yet?

>I could add to that... If you have a chance, Tim, also visit
>Harlem, NYC; and while you are in New York, you also may want
>to take a stroll on the streets of South Bronx, Brownsville,
>Crown Heights and East New York. Choose a place you like most
>and go there, because I am afraid you won't be able to visit
>anything else after this trip.

That's amusing.  I'm from New York.  On a recent trip back to NYC, I
drove down and ended up parking in Harlem because traffic downtown was
so terrible.  Then I had to walk about twenty blocks downtown to find
a subway station because I was too disoriented and unused to uptown
geography.  Did I feel out of place?  Hell, yes -- I was the only
white person I saw.  Did I feel stared at?  Sure.  Unsafe?  Not on
your fucking life.

I grew up in Brooklyn and have traveled throughout most of it,
including the areas you name.  I lived until I was eighteen on the
fringes of the projects.

Probably, these personal observations will be muttered off by Moore
and company as "coincidences."  That's fine, since he seems to think
that the ashes cause the flame.  I'm perfectly happy to conclude that
neither of you have a clue of what you're talking about.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15228 alt.sex:43240 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13894 alt.politics.correct:6380 alt.politics.equality:173 alt.politics.homosexuality:10336 alt.politics.clinton:21297
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:05:26 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <1993Jan21.150030.10741@Princeton.EDU> elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu alt.rush-limbaugh:15700 alt.sex:51369 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14231 alt.politics.correct:4119 alt.politics.homosexuality:10734 talk.abortion:66395
>After President Clinton made his promise to do away with the military
>ban, there was a flurry of threats by individual sailors to kill
>fellow sailors who were perceived as gay.  These threats were made
>to force Clinton to back off.  If the murderer in this case had made
>such a threat, then this murder was an act of political terrorism.

Looks like Slick Willie is ACTUALLY gonna follow through with his promise to 
force the military to endorse the homosexual lifestyle.

I'm impressed. I thought that it was one of those political promises made to 
be broken.

I wonder how many people are gonna die before things stabilize?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Clinton & millionaires
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:49:13 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Just heard on the morning news that Clinton has more millionaires
among his top advisors (9) than did either Reagan (7) or Bush (6).

	Dave
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Student deferments
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:46:38 PST

>clinton@uark.ark.edu (Jim Clinton)  writes:
>
>]Well my military service aside for now (even though I think I'm the only
>]one on the NET here who has served his nation)  lets look at some simple
>
>Nice try. Several of us are veterans, and some of us are Viet Nam veterans.
>
>>facts here.  Rush Limbaugh has called one of my kin a traitor in public
>>because he did not serve his country in a war that Rush himself used a
>>student deferement to avoid.  Oh and this stuff about pylonidal cysts is

What's the big deal about using a student deferement????????????????
What's wrong with doing so????????????????????
If it is done in an honest, legal way.  Do you think that whoever made
the rule about allowing student deferements was wrong in the first
place?  If so, then say that.  That would be a different argument than
to say that the rule is good, but some people are wrong for using it.
At least get your argument straight.
I wouldn't expect better logic from a Clinton. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: yal@cltr.uq.oz.au (Yvette Lian)
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: Centre for Language Teaching and Research, Uni of Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 11:42:01 GMT

In article <C0yHH3.5JD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>Let me put this another way.  When are you liberals gonna start screaming
>about all the "White Bashing" that goes on every day?  NEVER.  Because
>you believe white heterosexual men are the source of all evil and deserve
>whatever we get.  I would wager that more white hetero men are victims of
>hate murders than gays, although I can't substantiate this.  
>
>When I hear the ACLU standing up screaming at "White Bashers" I will 
>then accede to the term "Gay Bashing" (which is stupid in the first place
>since it should be called murder or attempted murder).
>
>Liberals love to label things to give them special status over non PC
>issues.  White men get jack sh*t from you guys when we are victims of
>discrimination in job quotas, hate murders, etc.

Hey, when you get someone beating you around and calling you "fuckern lezzo
bitch" (this hasn't happened to me - I'm recalling a friend's experience),
talk to me.  
When you get pack-raped by a bunch of ignorant guys because it will "teach
ya what a real man can do", talk to me.
When you get your guts kicked in and bashed to within an inch of your life,
simply because you're gay, talk to me.

Meanwhile, don't start spouting about "us liberals".  In case you hadn't
noticed, people are getting killed, for no other reason than who they are.
Not because they have money.  Not because the killer knows and hates them
(not that either of these are good reasons).  Simply because the victim was
SEEN TO BE gay by the perpetrator. (Their sexual preference here really is
irrelevant - the basher only has to think they're gay to initiate the
bashing.)

If someone walked up to you and kicked the shit out of you because you're a
white straight male, you might speak differently about this.  You might
even say something along the lines of "they have no right to hurt me in
this way - they beat me up because I'm a straight white male.. I didn't do
anything wrong".

And you'd be right - they beat you up because they hated what you are...
not who you are.  

Question - how many times have you heard of a white person being beaten up
while having something along the lines of "you fuckern white person, I hate
all whiteys" yelled at them?


--
Yvette Lian
yal@lingua.cltr.uq.oz.au 
FIDO: 3:640/352 
IRC nick: Maxine2
From: kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Blacks on TV
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:07:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <9113@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
> -rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> ->	Or perhaps the whole idea is absurd.  Who cares is cosby is 
> ->	a hypocrite?  Hell, anyone who didn't figure that out when he
> ->	started complaining about the media portrayal of blacks on
> ->	television (meanwhile, he just finished up the last season on
> -
> -Well, I think he had a point.  Give me one example of a positive black person
> -on TV, other than Tibbs on In The Heat Of The Night.
> [snip!]
> -maybe someone can give me some good role models for blacks on TV.
> 
> Lieutenant Uhura, Commander Sisko, Lt. Jordi (sp) LeForge :: all of Star
> Trek series (pl) (original, Deep Space 9, Next Gen respectively). They
> are all very intelligent people in positions of authority. I don't watch
> Designing Women, so I can't comment on Meshach Taylor's role. Roc (Live)
> has a wonderful ensemble of actors.
> 
> I do admit though, that there are not too many shows with
> non-stereotypical blacks in key roles. Especially black Republicans. :)
> -- 
> Emil Thomas Chuck

Three cheers for Gene Roddenberry-- and the content of his characters!

If only real life worked as well as Star Trek.

Did you hear about the protesters who wanted Paramount to make
Geordi LaForge gay?  I'm not making this up.

So what if he is/was, but we don't really get to see anyone's sex life
on ST:TNG anyway (except for Data and Tasha Yar that one time: "He's
fully functional..") so should they make a big deal about it?
I would think in Star Trek's time homosexuality would pass unnoticed.

The original Star Trek broke taboos, though, with the first interracial
kiss on TV, in "Plato's Stepchildren." (Uhura and Kirk [who else!])

Again, kudos to the late Great Bird Of The Galaxy...

Spock made me a scientist.
-- 
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.      * Conservative libertarians     *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu    *      for Pro-Balance!         *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,711@compuserve.com**********************
"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President;
I'm beginning to believe it."--Clarence Darrow
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:21:48 GMT

In article <C1JBBG.3xL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>Oh... I don't seem to remember calling feminists hairy-legged lezzies...
>The feminist leaders in OUR country DO hate men.  They have repeatedly
>called marriage slavery to men.  

The former does not follow from the latter.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Jan 93 20:05:22 GMT

I have added talk.religion.misc.

In <1993Jan28.015226.11462@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1993Jan24.195017.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:
>>
>>	Oh, I see.  Let's not follow the Christian guidelines becuase it might
>>actually have some morality to it!!!  If you have sexual intercourse, it should
>>be to conceive a child.  The fact that sex is used for pleasure is sin--it
>>should never be used for self-gratification!

Incorrect.  Some Christians have maintained the above, but their position
is not official even within the Roman Catholic church.

>>	Oh, but I forgot--we don't follow Christian doctrine and morality. 
>>Guess that shows that Christians ARE the better people because of their value
>>of life--rather than selfish, gratification-seeking hypocrites!

Hard to tell whether the above is meant seriously or in satire.  Hence
the first thing Darcy says is somewhat valid, although I would give the
poor newbie(?) a chance to clarify what he said.

>Why are you spending your time posting to the Net that could be better used
>making babies for your favorite deity?

Kevin, I don't like the innuendo in the second half of the sentence.
Making babies to be sacrificed to Moloch was one thing the Judeo-Christian
tradition is diametrically opposed to.  And today, one can read in _Ms._
magazine--in a cover article, no less!  of the same sort of thing being
done today by Satanists.  Worse yet, they even conceive children for the 
purpose of aborting the late-term fetus, if I recall the article correctly.
[Once amniocentesis shows the fetus is female, it is sacrificed--the ones
of whom the author knew do not sacrifice male offspring.]


Peter Nyikos

	QUOTE OF THE HOUR:

	...and Carthage fell as nothing has fallen since Satan....men 
	digging in its deep foundations centuries after found a heap of 
	hundreds of little skeletons, the holy relics of that religion.
	For Carthage fell because she was faithful to her own philosophy
	and had followed out to its logical conclusion her own vision
	of the universe.  Moloch had eaten his children.

		--from "The War of the Gods and Demons" chapter in G. K.
		  Chesterton's _The Everlasting Man_. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Re: Clinton & the Press
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 21 Jan 93 07:49:47 PST

In article <1993Jan21.145331.24029@hubcap.clemson.edu> tendico@hubcap.clemson.edu (Todd Endicott) writes:
>Hi there. I'm just curious about how the conservatives view the recent
>ragging of Clinton in the press; seems to me this kind of weakens their
>standby complaint about the "liberal media". Comments anyone?

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this VERY unintelligent point
mentioned.  The press is biased in the liberal direction, but that's not
all.  They also have several other 
tendencies.  The press (1) is pro-liberal;
(2) is anti-incumbent; (3) will criticize almost anyone (except some of
the gods they worship, like that communist M.L.King Jr.) if it sells
advertising time; (4) will point out most things that are glaringly true
even if they would rather not because not doing so would make them look
stupid.  Now, the last 3 all apply to Clinton.  Therefore, the fact that
the press is criticising Clinton now says nothing about whether or not
point (1) is true, since these 4 points are all sufficient but not
necessary for the press to attack someone.  Do you get it???  This is
very basic logic.  It is the same reasonging as to why they attacked
Carter so much.
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:57:38 GMT
Subject: Re: PC Moral dillema (Was: Is the Roman Catholic Church APolitical?)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

Dave Bernard writes:

> Me writes:
>> (Randall Tinkess) writes:
>>> (Dave Bernard) writes:
>>> >a higher LAW, and helped the innocent.  I can see no difference in
>>> >its position to save, in this case, the unborn innocent.
>>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> 
>>> Are you saying that a woman's right to control her own body
>>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>	randall & dave--  do either of you think that these
>>	two items are mutually exclusive??  it is just this 
> 
> Pat,
> 
> Unfortunately, I do see these positions as mutually exclusive. The Church,
> citing its tradition from its God, says that abortion is evil-- it involves
> the taking of an innocent life.  The prochoice position says that the fetus is
> a mass of irrelevant tissue, and not a human being... although I do not know
> upon what authority this pronouncement is made.
	    ^^^^^^^^^
	i believe pro-choice people cite our own laws, for instance,
	which do not treat an *unborn child* as life until the time
	of birth--  we don't get any tax breaks for pregnancy.  while
	the child is *unborn*, it is part of the mother's body... but
	this is not to say once born, the child doesn't need its mother--
	no child could survive in this world alone.  both sides need
	a real dialogue to come to some understanding...  there must
	be a compromise reached if we are to go on as a people.  i
	know *compromise* is a hated word in both camps, but the energies
	expended in debate could go to some more tangible need--
	homeless for example-- as opposed to being currently wasted
	in this i'm-right-your-wrong brick wall.

happy trails,
pjm.
> 
> 	Dave
>