HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Possible bases for taboos on anal sex (was Re: Homophobes...)
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
     <1992Dec8.232542.24540@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
     <11DEC199211232238@zeus.tamu.edu>
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:43:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.201650.32@anasazi.com> Mike Best, best@anasazi.com
writes:
>Question: if gays do not engage in anal sex then why is it that such a 
>	  disproportionate number AIDS victims are gay?  (this is not
>	  a sarcastic question, I would like to know).

Perhaps someone else can answer this question with more authority than I. 
It is my understanding that AIDS first developed in some third world country
(was it Haiti?) and spread from there through homosexuals because of the
large gay population there.  It could, given different circumstances, become
just as entrenched among heterosexuals before it was discovered.

This, of course, discounts and disregards the many dubious conspiracy
theories.

I've never heard it suggested that it's beginning in the gay community had
anything to do with specific sexual practices.

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
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Madonna (was Re: Rush just looks at the pictures
     (was: Summary Wed 12/2/92))
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:51:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.154821.12887@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> 25336buoni,
wgb3@pyuxf.uucp writes:
>I'd always wondered what desperate soul would spend $50 for such trash? 
I 
>mean $2.50 (or whatever it costs) for Penthouse or Playboy seems too 
>expensive too me.  Myself, I've never understood the attraction of
pornography
>(or should I say ARTWORK (?!?)).  How viewing a woman in degrading poses
can
>turn someone on is beyond me, but then again I'm a boring Christian!
>

The true measure of maturity is the ability to accept that there are many
things you will never understand, and many of those things are still
true, valuable, or beautiful to someone.

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.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:54:14 GMT

In article <1gauo3INNa7h@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <11DEC199211232238@zeus.tamu.edu>, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>>
>> 	What about you?  Have you ever showered "public" with the gender
>> to which you're attracted? 
>
>Good question, and one that shows that the whole "shower" argument is
>quite bankrupt.
>
>Anyone who is Gay has been showering with people who are *potentially*
>sexually attractive most of his or her school and college life, not
>to mention any fitness centre or military training they might have
>joined later.
>
>If this was a real problem, rather than a hypothetical problem in
>what we must, from politeness, refer to as a bigot's "brain", we'd
>surely have heard about it before now.
>

Yes, it is just as hypothetical as the misconception that everyone who goes
to a CO beach gets sexually excited.    
As a new person to the CO situation, you probably are very turned on but
you soon learn to put the surrounding bodies in purspective and go about
your business with out any undue involvement of your emotions.  Soon you
find the lack of clothing on the individuals around you not to be very
exciting.  Eventually you realize that it is the desire and the interaction
of yourself and another person that becomes the turnon for you and not the
nakedness of the individual.


Ciao!
	John S. :^)
	teddybur@netcom.com
__

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11900 alt.politics.clinton:18856 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10439 alt.politics.bush:14731
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Legislating niceness (Was Re: Gays in the Military)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 11:54 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec14.190603.26283@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Teddy Krueger) writes...

|Not only marital status, but sexual preference as well.  We, here in the 
|liberal enclave of Tucson, AZ, have a board funded by the city which responds 
|to ALL cases of discrimination.  Their billboard specifically mentions 
|SEXUAL PREFERENCE.  I guess that means that teachers who have a sexual 
|preference for children must be hired by our school district, or else we 
|will be forced to pay defense costs in the discrimination suit.

	I'd be worth looking into as to how your statutes define
"sexual preference".  If it is defined, it's probably something that
included only cases that involve two consenting adults.

	If "sexual preference" isn't defined in law, it needs to be.
Because I agree with you that sex with children should not be included.

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__
From: car@access.digex.com (Mr. Blue)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Dont create a conservative talk newsgroup
Date: 19 Dec 1992 20:17:58 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

Someone recently proposed the idea of creating a newsgroup specifically
for the purpose of discussing political views in a conservative  
atmosphere. I am very much against this idea, AND <gasp> I hold
moderate to conservative views.

If the justification of creating sucha newsgroup is to exclude/avoid
liberals, I claim that such thinking is misguided, even if the group
is moderated. (by whom, incidentally,and what precisely gets posted
and what doesnt, but thats another can of worms).             

We dont live life in a uterus. We are going to meet people we disagree
with,who challenge us, who debate us, who share their ideas with us, in
the real world. Having disagreements can be healthy. I think it's 
actually a good idea that liberals post to this newsgroup regularly,
so we can be more introspective and question/reaffirm/change what
we believe in, based on what the counter-arguments are. Liberals,
I believe, may have ideas that I often disagree with, but on the
other hand they do have some ideas that I do agree with. It's not
all black and white. Sometimes grey is the right answer. I DO object
to the name-calling that goes on here, especially calling someone
a nazi, homophobe, racist, hate-monger, or even bleeding heart the 
minute someone says something that you disagree with. There are
way too many knee-jerk responses around here, but then that's MY
pet peeve, and my problem.

Keep things they way they are. Argue with the liberals. Debate with
the liberals. Challenge their ideas and let them challenge yours.
Keep name-calling out of it and we may just have a great forum for
discussion. 

Mr. Blue


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: jonesek@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Erik Reid Jones)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 13:28:03 GMT

>I fall back upon one of my original points.  That when you allow individuals 
>who may be catagorized as minorities into the military, there will be abuse 
>of "racism, sexism, homophobia" charges.  This must be curbed.
>
>Ted

Absolutely correct, thank you for stating the point with brevity
and accuracy.  When blacks, women, and homosexuals are in the
military, there are occurrences of racism, sexism, and homophobia.
This is unhealthy to the discipline of the military.  We can't
allow our military forces to suffer under the yoke of racism,
sexism, or homophobia.  Therefore, anyone who has a personal
problem with blacks, women, or homosexuals in the military
should resign from the armed forces as the integration process
takes place.  Just like Ted said, "racism, sexism, homophobia"
must be curbed; this, of course, means getting rid of anyone
who is racist, sexist, or homophobic.  Well put.

Erik Jones
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:08:24 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Peter Young writes:

>Would you elaborate on the symbols of the religion of Secular
>Humanism?  I have seen various forms of crucifixes for Christian
>symbols, the Star of David for a Jewish symbol, and a crescent (I
>think) for Muslims, but I am unfamiliar with the Secular Humanists'
>symbol.  If it is there, I will alert my local ACLU chapter to bring
>procedings to have it removed.  I don't accept any establishment as
>being valid.  

The government is not, or should not, be an entity in its own right, but
merely a convenience to represent the people.  Since the US is a democracy,
plurality rules.  The government should properly bear out the will of most
of the people, most of the time.  To arbitrarily rule against the wishes of
the people- in this case, if most of the community would like a nativity scene,
or whatever, is not merely a neutral role.  Rather, the government is arbitrarily
deciding that it knows better than the people do.  Notice, no one is being
compelled to do anything, but the govenrment should be the servant of the people.
Banning Christian symbols is not a neutral position, but does represent a bias.

	Dave
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Possible bases for taboos on anal sex (was Re: Homophobes...)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:37:20 GMT

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>Mike Best, best@anasazi.com writes:
>>Question: if gays do not engage in anal sex then why is it that such a 
>>        disproportionate number AIDS victims are gay?  

>Perhaps someone else can answer this question with more authority than I. 
>It is my understanding that AIDS first developed in some third world country
>(was it Haiti?) and spread from there through homosexuals because of the
>large gay population there.

    Well, I don't have any more authority than you, but the last I heard 
was that the earliest reported cases of AIDS had been traced to central 
Africa and may be linked with a similar immune-deficiency disease which is 
endemic in some of the monkeys of that region. The sharing of diseases 
between species is fairly common (e.g.- chicken pox), and it's been a 
source of trouble for humans in the past (e.g.- bubonic plague). 

>  It could, given different circumstances, become just as entrenched among 
>heterosexuals before it was discovered.

    Probably true, however promiscuity is almost certain to have been a 
major channel by which AIDS spread in the homosexual community. You might 
argue that our heterosexual community is also very promiscuous thus leading 
to the danger of a similar epidemic spread among heterosexuals, but now 
that we have a handle on the way AIDS is spread we hopefully have the 
ability to limit that threat through education (I did say "hopefully").

>This, of course, discounts and disregards the many dubious conspiracy
>theories.

    As well it should. The idea that humans created something as subtle 
and ingenius as HIV strikes me as very unlikely. The sophistocation of 
genetic engineering skills which would be needed to create a virus is 
probably beyond anything that was available back in the late '70s when 
the virus appears to have begun its spread.

>I've never heard it suggested that it's beginning in the gay community had
>anything to do with specific sexual practices.

    Perhaps you haven't heard the theories, but they've existed for a 
long time. Gay "bath houses" and promiscuous sexual activities have been 
suspected as routes of infection since the mid '80s. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11421 alt.politics.clinton:18430 alt.politics.bush:14438
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh




	does anyone know if rush ever talked about lobsters?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Lift the ban on shower curtains :-)
Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:06:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.175624.11765@cs.uwp.edu> evans@cs.uwp.edu (Randy Evans) writes:
>: 	Do the Gays who are currently showering with Hetero men in the
>: military get turned on?  For that matter, I have been told that Gays who
>: shower at gyms which are predominantly Gay do not get turned on.
>
>I have showered with both straight and gay men at gyms and have had no 
>problem with getting turned on.  This was both in group showers and shower
>stalls.

If this is such a big concern why not install shower curtains?

Or does showering together in the nude do something for male bonding :-)

hmmmmm...
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11565 alt.politics.clinton:18543
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 10 Dec 92 15:51:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec8.144622.1013@calmasd.prime.com> jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:

>Well, first of all homosexuality is not an alternative lifestyle.  It
>is a sexual orientation.  People with this orientation have as many and
>as varied lifestyles as do heterosexuals.  The only lifestyle you need
>to accept and understand is your own.

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

>As far as accepting and understanding a sexual orientation that is
>different from yours, that would be a nice goal however it isn't a
>requirement.  All that is required is that you know that different
>sexual orientations exist and respect that to each individual their
>orientation is as valid to them as yours is to you.  Pretty easy, huh?

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

Ted


-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11465 alt.politics.clinton:18461 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9971 alt.politics.bush:14457
From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 12 Dec 92 15:20:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver

stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

>In article <1992Dec9.224135.26248@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>>I'd have to state the opposite.  We asked out daughter, who'd recently
>>had the birds and the bees explained to her about any such information
>>in our schools.  She asked us what we meant.  We said "books which talk
>>about someone having two moms or two dads instead of a mom and a dad".
>>She responded "That sounds weird to me".  We hadn't yet explained
>>homosexuality to her, since we wanted her to have a good understanding of
>>sexuality first.  So the subject simply hadn't come up until then.  So
>>much for kids seeing nothing wrong with it.

>>John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com

>Well dddaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh John. Ask any child with little or no experience of
>the real world about a family situation that they are unfamilar with and 
>you're going to get this same answer. Your daughter has obviously not been
>taught(or you for that matter)that there are childern in same-sex parents homes
>which believe that your situation is "weird". Childern will always think that 
>that which they observe daily is the norm everywhere up intil they observe
>differently.["norm" being that which happens most often and should never be
>confused with right or wrong]Common sense alone blows this argument out of
>the water. 

Hold on a minute!  A person earlier made the assertion that small
children have no problem with same sex parents.  They seemed to be
claiming that the big bad adults were indoctrinating children to be
prejudiced against gays, and that this was not an innate prejudice, and
offered some sort of "proof" effect.  I was merely stating that my
daughter, without having been exposed to the subject previously, at
least not by us, thought same sex parents were weird.  I didn't prompt
her to say it.

Do you really believe that children in same sex marriages are going to
think they're in a "normal" situation when they ask mom/dad where they
came from? 

John
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:19:36 GMT

gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:

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

 Well, I have one good reason, the space program more than pays for itself in
 new technology and spin-offs (actually the frequently quoted figure is for
 each dollar invested we have gotten a return of about seven bucks in high
 tech industry and savings)
 
Mark
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia -- *NOT*!
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:12:27 GMT

rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:

>>What Clinton REALLY said was, "I am writing to you in the hope that my
>>telling you this one story will help you to understand more clearly
>>how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their
>>country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have
>>devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give.
>>
>>Now, if you take that sentence as Clinton saying that HE loathes the
>>military, the so be it, you'll read anytying out of anything you wish.
>>Me? I don't see it that way.
>
>That's because you have a low IQ.

<sigh> Another post spurred by jealousy. Mine has been tested at 125. Do
you consider that as low? Are you really a jerk for making such a comment?

>  Why would he have possibly brought
>up that point of view if he wasn't implying that it was his?  It
>would have been absolutely unecessary.

"original quote taken out of context" == Clinton said he "loathed the
military" in a letter to Col. Holm.

<another sigh> The original "quote" was taken out of context. I presented
the entire sentence the quote come from. That, in itself, presented some
doubt as the the credibility of the original "quote" taken out of context.
You still question the statement considering the entire statement. So. Let's
back up one more step and read the ENTIRE LETTER, eh? THEN, just MAYBE (if
your IQ is, say, somewhere over 90 (which some may say is questionable)) you
might be able to understand that Clinton was not saying that HE loathed
the military, as you claim.
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY))
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: 20 Dec 92 20:48:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host

In article <1992Dec20.194541.29730@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>So what? We are talking in this case about privacy, not rape. I suspect
>that had there been an open gay in that barracks, it would have made a lot
>of people nervous and resentful.

So what? We are talking in this case about privacy, not rape. I suspect
that had there been an Nigger in that barracks, it would have made a lot
of people nervous and resentful.

They just don't get it...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:24:16 GMT

In <1992Dec11.155602.25368@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.084944.8682@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:

>>"Piss Jesse" anyone?...:)

>Sure!  I'd pay money to see a photo of Mr. Jackson in a bottle of urine.

Really?  Then I'll take a picture of a Jesse Jackson statuette in a bottle
of urine and mail it to you, if you give me your address.  My price is $60.
Not bad, eh?

>Ted

"There's a sucker born every minute."  --P. T. Barnum
--
Yosha Bourgea                  "I think Rodney King said it best when he said,
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     `Ow!  Ow!  Ow!'"
WHO ARE THE BRAIN POLICE?               --Denis Leary


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton