HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia  NOT
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:44:44 GMT
     <12DEC199214262542@zeus.tamu.edu> <YOUNG.92Dec12145455@ssdd475a.erim.org>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Dec11.095038.4514@wkuvx1.bitnet> , barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet
writes:
>Rubbish.  I am neither a homophobe nor a bigot, yet I feel
>homosexuality is wrong, just like I feel lying, premarital sex, etc.
>are wrong.  A homophobe would have an unreasoning fear of homosexuals;
>I'm not afraid of them.  A bigot would feel they are a blight on the
>face of the earth; I do not.  Simply because I feel someone does
>something I believe is a sin does not mean I think they are scum.  I
>have good friends engaged in activities I feel are wrong; I tell them
>in very few words that what they're doing is wrong, but I don't think
>they're bad people.  The same standard applies for homosexuals.

I agree with you it is wrong to suggest that opposition to homosexuality
automatically implies homophobia.  However, I am equally uncomfortable
with simply identifying homosexuality as a "sin, and suggesting that this
is =not= a form of bigotry.  

If there is a rational, reasoned argument for the proposition that
homosexuality is a danger to society, then let's hear it.  I will advise
you in advance, however, that to base the position on the questionable
interpretation of an even more questionably translated passage of a
=very= old book will not carry much weight.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military...after all is said and done...forget it...NO!
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:53:28 GMT

In <1992Dec8.230854.24093@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <grendel.723792467@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <1992Dec4.201329.14326@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>>Another example of lefties personally attacking a poster instead of arguing 
>>>points of discussion.
>>
>>If there'd been a point to discuss...
>>People who make blatantly homophobic, misogynistic, or religiously arrogant
>>posts don't deserve the respect a rational response accords.
>>
>>>Ted

>That's your opinion.  I think that people who call others the names that 
>you have called the previous poster "don't deserve the respect a rational 
>response accords."  

Okay, Ted.  So you throw spitballs at me, and I'll throw spitballs at you.

--
Yosha Bourgea                   "Newspapers screamed for blood...
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     it was the best of times."
Squid Power                              --Sting

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12007 alt.politics.clinton:18954 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10512 alt.politics.bush:14798
From: turnert@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Thom F Turner )
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: An Apology to Ted
Date: 20 Dec 92 13:05:23 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1992Dec18.231126.21279@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.091953.19727@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> turnert@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Thom F Turner ) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.174347.17899@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec15.042117.3695@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>>
>>>>Ted is typical of Arizona...
>>>
>>>>The last state to pass a Martin Luther King day
>>>
>>>You left out, "The only state to pass a Martin Luther King Day Holiday by 
>>>popular vote."
>>>
>>Hmmm...
>What the hell does a person's political affiliations have to do with
>Physics?!  Either the man knew his business or didn't.  But to gloat over
>the idea that you toppled him (as if he was Somoza or someone) and that his
>knowledge as a physcists was irrelevant, clearly shows a you speak for a group 
>of people that have their priorities mixed up.
>
>By that kind of thinking you would have preferred to replace Edward Teller
>with Freddie Mercury (whom I do believe had a PhD in Astrophysics from
>Oxford).  To hell with truth, dogma is more important.
>
>
>I think this speaks for itself that PC does exist on American Campuses and
>we are seeing a modern equivelant of the Inquisition, or American
>equivalent of the Cultural Revolution.  Pick your analogy.


I'd agree with the statement: "What does a person's political affiliation
have to do with physics?"  If the Physics Department Head had spent more
time on physics and less time on sending memos to administration (on
official UA letterhead) comparing gays and lesbians to "gila monsters and
communists" there wouldn't have been such an interest in "toppling" him
as department head.
 
On PC existing on American Campuses:  The radical right-wing of this 
country believes in a myth, that of the "Politically Correct Movement."
Anytime someone raises an issue that the right-winger doesn't agree
with, that right-winger writes it off as part of the "PC Movement"
thereby trivializing someone's legitimate concern(s).  PC doesn't exist...
at least not as the Radical Right-Wing likes to believe it exists.  The
Republican National Convention proved this year that there is a PC
movement of the Right: either you hate homos and force women to have
children against their wills and are against affirmative action and 
many other social programs, or you aren't a PC republican.
 

--
LLLLLLLL LL  LL  LLLL  LL   LL  | Thom Turner, Co-Chair
   LL    LL  LL LL  LL LLL LLL  | Nat'l Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Student Caucus
   LL    LLLLLL LL  LL LL L LL  | 815 15th St. NW Suite 838/Washington,DC 20005
   LL    LL  LL  LLLL  LL   LL  | E-Mail: turnert@gas.uug.arizona.edu        
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Madonna (was Re: Rush just looks at the pictures (was: 
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 01:08:21 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:

> From porthos!walter!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!s
> 
> 
> >	About Madonna's book _Sex_ itself... Originally, she wanted to
> >call it "Erotica" or "X", but decided on that title because of the old
> >saying, "Sex sells". Just one of her little jokes.
> 
> [tons of Madonna garbage deleted]
> 
> 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 pornograph
> (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!
> 
> >	Looking over the many other things she has said over the
> >years, I find her much more likable than Rush Limbaugh, who is an
> >obnoxious, self-righteous boor.
> 
> I'll stick with Rush!  
> 
> -- 
> >/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
> >/lip@s1.gov
> 
> Bill Buoni
> my opinions are my own!


According to aa article in the Houston Chronicle a few weeks ago, 
Madonna's book "Sex", bumped Rush's Book off of the New York best seller 
list.

Make up your own jokes about this.

Pope Charles

SubGenius Pope Of Houston.

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11764 alt.politics.clinton:18764
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Legislating niceness (Was Re: Gays in the Military)
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:01:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <grendel.724193733@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <1992Dec8.231220.24197@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>I bet your "realities of AIDS" are a lot different than mine.  Who decides?  
>>This is a question for public (scientific) debate.
>
>Perhaps your "realities of AIDS" are indeed different from mine, but mine are
>generally accepted by the scientific community.  That is, I take my opinions
>on the AIDS issue from what the scientific community has agreed is true.
>This is generally an area where argument remains at a minimum, since
>contentions can be proven.  The facts on AIDS really are not a matter of
>debate.

Bullshit!  Believe me, if all of the evidence you come in contact with is 
in agreement, then you are missing (avoiding?) lots of information. The 
scientific society is far from decided on this issue.

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:11618 alt.politics.clinton:18592
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: 11 Dec 92 20:58:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec11.193807.28910@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.203745.22470@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>Good point, O Imperial Wizard.  Let's keep them darkies and Jew
>boys out of the Army by all means!

Apparently you misunderstood (or perhaps I misstated) my point.  Let 
minorities in the military, fine.  But do not allow the abuse of the 
"racism, sexism" charges that currently abound.  There, did I do better 
this time?

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
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:38:57 GMT

In article <schlegel.724794384@cwis> schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:

>keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker) writes:
>
>>And were you ever attacked or assualted or harassed sexually?  No.  Then, 
>>gees, that shows that a good deal of gays just as you hets, can show 
>>restraint, and be more concerned with their jobs than their dicks!
>
> Ah, so now we see the double standard.  If a man even looks at a woman the
> wrong way it's called sexual harrassment but for a man to be sexually 
> harrassed he has to be physically attacked (by in this case a homosexual).

The above paragraph includes the phrase "harrassed sexually."

Help save lives!  Read before posting.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:39:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec14.184223.25697@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
| 
| No need for flames.  You simply know very little about the military.  When 
| women were allowed into the military, millions of dollars were spent in 
| order to provide separate facilities for them.  Likewise, dollars will have 
| to be spent to provide separate facilities for gays.  Before you answer, 
| "They can use the same facilities as heteros." let me ask you:  Who will 
| decide that?  So far, gays (and a few simpathizers) want to shower with 
| heteros, and don't think it will be a big deal.  Most heteros (esp. in the 
| active duty now), will think it is a very big deal.  This leads us right 
| back to a point I made about a week ago.  Nobody cares a lick about how 
| the heteros will feel about this.  We are not PC.  We do not matter.

This is really weird to me.

When I went to college, I rapidly found out that, although our floor was
ostensibly male-only, there were women living in various rooms on the
floor.  There was one communal bathroom with two shower stalls, toilets,
sinks, etc.  I would be shaving and a woman would walk out of the shower.
So what?  

What the fuck is with people?  I like looking at naked women -- so what
do you think I am going to do, tackle the first one out of the shower
stall?  I like looking at men -- so am I supposed to tackle them too?

At most Pagan camping-gatherings, bathrooms (and shower facilities) are
communal.  I have never heard anyone complain.

If you are in the military, you should probably be more concerned
at how well the person next to you is trained than whether that person
admires your genitalia.

   Fritz

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

Wally L. Blume writes:
>   Ever since this gays in the military thing got started and the people
> of Colorado voted their opinion regarding proposition 2 I've heard liberals
> calling people homophobes. Please define this term for me as I have failed
> to find it after searching through 2000+ pages of the Webster's Unabridged
> Dictionary. It would seem (taken from the context in which it is normally) 
> used that it is a term used to describe a person who dislikes homosexuals. 
>   If the word is broken down into it's two Latin based parts HOMO- and
> -PHOBE you get a different meaning all together.
>           HOMO- Of the same (sex in this instance).
>         -PHOBE  A person with an irrational fear of.  
> -OR- A person with an irrational fear of someone of the same sex.
> Somehow I don't think this is the meaning trying to be expressed here.
> Some liberal news reporter probably coined the term (not bothering to 
> determine its actual meaning) then all the little liberals followed along
> blindly. In the future please use some intelligence in your name calling.
>                 ------ Insert Flame Here -------
	FLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAME
	FLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEHOMO-PHOBEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAME
	FLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAME


:-)
pjm.

> -- 
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         | Earth:
>   /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |    Mostly harmless.     
>  /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@clevland.freenet.edu |-HH Guide to the Galaxy
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: MurderPhobes, RapistPhobes, etc. (was: Re: antihomosex...)
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:45:20 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush) writes:
: A solution to the rhetorical confusion here:
: 
: Since gay rights activists have chosen to define homophobes as
: anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a completely
: normal, moral, and admirable life-style (and if they
: deny this, they are LYING), then let us:
: 
: coin the term MurderPhobia to describe the viewpoint that murdering
: other people is wrong.
: 
: coin the term RapistPhobe to describe anyone who is so
: closed-minded as to deny rapists the right to live how they want.
: 
: coin the term TheftaPhobia to describe that unbelievably
: primitive attitude that stealing is wrong.
: 
: After all, anyone who would say that they are against these
: sort of actions is REALLY just secretely afraid that, deep
: down inside, he/she/it actually wants to commit them too.      

Instead, how about we come up with something, somewhere in
the far depths of our little right-wing imagination, which
homosexuality has in common with murder or rape?
Surprise!  There ain't nothing

Bill    .
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: luhmanjp@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu (Joe Luhman)
Subject: Lush Rambo (WKRP lampoon)
Organization: University of Minnesota - Morris
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:54:36 GMT

Did anyone happen to catch this weeks episode of the new WKRP in Cincinnati?
I don't normally watch the show, but as I was flipping through the channels,
I noticed that they were lampooning Rush on the show.  I'm a Rush fan,
but the lampoon was hilarious!!  I was literally rolling on the floor!
They didn't really present him as a monster or anything like that, so I 
found it amusing.  If the show is on in your area, I recommend seeing this
week's episode.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Joe Luhman    |  luhmanjp@cab.mrs.umn.edu                        |
| U of MN-Morris|  luhmanjp@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu(NeXt Mail        |
| UMM # 243     |   (612)324-2566                                  |
| Morris,MN     | "If you dont like what you see here,get the funk |
| 56267         |  out...you can always leave the country"-Extreme |
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11538 alt.politics.clinton:18513
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Children in Same-gender Families
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:42:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Something was missing the first time so here we go again...

In article <12DEC199213440487@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>
>	It depends entirely on what they are taught.  If they are taught 
>that some families involve parents of the opposite gender, and that some
>involve parents of the same gender, then /that/ is what they will expect as
>"normal".

This is the most over simplistic bit of psycho babble I've ever heard.
Let me have your phone number and I'll be glad to let you speak to my 
wife, who was raised from the age of six by her "bi-sexual" mother and
her live in lesbian "partner".  You will never hear a more intense hatred
of homosexuals in your life.  Even after thirty plus years she still
anguishes over the years of emotional torment she endured at school and
in other social situations.  And contrary to the popular yack-itty-yack
all the love, understanding and explaining did little make thing easier
to the point that even after all these years they're just barely on 
speaking terms.  

Some may console themselves with, "if you teach them right they'll understand
it better", but the truth is (as you can easily see in the increases in anti-
gay violence) when you try to force teach your minority beliefs or knowingly
cause your children to endure social ridicule they will more likely react 
as children do; by rejecting their families, their beleifs and harbour 
mostly bitterness.  Take a look at the legal briefs filed in the state of
Florida's attempts to keep homosexuals from adopting children.  There are
more than a few studies that show a negative impact on the emotional well
being of children raised by gay couples.

It's the oldest story in the history of raising children and they have
a single word for it: rebellion.

PSG
-- 
America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton!
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:35:04 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

daj20@amdahl.com (Daniel A Jatnieks) writes:


	>you seem to be advocating government participation in a religious
	>holiday (beyond recognizing it as a holiday).

	>and your reasoning is that it makes economic sense?

I'm not advocating such government participation, but recognizing that the
government already participates, if by no other means than by reaping the
economic benefits.  Kind of two-faced.  If Christmas celebration is indeed
a religious holiday, all gift-giving, gift-selling, and so on, should be
100% tax free.

	>oh and you do mis-state the reason the government stays out of
	>Christmas - it's not because it's a "Christian symbol", it's
	>because it's a *religous* symbol.

I disagree; as long as the symbol is acceptable to the religion of Secular Humanism,
it is OK; if it has Christian trappings whatsoever, the ACLU steps in.  It is not
religion per se that the government bans.



Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12012 alt.politics.clinton:18958 alt.politics.bush:14802 alt.politics.homosexuality:8256 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10517
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
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 19:49:00 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA

Keywords: 

In article <BzJBr8.6Jz@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
]>I would be VERY offended and uncomfortable to have to shower with a gay
]>guy staring at MY tush... therefore by you PC people's own definition this
]>constitutes sexual harassment.
]
]Of course, if you don't happen to know that the guy next to you is
]gay, it's kind of a moot point, isn't it?

But of course if the military allows openly gay soldiers, then you would,
wouldn't you? Isn't that what we are talking about - allowing openly
gay soldiers?

]Who's going to die, and for what reason?  If I were in the military, I
]would sure as hell not come out if it appeared that such an action
]would endanger the other people in my unit.

Yet another person who hasn't a clue what unit cohesion is all about;
who doesn't understand how hard the military works to create it,
because they know both how important it is and how hard it is to
create and maintain.


-- 
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
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton