HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: "Dittos" for John Switzer (was Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:15:29 GMT

In article <92350.070411KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.001727.23303@ils.nwu.edu>, hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (
>BOB HOOKER) says:
>
>>Its also nice to know that John is spending all his free time doing this
>>rather then going out to meet memebers of the opposite sex,  or other such
>>activities which migh lead to a net increase in the number of conservatives
>>in the world.
>
>Helping to spread the Word of Rush will likely do more to increase the number
>of conservatives in the world than mere procreation anyway.

Hear, hear! Besides, what with sexual harassment, AIDS, and who knows what
else, these summaries are far safer!
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11493 alt.politics.clinton:18479 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9990 alt.politics.bush:14470 alt.politics.homosexuality:7901
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Children in Same-gender Families (Re: Homophobes in the Military...)
Date: 12 Dec 1992 21:06:54 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
> 
> 	Incidentally, it is for this purpose that the book "Nancy's Two
> Mommies", or whatever it's called, was written.  It was for same-gender
> parents to give to their kids so that the kids have a limited understanding
> of the nature of some family units.

Really?  So what's the deal with the school board in NY being dismissed 
for refusing to use it as part of their first-grade curriculum?  I've been
given the impression that it is intended also for children of hetrosexual
families, so they will understand that homosexual families are normal.


Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 19:38:07 GMT

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!

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:19:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec17.150741.14224@cis.uab.edu>, hamilton@hitler.chem.uab.edu writes:
|>
|> It just occured to me that even if gays can change their orientation
|> this does not make them different from people of whatever appearance,
|> as witnessed by sex-change operations or Michael Jackson.  

I can't parse that.   Could you reword it in English?

|> If people
|> are discriminated against, it is because they stubbornly refuse to
|> change.

Why?   Please explain.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:46:24 GMT

keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker) writes:

>In <1992Dec17.202942.21376@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>>Keywords: 

>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).
 
 This is the common homosexual lobby argument "the gays in the army are 
 professionals and will restraint themselves and those that don't will just
 be reprimanded by the military courts".  But the point is that we don't
 allow the women and men to shower together in the military EVEN if they
 restraint themselves, because this situation is seen as harrassment in 
 itself because of leering, staring, etc.
 
 But the gay lobby thinks that as long nothing physical occurs, no harrassment
 has occurred.
 
 Mark
 
 
 




Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11548 alt.politics.clinton:18521
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 14 Dec 92 01:45:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: world, na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec13.180235.8920@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Jim.Shirreffs writes:
#|    The words "bigot" and "homophobe" were not lightly chosen.  The 
#| notions that these people are advancing reflect a prejudice that 
#| is not based on fact.
#
#| Susan
#
#Since redirects to one of my posts composed the body of included text, I 
#would like to know on what bases you call me a bigot. 

Your own words, of course.  

"Homosexuals choose thier life style, I for one (rightly or wrongly)
feel that the homosexual life style is wrong." 

"What i object to this attemp at legitimizing  the homosexual life style."

"If the homosexaul lifestyle is not wrong then what life style is?"

"I wish they would all go back in the closet."

<1992Dec4.004728.27403@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> 



"I feel that this attack on
the military by the gay community is really the first step in legitimizing
the homosexual life style. That homosexuals want all the rights hetro's
have, including the right to marry, adopt children, etc. Also I believe
that they will attempt to acquire special rights as a "protected minority"."

<1992Dec5.004922.3153@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>



"Most straight men look with disgust at the activities gays
enjoy. The homosexual life style is simply abhorrent to heterosexuals."

<1992Dec5.201206.25775@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> 




"Well I submit that homosexuals are simply pounding their pegs into
the wrong hole." 

<1992Dec12.171625.13528@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> 

Susan
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:10:06 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1551@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
|barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
|: Ummmm, not a case of racism.  Horton was a murderer and rapist who
|: Dukakis had let out.  Period.  Who cares if he was black?  Does that
|: make his crimes more or less palatable? 
|:   Let me reiterate for the original poster: could you please post why
|: Helms is allegedly a racist?  Quotes?  A paraphrase even.  I don't
|: know enough about Helms to know if he is or not, myself.
|
|Dukakis, of course, didn't turn the key personally- Horton was
|released under a furlough program instituted by Dukakis' 
|Republican predecessor.

True, but this is only part of the story.  Of course Dukakis didn't
personally turn the key for Horton's release, but he did sign the
release papers.  And the furlough program was signed by the previous
governor, but it was supported at the time by Dukakis and defended by
Dukakis after he became governor.

|The point of the Horton ads seemed obvious to me, since Horton's
|escape could only marginally be blamed on MD, and since the presidency
|has nothing to do with furloughing prisoners, and that point was this:
|If you elect Michael Dukakis, big scary black men are going to get out
|of prison and rape your white women.

Horton didn't escape; he was set free for the weekend.  MA was the only
place in the country where he could have been furloughed, because MA, at
that time (the law has since been repealed), was the only place where a
convicted murderer, sentenced to life in prison without possibility of
parole, could be furloughed.  Dukakis was in fact, partly responsible
for the law, and responsible for his release (because he signed the
release papers).  Your interpretation of the meaning of the commercial
sounds like *your* problem to me.  

|That was the message the ad people tried to convey, and it worked.

You have an awfully low opinion of the general public.  Justify your
position.  Willie Horton is only one of the many reasons Dukakis lost,
and I doubt it is the most important one.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush Courts the FAAAR Right
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:37:49 GMT

jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>Is Rush moving farther right?  

    I find it very difficult to imagine how Rush could possibly move 
farther to the right.

>Last night on his TV show, he stated that the lack
>of religion in America was causing many problems
>in society.  He said, in fact, "any religion."  But 
>then he said things to the effect of "Why don't they 
>teach the ten commandments in school anymore?"  He 
>then proceeded to blame drug use, abortions, guns in 
>school and other societal ails on the lack of religion.

    Right, I saw that segment too. Believe it or not he may have had a 
good point. When kids have nothing for moral guidance but a bunch of Rambo 
movies it's not particularly surprising that they become acculturated to 
violence. When was the last time in one of those hacker/slasher movies 
when you saw anyone express even the slightest feelings of remorse over 
all the people they've caused to assume room temperature? I would say that 
Rush was basically correct that religion deals with the subject of the 
soul, and I would also agree that religion can serve as a stabilizing, 
civilizing influence on society (at least that's been the case throughout 
written history; it may have changed in the last couple of years but I 
doubt it).

>Rush implied(IMHO) that christianity was more normal
>and morally correct than other religions and deserves
>to be taught in public schools.  He was also blaming
>the removal of religion from schools for many problems
>facing youth.  And of course, he blamed the liberals.

    I'm not sure that Rush's choice of the Ten Commandments was really 
intended to imply that Christianity is superior to any other religion,
although I got the definite impression that he was implying that some 
religion is better than no religion at all.

>1.  Is Rush courting the far right?

    Yes, of course. He certainly isn't courting the left or the center. He 
made some extremely uncomplimentary remarks the other day about moderates 
sitting on the fence and "not taking a stand". Say what you like about 
Rush, but you have to admit that the man knows where his audience's 
sympathies lie.

>2.  Is Rush trying to make up for the "orgasm" show?

    Hmmm, maybe, however I'd say that the TV segment last night when Rush 
had the engineers dim the lights was on the verge of getting racy again. 
When someone apparently grimaced at him he said "Hey, this is late night 
TV, this is what we're supposed to be doing."

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11422 alt.politics.clinton:18431
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 22:46:29 GMT

In article <crb2.724523499@Ra.MsState.Edu> Chad R. Berthelson,
crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu writes:
>>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.
>
>That is true, BUT it only lasted two weeks, Madonna's book sold more it's
>1st and 2nd week out than rushes did in it's 6th and 7th (If you compare
>Rush's 1st and 2nd it beats madonna's total), but in madonna's third week
>Rush pulled out ahead again and remains that way today!
>

Ah, yes, but there has still been more money spent on Madonna's book than
on Rush's!

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".
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12014 alt.politics.clinton:18960
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:01:14 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec19.190439.4534@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
]krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
]
]>But, the military has done one very important thing to attempt to stamp 
]>out heterosexual rape...men and women do not share quarters.
]
]That the biggest load of dung I've read in a while. Got any way at all
]of proving that to be a fact and not just some idea of yours?

Would you care to prove that men and women DO share quarters, or are
you just blowing smoke?
-- 
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!" - -
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12002 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10510 alt.politics.clinton:18947 alt.politics.bush:14797 alt.politics.homosexuality:8246
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 20 Dec 1992 05:02:27 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1gtsinINNroo@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > So the Mr Smith who has been telling us how wrong it is to use this
|> > book in public schools hasn't even read it himself.
|> 
|> NOOOOOOO!!!! Not that!!!  Jon, you may have missed it, but I've said 
|> a LONG time ago that I have not read the book.  Where have you been? 
|> Sheesh....

Then one wonders why you think you are such an authority on it.

|> 
|> > Mr Smith is depending on quotes from an un-named "someone" who may
|> > or may not have read the book themselves.    Mr Smith sometimes
|> > says that this person is Gay, and sometimes doesn't say that.
|> 
|> You're a real prize, Jon.  Fortunately, the person who told me about 
|> the contents of the book here wrote a very good article; *so* good
|> that I saved it.  Hopefully he won't mind me reproducing it here...
|> In article spdcc.1992Dec10.185429.8115, Joe Francis writes:
|> >The text also has the
|> >image of one man in bed, covered, the other one turning out the light,
|> >and the caption "they sleep together".

Great.   So now you are going to give us a reference, so that we can go
and see for ourselves?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Madonna (was Re: Rush just looks at the pictures   
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 06:15:32 GMT

: Ah, yes, but there has still been more money spent on Madonna's book than
: on Rush's!
:

Why anyone would pay $50 to see pictures of some ugly bitch with hairy
underarms is beyond me. There's a sucker born every minute. 

Felix G.


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11903 alt.politics.clinton:18858 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10441 alt.politics.bush:14733
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: An Apology to Ted
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:28:32 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <YOUNG.92Dec14123619@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>Ted, in the past I have named you The Asshole, and I do now humbly
>apologize for that.  An asshole becomes such with a will,
>intentionally.  After reading more of the corpus of your posts, I can
>see that this is clearly not true of you.  You truly can't help it.
>
>I am sorry.
>
>Peter

Thank you for being so mature, Peter.

According to recent studies performed here in the Physics Department at 
the University of Arizona, the overwhelming response of the random, thinking 
person to such liberal pap as is often spouted here in a.r-l is to take 
on some characteristics of an asshole.  For your information, the control 
group consisted of random, non-thinking persons, who had a tendency to 
slurp up the pap, and regurgitate it upon command.  Your observations of my 
responses clearly show that I belong to the test group, not the control.

One man's asshole is another man's vagina.

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:11400 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9932
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia  NOT
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:57:33 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 <Bz4oLq.JI6@ns1.nodak.edu> Brad Green, green@plains.NoDak.edu
writes:
>I think Jeff has made one of the most reasoned statements lately about
the
>stand most "normal" people take.  We don't "fear" homosexuals, we don't
>"hate" homosexuals, we just feel homosexuality is wrong.  I, personally,
>believe it to be a disorder somewhere along the lines of other phobias or
>disorders.  The fact that homosexuality is not normal will cause my
>mailbox to overflow with people who try and argue otherwise, but the fact
>stands, it is not normal.  This doesn't mean they should be locked up,
>or made to wear a scarlet "H" or anything of the sort.  They should 
>receive the same rights and respect anyone else deserves.  They are part
>of humanity just like the rest of us.

Absolutely!  Very well put.  Our freedom is based on everybody's
inalienable right to be "wrong."

>On the other hand, they should not be afforded special rights because of
>their lifestyle.  This whole argument about blacks and Jews in the
military
>leading to the argument that we should treat homosexuals in like manner
is
>phoney, based on my belief that being gay is a disorder, be it learned or
>something you're born with.  Being black is normal to certain races or
>groups of people, and has nothing to do with a mental attitude.  The
whole
>argument of gays in the military or minority rights is an attempt to
>grant gays a special standing that says they are, in fact, "normal". 
That's
>what the whole argument in Colorado was all about  do we grant gays
>minority status, with all the perks that go with it.

You have in incorrect understanding of Colorado's Amendment 2.  It
specifically prohibits gays from claiming =any= form of discrimination
based on their sexual preference.  This =is= a "special status", but it
is a =negative= status.

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
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 13:21:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.173213.5672@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.042850.6565@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>
[....]
>
>Those who don't bathe have the ability to begin bathing; it's their choice.
>Homosexuals don't have the ability to become heterosexuals.  Your analogy is
>not valid for that reason.  Your previous analogy between homosexuals and
>
This is a very shaky argument IMO and in the opinion of many others. There
is simply not a great body of non-controversial scientific evidence to back
up this claim. It's not likely to be proven one way or another in the 
near future. Your fundamental assertion that gays should not be excluded
from the military on the basis of their sexual practices is, I think, valid
but not for the reason you state above. I'm amazed that people continue to
make this statement as if it were an absolute, fundamental law of the 
universe. And for the benefit of the Usenet-impaired here i'm NOT talking
about bathing...:) Your argument stands without having to resort to 
what is essentially an unprovable assertion.
 
*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11921 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10453 alt.politics.clinton:18871 alt.politics.bush:14743 alt.politics.homosexuality:8169