HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Rush Courts the FAAAR Right
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  world
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:55:29 GMT

In article <YOUNG.92Dec21123342@ssdd475a.erim.org>, young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes...
>In article <BzIwzv.Msz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
> 
>>   Not to get into a religious debate, but people could interpret the ten
>>   commandments as good, common sense, irrespective of any religious
>>   affiliation, couldn't they?
> 
>No.  "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."  "Thou shalt [observe
>the Sabbath and keep it holy]."  (Not sure of the wording on this
>one.) How do you make these non-religious?  Or even
>non-denominational?

Ok.  I thought about these after I posted.  You're right.

But, what I said still holds for the rest, such as "you shall not kill",
"you shall not steal", "you shall not commit adultery", etc.

How about "The Eight Commandments"?

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Liberals DO again...
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Distribution: na
Date: 25 Dec 92 17:17:47

So how come, after all these weeks of claiming that the courts have
been overrun by flaming liberals whose primary objetive is to restrict
Christian expression wherever possible, nobody has had anything to say
about the Cincinatti Situation?  No, silly, not Marge Schott.  The
courts finding that the KKK could not be prevented from erecting a
cross in a public square?  Why aren't the starboard champions giving
thanks for finally being given the opportunity to freely express
themselves?  Badly worded, there.  It doesn't require thanks.  But a
little acknowledgement that maybe things aren't as oppressive as they
are made out to be would be appreciated.

Ah, well.  Do, all Christians out there, enjoy your Holiday to the
fullest.  And the rest of you, take heart in the return of lengthening
days and "livin' easy," surely just over the horizon.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:20:36 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
: Bill ANderson writes:
: 
: : 
: >: Actually, the reports I've read indicate that the missionairies were very
: >: concerned with the Indians, at least those who converted and were under
: >: their charge.  There are constant reports of their complaints to the king
: >: regarding ill-treatment of Indians by the civil authorities & armies.  Like
: >: missionaries- medical, spritual, teaching- everywhere, they seem to have taken
: >: the welfare of their people very seriously.
: >: 
: >: 	Dave
: 
: >Some of them did.  Most of our knowledge of Spanish attrocities in
: >the new world comes from priests wh protested against it; this
: >attitude certainly wasn't universal among the clergy, however.
: >Many of them used Indians as slave labor at their missions, and
: m
: 
: 
: Missions were established to spread the religion and the culture, and to protect
: converts.  In effect, they were villages, often fortified.  Indians who exercised
: their freedom of choice to convert were given the opportunity of raising crops.
: Is this slave labor?  Then working in a corporation today to earn a living is
: slave labor, by the same token.  What would be the purpose of slave labor if it
: was to make the slaves self-sufficient, not to make the owners- the missionaries-
: rich and powerful?  As for those who chose not to convert, and to live apart, how
: could missions persecute them?  Especially since those living apart frequently
: exercised their own free will to burn down the missions?
: 
: 	Dave        

Missions were esablished for a lot of different reasons, Dave.
Sometimes they were there largely to pacify the natives. Sometimes
the surrounding natives were forced to work for the Spanish.
Sometimes the clergy tortured and executed those who refused to
convert, and a few priests were hoping to become rich and 
powerful.
I'm not claiming that every Spanish priest in the new world was a
raging monster, set on genocide.  Are you claiming they were all
saints?

Bill    e
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12272 alt.politics.clinton:19106 alt.politics.bush:14922 alt.politics.homosexuality:8453 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10700
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
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: 25 Dec 1992 01:50:45 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> It sounds to me as though they can mention anecdotal evidence, and you
> can point out that it's anecdotal, just as I have been doing with
> anecdotal evidence here on the net.

Oh, so you have no problem with people posting stats, news, etc, 
with nothing to back it up?  Or groups going to the media with 
stats that have no police reports to back them up, etc.  Thanks 
for clearing that up.  In this forum, I can see where it is 
easy enough to cross-question someone who does this, but I think
in the media it would be a bit harder...

> |> Yup.  Assuming that it is as it appears, which seems likely as you 
> |> conveyed it. 
> 
> No, not me.   All I am doing is pointing to a UPI report, which in turn
> quoted the Navy.   I also gave the date, so that people can go and look 
> it up for themselves.

:-) Wow, you are an interesting one...I was saying that I took your 
word for it, without having to look up the source, which at this point 
I have neither the inclination nor the time to do; I was accepting 
your word at face value...*some* people just  can't take a compliment...

Walter 

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:14:40 GMT

It is very obvious that Steve Kellmeyer is trying to define all reason and
logic according to his own terms or those of some societal click called
"deconstructionists". His posts do not lend any real information to the
thread but only take up space.



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

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:25:04 GMT

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
> 
> There is NO reason, other than bigotry, to keep homosexuals out of
> the military. The question of showering and rooming together is 
> quite irrelevant. Do you think that there aren't gays in the military 
> now? How many soldiers do you think have been approached  sexually,
> in a harassing manner, by another man in the shower? I'll bet you can't 
> think of even one case.

While I'm not in on this discussion directly, I was a non-com in
the army, and I COULD cite a few cases of such behavior, if you
REALLY wanted me to, from not-too-distant experience.  One of my
OWN privates once came to me with this very same problem once.
Infrequent?  Probably.  Doesn't happen?  Not on your life...

Jim

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12647 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11066 alt.politics.clinton:19361 alt.politics.bush:15227 alt.politics.homosexuality:8692
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 1992 19:05:56 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>     When you've been around the net as long as I and others have, you get a
> pretty good feel for how certain 'phobes think.  Your rhetoric is not as
> militant and obnoxious as some, but it conveys the same sentiment.

Which rhetoric in particular?  Maybe something useful can come out of
this, if 'hot-spots' can be identified, and if it can be determined 
which things are 'common' and which are 'militant and obnoxious'. 

> I have, in fact, corresponded
> both on the net and via email with Xians who *really are* non-judgemental
> and *really don't* feel the need to teach everyone, including their kids,
> that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, etc.  I would be very glad to have
> you demonstrate that you are one of these.

Oh, I see...if someone believes, and teaches to their kids, that it 
is immoral, then they are a hating-Xian.  Doesnt matter if they also 
teach that they need to tolerate other's right to do as they please, 
and that they should treat people who are different than themselves 
with respect; if I don't agree with you on homosexuality being 'ok'  
then nothing else matters?  Let's see..."I have, in fact, corresponded
both on the net and via email with gays who *really are* non-judgemental
and *really don't* feel the need to teach everyone, including other people's 
kids, that homosexuality is ok, moral, etc.  I would be very glad to have
you demonstrate that you are one of these."  
NOT!  

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:59:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com>
     dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:

>Unlike heterosexuality, which is dictated by nature, homosexuality
>is a lifestyle choice and should not be presented as such to school
>children.

   False.  Homosexuality is dictated by nature in creatures we agree
are incapable of making a conscious choice.  Why shouldn't humans be
just as likely to have their orientation dictated by nature?  You're
attempting to make humans fit your mold, but guess what, Doug?  The
universe is larger than you think, and we don't, we won't, all fit into
your tiny mold.

   Meanwhile, homosexuality is also a valid, life-affirming form of
existence.  You *believe* that it's wrong, but then two centuries ago
we believed being Black was wrong, and in Ireland Christians and
Protestants are killing each other over issues of doctrine so tiny that
Belfast must be the safest city in the world for Jews to live in right
now.

            Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 17:29:33 GMT

jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>> Get your hair cut, get damn job, and don't brother us 
>> until you can make these tuff decisions for yourself. 

>     Actually, this isn't a tough decision, excepting as it
>conflicts legally and ethically with all other forms of
>discrimination.  Why should males be forced to conform to
>certain standards which no one anywhere else is forced to
>conform to such standards.  It'd look rather funny if all women
>were suddenly forced to get their hair hair cut short, not
>allowed to wear makeup, forced to only where suits and
>ties, no jewelry allowed except weeidng bands, etc...

    I'm afraid that I find your moral dilema less convincing when you try 
to justify it on those grounds. Males are *not* the only ones who are 
'forced' to conform to standards. Certainly the standards are different 
for different groups and under different circumstances, but that *can't* 
be what's bugging you unless you're one of those people who tries to use 
a screwdriver to hammer in nails.

>     Personally, I'm flexible on the issue.  I had to be if
>I was in the military for eight years with short hair, I'll
>live with it again if it's that necessary.  But when everyone
>around me tells me to get a haircut for a job interview with
>no logical basis behind their statements whatsoever, other
>that to conform to some social standard or possibly be
>discriminated against during job selection, I can't justify
>that as a direct reason for doing it.

    If you don't consider the possibility of not getting a job because of  
having long hair a logical reason for cutting your hair then I'm not sure 
what to tell you. There really isn't much rhyme or reason to it besides 
that, and that rule is *not* cast in stone. I've known plenty of long-
haired software jugglers, but in practically every case those guys had 
effectively 'earned' the privelage of having long hair by having superlative 
skills which tipped any balance in their favor. If you feel that your skills 
are good enough to tip the balance for you then by all means keep your long 
hair. In some ways it might be a psychological advantage in that it sort 
of projects the image that *you* think your skills are good enough that 
your hair doesn't matter. Maybe that's enough.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12071 alt.politics.clinton:18996
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:43:12 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Dec16.203511.19755@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted Krueger,
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>>The bottom line is, the "problem" with gays in the military resides
>>completely and entirely in the minds of those who oppose it.  It is,
>>ultimately, their choice whether they are determined to remain entrenched
>>in their ignorance or advance with the rest of us.  
>
>Well, I think we have become convinced that those of the opposing position 
>are dogmatic.  I guess that, since Slick Willie is about to be Prez, we 
>will soon find out which point of view will turn out to be more correct. 
>If you are correct, you will have my submission.  I trust that the 
>converse is true.

Absolutely!  Keep in mind, however, that I =do= expect there to be some
degree of resistance to the change, and that it might even, for a fairly
short time, cause some degree of disruption in the ranks.  However, once we
have put another anachronistic prejudice behind us, we will be a stronger,
more unified nation, with a correspondingly improved military.

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
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Welcome to alt.conservative.forum
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:00:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.170305.11748@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
| This new group was created to provide a forum for conservative ideas. In
| that sense, it is a counterpart to talk.politics.progressive, and pehaps
| at some time should become talk.politics.conservative.

So much for the moderation/anti-moderation debate ;-)  The new alt group 
has not yet propagated this far and so I will cross post to Mr. Limbaugh's 
group until it does so.  In keeping with the purpose of this group I will 
ignore flamy flapdoodle from all parties (unless it pleases me to ridicule 
them).  In any case, I will not waste my time trading tirades with loony
liberal losers -- life will eventually educate even them far better than 
can man.

There are at least three classifications of thinking conservatives -- 
libertarian conservatives (characterized by a small-government perspec-
tive including varying degrees of the social view that government should 
just keep us from killing each other, but otherwise stay out of our lives),
neo-conservatives (the paradigmatic neocon is an ex-60's radical who became 
disenchanted with the ``movement'' after seeing that liberal ``solutions'' 
do not work -- can be more interventionist abroad than the libertarian 
conservative), and paleo (or classical) conservatives (characterized by 
a respect for tradition -- believes that law should not only prevent us 
from killing each other but should also promote virtue and punish vice).  
Would anybody like to suggest more categories?  Feel free to quibble with 
my thumbnail sketches above.

Personally, I have moved over the years from being a classical conservative 
to the libertarian conservative and now back to the classical conservative 
position where I seem to have settled.


Now, why don't we all go out and get a copy of Russell Kirk's _The Con-
servative Mind_ and we can read it a chapter-at-a-time and then discuss 
it here.


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12127 alt.politics.clinton:19025 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10605 alt.politics.bush:14860
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Pot-Kettle-Black (was Re: Homophobes in the Military..)
Date: 22 Dec 92 05:47:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Dec16.160855.16757@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>Isn't it funny that the people who "claim" to be "the most" in favor of 
>"not judging others based on their beliefs" often show a propensity for 
>crashing fundamentalist Christians into the walls.
>
>Their creed must be, "Don't judge others...unless they're Christians."  
>I see this creed rampant in our society today.

Okay,  now, imagine you are listening to Flash Rambo on WKRP...

*sound of papers crumpling*
Tadle-da-tadle-da-tadle-da-tadle-da  -  and now for a DOUBLE Christian
Values update.
*music rises up from the background, the fundie theme song -  R E S P E C T*

"R E S P E C T,  thats what i want for me  R E S P E C T  
(chorus - just a little respect, uh-huh)"

Dateline - Phoenix - A dial in telephone inspirational  message says that
"It would be the Christian Thing to bomb the starving
Somalies.   They are just a bunch of lazy gorilla's."

[this is TRUE]

Just in on the usenet...  
*imagine Rush's little boy voice now*

Poor Widdle Ted and da Chwistians can't get no wespect *boo hoo*
Nobody wuv him *boo hoooooooo*
We awwww supossed to wuv him cause Gawd says he's wight!

*Now, imagine Rush's deep bass voice, fully modulated*

Well, Ted, that's because you don't deserve any repsect!
Don't sit sit there and whine like a baby,  earn some respect.

Back, after these messages from "Hooked on Sonics"

"whats on your feet?"
"toes"
"Can you spell toes?"
"sure, T O E S"
"Do you know what that means in Spanish?"
"No!"
"It means, 'In the general system, ontogeny can be shown to
recapitulate phylongeny'"
"Wow, Spanish is easy!   What does "A S S" mean in Spanish?"
"Same as in English - Ted Krueger!"
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12825 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11267 alt.politics.clinton:19479 alt.politics.bush:15376 alt.politics.homosexuality:8820
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:00:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <nate.995@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> 
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

 [.. re: alleged 'forgery' by Steve Chaney (yeah, right) ..]

>> How could such a harmless joke breach "network security"?

> Well, when a jillion people read the "joke" post and hit the 'r' key 
> the email address they're going to 'r' to is Susan's, the result being 
> that Susan gets a bunch of unsolicited flames in her mailbox. 

Did Ms. Garvin receive any unsolicited e-mail as a result
of Steve Chaney's prank?  If not, then what's the problem? 

> What would *you* call such a malfunction? 

I'd call it a 'non-existent malfunction'. :-)

> I don't know anything about Susan's motivations, but I don't think 
> I would've handled it differently than she did. If I spot a glitch I 
> report it to the interested system administrator.

I think Ms. Garvin reported it as a 'forgery', not as a 'glitch'.
You seem to be manufacturing excuses for Susan Garvin's behavior. 

> Yet I don't think that Steve has any legitimate grounds for complaint 
> that Susan reported ("tattled on") his actions. 

I don't believe that Mr. Chaney has complained about Susan Garvin's 
attempts to have him punished.  I'm merely pointing out that Ms. Garvin
appears eager to have Mr. Chaney punished for a harmless joke.

> Steve is perfectly free to write to 
> Susan's administrators to tell them that she follows the rules, just as 
> she's free to write to his to tell them when he doesn't.

Just as there are stupid laws, there are stupid rules.  Ms. Garvin
relied upon a stupid rule in her attempt to punish Steve Chaney. 


>Nathan Engle 


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: rush?
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:37:03 GMT

harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:

>Dittos to that reply...and I was just wondering.....is "mike" 's posting
>an example of what the wonderful benefits our society reaps from listening
>to "progressive" broadcast pioneers like, perhaps, Howard Stern?

>Howard Stern....yeah, that would be the ticket for typical Rush-flamers....

Not me. I find Stern to be quite offensive.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12859 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11322 alt.politics.clinton:19501 alt.politics.bush:15403 alt.politics.homosexuality:8840