HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
In-reply-to: jhb@calmasd.prime.com's message of 14 Dec 92 23:00:08 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<92342.162038ATERO@ASUACAD.BITNET>
	<1992Dec8.144622.1013@calmasd.prime.com>
	<1992Dec10.155115.15000@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
	<1992Dec14.150008.1040@calmasd.prime.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:36:38

In article <1992Dec14.150008.1040@calmasd.prime.com> jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:

>   Ted, why do you keep shoveling those off-topic favorite arguments of
>   yours as fast as you can whenever you can't think of any other way to
>   disagree with someone?


   Jim, Ted let it slip yesterday that Cal Thomas is his source.  Read
some of Mr. Thomas' columns and you will understand why Ted feels it's
ok to argue the way he does.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
From: joe.james@idcbbs.uu.holonet.net (Joe James) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Clinton Promise List
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:48:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: IDC BBS - Alameda, CA - 510-865-7115
Reply-To: joe.james@idcbbs.uu.holonet.net (Joe James) 

Does anyone have the Clinton promise list that was in the Rush Limbaugh
Letter?
---
 . OLX 3.0 31-1440 . Tested Positive For The E.I.B. Virus -Rush Limbaugh
                                                                                                   
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11810 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10317
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Madonna (was Re: Rush just looks at the pictures
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:17:35 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Dec16.174629.8496@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:

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

That's not anything to brag about, IMHO.

 ----------------------!!! H A P P Y   H O L I D A Y S !!!-------------------
 ObQuotes:
 "Ignorance and prejudice, confident their ways are best..."
 "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand..."

  - Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
    Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS 214-596-2915, a Wildcat! BBS
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11937 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10468 alt.politics.clinton:18885 alt.politics.bush:14752 alt.politics.homosexuality:8191
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: 19 Dec 92 00:06:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1gtmgmINNipe@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > I'm not assuming anything.   The New York Times had an article on Sunday
|> > - you can easily look it up - in which it was claimed that many of the
|> > things that church and other groups complain about in the famous book
|> > simply are not in it.
|> 
|> And I told you I was not quoting a "church and other group"; I was relating 
|> what a homosexual poster told me it said.  Do you think his portrayal was 
|> inaccurate, or are you just being a snit? 
|> 
|> > Now I am waiting for you to produce quotes to substantiate your claims.
|> 
|> You can wait till you're blue in the face.  I've said repeatedly that 
|> I have not read the book myself; and the quote I gave was from someone
|> who had read the book, and whom I had NO reason to believe was 
|> misrepresenting it; if you feel it was inaccurate, say so.  If you 
|> just want to whine 'cause I haven't read the book, go ahead. You're
|> whining about me substantiating my claims, are you even saying they 
|> are wrong, or just plain whining? 

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.

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.

Mr Smith, when asked for a quote of what he is talking about simply
refuses to give it.

Why am I not surprised.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush lets something slip ...
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:47:52 GMT

    Speaking of Rush letting things slip... (or if you prefer "For a 
complete change of subject...")

    Did anybody catch the opening minutes of Rush's show today? While he 
was belly-aching about his "commute" from the White House last night and 
describing his troubles in assembling toiletries he commented that he had 
on some terrible smelling after-shave which he wouldn't have even put on 
if it hadn't have been for the scratchy shave he got from a cheapo little 
plastic razor that he "stole" from the hotel Gift Shop.

    Since when does the "Epitomy of Morality and Virtue" go around stealing 
plastic razors from hotel gift shops? Rush probably has a bigger credit line 
on his library card than I have on any of my credit cards. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: How many gays are there anyway?
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:34:18 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com

In article <0fA_goe00iUy81wKE4@andrew.cmu.edu> James William Stepanek,
js43+@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
>Well I have been following the gays in the military thread here and one
>of the most common pro arguements is that it will improve the military
>by increasing the manpower pool. I would just like someone to post how
>much of a numerical difference letting the gays in will make. Can
>someone post what percent of the population is homosexual. Please post
>it don't send it to my account, I'm running a bit low in the memory.

"Scientific" (I use the term loosely) estimates tend to range from 5 to
10 percent.  I'm inclined to expect reality to run toward the low end of
that range.

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:11666 alt.politics.clinton:18634
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:28:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.233652.24815@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>Oh come on.  That's not what I meant, and you know it. (At least I hope you 
>do.)  People should have the right to decide if they want to be registered 
>to vote.  They should not be forced to register just because they want a 
>driver's license.

	Ted Krueger, you are a big baby. I haven't seen the Motor
Voter legislation myself, but I think that it could easily be modified
to make registration optional, if that was not already part of the
bill.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:46:54 GMT

In article <667@blue.cis.pitt.edu> John S Lundberg, jsl+@pitt.edu writes:
>But I suspect that the whole problem could evaporate by insisting on
>strict adherence to certain standards of behavior.  In short, ANY kind
>of sexual advances would be a serious disciplinary infraction.  What
>someone does in their off hours should be their own concern but while
>on duty they can be held to strict behavioral limits that should be
>sufficient to maintain unit morale, etc.

Unfortunately, this is a rational solution to an irrational fear.  Those
with this problem will persist until 1) reality is forced on them in a
way they can't avoid, or 2) they all grow old and die.  I suspect that
the reality of the situation will be a combination of both.

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: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Rush on the Right?
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:46:48 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

Come on folks, Rush's commentary on the state of affairs isn't on the
Far Right, it's just plain right.  How many of you kids are over 30?  Do
you remember the beginning of Roe v. Wade?  At the time, there was serious
thought about euthanasia becoming acceptable. The pro-choice crowd said it
would never happen, yet there stands Jack the Dripper.

What Rush put forth is the same thing people all the way back to Patrick
Monihan (?) was saying after the Watts riots.  What we are facing is a
serious breakdown in values.  People laughed at Dan Q. when he brought the
subject up, but it's a fact.  It's not a "family" value issue, it's just
plain values.  Too many people don't value other people's life, property,
or anything else.

When he brought up the Ten Commandments, he had a valid point.  Can you
name one other set of principles that would solve ALL the world's problems
better, if everyone just believed in them?  Granted, they are religious
ideas, but they are also the moral foundation for just about all of our
laws, and make sense.

When schools start teaching everything except the basic principles of
what's right and wrong, and when parents don't get involved and do the
same, we've got a whole generation growning up without any values.  Rush
made the point of the value of life with his comments on abortion.  When
we start looking at suicide as a serious option to poor "quality of life",
when we use aborted fetuses as nothing more than something to experiment
on in a lab, when unborn life is considered as nothing more than a wart,
then the value of life itself drops.

His bottom line was we have to start teaching values, be it in school,
or better yet, in the home and church, or we're in deep trouble.  When
people like Maxine Waters start calling a riot a rebellion and try to
rationalize lawlessness, we've got a problem.  When people condemn a
bunch of cops beating up on a black man, but don't show the same
condemnation of black men beating up on a white man, there's a problem.

He was right on, trouble is, too many people don't listen, they just
write what he said off as the ravings  of a radical.
 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
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: 14 Dec 92 18:34:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec11.133126.26871@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.232119.24317@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted Krueger,
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>>>You are flat wrong.  Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual any more
>>>than you choose to be heterosexual.  
>>
>>I have heard this claim bandied about as gospel for too long without 
>>substantiation.  Either provide evidence that is substantial (and I'm 
>>not talking about the ambiguous stuff that has been strewn around), or 
>>shut up.
>
>OK, how about the fact the the major psychiatric associations have come to
>agree that homosexuality is a "condition" not a "disease" or "illness."

Which major psychiatric associations?

>This conclusion is based on scientific research and study.  For example,
>there was a recent study of identical twins separated at birth.  In most
>cases where one twin was homosexual, the other tended to be also.

This is different.  I will concede that it is possible that there is a 
genetic predisposition (just as in alcoholism).  It does not follow, 
however, that people are homos "because" of their genes.

>This and other studies have brought the scientific community into
>substancial agreement on the issue.

Which other studies?  What scientific community? And if you agree with this, 
how do you feel about the interpretation that the differences in size of the 
hypothalamus (which I am not convinced of) indicate that homosexuality, at 
least as measured by the size of the hypothalamus, is an abnormality?

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
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
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: 17 Dec 92 23:39:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Distribution: usa

In article <1gnoriINN4bl@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> > It is ludicrous to say school textbooks should show only the type of
> > family you prefer--in particular, only families which consist of one
> > male parent and one female parent each.
> > I trust that is crystal clear now.
 
> Yes.  So should families where one parent is a crossdresser be shown? 
> Or both are?  Does a distinction need to be made between 2-male families 
> and households where there is a father and a male (non-gay relation) 
> sharing the house (to share expenses) where they sleep in *different* 
> rooms?  Do we need to show families where daddy and the family dog are 
> very close?  Do we need to show families where mommy and daddy are 
> swingers, and occasionally have someone else's mommy/daddy sleep over 
> instead of the usual mommy/daddy?  How about when daddy and daddy are 
> swingers, and swap daddies now and then?  I realize I'm going to an 
> absurd length here, but do you see the point?  

Your point would have some validity if the point of the lesson was 
diversity in sexual practices. But the lesson is not about sexual
practices, its about the basic permutations that happen in
couples. A couple is two people, who can be either men or women, that
makes four possible combinations. The lesson is structured to give the
student the basic information. 

I know that you are bent out of shape by the *they sleep together* line
but honestly can't you see that it is just enough to get across the message
that the people in those other familys are like the people in the 
students family. Geez walter, to prepubescent kids, sleeping together
is nothing more than sharing half a matress and giggling a lot.

LUX ./. owen
--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12017 alt.politics.clinton:18963
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:03:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) 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?

Come now, John, I never said nor implied that men and women do share
quarters. I just think it is a load of dung to claim that one of the
main reasons why there are separate quarters for men and women was to
stamp out heterosexual rape. That's all.

No smoke. No mirrors.

-- 
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
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia -- *NOT*!
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:03:26 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

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 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.

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.

Incidentally, it would be interesting to find out just how many of these
posters advocating gays in the military were actually in the military, or
how many were like Slick and "loath the military".  (I was, by the way.)
 



Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11848 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10387
From: msp@msen.com (Jerry Foster)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Madonna (was Re: Rush just looks at the pictures
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 18 Dec 1992 02:13:19 GMT
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Greg Bradt (greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com) wrote:

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

: Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

Ummm, Lets see.  Madonna's book costs over twice as much as Rush's.  Maybe
you should have done some simple math before posting.

--
  //  Jerry Lee "3P"
\x/   e-mail: jfos@msp.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
In-reply-to: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM's message of 14 Dec 92 13:08:24 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<14002@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:45:16

In article <14002@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:

>   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

I will agree with you, Dave, when you manage an amendment that
overturns the establishment clause.  And when you do, watch yourself,
because if I am ever in charge of it, I guarantee you won't like the
symbols I display.

Seriously, though, folks, what about responding to the questions in my
original response?  To what Secular Humanist symbols do you refer?
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11965 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10491 alt.politics.clinton:18913 alt.politics.bush:14772 alt.politics.homosexuality:8217