HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: The words of a patriot...
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 09:46:12 GMT

In article <dlhanson.27.726175240@nap.amoco.com>
     dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:

   [ Quotes from the Christian Book of the Dead deleted for brevity. ]

   Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated
immediately from God to man.

   No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a
communication, if He pleases.  But admitting, for the sake of a case,
that something has been revelaed to a certain person, and not revealed
to any other person, it is revelation to that person only.  When he
tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth,
and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons.  It is a
revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and
consequently they are not obliged to beleive it.

   It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a
revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in
writing.  Revelation is necessarily limited to the fist communication--
after this it is only an account of something which that person says
was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to
believe it, it cannot be incumbent upon me to believe it in the same
manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his
word that it was made to him.

   When moses told the children of Israel that he received the two
tables of the commandements from the hands of God, they were not
oblidged to beleive him, because they had no other authority for it
other than his telling them so.  The commandments carry no internal
evidence of divinity within them; they contain some good moral precepts
such as any may qualified as a lawgiver, or legislator, could produce
himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.

   When I am told that the Koran was written in heaven and brought to
Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of
hearsay evidence and second hand authority as the former.  I did not
see the angel myself and, therefore, I have a right not to belive it.

                  - Thomas Paine, 1794

      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,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:33:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.190110.12593@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>Some of these things are now doubted, and others have been proven to
>be false.  To make an argument based on science, we need to know the
>science, not vaguely recall what we thought we learned when we were
>young.
>
>It also helps to keep in mind that some things really are facts. For
>instance, that some animals engage in homosexual behavior, and anal
>and oral sex, is not a theory, unlike my examples of baryon number or
>continental drift.  It is also not the sort of observation which is
>likely to have been done incorrectly (unlike my examples of
>chromosomes and Mercury.)  It is just a fact.
>
And to go back a little further, it was observed that wherever mud bogs
appeared, so did frogs, enhence the theory of Spontaneous Generation.  To
support this theory, it was also observed that maggots Spontaneously Generated 
on rotting meat.  

Whenever Inductive Reasoning is applied to Observed Phenomena, it makes
better tabloid reading then it does good science.

>-- 
>     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
>               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de


-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Colorado boycott
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:33:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 

DB>From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
DB>Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
DB>Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
DB>Date: 6 Jan 1993 12:33:56 GMT
DB>Organization: Sun Microsystems
DB>Message-ID: <1iejjkINNre5@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>
DB>References: <1993Jan5.181813.27865@anasazi.com>
DB>Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM

DB>I've also heard that business at the ski resorts is up 20% this year.  Which
DB>brings to mind something I said here a couple months ago... don't start boyc
DB>you're not sure of winning.  If you don't win, it makes your cause appear to
DB>have less merit than it did before, and in effect vindicates the opposing ca

DB>        Dave

So we have an unsourced rumor that proves causation? Sure. There is
a rumor that business is up, so therefore 1) it must be 100% true
and 2) it must be people supporting the Amendment.

Most of the boycott hasn't even taken effect yet, since it's just
started. Events planned in Colorado that are cancelled won't be
noticed until whenever they were supposed to have happened, which
may be months from now.

Tell me, how is Colorado's convention business?
---
 . SLMR 2.0 . "God created Michigan to train the faithful."
 * KMail 2.94e W-NET HQ, hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us, 313-663-4173 or 3959
    
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jahn@guinness.Idbsu.EDU (Greg Jahn)
Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Reply-To: jahn@guinness.idbsu.edu
Organization: BSU - Data Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:54:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.225211.12744@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>,
 glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:
|>In article <1993Jan8.205023.28080@guinness.idbsu.edu>
|>jahn@guinness.idbsu.edu writes:
|>>
|>>Why does any of this matter?  Getting upset about two homosexual
|>>adults doing whatever they want and like to do in the privacy of
|>>their own home is about as crucial an issue as whether someone puts
|>>cream in their coffee or not.  If you happen to be religious in
|>>such a way as to believe they are going to hell for their behaviour,
|>>then, ... why not just leave it at that?  Why should you care if
|>>you believe they are going to hell, and why should THEY care if
|>>YOU think they are going to hell?  It's none of your business.
|>
|>It does make a difference if I have to deal with them working for me.
|>If I don't like what types of behavior someone engages in, I should
|>be
|>allowed to not hire them.  I shouldn't be forced to accept this as an
|>alternative lifestyle.  Another example is drug testing.  I don't like
|>|>drug testing.  I don't think companies (except in certain areas)
|>should
|>drug test.  I AM EMPHATICALLY AGAINST FEDERALLY MANDATED DRUG TESTING.
|>|>BUT, I am not against any employer who freely WANTS to drug test
|>(if
|>proper care is taken for false-positives).  I think he/she should be
|>allow to test for <insert your drug here> if they like.  If it's
|>stupid,
|>they won't attract good workers.  They will eventually change or they
|>|>will just have to deal with not having certain people working for
|>them.
|>Why is it that people who want to engage in unpopular activities feel
|>|>that they MUST be accepted by the rest of society? 
|>

I guess what I'm driving at is, not whether you should be forced to
accept other people's alternative lifestyles, but simply why should
you care?

So basically, the question I have was mostly not answered. WHY do you
dislike homosexuals?  If the person could do the job he applied for,
WHY is his/her sexual orientation an issue?  I doubt that the job
requires sex acts in front of you, so how is it an issue?  And if
it is the way the person appears to you, I'd guess that you are
wrongly assuming that all homosexuals act the same.  You may already
have a homosexual working for you ... I've met some homosexual guys
that come across more macho than I do.

So to put it somewhat philosophically ... if you had a guy working
for you that you didn't know was homosexual, should it bother you?
 
--
Greg Jahn Boise State Univ.| "Spoils of war are spoils of war,
/ jahn@guinness.idbsu.edu /|  says junk man, owner of the junk. 
/ dosjahn@idbsu.bitnet    /|  Grafitti man's got something to
/ (208)385-3891.thephone  /|  say. "   - John Trudell
From: tinkess@cambridge (Randall Tinkess)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:37:14 GMT
Organization: CERFnet
NNTP-Posting-Host: mitchell.com

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:

>Of course, they have a right to send their kid anywhere they want; it only
>appears unusual because of the pro-public school flag-waving of the 
>Clintons.  What I find disturbing is the reason given for the decision-
>that the "mandatory" pair of Secret Service guards would cause disruption in
>a public school.  Why wouldn't they cause similar disruption in a private
>school- are private school kids somehow less disruptable?  And why wasn't
>there similar disruption when Amy Carter went to a public school?  Somehow
>that reason given appears, in the absence of any other offered facts, somewhat
>flimsy.

Get realistic! There is very little comparison between the public and
private school environment. School populations are usually smaller as are
class sizes in private schools. Also, the general environment is much more
controlled. I doubt that crack dealers are hiding in the fire escapes of 
Chelsea's new school. All of these factors and many more will definitely
lessen the level of disruption caused by a studuent such as Chelsea. 

You obviously don't remember the circus atmosphere that surrounded Amy
Carter when she attended public school. All of the publicity and 
attention had a negative effect on  Miss Carter's school years. This
is a fact that she and her father have attested to. 

I see no advantage to putting a member of the first family at risk to
satisfy conservative whiners. And if you don't think there is any risk 
I suggest you look closely at the D.C. school system. 

The school crisis in this country will not be solved nor changed by 
where Chelsea Clinton studies. 
-- 
Randall Tinkess                                          Mitchell International
tinkess@mitchell.com                                     9889 Willow Creek Road
(619) 578-6550 x 6458                                       San Diego CA, 92131
From: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush's Ratings
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:58:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


 
Here in the Toledo area, Rush's TV show was originally aired
on WUPW, the Fox affiliate station.  As of yessterday, there
has been a minor (?) programming change.  Rush has moved from
WUPW to NWO, the ABC station.  He completely took over Arsineo's
time slot at 11PM.  This has not just bumped Arsinio back a
half an hour, because after Rush they played "Top Cops" (or
whatever the name of the show is, with the theme song about
bad boys...)  Top Cops also used to be a Fox show, and moved
to NWO.  TV Guide obviously hasn't noted the change yet, because
Rush is still listed as being on WUPW.
 
I suppose that this could be considered an upward movement
for Rush's show (and an obliteration of Arsineo's show.)
"And God saw it, and he said this is good."  Uh, maybe...
While I can agree with the premise there :), it puts me
in just a little bit of a bind.  Rush's first showing used
to be at 11:30 PM on Fox, and then the second showing used to
be at 12:30 PM the next day (as a rerun of the previous
night's show.)  That was good.  Now, Rush's first showing is
on at 11 PM, and the rerun showing is at 6 PM the next
evening.  Here on EST, our local news shows are at 6 and 11
PM.  This is going to force me and many others to choose
between watching the local news OR watching Rush.  Well,
the obvious solution is to watch Rush at 11, and only catch
the 6 o'clock local news (but that kinda sux, because they
carry different stories at 11.)  Also, I sometimes really
like to catch the second showing, when possible, if something
happened the night before that I didn't quite catch or
whatever the night before.  I know, quit your bitching and buy
a VCR, right?  Easier said than done, on my budget!  And
it's quite possible that Rush's show may gain something
economically from the move initially, but it's possible that
his show might well suffer, competing with the local new now.
 
But anyway, heh heh, our local radio talk show that
immediately follows Rush's radio show has just brought
this whole move thing up for discussion as well, as I
sit and type this!  Guess I'm not totally out of line
in my reasoning, if a prominent talk show host/politician
has just made the observations as I have.  Anyway, I just
thought I'd give a reported siting of just how bad Rush
has beat out Arsineo, who was the 3rd rated late night
talk show host (but no more)!
 
Jim
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 17:37:17 GMT

In article <nate.1049@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>    The reason I think that it would be a bad idea is that our public 
>schools are a "safety" net into which most of our "disadvantaged" students 
>are placed. The sort of competition that you're describing would very 
>likely result in a long-term improvement in private and parochial schools, 
>and that might even lead to an eventual improvement in the public schools, 
>but there's going to be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in the 
>process (and a lot of kids would be even worse off than they are now).
>
>    Back during the Gulf War there were a lot of peacenik types going 
>around talking about stopping the war by withholding funding. As I recall 
>Rush criticised these people very severely, even going so far as to call 
>them unpatriotic and/or unamerican. I have to wonder, in light of the 
>arguments that have been proposed here, what the reaction would have been 
>if the peaceniks had tried to argue for the idea of "Defense Vouchers" 
>which they could elect to spend on whatever form of national defense they 
>thought was the most effective? I might also wonder what would be the 
>reaction to the idea of "Transportation Vouchers" to allow people to 
>elect just which potholes they want to have fixed. I'm not saying that 
>either of these propositions would be good ideas, but I do think that it's 
>a double standard to hand money to the Pentagon with the insistence that 
>Pentagon experts determine how the money should be spent, but when we hand 
>money to educators all the sudden we want everybody to have individual 
>control.

How about this for an idea.  Why not cut taxes so people can spend their
money on what they feel is important.  No need for "Transportation Vouchers".
Obviously, there are some things that we MUST fund (and I believe strongly that
education is one of them), but the government is involved in far too much.
People could actually "choose" where to spend their own money.  Wow, what a 
concept.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:05:31 GMT

In article <C0Ax5F.9K6@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
> Historians agree that western science was defined and structured by
> Christian concepts, beliefs, and attitudes.  Without Christianity, western
> science, as such, would simply not exist.  

  I don't suppose you could make a list of those "Christian concepts,
beliefs and attitudes" which Science is so precariously hinged on?
A couple names of that vast majority of historians might be nice too.

> It is only in the last
> 100 years that science has developed this peculiar aversion to religion.

  Perhaps because mysticism and objective metaphysics are diametrically
opposed to one another?

> Certainly, one can point to instances in which religious authority 
> fought certain concepts and ideas that later turned out to be correct.

  Gad, can you say understatement?

> However, they performed no better or worse than did (or does) the established
> scientific community today in terms of accepting radically new, correct,
> ideas.  

  Oh. I guess the 1800 years of dark ages are pretty equivalent to the
5 to 10 years that, say, quantum mechanics was in doubt in the physics
community. 
  Dream on.

> To say that religous reasoning is an oxymoron, or that secular
> reasoning is somehow superior, is to profess an ignorance so profound that
> it boggles the mind.

  A rather dubious presumption that a mind could be boggled when it has
been reduced to a mass of protoplasm via the destruction of objective 
reason, but do elucidate. Why should I give any credence to mysticism
of any kind? 

> Certainly, many deaths have been done in the name of religion.  I will 
> merely point out that more people have died in "secular" wars than in
> any combination of religious wars you care to name.  If you wish to 
> compare infinities of violence, "secularity" will not come out the better.
> I would furthermore argue that this violence is much harder to justify
> and continue using Christianity as the foundation than it is using
> secular reasoning.  Genocide is much simpler to reason away to your 
> fellow man than it is to the unwinking eye of God, as Hitler, Stalin,
> Hussein, and Pol Pot have already shown.

  So two wrongs make a right? Is that what your trying say here?
And Hitler didn't have any religious inclinations? That'll be news
to the many millions of Jews who died at Dachau and Auchwitz.

  You have a severe case of Darkagelustitus. See a witch doctor, or
the xtian equivalent, a faith-healer.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13036 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11546 alt.politics.clinton:19623 alt.politics.bush:15548
From: greenidd@CS.ColoState.EDU (danielle greenidge)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 15:45:10 GMT
Organization: Organization?  Don't know the meaning of the word!
Keywords: Colorado, Amendment 2

In article <1993Jan5.181813.27865@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>
>>Colorado (no anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals)
>
>Tourism is reported up by 10% in Colorado since the call for Boycotts.
>
>-- 
>"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
>	Jefferson
>Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657


Perhaps, but since the passage of this stoneheaded piece of tripe by 54% of
the more benighted citizens of my fair state (read: El Paso County, et al)
potential convention business and large-scale job prospects (read: Ziff-Davis
Publishing in particular) are down big time, possibly as much as 30%.  It's
gonna take quite a few Texans careening down the slopes to make up the 
deficit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Spence (in exile at): greenidd@handel.cs.colostate.edu

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Complete non sequitur Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:24:39 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon) writes:
=rww@mugwump.cl.msu.edu (Richard W. Wiggins) writes:
=>You might advocate excellent highways but fly across the country
=>because you can afford it.  Remember that Chelsea is a separate
=>human and may have had a lot of input into this decision.

Choose one::
1) Let's start an abortion debate on this statement! Whoa!
2) I would think that if Chelsea had any input, she would've wanted to
stay with her friends in her Little Rock high school. Grandma could take
care of her. 
3) Wait. I thought Clinton and Gore are gonna keep up those bus
trips...
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"I'll be back!  You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House
forever.  And when they get in... I'll be back on the streets!  With all
my criminal buddies! BA-HAHAHAHAHA!" -SideShow Bob, The Simpsons.