HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jim.Shirreffs
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: JJ Software
Distribution: world, na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:02:35 GMT

|    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. 

jim shirreffs 

i speak for myself and only myself.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
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: Somewhere in Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  world
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:22:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.162715.20785@rchland.ibm.com>, jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes...
> 
>Is Rush moving farther 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.

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?

> 
>Rush implied(IMHO) that christianity was more normal
>and morally correct than other religions and deserves
>to be taught in public schools. 

I didn't see the implication.  Could you elaborate?

I thought his point was a simple one.  That traditionally, the "experts"
of teaching "values" and "morals" has been left not to the scientific
community, nor to the secular community, but rather to the religious
community, regardless of what religion they may be.

The message of most religions is one of showing concern and compassion
for a fellow human being, and following it up with action rather than
mere words.

There's lots of mistakes and hypocrisy in this regard, and that,
unfortunately is usually what labels the rest of religion to the
secular world.

I think it's fair to say that most religions at least _claim_ to do this.

Am I wrong?

>He was also blaming
>the removal of religion from schools for many problems
>facing youth.  And of course, he blamed the liberals.

It would be interesting to see statistics on how many liberals vs
conservatives feel about the so-called "separation of church and
state" and how they interpret the 1st amendment in terms of 
religion.

> 
>1.  Is Rush courting the far right?

Define "far".  Compare it to "moderate right".

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

I don't think so.  Why should he?

> 
> 
>Jared Dahl

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,alt.politics.clinton
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: An Apology to Ted
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: world, na, usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:11:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.091953.19727@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> turnert@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Thom F Turner ) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.174347.17899@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.042117.3695@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>
>>>Ted is typical of Arizona...
>>
>>>The last state to pass a Martin Luther King day
>>
>>You left out, "The only state to pass a Martin Luther King Day Holiday by 
>>popular vote."
>>
>Hmmm...
>It is interesting that someone in our CONSERVATIVE physics department
>has SOOOO much time to post to UseNet.  I guess since we students (especially
>us Lesbian and Gay Students at the UA) helped topple the right-wing
>department head this semester, there hasn't been much leadership or
>focus in the department, so the faculty/staff spend their time posting
>here.  Curious.

What the hell does a person's political affiliations have to do with
Physics?!  Either the man knew his business or didn't.  But to gloat over
the idea that you toppled him (as if he was Somoza or someone) and that his
knowledge as a physcists was irrelevant, clearly shows a you speak for a group 
of people that have their priorities mixed up.

By that kind of thinking you would have preferred to replace Edward Teller
with Freddie Mercury (whom I do believe had a PhD in Astrophysics from
Oxford).  To hell with truth, dogma is more important.

>Thom Turner
>University of Arizona Student 
>
>--
>LLLLLLLL LL  LL  LLLL  LL   LL  | Thom Turner, Co-Chair
>   LL    LL  LL LL  LL LLL LLL  | Nat'l Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Student Caucus
>   LL    LLLLLL LL  LL LL L LL  | 815 15th St. NW Suite 838/Washington,DC 20005
>   LL    LL  LL  LLLL  LL   LL  | E-Mail: turnert@gas.uug.arizona.edu        

I think this speaks for itself that PC does exist on American Campuses and
we are seeing a modern equivelant of the Inquisition, or American
equivalent of the Cultural Revolution.  Pick your analogy.
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: 15 Dec 92 20:29:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec15.093547.16763@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE>, k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
|> In article <14DEC199213373618@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
|> >In article <645@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes...
|> >| 
|> >	There is a distinction between Gay identity and Gay behaviour.
|> [...]
|> >
|> >	Gays are like Blacks in that there is something about them,
|> >irrespective of thier behaviour, which they cannot seem to change.  In 
|> >particular, Gays are sexually responsive to members of their own gender.
|> >They cannot love members of the opposite gender in the same capacity.
|> >This is a trait which they are either born with or acquire sometime before
|> >they have an awareness of it.  
|> >
|> >	Blacks cannot, without much effort, change their skin colour,
|> >and Gays cannot change their gender attraction.
|> >
|> On the contrary, I have known several "gay" people who rejected 
|> homosexual practices and are now heterosexuals. Whether or not
|> they still feel "attracted" to same gender relationships is a point
|> of debate (they claim to me that they're not).

Jeepers.   Talk about missing the point by a mile.

jon.
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: How many gays are there anyway?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 13:08:31 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Felix Gorney writes:

>From what I understand, this number is supposed to be apx. 10%. 
>However, that "scientific" estimate is probably high. From what the 
>media says on the topic, one is given the impression that the number 
>is close to 50%.

The 10% figure goes back to the early 50s, from the Kinsey report, a
report now generally considered so flawed, partisan, and unscientific,
that no one gives it any real credibility these days.  More recent
figures suggest 2 or 3 % is more realistic, but I can't even say what 
those figures are based upon.


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11901 alt.politics.clinton:18857 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10440 alt.politics.bush:14732
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Pot-Kettle-Black (was Re: Homophobes in the Military..)
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:08:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec14.155111.3969@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:

[Please forgive me if I got the attribution wrong.  I did quite a bit of 
 chopping to this article.]

>If we want to teach
>children that hating others based on their beliefs is wrong i'll
>get behind that 100%. I am not a Paganphobe..:) If I was, i'd have
>to go move to Pat Robertson's Christian Ostrich-Hole Wonderland
>Condominiums where all employees and residents are guaranteed
>100% Born-Again Bible Whumpers...

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.

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
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: na
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:02:01 GMT

In <1627@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:

>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>: The problem with the motor voter bill is that it REQUIRES everyone who 
>: gets a drivers license, gets food stamps, etc., to be registered to vote.  
>: Most people believe that it only gives people the opportunity to be 
>: registered.  It does not.  These people WILL BE  AUTOMATICALLY REGISTERED. 
>: 
>: I am in favor of a bill which would GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY to be registered.

What about draft registration?

Why is it that we force men to register for the draft, yet not to vote?

If you consider enforced voter registration a violation of rights, does
that mean you consider registration for the draft a violation of rights?


--
Yosha Bourgea                   "Everybody's hands are in their pockets,
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     Everybody wants a box of chocolates
Phred the Happy Mutant          And a long-stemmed rose."
sez "Boop-ola."                               --Leonard Cohen

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: MurderPhobes, RapistPhobes, etc. (was: Re: antihomosex...)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:18:35 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Dec12.163349.8934@mic.ucla.edu>, rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
|> A solution to the rhetorical confusion here:
|> 
|> Since gay rights activists have chosen to define homophobes as
|> anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a completely
|> normal, moral, and admirable life-style (and if they
|> deny this, they are LYING), then let us:
|> 
|> coin the term MurderPhobia to describe the viewpoint that murdering
|> other people is wrong.
|> 
|> coin the term RapistPhobe to describe anyone who is so
|> closed-minded as to deny rapists the right to live how they want.
|> 
|> coin the term TheftaPhobia to describe that unbelievably
|> primitive attitude that stealing is wrong.

All of these crimes hurt other people.  How does being homosexual
hurt someone else?  Why should you disapprove of them?  Is it your
job to judge them?

Like shooting stupid fish in a barrel...

Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11748 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10250 alt.politics.clinton:18739 alt.politics.bush:14618 alt.politics.homosexuality:8034
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: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 17:26:10 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

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?  

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11463 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9968
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 13:23:45 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's his party, and he'll sleep if he wants to (?)...
Distribution: na

In article <1992Dec19.014823.3812@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com
(harold.r.holm) says:

>Intersting.....VERY interesting, that Rush showed video clips of
>Bill Clinton AND Algore AND Hillary Clinton all dozing off at this
>Grandstand Taffy-Pull/Brownie-bake*Fudge-make economic shades-of-
>Woodstock "rally" love-fest.

Uh... I'm sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of your description.
What event are you referring to?

>Yes, remember how Reagan's critics used to knife-stab this criticism
>in and twist it for maximum political criticism effect when RR
>was reported to sleep through meetings?

Give me one example of any time that a national news program bashed
Ronald Reagan for sleeping through meetings. ONE example. Betcha can't.

All the RR-sleeping-through-meetings stuff pretty much came out as rumors
and stuff in that flood of tell-all books that came out of his administration,
not from the "evil" media. Ya know, there's a benefit of the Reagan presidency
right there: all those books probably kept the publishing industry afloat
singlehandedly...

"Thank you, Dr. Science."

[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: MurderPhobes, RapistPhobes, etc. (was: Re: antihomosex...)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:20:41 GMT

libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush) writes:
>: If that's the only response you can come up with, then just
>: replace Murderers, Rapists, and Thieves with Prostitutes,
>: (adult)Pornography advocates, and Drug Users.  It is just as easy to say
>: that these people don't hurt others, when in reality they do.
>: 
>: The "we don't hurt others" line is the only line that gays have that
>: even comes close to being a substantial argument, but it quickly falls
>: apart.                

>Argument by assertion.  Kindly attempt to say something intelligent
>so that we can have an actual discussion here.  Towit:

    Arguments without assertions are a little dull, don't you think?

>How, exactly, do homosexuals hurt other people AS A FUNCTION OF
>THEIR SEXUALITY?

>Why do gays *need* "a substantial argument" for their sexual
>practices?

    It might help gays to gain political concessions if they could show 
evidence that homosexuality strengthens or pertuates our society. Look at 
mothers, for example. The mothers of America have traditionally been the 
primary care-givers for children, and Americans (like all historically-
minded peoples) pay a lot of attention to the needs of their young. I doubt 
that we will ever (even in Rush Limbaugh's wildest dreams) see government 
entitlement programs like aid to mothers with dependant children enacted 
for single gay men with no particular attachments. If you could grab your 
legislator by the collar and say "Look, buddy, if you don't support us gays 
then you're flushing future generations down the toilet" then you might 
get a little more support.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
Supersedes: <92346.121924FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:42:59 EST
From: <FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu>

In article <1992Dec8.233652.24815@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>,
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) says:
>
>      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.

What's so awful about being registered to vote?   Is this such a horrible
experience that we have to protect people from having it forced upon them?
Except for possibly having to answer a few questions on a form, I don't see
any way this could be detrimental to the person registering.  IMHO, the only
bad part about this would be that the gov't would have to process a whole
pile of registrations for people who will never vote.  As for the individual,
there's no harm done.

-Frank Racis
-FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY !!!
Summary: Lies!!! would have described your article equally well, Dennis
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:55:22 GMT
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec12.000056.24462@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

[Lots of deletions throughout]

###Whoops. I almost forgot. I apologize. The reason why it is logically
###correct for women to bash men is because:
###
###8- This is the Year of the Woman. 
##
##Proof?  You always seem to have a problem with proof, Steve.
#
#PROOF?! I KNEW you lived near Jerry Brown Land. The proof that this is
#The Year of the Woman is easy to find - go read the newspapers, that
#this has been declared the Year of the Woman. 

Dennis, I think that he was asking for proof that "it is logically
correct for women to bash men" because this is the "Year of the
Woman."  

later,

#I have supplied you ample proof of all my claims. (In fact I've
#supplied everyone with ample proof of all my claims but that doesn't
#deter their ignorance, so what does it matter?) 

I never saw you prove that Jesse Jackson "called the Jews of New
York Hymietown."  I never saw you prove that "the Jews of New York"
are hostile, nor that they had all collaborated in preventing some
anti-abortion demonstration.  (As I recall, the article that you
cited said no such thing.)  I never saw you prove that I had forged
a quote from you.  You said that you were going to post that proof,
and then you disappeared from talk.abortion.  In short, Dennis,
I've never seen you prove anything.  I think that you're going to
have to call me names now.  I'd advise against sending threatening
e-mail, though.  You know why.

Susan
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:04:19 GMT

In <1992Dec8.203745.22470@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <1992Dec7.142026.18926@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>>In article <92339.105542ATERO@ASUACAD.BITNET> , ATERO@ASUACAD.BITNET writes:
>>>Does any other arbitary distinction include child molesters, rapists,
>>>beastiality, necrophilia?  Point being, is it mandatory that we accept
>>>any and all groups and learn to love and accept them for what they are?
>>
>>Clearly not.  Any "sexual preference" which victimizes people is
>>unacceptable.  Any "sexual preference" which involves informed mutual
>>consent =is= acceptable.  It's as simple as that!

>Here is the problem.  It is not even nearly as simple as that.  In most 
>states, it is impossible for a 16-year-old girl to consent, while a 
>16-year-old male can consent.  There are numerous laws concerning who 
>can and cannot consent, some of them are stupid laws, but some of them 
>are extremely essential.  Now the question:  Who decides?

The public, of course, as represented by their elected officials.  Naturally,
public opinion changes, sometimes at different speeds than the opinion of
elected officials.  Sometimes laws are unjust.  Sometimes laws need to be
changed.

>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.

Nice fallback.  Of course, you didn't address the point in the slightest,
which was that homosexuality is acceptable because it involves informed
mutual consent as a general rule.  You changed the subject.  But that's okay.
Let me ask you a question: when African-Americans were allowed into the
military, was there abuse of "racism" charges?  I think not.  And I don't
think the inconvenience of excessive discrimination charges outweighs the
injustice of actual discriminatory events that go unchecked.  Ignoring the
problem doesn't make it go away.

>Ted

--
Yosha Bourgea                   "Everybody's hands are in their pockets,
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     Everybody wants a box of chocolates
Phred the Happy Mutant          And a long-stemmed rose."
sez "Boop-ola."                               --Leonard Cohen

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia -- *NOT*!
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:43:25 GMT

young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:


>>   how many were like Slick and "loath the military".  (I was, by the way.)

>I didn't hear about this.  Clinton loathes the military?  Why wasn't
>more made of this during the campaign?  It was probably the Pinko
>Press.  No, wait, they played up his draft status, so that can't be
>it.  I know!  It was the Rockefeller Brothers!  Right?  Where does
>this quote come from?


>--
>Peter Young
>young@erim.org

Peter, 
It was excerpted from the letter he wrote to his ROTC commandant, where
he also thanked him from "saving him from the draft".  Folks did try to
make an issue of it, but were told "character isn't an issue!  What he
did 20 odd years ago doesn't matter!"

John
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11989 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10502 alt.politics.clinton:18932 alt.politics.bush:14788