HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Flash! Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes (was: The Fr
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:50:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec17.220703.410@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:

>Nobody in science seriously doubts that global warming is happening.

Here we have it folks.  The intelligent poster claims that NOBODY seriously 
doubts that global warming is happening.  Since I'm sure that this poster 
claims to have read ALL the scientific journal articles on the topic, he must 
believe that all of the completely credible scientists who have written that 
global warming is NOT occuring (not to mention the thousands who believe that 
humans have nothing to do with it) are lying??? 

God!  The smugness of the sky-is-falling crowd never fails to amaze me.

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.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:30:16 GMT

Walter Smith (smithw@col.hp.com) wrote:
: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
: > |>
: > |> Ok, so what do you make of the report that there has been something on
: > |> the order of a 4-fold increase of assaults on homosexuals in Colorado
: > |> since amendment #2 passed?
: >
: > I don't "make" anything based on vague reports with no source, especially
: > when they contain phrases like "something on the order of".
: >
: > However, we are being asked to accept unreported incidents as part of
: > the basis for excluding Gays from professions.     Excluding a group from
: > certain professions is a bit different to "what do you make of these
: > reports?"
: >
: > jon.
:
: The reported increase in attacks on homosexuals is being used to support
: the 'hate state' notion against Colorado, and the boycott of the state.
: The "something on the order of" is my words, since I don't recall the
: *exact* percentage that was given, and didn't want to misrepresent the
: figures.  So from what you are saying, can we assume that you are against
: those figures being used to say that #2 has had a tangeable effect on
: the safety of gays in Colorado?  Why/why not?

Isn't it obvious?  Mr. Livesey won't have an opinion on these "statistics"
until he investigates whether or not the figures can be substantiated.

Mr Smith, why do you keep badgering Mr. Livesey?  "I don't know" is a valid
response when a person does not have sufficient information.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. |
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: MurderPhobes, RapistPhobes, etc. (was: Re: antihomosex...)
Date: 28 Dec 92 13:47:30 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush) writes:
: In article <1657@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
: >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.
: >: 
: >: After all, anyone who would say that they are against these
: >: sort of actions is REALLY just secretely afraid that, deep
: >: down inside, he/she/it actually wants to commit them too.      
: >
: >Instead, how about we come up with something, somewhere in
: >the far depths of our little right-wing imagination, which
: >homosexuality has in common with murder or rape?
: >Surprise!  There ain't nothing
: You TOTALLY missed the point!  I won't even bother to explain it to you.
: If you ready more carefully and honestly you will get the point.  If you
: are not intelligent enough to do that then you are not intelligent
: enough to understand it by me explaining it to you.

Yeah, boy- you're point's for too subtle for me.  
What you really meant to say there, I suspect, was "I you read more
carefully and honestly you will agree with me."  Actually, I did 
understand you- it's just that I DO regard the idea that
homosexuality is wrong as "unbelievably primitive".
Bill              
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 17:48:58 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1hdeumINNi8k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
]However, we are being asked to accept unreported incidents as part of
]the basis for excluding Gays from professions.     Excluding a group from 
]certain professions is a bit different to "what do you make of these 
]reports?"

Big difference: in this case, the reporters are on the net and are relating
personal experience. This is not "unreported" and it is not hearsay
or urban legend. To question their human experience is to question their
honesty. Once you start that, the debate reduces to the level of
"did too" "did not" "did too" - ie, it becomes bogus. I would ask you:
do you think that those who described incidents here on the net are
liars? Do you think Col. David Hackworth is lying in his description
of a gay commander dispensing favoritism (IN COMBAT!) based on the
sexual preference of the soldier?

If you doubt these reports, COME OUT AND SAY IT. Don't insist that some
ivory tower idea of "these should have been reported to authorities"
or "give us names and dates" - it is obvious that these are bogus criteria
that you are using just to avoid having to admit that some gays have, in the
past, misbehaved in the military. So, let me ask you this:

Do you disagree that some gays have misbehaved in the military? If not, then
why are you attacking the assertions? If so, then defend the assertion.
An answer of "but het's do it to" is irrelevant and will be ignored.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:25:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.233922.2539@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>
>However, removing all of these things from the school environment is
>impossible, and IMO, not the best solution anyway.  Instead, we have
>to teach children (at home and in school) to feel free to have
>whatever views they (or their parents) wish, but to learn and
>understand that others don't necessarily share those views, and that
>they should not be persecuted for that reason.
>

Educators have tried for the last 30 years to allow kids to develop
their own views and values. It is called the affective method of
teaching and is used along with decision making skills and self-esteem
programs. These methods are used in sex education classes, drug
prevention classes, suicide prevention and many others. The findings
consistently show that it does not work. You can't let children have
whatever views they want. It has failed miserably. Increases in drug
use, increases in teen pregnancy and a higher risk of suicide have
been traced back to this type of teaching. A good book about this
was recently published. 'Why Johnny can't tell right from wrong' by
William Kirkpatrick (Simon and Shuster). He is a professor of education
at Boston college. Excellent reading.

Unlike heterosexuality, which is dictated by nature, homosexuality
is a lifestyle choice and should not be presented as such to school
children.
-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12686 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11100 alt.politics.clinton:19387 alt.politics.bush:15258 alt.politics.homosexuality:8717
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
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: 30 Dec 92 20:52:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec30.160631.17308@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.150608.28353@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>... the sexual preference displayed by parents in the home has an 
>>enormous effect on the sexual preference of children in the home...to the 
>>extent that, children raised in a homosexual-parent home will be extremely 
>>likely to be homosexual.  Anyone have any stats?  Any examples of straight 
>
>    As another poster said, and I must have missed your response:  why,
>then, are 10% of children raised virtually exclusively in het homes gay?
>
>>children coming from a home where the parent(s) had exhibited homosexual 
>>behavior since the child was very young?
>
>    Sure.  As reported in the Advocate, a study from the Univ. of Virginia
>looked at a large number of same-sex-parents families and determined that
>there was no correlation between kids raised in lesbigay vs. het homes with
>regard to sexual orientation or social skill development.
>
>    So...you can rest easy now.

I saw this on TV.  There was at least on counter-example that they showed
which stated that it was very detrimental to her social skill development
and her relationships with other kids.  There were most certainly others
that were out there that weren't presented.  I was skeptical about what I 
saw because there wasn't enough presented in what I saw.  Also, in the
TV spot that I saw there were no male-male families or any males raised
by female-female families.  I wondered if the study contained any analysis
on these families.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12712 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11122 alt.politics.clinton:19409 alt.politics.bush:15281 alt.politics.homosexuality:8738
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 23:28:17 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
> 1 Part of teaching children to respect all people is to teach them about
> the diversity of people. They must be taught of the existance of specific 
> groups of people that are different from the child. Otherwise, the child
> may assume that the label "people" does not apply to this other group.

And this list of groups should include...I think kids will take "people" 
to mean "people".  I think it is the adults that have it too ingrained to 
do so. 

> 2 Homosexuality, like heterosexuality and bisexuality, is neither
> bad nor good. Would you comment on the 'goodness' of red hair vs. black?
> light skin vs. dark? There is no value judgement to be made here.

That is a big matter of opinion still.  I'm not at all interested in 
forcing you to believe my view; I'm not at all interested in having 
schools teach your kids my view.  It should be left at home. 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: Just my musing....
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:42:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.085718.6333@desire.wright.edu> f0358@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Well, I think I'll probably be flamed into the 21st century for this but I just
>have to get this off my chest:
>
>
>
>		Rush Limbaugh is a MORON!!!!!!!
>
>
>Sorry,
>Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!!!
>Peace on earth and Goodwill to men (if that's not too liberal for y'all)

There's tolerance for ya!!......

--------------------------
J.R. Ordon
Standard disclaimers apply
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:11:53 GMT

In article <Bzn89s.87y@andy.bgsu.edu> jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>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
>
Let me clarify. 

First, Only such incedents that involve homosexual men harassing other men
are relevant. Incedents of the hazing type, or involving inebriated men
who normaly exhibit heterosexual behavior do not count.

Second, I did not mean to imply that such incedents never occur, only
that they are rare, and that the author of the post I responded to, as
well as most rabid homophobes, probably has no experience or evidence
of any such incedent.





Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12601 alt.politics.clinton:19325 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11020 alt.politics.bush:15178
From: turnert@argon.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Thom F Turner )
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: An Apology to Ted
Date: 31 Dec 92 11:51:43 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

To: briand@anasazi.com
Subject: Re: An Apology to Ted
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson
Cc: 
Bcc: 

In article <1992Dec30.203811.17914@anasazi.com> you write:
>In article <1992Dec22.174843.13914@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec22.004304.28942@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec20.130523.6747@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> turnert@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Thom F Turner ) writes:
>>>
>>>That's a personnel issue to be dealt with by a personnel office.  But
>>>original commentary again portends that he was summarily dismissed because
>>>of his views, not because of any insubordination of authority (ie. a rule
>>>that says you can't compare gays to gila monsters on UA letterhead for
>>>which he should be disclipined).
>>
>>Where did you get this from?  
>
>I can only assume you missed the front end of this from Thom F Turner who
>posted a gloating article that the gay and lesbian caucus toppled the
>Professor in question.  I submit that if he violated University ethics and
>standards by writing something on UA letterhead, it is a personnel office
>and should stay inside that office.  My contention being that politics
>should have nothing to do with physics.  And that by Thom F Turner's logic
>that Freddie Mercury (were he alive) would be more qualified than Edward
>Teller (is he still alive), because of Teller's politics.

I never mentioned Freddy Mercury nor Edward Teller.  My comments were
aimed at a conservative Physics department head who was wasting university
time and money to export his views to other UA individuals.  His politics
really don't bother me: bigots will always exist.  I have a problem, as
do many people, that individuals employed by the state should not spend
state money to distribute their opinions (one exception being ELECTED
OFFICIALS, who we elect, in part, for their opinions.)
 

--
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
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's his party, and he'll sleep if he wants to (?)...
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:27:22 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Dec19.014823.3812@cbnewse.cb.att.com> harold.r.holm,
harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com writes:
>Intersting.....VERY interesting, that Rush showed video clips of
>Bill Clinton AND Algore AND Hillary Clinton all dozing off at this
>Grandstand TaffyPull/Browniebake*Fudgemake economic shadesof
>Woodstock "rally" lovefest.  Did *anyone* see this anywhere else
>in the media?  I'm real curious to know.  My hunch is that Dan Rather
>didn't show it.  Or Tom Brokaw.  Or Peter Jennings.  Or any of the
>rest of the ratpack, either.  Likely only on Rush's show. 

Why would anyone =care=.  Only Rush (and, of course, the most mindless of
his followers), with a driving need to ridicule the Democrats would find
this even remotely interesting.  After all, he has nothing of =substance= to
complain about yet.

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:12738 alt.politics.clinton:19425
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 1 Jan 93 02:25:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1283@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> I think that it's time to post the Gabler quotes again.  Mel and
> Norma Gabler are sort of the patron saints of the movement to
> censor schoolboooks and curricula.

Here we have the classic "Susan Garvin" logic:  pick out an 
extremist bogey man from one side of the issue, declare them
to be the "leader" or "patron saint" of a mythical "movement",  
and then assign their views to anyone who disagrees with
Susan Garvin on the issue.  

> Here's a quote from Mel:
>
> "When a student reads in a math book that there are no absolutes, 
> suddenly every value he's been taught is destroyed.  And the
> next thin you know, the student turns to crime and drugs."

Ohhh, he's such an evil, malicious bogey-man!  Obviously his
views represent the views of every person who has ever disagreed 
with Susan Garvin on the issue.  
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:07:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.041730.22991@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.194545.8342@asl.dl.nec.com>
>     dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>
>>I have read the evidence that suggests otherwise and it is not at all
>>conclusive.
>
>   Is it my imagination or is Doug becoming a parrot?  When we ask for
>documentation, he states simply "I've got documentation."
>

When someone makes a claim that studies exist to support their claim,
I research the claim myself. I do not rely on whether or not they have
valid sources. I suggest you do the same. Your the one that wants to
know. I will not waste my time doing research for you. Go to the
library.
-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Taxing medical benefits ... NOT
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:46:03 GMT

John Switzer (jrs@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec19.195620.6688@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zac
k C. Sessions) writes:
: >
: >Ted Krueger posted a few days ago a comment concerning a New York Times
: >article he saw in his local paper. According to Krueger the story said
: >that "the Democrats" were planning on "taxing health benefits" thus
: >actually increasing taxes on the middle class, something Clinton has
: >promised to avoid at all possible cost. Well, looks like he spoke too
: >soon.
: >
: >In my local paper (which is owned by the NYT) today there was a story
: >which directly contradicts these assertions. The headline was "Transition
: >aide says Clinton won't put tax on medical benefits". In the story, Judy
: >Feder, who is Clinton's transition team health policy chief, said that
: >President-elect Clinton is not planning to seek new taxes on employee
: >medical benefits to pay for health care reform. She said, "That was not
: >contemplated in the campaign, and there has been no change in that."
:
: Another example of Clinton talking out of both sides of his mouth, because
: Friday's Wall Street Journal quotes Clinton as saying he is considering endin
g
: the tax exemption on at least part of a company's health care costs. End of
: exemption translates into more taxes being paid and thus higher taxes. This
: translates into a defacto tax on a person's benefits that are above the
: basic minimum which Clinton and his advisers have yet to settle on.
: --
: John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to
:                            | masticate."
: Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
: Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.

Another example of a consevative putting the worst spin possible on what
Clinton says.  Removing tax exemptions for health care costs is a tax increase
on businesses not an increase on middle class tax payers.  Thus, the statement
by Clinton and the statement by Judy Feder do not contradict each other.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. | 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh