HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jim.Shirreffs
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: JJ Software
 <1992Dec12.063713.14516@anasazi.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:39:33 GMT


]>Why not address the question that if we provide separate
]>sleeping and showering quarters for women, we should also do it for gays?
]
]Sigh.  OK, one more time.  Any ONE of the following should be sufficient to
]counter that contention: 1) Gays and straights have =always= shared the same
]quarters and showers with no ill effects.

I found the following analogy in a different thread, I thought it was quite good.

"An applicable analogy is: there is a woman's shower room with a hole .
The other side of the hole is in the floor of a men's locker room. Men
there notice the hole and spend their time watching the women taking
showers. After about six monthes the hole is discovered by the women and
they ask to have the hole fixed. At that time the men who were watching
complained saying "whats the problem we've been watching for six
monthes and nobody ever had a problem." and demanded that the hole
remain."

I told the author (F. Pittel) I was only to steal it, now I've made
good on my word.


jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11681 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10168 alt.politics.clinton:18645 alt.politics.bush:14582 alt.politics.homosexuality:7991
From: rovero@skye.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Madonna (was Re: Rush just looks at the pictures (was:
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:52:44 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

Old news.  Rush is back on top.  

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11484 alt.politics.clinton:18475 alt.politics.bush:14468 alt.politics.homosexuality:7898 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9987
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Square Pegs and Round Holes (Re: End the Ban on Gays in the Military)
Date: 12 Dec 1992 14:40 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec12.171625.13528@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Jim.Shirreffs writes...

|You give a juvenile a round peg, and a square beg. You also give him a board
|with a round hole and a square hole. Now this juvenile insists on pounding
|the round peg into the square hole or the square peg into the round hole.
|Even attempts to pound a non-existent peg into the a hole.
|I ask you what would you think? Kid is strange right? Probably needs some help,
|might even be socially dysfunctional?

	HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

	'pends on how big the peg is, Jim.

|Well I submit that homosexuals are simply pounding their pegs into
|the wrong hole. I know I'm going to get flamed again, but that's
|how I see it.

	So, you're saying that Fags generally have bigger pegs with which
to pount than do Straights?  

	Of course, the holes in either case are round... hmmm.

|i speak for myself and only myself

	So, how big is your peg?

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:56:12 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
 <1992Dec11.230804.4074@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>

In article <1992Dec11.230804.4074@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Jim.Shirreffs says:

>I see three problems with "forced" voter registration.

>1. This would just be another case of Big Brother, knowing
>        what is best of you and emposing a "solution".

Please. Let's just say that the Government had some candy bars. Millions of
'em. And let's say they gave one to every American, free and clear. Is this
"just another case of Big Brother, knowing what is best for you and emposing
[sic] a 'solution'"?

That is, there is absolutely no bad consequence whatsoever of being
registered to vote. None. Being registered to vote will, at its ABSOLUTE
WORST, have no effect on a person's life (they hadn't voted before and
won't now.) And at best, they will be able to vote when they couldn't
have before (it's not unheard of that people don't realize they're not
registered until the deadline passes, and then they're unable to vote...
automatic registration solves this, and enfranchises thousands of citizens.)
It IS the proverbial free lunch. If that's "Big Brother imposition" this
country could do with more of it.

>1. Democracy depends on an educated and concerned voter. If your going
>        to force them to register, why not force them to vote too?

They're not being forced to do anything. They are being AUTOMATICALLY
registered. Virtually no effort on the potential voter's part is involved.

You seem to have an image of armed government troops wielding M-16's, herding
innocent drivers' license applicants into concentration camps and forcing
them to fill out voter's registration forms. I assure you that this is not
the case.

>2. My vote wouldn't mean as much if everyone voted.

This one's purely selfish and I think we can ignore it.

Anyway, thing is that all these "arguments" against Motor-Voter are after-
the-fact rationalizations. The real reason there's so much Republican
opposition to it is that a majority of those who would be registered under
Motor-Voter would classify themselves as Democrats. Tsk, tsk.

"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: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Subject: Re: The Real Reason For Universal Health Care
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 07:10:24 GMT

: Did you folks read the New York Times article today?  It was the front 
: page article here in Tucson.  It exposes the real reason why the Democratic 
: Party wants to cover everyone with health insurance.  It is another source 
: for taxes!  They want to tax health benefits!  Jeez, how could I have been 
: so blinded?  I thought that the Dems were really, honestly concerned about 
: the poor on this subject.  Every time I start to believe that Dems are 
: actually concerned about the masses, BANG! they reveal their true motives.
:

Rush explained how this would work on his tv show. Take the plan with the
least amount of coverage. Your employer contributes x amount to this plan
per month. Any money put in by your employer over this minimum amount will
be taxed as income, as it is a benifit to you. 

I thought Slick Willie was going to give the middle class a tax break. 
Now he has plans to raise our taxes. Also, as an "enviromental" proposal,
I've heard that Slick has been advised to raise the gasoline tax by $1.00
per gallon. This will hurt the poor, and the middle class the most. If
you can't afford the price of gasoline, then you'll just have to take the
bus.                                

Felix Gorney
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia -- *NOT*! -- *NOT*!
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:24:18 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1992Dec11.014326.10008@rchland.ibm.com>
	<1992Dec11.095038.4514@wkuvx1.bitnet> <Bz4oLq.JI6@ns1.nodak.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: green@plains.NoDak.edu's message of 12 Dec 92 04:03:26 GMT

> 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.

=\= Technically speaking, a phobia isn't necessarily fear, it
is an irrational aversion to something.  This often manifests
itself as fear and as hatred.

=\= But homophobia also includes "just feeling that it's wrong,"
if such is irrational.  And what could be rational about an
aversion to something that's none of your business and doesn't
involve you?

=\= I can understand such an aversion out of ignorance, since
ignorance on this issue is so abundant.  But to maintain the
aversion in the face of facts that don't support it -- well,
that's irrational.  Phobic, in fact.
    <_Jym_>
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12029 alt.rush-limbaugh:12030
From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:00:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: -

In article <1992Dec10.155115.15000@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, 
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> In article <1992Dec8.144622.1013@calmasd.prime.com> 
jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:
> 
>>Well, first of all homosexuality is not an alternative lifestyle.  It
>>is a sexual orientation.  People with this orientation have as many and
>>as varied lifestyles as do heterosexuals.  The only lifestyle you need
>>to accept and understand is your own.
> 
> Oh!  Is that why they are forcing homosexuality down the throats of 
> children in public schools?  Now I understand.  I guess if Christianity 
> was a sexual orientation, then public school instruction in it would 
> be mandatory.

How is acknowledging the existence of homosexuality forcing
homosexuality on children?  (Don't read this as support for the NYC
schools program.  I'm still undecided on this.  However, what I know
of it is doesn't match some of the descriptions I've read on the net.
The books that everyone has been arguing about, aren't required
reading material or even course material.  They are on a list of 300
reference books.  Their intended audience was children of same-sex
parents.)

Ted, why do you always use expressions like "down the throats of
children"?  I guess it's just more of your usual content-lacking
inflammatory style.  

Ted, why also do you mix issues?  This thread had nothing to do with
schools or Christianity.  But since you brought it up, teaching
diversity includes teaching that people also have different religious
belief systems.  However, teaching the existence of homosexuals and
mandatory teaching of Christianity aren't even remotely related
issues.

>>As far as accepting and understanding a sexual orientation that is
>>different from yours, that would be a nice goal however it isn't a
>>requirement.  All that is required is that you know that different
>>sexual orientations exist and respect that to each individual their
>>orientation is as valid to them as yours is to you.  Pretty easy, huh?
> 
> I disagree.  When gays are having sex on floats in a parade down the 
> middle of Main Street, I believe that gays are attempting to force 
> acceptance down my throat (no pun intended).

Ted, I'm surprised you are so open to this, but what were you doing at
a gay pride parade in the first place?  It seems pretty out of
character.  At any rate, don't you think that a public sex act would
fall more under the topic of exhibitionism than attempting to force
acceptance down your throat?  Why do you feel that the exhibitionism
of at most of float full of people is representative of millions of
individuals? 

And you've shown repeatedly that your puns are always intended, so
quit saying they aren't.

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
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 09:50:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.155602.25368@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.084944.8682@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
>
>>"Piss Jesse" anyone?...:)
>
>Sure!  I'd pay money to see a photo of Mr. Jackson in a bottle of urine.
>
But would you get the Government to pay for it?

Maybe both Helms and Jackson....locked in a loving embrace...
They're two sides of the same coin as in terms of the extremism of their
rhetoric as far as i'm concerned.

*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Dittos" for John Switzer (was Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92)
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:37:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
=>Helping to spread the Word of Rush will likely do more to increase the number
=>of conservatives in the world than mere procreation anyway.
=> Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
=
=Those who confuse Mr. Limbaugh with the Second Coming should realize
=that he is first a businessman and then a conservative.

Sometimes, the most successful and wealthy people are both.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	Vacation period (off-line): December 18 to January 11.
	Take care of the network when I'm gone.
FOUR MORE MONTHS!!! FOUR MORE CLASSES!!! FOUR MORE ACCEPTANCE LETTERS!!!
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Date: 11 Dec 92 15:56:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec11.084944.8682@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:

>"Piss Jesse" anyone?...:)

Sure!  I'd pay money to see a photo of Mr. Jackson in a bottle of urine.

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,alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: End the Ban on Gays in the Military
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:58:34 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec12.171625.13528@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Jim.Shirreffs writes:
>
>Against my better judgement I'm going to make one more attempt to enlighten

    You should have listened to your better judgement.

>I propose a everyone perform the following thought experiment.

    I don't know if I'm "a everyone", but I'm game.

>You give a juvenile a round peg, and a square beg. You also give him a board
>with a round hole and a square hole. Now this juvenile insists on pounding
>the round peg into the square hole or the square peg into the round hole.
>Even attempts to pound a non-existent peg into the a hole.
>I ask you what would you think? Kid is strange right? Probably needs some help,
>might even be socially dysfunctional?
>
>
>Well I submit that homosexuals are simply pounding their pegs into
>the wrong hole. I know I'm going to get flamed again, but that's
>how I see it.

    *This* is an attempt to enlighten?  Are you as stupid as this post
makes you appear, or do you just like being flamebait?

>i speak for myself and only myself

    Thank the gods.	

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)Summary:
In-reply-to: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu's message of Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:12:00 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec5.230018.23815@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
	<grendel.723788680@camelot> <11DEC199210575552@zeus.tamu.edu>
	<Bz3xtu.164@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:32:54

In article <Bz3xtu.164@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:

>   "Ah, but Jim, Jim, Jim" you say, shaking your head from side to side,
>   "There is no constitutional separation of sports and state".

If you want constitutional separation of sports and state, work for
it.  We _do_, however, have a constitutional separation of church and
state.  It is pretty simple.

>   Bullcrap.  This whole prayer thing has little or nothing to do with
>   separation of church and state, and everything to do with the fact that
>   the left is _afraid_ of anything which even hints of "values".

You are absolutely right in this Jim.  I am _afraid_ of anything that
smacks of _your_ values because I find them to be narrow minded,
vicious, and immoral in my value system.  You should be in jail for
espousing them at all.  If you come near my kid with your poison I
will personally give you 'sensitivity training'.  

Do you see the problem, Jim?  Yeah, I didn't think you would.

>   Period.  "You shall know them by their fruits" a wise man once said.

Religion is the opiate of the masses, another wise man once said.

>   It is so true.

I don't know if it's true, so don't ask me.

>   >| 
>   >|You apparently believe that this is true.  Let me attempt to convince you 
>   >|that it is not.  A blind, grade-school girl was quietly praying her rosary 
>   >|beads on the school bus.  The bus driver took them away and the school 
>   >|forbade her from praying the rosary (even quietly) in public.
>   > 
>   >	Unfortunate.  And as far as I am concerned, the girl should not 
>   >have been prevented from doing her chants.
>   > 

>   Sounds to me like that bus-driver needs a little "sensitivity training".

Sounds to me as if Ted is making stuff up again.

--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11423 alt.politics.clinton:18432
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 18:10:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.210221.28136@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted
Krueger, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:

>Which wholesale discrimination do I espouse?  I have never said that I 
>wanted to keep anyone out of the military except in two cases. 1) Anyone 
>who is not physically strong enough to perform essential tasks should 
>not be allowed, and 2) people who are sexually attracted to
foxholemates 
>should not be allowed.

Yes, your second case is =precisely= the wholesale discrimination that we
are talking about.  It's only purpose is to accomodate those who are
"uncomfortable" around them.

I think this statement pretty well speaks for itself.  It implies so many
flawed assumptions.  The assumption that members of the military cannot
be expected to behave with the same degree of civility as those in the
private sector.  The assumption that, just because someone =could= find a
coworker sexually attractive, they =will=.  And the assumption that even
when cases arise where they do, that they could not behave with the
appropriate decorum.

The bottom line is, the "problem" with gays in the military resides
completely and entirely in the minds of those who oppose it.  It is,
ultimately, their choice whether they are determined to remain entrenched
in their ignorance or advance with the rest of us.  

Think of it as evolution in action.

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".
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:03:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Dec10.204341.18673@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> In article <1992Dec9.010534.3600@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec8.113020.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>
>>>4.  Boycott the opening day of Major League Baseball -  Marge Schott,
>>>owner (and "designated hater") of the Cincinnati Reds, allegedly said 
>>>the "N" word and the "J" word in a derogatory manner.  The Rev. Jesse 
>>>Jackson, in town (Louisville) to protest at the winter baseball 
>>>meetings, recommends a boycott of opening day to protest both Schott
>>>and the lack of minority administrative hirings in baseball.  (The 
>>>irony is that Schott recently hired Tony Perez to be the Reds manager.)
>>
>>	She had used words like "nigger" and "Jap" and she had spoken
>>of "money-grubbing Jews".
>>
>>	Isn't that offensive enough?
> 
> Problem:  There is no law against racism and bigotry.

Oh yes there a-a-a-are!  Not to mention "lookism" and other heinous offenses.
Trouble is, they keep getting knocked down on account of that dumb
Constitutional guarantee of "free speech" -- how bothersome. 

>>	"Tolerance" and "diversity" are nice slogans, but what does
>>one do about intolerance?
> 
> I take it that you want to be intolerant toward Marge as a result of 
> her intolerance?  This is the calling card of the politically correct.  
> Intolerance is an evil, wicked thing, unless it is done for acceptable 
> reasons, like getting revenge on someone who has been intolerant.

Hey, cut Loren a break, why don'cha?  What else is a person to do -- turn the
other cheek?  Show compassion?  Do unto others?  Careful... you're getting
dangerously close to advocating (*ugh*) Christian values here. 

------

Paul Havemann, VP        paul@hsh.com   
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11444 alt.politics.clinton:18446 alt.politics.bush:14448 alt.politics.homosexuality:7876 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9952