HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zorro@picasso.ocis.temple.edu (John Grabowski)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Dont create a conservative talk newsgroup
Date: 27 Dec 92 02:43:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Mr. Blue (car@access.digex.com) wrote:
: Someone recently proposed the idea of creating a newsgroup specifically
: for the purpose of discussing political views in a conservative  
: atmosphere. I am very much against this idea, AND <gasp> I hold
: moderate to conservative views.

: If the justification of creating sucha newsgroup is to exclude/avoid
: liberals, I claim that such thinking is misguided, even if the group

How can you "exclude" liberals?  Is there a censor on the computer that's going
to reveal if you are a liberal or not?

Being a fanatic of the 1st Amendment (I guess that makes me a liberal these
days ;-) I feel no discussion group of any sort should *not* be formed.
What can it hurt?


John
zorro@picasso.ocis.temple.edu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
In-reply-to: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com's message of 25 Dec 1992 00:24:58 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1hdkcqINNq40@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 29 Dec 92 23:59:14

In article <1hdkcqINNq40@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:


>   |> > In the meantime, I note that Navy officials reported last Monday 14th
>   |> > that a Chicago Heights 22-year old sailor may have been killed by
>   |> > shipmates because he was gay.
>   |> 
>   |> Ugly, very ugly.  No argument on that one..

>   Ugly.   And also official, and apparently a fatal anti-Gay hate crime.

>   jon.

This sort of lends credence to one of John Moore's oft repeated
claims: that there will be such incidents as open gays become more
prevalent.  I guess the task is to figure out how to remove the ban
without endangering those who wish to be open about their
orientations.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: University of Utah - Physics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 01:42:38 GMT

In article <1hvjgsINNah5@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
|> > First, the country was not founded on Christian values -- it was deliberately
|> > set up as a secular society, in order to not have the religious wars
|> > and persecutions common in Europe.
|> 
|> Partially right; it was set up to not have a state church, but it 
|> was also largely based on what can be called 'Christian values'.
|> 
|> Walter
|> 
    Careful.  Better make that Deist values.  Most of our founding
fathers were not Christian.
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 24 Dec 1992 12:47:48 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Nathan writes:

>>Are you saying that 95% of the American population was wiped out by 
>>Smallpox? That seems incredibly high!

>    Smallpox and a few others. Basically all those great Old World 
>diseases like tuberculosis, plague, measles, mumps, malaria, and yellow 
>fever. A 95% die-off rate is certainly demographically devastating; I 

	Then it would seem that the surviving Indians today arose from
	that 5%.  What was the birthrate following the devastation, and
	how quickly did the population figure grow?  I am even surprised
	that the region of hunter/gatherer/farmers could support an 
	original population of 100,000,000.	

>w>If Plague-suffering is so conducive to conversion, why didn't Europeans 
>>convert en masse to whatever animistic religions were practiced by the 
>>Central Asian nomads?

>    Perhaps because the Mongols themselves weren't immune to the plague. 
>The Mongols "inherited" their plague problems when they conquered vast 

	I see what you're saying, but the Europeans were certainly not
	immune to any of those diseases, and succumbed in large numbers.
	What I had, no doubt mistakenly, thought you were getting at is 
	that the Indians were somehow more-- gullible?  superstitious?
	simple?-- in being quick to adapt a new religion in those circumstances
	than were Europeans.

	Incidentally, didn't the Spanish explorers bring back to Europe
	various SDTs, with devastating results to Europe?  The Europeans were
	for centuries obsessed with inherited insanity, as depicted in Poe,
	Byron, Ibsen-- because of their helplessness before syphilis.

	Dave
From: car@access.digex.com (Mr. Blue)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Columbus and Indians: Whats the point?
Date: 29 Dec 1992 15:11:51 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com


Why does this subject get debated so much? What is the ultimate goal
of those who bring it up? That we should give back the land? That we
are all evil eurocentric racist homophobic bigots? It's history, it
happened, and it's gone on since man came out of the trees. Let it be.
An Politically Correct types out there feel free to give your house up
to an Indian, or an Aztec. Why dont you really say what you mean: Our
ancestors were brutal conquerors so now we should feel guilty and give
minorities preferential treatment over the great satan, the white
European Male?????  Isnt that what this is all about?

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bryant@neural.Kodak.COM (Steve Bryant)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 13:35:02 GMT


>The truth of the matter is that the issue of Homosexuality shouldn't even
>be debated.  The first and only important question we should be asking
>is should ANY values be taught in school.  As far as I'm concerned the
>answer is clearly no.  
>
> (Lots of really good stuff deleted)
>
>Sure you may actually even achieve some of the goals the proponents of
>these programs have set (I'll bet you won't but that's another matter) 
>but so what.  Your children may be the most tolerant in the world, but
>they're still going to be pushing brooms the rest of their lives while
>the children that attend private schools and those that get their 
>education in countries that ingore such social engineering drivel clean
>their clocks in the real world.
>
>Leave the teaching of values to the parents and as a nation we'll be better
>off in the long run.
>

 Bravo! Finally, an intelligent answer. If anyone missed this post,go back
 and read it.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson)
Subject: Re: was Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Summary: YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN!
Organization: These are my opinions.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:23:25 GMT

In article <1hlok2INNafe@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.014736.6210@engr.LaTech.edu> mchenry@latech.
edu (Michael Q. McHenry) writes:>>dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson)
writes:>>> [Yet another bible quote post showing how 
clever Davis Hanson is]>>Oh, puke.  My stomache actually hurts after reading 
this.>
>Micheal,
>
>David is one of the net.people who comes into a newsgroup and
>posts bible quotes, then refuses to back up the quote in the group
>or in e-mail.  His greatest moment was when the quarterly abortion flamewar
>started up in this very group and at the end of his message was a line 
>which stated how he would not respond to any 'negative' mail/messages.
>
>
Well, thank you for noticing but out of modesty I had to remove my name
from the Subject.  Yes, I do hate the killing of babies even more than
sodomy.  My stomach gets sick when I read about children being taught
that sin is good and righteousness is bad. Sodomy is not acceptable, will
never be acceptable, and is wicked, sinful behaviour.  Killing babies by
the millions will bring this nation and its people judgement and damnation
from a Holy God.

To make my positions very clear:

My position on abortion: it is murder of an innocent life and is ALWAYS 
wrong even if the child is a result of incest or rape.  This is the truth.

My position on homosexuality: it is a 
grievous sin which severely harms the sodomites, lesbians, and our society.  
It is ALWAYS wrong. This is the truth.

My position on God:  there is only ONE WAY to heaven, through belief in
the fact that Jesus Christ, who is both God and man, died on the Cross
for your sins personally.  All others have condemned themselves to hell
forever because they have not believed in the Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ.  This is the truth.  

Why do I not answer all email?  I hold these Bible based positions so firmly
that it is not profitable for me discuss these topics from someone who is
so blind that they will not see. I answer mail and posts from people who
are seeking to know the truth and who are not mockers of God and all things
lovely. 

Signature follows:
"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and
there is none else."
=========================================================================
David L. Hanson       Internet --> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com
Amoco Corporation     X.400    --> A=attmail,P=amoco,S=Hanson,G=David,I=L
Any opinions expressed are my own!
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12687 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11101 alt.politics.clinton:19388 alt.politics.bush:15259 alt.politics.homosexuality:8718
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:06:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec30.185545.26789@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:

>Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, 

Source please.

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
From: cmckeith@galsci.uucp (Clifford McKeithan)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Taxing medical benefits ... NOT
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 10:03:20 -0500
Distribution: na
Organization: Galaxy Scientific Corp.

In <1992Dec24.184603.16096@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>John Switzer (jrs@netcom.com) wrote:

  ( some stuff deleted )

>: 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.

>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.

Another example of a liberal who does not understand that when you put a
tax on my benifits at my company, that translates into lower profits for my
company, and thus lower pay for the employees of my company (read ME).  I
think that is why John used the word "defacto" above.

-- 
Clifford M. Mckeithan Jr              emory!iccdev!galsci!cmckeithan
Galaxy Scientific Corp.               High Quality Engineering
Opinions expressed do not neccesarily reflect those of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:59:06 GMT

In article <1hct9mINN5of@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>In other words, is it important to have the book say 
>'it is ok for a family to have 2 adults of the same sex', or is 
>it important for the book to say 'it is ok for a family to have 
>2 gay adults of the same sex'.  

It's important for the book to say "it's all right for a family to
have two gay adults of the same sex."

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 17:17:40 GMT

From porthos!walter!uunet!wupost!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cts.eiu.edu!cfthb Wed Dec 30 12:00:11 EST 1992

In article <1992Dec29.150908.2994@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
>>
>>  When the school teaches that
>>homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, it operates in direct conflict with the 
>>values I attempt to instill within my children.  

>    Perhaps this is a problem of semantics.  Homosexuality *is* a valid
>lifestyle, and gay couples can be happy, raise children, be outstanding
>citizens, etc.  

Homosexuality may be a valid lifestyle from a legal standpoint, but it is still
in direct conflict with those values we teach in our home.

>This is a fact.  To teach facts is what school is all
>about.  To say something exists is not to condone it.
>    It sounds more like you only want your kids to be told that
>homosexuality exists if you can be sure it's painted in a negative light at
>the same time.  

I will teach my children that choosing a homosexual lifestyle is wrong.  
I will teach them that there are many individuals in this world who choose
to live lifestyle which contradict ours, but that does not make it OK.

>I sure hope that none of your kids turns out to be gay -
>what a parental message you're giving them.  Attitudes like this are
>reflected in the very high suicide rate for gay teens.

If one of my kids turns out gay he turns out gay.  When he reaches the age
of 18 and leaves my home he may live as he chooses.  If he chooses to live
a homosexual lifestyle I will still love him, but I will not accept his 
behavior.  I'd have the same reaction if he decided to become entangled with 
pornography or drugs.  If he decides to take the "easy way" out rather than
dealing with his problems what can I do?  
 
>>  In my view, teaching my children views which are in direct conflict
>>with our (my wife and I) values is a violation of this respect. 

>    See above.  If it's a "view" that gays exist in our society, so
>thoroughly intermingled that you know many of us without even being aware
>of it, your definition of "view" is weird.  

I know quite a few gay people.  I have friends that are gay.  We disagree
on this issue (as well as many others I'm sure).  I also have friends who 
enjoy visiting go-go bars and watching x-rated videos, but I'll teach my kids
that pornography is wrong just the same.

>>Bill Buoni
>>my opinions are my own and do NOT represent those of my employer!

>    Well, *that's* a relief.

I bet!

>-- 
>   ******************************************************************
>     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
>     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 

Bill Buoni
my opinions are my own and do NOT represent those of my employer!
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military... what nobody is talking about
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:16:27 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Dec19.224125.18949@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted Krueger,
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>Funny that you would mention that your source is Dr. Dean EDull, so soon 
>after another leftie criticized that since one of my sources was Cal 
>Thomas, that I should be discredited.  Well, Dr. Dean is almost as lefty 
>as they come.  He is in favor of (among other things):
>
>	legalization of ALL drugs (including crack)
>	abortion on demand, until the moment of live birth

You weren't listening very carefully (I doubt you listened at all).  He
favors legalization of =some= drugs, primarily marijuana, as do most
physicians.

You have also mischaracterized his position on abortion.  As I understand
it, he feels that limiting "abortion on demand" to the first trimester gives
the Right to Lifers the benefit of the doubt, since the absence of any
evidence of sentience does not (and cannot) absolutely prove that it could
not exist.

>He is also highly critical of anything anyone who calls themself a
Christian 
>says.  He feels that anyone who is religious should be ignored if they
speak 
>on any subject that has a religious corellary to whatever subject they
might 
>be interested in.

As a regular listener, I've =never= heard him criticize christianity except
those extremists who use it to justify absurd ideas.

>He never said one good word about Reagan or Bush. 

He has only criticized the Reagan/Bush medical policies, about which there
is very little good =to= say.

>Point: Dr. Dean is a raving whacko liberal and should be ignored.  Unless, 
>of course, you want to admit that it just might be possible that Cal Thomas 
>could have something worthwhile to say.

Of course Cal Thomas says worthwhile things sometimes (actually, quite
frequently).  Even Rush Limbaugh comes up with the occasional good idea (an
increasingly rare event).  

I don't view the world in the polarized way that you and Rush do.  Everybody
knows something worth learning (some more than others, of course).  Until
you realize that, and stop categorizing people as "liberals" and
"conservatives" (and adding the "whacko" to those you don't favor), you will
never grow beyond your self imposed tunnel vision.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:55:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.214245.11967@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:

>[My sex education] class didn't talk about oral copulation, sodomy
>... as it purpose was to prevent pregnancies and diseases,
>not on how to.  So, for what it was intended, I think it did its job.

Quite obviously, it did not.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Re: RUSH=FAG!
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 30 Dec 92 08:35:36 PST

In article <2827.97.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us> greg.mable@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Greg Mable)  writes:
>Does the big guy ever get on this conference or is he too fat
>and stupid to use a computer?  I heard he's gay and his lover
>is a black man (and a democrat)!  Hope he uses a condom!
>---
> . Cam-Mail . WNET:The 4th Dimension (517)546-3948  Howell, Mi
>        
>----
>+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
>| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway running PCBoard 14.5a/E10/MULTITASK|
>+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

grow up.



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Homophobe: A definition please!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:16:59 GMT


HOMOPHOBE:  Person who is considered to be suffering from a mental illness
            (an irrational fear of homosexuals) because they opposes the 
            politics/policies/agendas of homosexuals.

JSL.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: JPL, Shuttle Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:46:01 GMT


In article <1992Dec29.004539.5683@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
|>
|>The argument (actually, the part of it germain to your comment) is
|>that integrating gays into the military would adversely affect military
|>unit cohesion, and that coercion is not enough to fix that; furthermore,
|>that (unlike the case with blacks), it is NOT important to the united
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>states to integrate gays at that expense. Other arguments, such as
|>violation of privacy of hets also exist.

|>For example, I can claim that
|>it is possible to modify behavior, but that it cannot be done
|>well enough in the military case. 

|> Finally, I can state that there is no strong reason to
|>allow admitted gays in the military anyway (there is no RIGHT to
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>participate in the military), and thus it doesn't justify facing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>all of these problems


Since there is no RIGHT to participate in the military, why was it important
to integrate blacks into the military in the 50s and not important to 
integrate gays into the military in the 90s ?

And how many times must it be said ?  There are ALREADY 10s or 100s of 
thousands of gays in the military.  Changing the rules so that these soldiers 
wont have to worry about being kicked out will not adversely affect military
unit cohesion.  Fear is not what is keeping these soldiers in line.  A good
soldier is a good soldier, whether he/she is gay or straight.

And if you have every been in a public shower, odds are that you have taken
a shower with a homosexual.  Would it have really made any difference if
you knew that that other person was a homosexual ?


--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12766 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11173 alt.president.clinton:1320 alt.politics.homosexuality:8778