HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
Date: 27 Dec 92 23:33:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

I'm sure that no one other than the obsessed Rev. Holtsinger is
interested in this, so I'll only reply once.

In article <nate.992@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
#dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
##I wonder, does Susan Garvin's idea of 'free speech' mean
##that people can send e-mail to Steve Chaney's system
##administrators accusing Mr. Chaney of 'forgery', when
##in fact the 'forgery' was merely a harmless joke?  
#
#    I can't speak for Susan, but your example definitely falls in the 
#category of free speech. As a system administrator I might also be tempted 
#to say that it also falls in the category of good citizenship. If I have 
#any people at my site who're posting forged news articles then I want to 
#know about it whether they're doing it as a joke or not. There's this 
#little issue called "network security" which some of us take pretty 
#seriously... remember, Robert Morris's internet worm started as a 
#"harmless joke".

Sigh.  I don't think that forging articles is a "harmless joke."


I'll explain the situation - I received some obscene, threatening
e-mail from another talk.abortion regular.  I reported that, and
I had to speak with the sysadmins here at CMU.  I was told that
it was CMU policy to report any forgeries of a CMU address, 
regardless of the circumstances.  When Chaney/Hall forged a header
of one of his posts to make it appear that I had posted it, I
forwarded the entire article to my sysadmins.  The article included
Chaney/Hall's disclaimer that it was "just a joke."  I thought that
I'd let my sysadmins decide if it were worthy of reporting to CSUS.
They informed me that they were reporting it, that they didn't find
the joke to be funny, and that they doubted that the CSUS sysadmins
would find it funny, either.  I don't know what CSUS did, but 
Chaney/Hall ceased forging articles (as far as I know) after.
I've never personally been in contact with the CSUS administrators.

Rev. Holtsinger, on the other hand, posts the names and street addresses
of corporate officials when he thinks that a user at a .com site
has overstepped the limits of propriety.  I'm still somewhat 
amused that he would complain about me obeying the rules of
my site.  

Susan
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: It's his party, and he'll sleep if he wants to (?)...
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date: 22 Dec 92 13:39:07 GMT

In <1992Dec21.132722.17213@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:

>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.

Someone refresh my memory, don't I remember some big to do about Ronnie sleeping
at some meeting with the Japaneese prime minister?  I even think I remember a
little bit of ranting and raving this being evidence of his unability to be
a foriegn policy administrator...... funny how the postureing changes over time.

                                  Craig
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: bryant@neural.Kodak.COM (Steve Bryant)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 13:55:54 GMT


>The point is, I don't want someone teaching my children values that
>do not reflect the christian values that this country was founded on.
>-- 

I don't want someone teaching my children your christian values, your
moslim values, your jewish values, your homosexual values. I don't want 
any of your values. I'll teach my children my values, thank you.

The primary purpose of schools should be a basic education including,
reading, writing, and arithmatic. And, should exclude social engineering
masquerading itself as education. If you want someone other than 
yourself to teach your children values, take them to sunday school.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12820 alt.politics.clinton:19471
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: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:00:37 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1hatudINNep5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
]
]Well, that's exactly the point I was making.   What "such incidents"
]are we talking about?
]
]If we are talking about something which was never reported, where you
]won't reveal who was involved, then we are not left with much.   All
]we are left with is an allegation, and as we have seen recently, allegations
]are a dime a dozen, and hard facts are difficult to come by.

In other words, you don't believe the various people who have reported
these events bu who chose to protect the privacy of those involved. I guess
this is typical in a world where gays choose to "out" someone (ie, violate
his privacy for political reasons). These events DO occur, numerous cases
have been mentioned by posters here and by others (such as David Hackworth).
It should not be surprising to anyone that they do occur, since homosexuals
are presumably not perfect anymore than straights are. It is amusing, however,
to see proponents of gays in the military trying to deny events which
must obviously occur.
]
]If someone - and of course that might not be you - wants to show that
]having Gays in the military is a problem, then I think that they need
]to do better then an anecdote that no-one can verify.

When you combine NUMEROUS anecdotes (and the previous poster gave a lot
of specifics, just not the names involved), and a basic understanding of
human nature, you don't need the names, dates and places.

-- 
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
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:05:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.194335.8233@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.192655.5920@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>>
>>>Unlike heterosexuality, which is dictated by nature, homosexuality
>>>is a lifestyle choice and should not be presented as such to school
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>children.
>>
>>    You shouldn't state opinions as if they were facts.  You cannot support
>>this, tons of het and gay folks disagree = opinion.
>
>I didn't say they were opinions and not facts, you did. I have read
>articles that support what I wrote.

Well, neither of you are right, and neither wrong.

In 1981, there was published a study by 3 psychologists.  The interviewed
approximately 1500 homosexuals (male), 1000 lesbians.  The purpose of there
interviewing was to determine, what if any, evironmental circumstance
caused homosexuality in either gender.  They looked at the obvious one,
dominate mother, weak father, homosexual encounter at an early age, etc.
What they found was that none of the popular theories of environmental
causes to homosexuality had any statistical validity.  A domineering mother
was the most common factor they found, but only in 17% of the interviewee.

Their conclusion, was that the likilihood of an environmental cause was
now very small, and biological causes should be investigated.  The
homosexual community was outraged.  They decried the study as "homophobic",
biased, and prejudicial.  At the time, the battle cry was that it was a
lifestyle choice and if it were to be found to be biological, employers may
require a test for employment possibly discriminate, doctors would develop 
"cures", etc.

Now, over 10 years later, more and more evidence is appearing to support
the biological factor, and the battle cry has changed.  Not completely,
many activists continue to promote it as a lifestyle choice.  But now,
instead of the fear of discrimination in the work-place, homosexuality
testing, "cures", etc, the feeling is leaning towards protected minority
status, anti-discrimination laws, perhaps even affirmative action.  And it
seems that many activists will take which ever side is convenient,
lifestyle or biological, depending on the issue of the moment.

I don't know which is right, lifestyle or biological.  Maybe both, maybe
neither, the evidence is still just too evenly split.  So to argue one side
or the other is just an exercise in futility, as there is no right or wrong
answer.

>
>-- 
>Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 26 Dec 92 15:25:50 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
: Bill Anderson writes:
: 
: >Dave Bernard states that governments should display religious 
: >symbols because this is a democracy, and "plurality rules".
: 
: >The problem with this is, of course, that the United States 
: >Constitution was designed specifically to put limits on 
: >majority rule- and one of those limits is contained in the 
: >first amendment
: 
: Not that governments SHOULD display religious symbols, but should
: PERMIT the display of religious symbols on public property.  The
: property may be owned by the "government," but all that means is 
: the property is owned by the people.  Why can't people occasionally
: display their religious symbols on their own property?  THis is permitted
: by the Constitution... note that the Bill of Rights was not enacted to
: limit *majority rule*... rather, it was enacted specifically to limit the
: powers of the *government.*  It says that government won't interfere with
: religious efforts, so why should it interfere with the occasional wish of
: the people to display these symbols on otherwise unused government- er, 
: public property?
: 
: 	Dave       

No problem with it, Dave- so long as no governmental body is
involved, and so long as anybody who wants to is allowed to 
do the same.  If you're prepared to accept the prospect of a
bunch of citizens who just happen to worship the devil getting
together to put an inverted pentagram on public property, then
we have no argument.
As for the B of R- it most certainly was enacted to limit 
majority rule, since the government is an instrument of the
majority, in theory.  

Bill   
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,soc.college
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:13:54 GMT

In article <C04vuJ.6E5@andy.bgsu.edu> jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>     Hopefully, my predicament is fairly clear at this point.
>Is it considered sexual discrimination not to be hired on the
>grounds of having longer hair than is deemed appropriate?  

I would consider it sexual discrimination if women with a similar hair style
were hired by that company for similar positions.  I don't know how far you
could get in court with this though.  Up here in Canada Gwen Jacobs has not
had much luck (yet) in convincing the courts that the laws which make it
illegal for women (but not men) to go topfree are sexual discrimination. (Does
anyone know what the current status of this case is?)

Ro
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12042 talk.abortion:52558
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:27:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.190050.7745@mis.mi04.zds.com> ryonkers@mis.mi04.zds.com (Russell Yonkers) writes:
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>In article <00964F02.484AF800@vms.csd.mu.edu> 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>>the heteros will feel about this.  We are not PC.  We do not matter.
>
>would not be PC in the least so we must have seperate facilitys for 
>the females.  But we know of course that the gays would never find a 

>him.  I guess this is equal rights.  We know that the PC crowd is
>totally fair and just (NOT!). 


Ever notice that the only people who whine about the 'PC crowd' or in
fact ever regularly use the term are extreme right wing geeks?


-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                       			   howard@netcom.com
Disclaimer:  I have been put into an evil trance by Ricardo Montalban.
It happened late at night whilst watching the 'Mr. Rourke hypnotizes the
devil' episode of Fantasy Island.  These words are his, not mine.
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 31 Dec 92 04:37:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <C02stp.II1@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1hq1c7INNnba@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>
>>fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>>
>>> It is, IMO, imperative, however, that
>>> the second concept -- that gays, moral or not, live together, can be quite
>>> happy and "normal" and can be good parents raising "normal" children --
>>> be taught.  
>>
>>3) Should it also be taught that bisexuals do those things?  How would 
>>   you do it? 
>
>I don't think it's necessary to make that addition.  In my experience,
>few straight people make a serious distinction between bisexuals and
>homosexuals.
>

     And you don't see a problem in this?

				-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12247 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10678 alt.politics.clinton:19086 alt.politics.bush:14905 alt.politics.homosexuality:8432
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: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 24 Dec 1992 17:50:46 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1h9s4gINNikg@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> >Which is why it has been suggested that the book drop the 'daddy and his 
> >roommate go to bed together' and keep the rest...
> 
> Probably because very few cases have been cited of a child being
> teased or antagonized at school for being raised with her father and
> her uncle, or by her mother and her mother's best friend.

So do you think it would be good or bad to remove the 'daddy and his
roommate go to bed together' part and keep the rest, or is that part 
critical?   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'.  

Walter
 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 25 Dec 1992 00:24:58 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1hdjfpINNcps@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > You are asking me to comment on your loose paraphrase of a unquoted
|> > report from un-named sources.
|> > I'll wait until I hear authoritative figures on reported incidents.
|> 
|> Oh, I made the (incorrect) assumption that you would have heard the 
|> reports in the newspapers or on USENET; I've seen them in both places 
|> several times.  my mistake.  A gay rights group in Denver claims that 
|> incidents against gays have gone up 400%+ since the pass of #2. 
|> That figure is being used to show that Colorado really is a 'hate state' 
|> and that #2's passage has lead directly to increased violence and 
|> discrimination against gays.  But these numbers don't have any 
|> police records to back them up; do you think they should be used, 
|> or is the group using them being irresponsible in your eyes?

I thought I already said this, but just in case, I'll say it again.   I
will wait for authoritative figures.

What this group, which is still nameless, claims, may turn out to be
correct or it may not.   We'll see when the crime stats appear.

|> 
|> > 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.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:11:27 GMT

>In Germany, today, there are some Eastern Germans asking to have the
>property that they owned, or thier parents owned, before the wall
>went up. These Germans have a claim that they were "on the wrong side
>of the fence" and were not allowed to return. Do these people have a
>claim to the property. They were, in a sense, conquired and lost
>thier land. Should they get it back?
>
>What about the person(s) now holding that property? They have worked
>hard to obtain it. Probably made the needed repairs over the years.
>Have made a livelyhood(sp?) working the land. Should these people 
>give up their land. What happens to them? Should they be held to blaim
>for what a few governments did?

I read about this when the "wall" first came down, but it was W. Germans
claiming E. German land. I wondered how Germany was going to deal with
this issue. If there every waws a case of "damned if you do and damned
if you don't" this is it. I suspect that possession is 9/10 of the law
will prevail. Please keep us informed if you can. 

jim shirreffs
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:25:51 GMT

>In article <1992Dec23.183439.17001@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>BTW, in some services, hetro soldiers can still be prosecuted for consential 
>>sodomy or oral copulation with a women while on base.  Should Clinton repeal 
>>this ban also, while he repeals it for homosexuals?


Where do you get this stuff from Brian? For your information ALL branches of
the service have sexual conduct rules for ALL service members which are 
enforceable on or off base. Sodomy is one such offense. Further, Clinton has 
never said that he would lift such sexual conduct rules for gays. What he has 
said, many times, is that there will be changes in these rules. What he wants 
to do is to make them much STRICTER for EVERYONE. If Tailhook is any example I 
would say it's long over due.  

Stan Knight 
|Facts is facts unless you make up your own| 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12785 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11204 alt.politics.clinton:19452 alt.politics.bush:15351 alt.politics.homosexuality:8792
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 08:51:41 GMT

jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:

>I'm a little out of date on the science of sexuality, but when I was young
>the social scientists claimed that one early sexual experiences had an
>inordinate amount of influence on the eventual sexual orientation of an
>indivual. In short if someone as a child had homosexual experiences then
>they were more likely to grow to be a homosexual. Now I don't know if this is
>true, but when I was young it was accepted as scientific fact. 

Doctors/barbers once thought that many diseases were caused by an
excess of blood in the system, hence the practice of bloodletting.
This was "scientific fact" at one point in time.  Now we obviously
know better.  This is not to say that we know everything about
disease, because we certainly do not, but we know a lot more now than
we once did.

>Now you are 
>claiming another scientific fact that directly contradicts what I learned.
>Very confusing. Which is fact? Or are they both right and at the same time 
>both wrong? Science is not God, it is our current best guess, let's keep 
>that in mind. 

Right.  However, there is reasonable evidence to back the current
"scientific fact" that sexual preference isn't determined solely by
early sexual experiences.  Most studies state that it's not a factor
at all.

This is hearsay, but I've been told that as much as 50-60% of the
people in the U.S. had at least one homosexual experience during their
childhood.  Most simply don't recall it for one reason or another,
probably partially due to the fact that young children don't really
know what sex is, much less homo vs hetero.

>My best guess is that the Oilers are going to win the 
>Super Bowl!

See.  You can obviously be wrong.  It's a "scientific fact" that the
Cowboys will win. ;)
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh