HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: TOURISM UP?
Date: 7 Jan 1993 16:06:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) says:

>-> Newsgroups:
>-> alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correc
>-> From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
>-> Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
>-> Tourism is reported up by 10% in Colorado since the call for
>-> Boycotts.
>
>Really? Who reported this? (And are you suggesting a causal
>relationship?)  Last I heard, everybody and its sibling was
>cancelling conventions and events held in Colorado.  Maybe the
>effects haven't taken place yet.
>                                             
  I also heard this on the tube, I think it was Hard Copy. They said Aspen 
is having it's biggest year yet.
-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         | Earth:
  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |    Mostly harmless.     
 /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu |-HH Guide to the Galaxy
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 18:40:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.014331.16918@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:

>Is sodomy (I assume you mean anal) and oral copulation banned between a
>soldier and his/her spouse ?

Yes.

>Is it banned between a soldier on leave and a civilian when its
>performed off base ?

Yes.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: asparrow@mcs213a.cs.umr.edu (Angelia Sparrow)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:19:37 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1993Jan4.211232.15876@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>>>>Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, 
>
>It would be interesting to point out that we can find incest in *every*
>mammalian species other than human biengs.
>And, also, that there is no age of consent among all
>other mammalian species.
>
Try _The Book of Lists_ Vol 2 or 3.  There's a listing of 
animals that practice homosexual behavior.

Incest taboos come about because we are an individualized
society.  Human children establish bonds of trust with the
adult caretakers.  Incest violates this trust.

The age of consent is a human invention because in other
species no female is mounted until she has reached sexual
maturity and gone into estrus.  Only humans rape their sexually
immature children.  (However, by this logic the age of
consent should be 12-13, menerarche.)

Angel

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13326 talk.abortion:54624
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 8 Jan 1993 07:56:03 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: abortion

In article <1206@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <17DEC92.14494300@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>|Why not birth?  Seems like a very "bright line" to me.

>Why birth?  What about the fetus himself has changed? 

Well, for one kinda major thing, the fetus himself is no longer surrounded
by another human being with a will of her own.

But why do you figure something about the fetus himself has to change?
We are talking about a point at which human society is going to recognise
the little bugger as one of it's own, and award it acknowledgement of it's
human rights.  Kinda gotta remove the wrapping first, don't you think?

(-: obligatory smiley.  No, I don't think women are wrapping.

Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13274 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11872 alt.politics.clinton:19831 alt.politics.bush:15683 alt.politics.homosexuality:9168
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:20:09 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1ii5soINNkkl@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>> Wally, would you get a clue already!
>
>Robert, either you're just *dying* for an excuse to flame, or 
>you just don't read very well.  You wrote: 
>
>> Even more extra points if you show why your opinion should be law
>> of the land:
>
>Which shows that you have not the slightest notion of what 
>my position on this sort of thing is, even though I've 
>posted it over and over.  Frankly, I have better things to 
>do with my time than to respond furthur to this sort of 
>thing. 
>
>Walter
All you have ever said is how you hate homosexuals, but you love them.
You can't tolerate them, but they are your friends.

I can choose to believe you are a simpleton, or a bigot. Personally, it 
is a lot more fun to choose the latter wothout further evidence. However,
If anyone can prove that wally is no more than an idiot simpleton, I 
will be glad to apologize for assuming he is a bigot.

Robert Johnston
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Clarence Thomas
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:28:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 

MMS>|Why is he NOT qualified to sit on the Supreme Court?  You made the stateme
MMS>|now back it up.  I'll point to years' worth of experience at EEOC and one
MMS>|or two as a judge as experience.  I'll also point to the ABA, which did in
MMS>|review his qualifications and found him to be in the top 20% of all SC
MMS>|justices in terms of qualification...

MMS>|:     - Dave Borden
MMS>|:       borden@m5.harvard.edu

Um, "one or two" years as a judge does not a Justice make. There were
plenty of qualified jurists (such as Edith Jones) who were passed
over, mysteriously, for Thomas. A position as a political appointee
at a regulatory agency, which deals with ONE AREA of the law,
doesn't provide much background.  A qualified Justice ought to
have a good deal of real legal experience.

Oh, and the ABA barely found Thomas qualified. He didn't get a very
high rating at all.
---
 . SLMR 2.0 . "God created Michigan to train the faithful."
 * KMail 2.94e W-NET HQ, hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us, 313-663-4173 or 3959
          
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Keywords: school choice, hypocrisy
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:08:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.020331.8836@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:


>Well, Miss Chelsea Clinton will avoid going to public school this 
>year by virtue of her parents' money and connections.

    Yep. To tell you the truth I'm not sure I can really blame them. They 
have the financial means to place her in the private school and I'm sure 
that it will be much easier to handle the security in a private school 
than it would be in a DC public school (where the student body might be 
better armed than the Secret Service agents in charge).

>As Mr. Limbaugh pointed out today, Gov. Clinton opposes school choice for 
>middle and lower class people, but not members of his own economic class.

    Perhaps. He definitely opposes policies which would result in a 
wholesale exodus of funding from already sagging public schools. I'm 
afraid that there's a difference of opinion on what peoples' 
responsibilities should be in supporting public education. Some people 
seem to think that the money they pay into public education should be 
refundable if they send their kids to private schools. Personally, I 
don't even have kids, but I don't expect to get back any of the money 
I contribute to the public system. 

    To me Bush's "School Choice" plans sound a lot like a bunch of 
disgruntled parents wanting to suckle up to another governmental teat. I 
know that some people are going to have the reaction that those parents 
aren't asking for a handout, but rather to have control over where their 
kids' education dollars go, however I would simply have to comment that 
I've been kicking into the public education kitty for years and I've 
never had kids taking advantage of any of the money I've paid. If 
disgruntled parents can get refunds on "their share" of public education 
money then why can't I get a refund on mine?

    IMHO before we start handing out what are essentially tax refunds for 
disgruntled parents we ought to look at giving those same refunds to people 
who don't burden the education system at all. At that point maybe it will 
become obvious that tax money paid for public education is not tagged for 
the personal use of any individual kids, and that even people who don't 
have kids using the system enjoy benefits as a result of living in a 
society which provides its citizens with a basic education.

>Regards,

>Will Bralick                             Speaking _only_ for myself.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13703 alt.rush-limbaugh:13704
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:38:55 GMT

wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:

>larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>| There is a big difference between being free to send your children to a
>| private school at your own expense (school choice) and doing the same with
>| public school funds to subsidize it through vouchers (school choice,
>| according to Limbaugh and company).

>This is a bogus distinction.

    Not in my opinion. There seems to be the initial distinction of who's 
paying the bills. You're free to do whatever you want with your money, and 
as a major cynic I would define the term "your money" as that portion of 
your earnings the government hasn't taken yet.

>Once the vouchers are transferred to the parents the money is no longer
>public funds.  They aren't ``public school funds'' anyway until designated
>as such by the appropriate authority.  Now, as an employee of the national 
>government, Governor Clinton will pull down a cool $200K paid to him 
>directly from the treasury of the United States.  Will these be private 
>or public funds?  Do you argue that social security recipients should 
>not be permitted to contribute any of their social security money to the 
>church of their choice?

    Not me, but it seems to me that you're the one arguing for the change 
here. You seem to want disgruntled parents declared as the recipients of 
a brand new government entitlement program, in this case to be funded out 
of the money which is currently used for public schools. 

> Should food stamp recipients be prevented from
>using food stamps in church-related grocery stores?  Can welfare recipients 
>give any money to their churches?  Drawing the line at ``education'' is
>as arbitrary as it is transparent.

    It is not arbitrary because at this time we haven't made the commitment 
that all parents should be entitled to big checks (excuse me, "vouchers") 
from the government that they can use to defray the costs of teaching 
Johnnie how to read. Welfare and food stamp recipients acrue benefits 
because of their low economic status (at least in theory), but parents 
as a group have not yet managed to get into the line for handouts. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 16:44:47 GMT

In article <1ihlbiINNcq1@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter
Smith) writes:

>I didn't think of it as "unnatural" because "animals don't do it".  
>Animals do lots of things that would be 'inappropriate' for people; 
>if a male co-worker started humping my leg, for example...;-).
>It's more a matter of how the cycle of life works in nature; sex 
>is the veichle that keeps the cycle of life going.  It is an instinctive, 
>"natural" part of nature.  

This is incoherent.  You seem to have two different notions of
"natural" mixed together ere.  One is the teleological notion, that
the function of sex is reproduction, and hence anything else is
unnatural.  This comes in various versions, such as the theistic and
the Darwinian.  (Zeleny was trying to give another version here
recently, but when he was pressed to spell it out it became totally
crazy.)

If you take the theistic position, then you are simply coming round to
the idea that God made heterosexuality and not homosexuality from
another direction.  If you claim God could not have made homosexuality
because it is bad, you assume your conclusion.  If you claim God
would not have made homosexuality because it serves no function, you
are simply ignoring the possibility that it might; which is also
a problem with Darwinian teleology.

In the Darwinian case, you will be in the position of trying to deduce
an ought from an is.  You will also be guilty of bad science, since it
is by no means agreed that homosexuality serves no purpose, nor that
it is not a byproduct of genes or structures which serve some purpose.

So much for teleology.  If you mean heterosexuality is instinctive
in a way in which homosexuality is not, then you need to explain the
animal evidence once again.  Homosexuality in fruit files is hardly
likely to be a lifestyle choice; I don't even find this notion
convincing in the case of Canis lupus.

I don't see that you have even the beginnings of a coherent idea of
what you mean by "natural", but go ahead and argue if you think you
do.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 02:55:17 GMT

craig sivils (casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
:
: Sorry, it doesn't fly, you can only label a person a bigot if they allow
: their actions toward a person to be affected by their belief that homosexuali
ty
: is wrong.
:
: Using the same logic, everyone on the planet would be a bigot on some area
: (they disagree with someone on the morality of something).
:
:                   Craig

bigot, n. 1. a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed,
opinion, etc.  2. a narrow-minded, intolerant person.

Note the requirement of intolerance.  Disagreement is not bigotry, but 
intolerant disagreement is.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13356 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11947 alt.politics.clinton:19885 alt.politics.bush:15709 alt.politics.homosexuality:9202
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: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Date: 8 Jan 1993 18:02:33 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> Homosexual behavior is exhibited in some portion of all mammal species but
> not all, clearly it is a natural phenomenon, and has a purpose in the natural 
> scheme of things.

What is its purpose in the natural scheme of things? 

> Heterosexual behavior is exhibited in some portion of all mammal species but
> not all, clearly it is a natural phenomenon, and has a purpose in the natural 
> scheme of things.


What is *its* purpose in the natural scheme of things?

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13275 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11876 alt.politics.clinton:19833 alt.politics.bush:15684 alt.politics.homosexuality:9169
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
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: 8 Jan 93 00:21:40 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1993Jan4.230242.27027@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:

>Ted is merely doing something that is necessary in this type of forum. 

That is one interpratation, there are others (vida infra).

>Given the amount of flames, opinion and BS that is spread on the net,
>it is always useful to have a source handy so what you post is credible.

Always?  Don't you mean "often".  Could you provide a reference to
prove that it is "always useful", as opposed to "often useful" ??

>I have posted requests for a lot of information that is put out as
>fact and haven't received much backing up these broad based statements.

Could you define "a lot", and "haven't recieved much"?  Then, could you
provide accurate statistics, complete with message references, dates,
etc., to make sure that your broad based statement is backed up by fact?

Annoying, isn't it?

This sort of badgering may or may not be constructively intended.   Your
method is arguementative, but constructive.  My example is not constructive,
because my requests were not designed so much to gather information as a
quick and dirty method of dismissing conversation.  How can one tell
which is which?   Generally I find that intelligent thoughtful people who 
are using it as a request for clarification tend to include such requests 
in a larger context.  Conversely, I find that people who use it as a 
badgering technique are narrow minded weasels who generally just use it 
as a one line message without context.

I cannot be sure how Ted Krueger meant to use it, but his lack of context,
and other factors, tend to make me think he was being disingenious with
the use of his requests.

Tom

P.S.  Nice to "meet" you. It's nice to know that somebody over in
physics seems to be an 'intelligent thoughtful' person.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Originator: news@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:40:38 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <tpvaa3v@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <q182wB1w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>>keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer) writes:
>>
>>> What state do you live in that you can't send your children to the school
>>> of your choice?
>>
>>Almost any. Parents have their assets confiscated, and possibly their
>>children, if they attempt to refuse to pay tribute to the local school
>>board, and use the money to send their kids to a real school.
>
>There's a profound difference between sending one's children to the school of
>one's choice while simultaneously complying with the laws and regulations of 
>the region one lives in, and trying to send one's children to the school of
>one's choice while simultaneously breaking the laws and regulations of the
>region one lives in.  However, the difference does NOT involve the question
>of whether one is allowed to send one's children to the school of one's
>choice.

The profound difference is in the question and the answer.

The issue is not so much that of being "allowed" to put their children in
the school of the parents' choice, but of being in a situation where you
"can't," as Keith's question stated. The issue here is that parents should
be permitted to send their children to private school if they want, and get
some benefit from the school taxes they pay. Private schools are not for
everyone. But if a private school is right for your child, it just doesn't
matter of you can't afford to send him/her there.

I cannot see a single negative impact with this plan -- except for the NEA,
comprised almost exclusively of public school teachers.

							- greg


-- 
Greg Trotter				|                     
Norman, Oklahoma			|                             
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality