HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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, 17 Dec 1992 20:29:42 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec17.162102.22240@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
]
]I don't know what ship you served on, but most of the people on my ship,
]married and single lived off-base (or "on the beach" as we called it).
Not while they were at sea!
]
]And even for those of us (including me) who had to live on board, the
]enlisted men's head (aka the bathroom) had individual shower stalls.
]Every ship I ever went on (a bunch) had individual shower stalls.
]
]Yes, the showers at bootcamp were "open" like in a gym's shower, but
]you are only in boot camp for a short period of time compared to your
]entire enlistment, and like some other poster said, homosexuals don't walk
]around with some kind of sign on.

That's nice, but my barracks that I lived in while in the Navy
had no privacy when sleeping (8 men to a cube that had no door),
and common showers with no privacy.


-- 
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
 - - Comment too controversial for management - Deleted :-) -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 18 Dec 1992 13:06:21 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Lost Boy writes:

>Hey, we all *know* what the reason for the season is. It's YULE! It just
>happened that when Christianity came in, the Church decided to make Yule a
>Chritian holiday by saying that Jesus was born then. Rumor has it that
J>esus was actually born during the spring. 

Actually, no one knows exactly when Jesus was born, but most scholars favor
the springtime.  Since in the days when the celebration was set no one knew
the actual birthday, they appropriated some handy holiday season- Yule, Saturnalia,
Winter Solstice.  Note that the Church did not decide to make Yule a Christian
holiday at all; merely the actual day was appropriated to celebrate a Christian,
not a pagan, feast.

	Dave
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:31:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1624@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>: In article <1992Dec4.152238.1349@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>: >In article <#+2ajg@rpi.edu> Keith Jackson, jacksonk@rolls.cs.rpi.edu
>: >writes:
>: >>Please clue me in on what artistic value a crucifix in a jar of urine has.
>: 
>: >The piece you mention =does= fit my definition of "art." 
>: 
>: Well, if the NEA is similarly incapable of distinguishing art from a
>: jar of urine, then I say it's incompetant to do what it is allegedly
>: being funded to do, and to Hell with it.
>: 
>: >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".
>: 
>: How does freedom require my money be taken from me at gunpoint and
>: used for the express purpose of urinating on everything I value?  I'm
>: perfectly happy to let the jerk with the incontinence problem excrete
>: in jars, and to let his buddies buy the jars of excrement if they value
>: it.  I deeply and bitterly resent my tax dollars (taken from me at
>: gunpoint) being used to buy these jars of excrement.
>: 
>
>Well, how about that!  By an amazing coincidence, I happen to
>deeply resent my tax dollars being used to to fund corrupt defense
>contractors, the subversion of democracy, the destruction of old d
>growth forests on public land, and the oil depletion allowance!
>Think we could make a deal?
>Oops.  Looks like you're paying a lot more taxes than I am.......

Sorry, national defense is specifically included (as the most important ?) 
as a duty for congress.  Public funding of art is not.

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
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11434 alt.politics.clinton:18440
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:44:33 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <grendel.724191093@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
]In <1992Dec12.062222.14183@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]>Dave, my kind of people are already denied this "opportunity" - we are
]>too old. If age is a valid reason for discrimination, why not sexual
]>preference? I contend that I would be a better radio operator and
]>electronics tech than I was in the Navy 25 years ago! But, I'm not
]>allowed in. Could it be that the military NEEDS to discriminate in
]>order to operate effectively? Could it be that this same rationale
]>might apply to sexual preference? Can you deny it?
]
]I will.  Age may indeed hamper one's ability to serve in the military.
]In many instances, I'm sure it makes no difference.  I'm not arguing that
]age discrimination is right.  But homosexuality doesn't hamper one's
]performance either, and I'm not talking about Unit Cohesiveness.  The
]homosexuals who have been discharged from the military have had exemplary
]records.  If your only argument against gays in the military is that they
]would cause tension and mistrust, I'd say you don't have much of an argument.

Very clever. The first thing you do is arbitrarily toss out the issue
of Unit Cohesiveness, which just happens to be one of the most important
issues in the discussion. Nice try, but you just can't do that in
an honest argument.

]
]No organization, not even the military, needs to discriminate arbitrarily
]to function effectively.  If there is a valid reason why someone is unable
]to perform military duties, there is a valid reason to bar them from the
]military; otherwise, it's nothing but prejudice.

Since you have excluded the ability to get along with people under
military circumstances (and ability that I claim is lacking in overt
gays), you can then conclude anything you want. But, you are begging
the issue and you know it.


-- 
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
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military: How's the debate going?
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:14:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ


I have had my mind opened on the topic of whether or not homosexuality is 
evolutionarily valid.  Several advantages have been brought to my attention 
and I now believe that my original statement "homosexuality is an 
evolutionary dead end" is a useless statement, and possibly scientifically 
false.

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
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11910 alt.politics.clinton:18863
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:39:19 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec17.202638.21289@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 

>My contention is that this is an ivory tower argument that fails to meet
>the test of practicality. To take this to its extreme, we would have
>to discharge everyone with any level of homophobia, but that would be
>okay because we have already decided a priori to allow gays in the
>military...

We wouldn't have to discharge people because of homophobia.  Those who can
deal with their phobia and learn to overcome it will have no problem.  Those
who can't overcome but can deal with it and learn to live with others despite
it will have no real problem.  Those who can't deal with it will probably
have to leave the military; I suspect that this will be a pretty small
percentage of those who are serving in the military, and far smaller than
the percentage of people who would like to serve in the military who happen
to be gay.

>No, I am saying that whether or not we should do that, reality is too
>hard. I am also saying that I have no faith in using attitude engineering
>techniques to successfully alter homophobia in the military.

>But, I don't think that gays in the military is a significant social
>problem. Yes, some number of gays will be denied military service
>(unless they stay "in the closet"). That is too bad, but is not IMHO
>a major social problem. Lots of people are denied the opportunity
>for military service for other reasons, but we are not forcing
>them (or me) on the military. I see this whole issue as primarily one
>more way for gay activists to maintain their visibility - by exciting
>their constituents (political gays) and ticking off everyone else. It
>is just one more example of political correctness - forcing a solution
>to a minor problem on society as a whole without regard for the costs.

But the military isn't just any part of society - it's a huge, _publicly-
funded_ government institution, which represents one of the major
opportunities we have for public service and employment.  There's no room
in public service for discrimination based on traits that are not correlated
to the ability to perform one's duty.

Homophobia is not a minor problem in society.  Gays are a substantial
percentage of society, and they still feel tremendous societal pressure to
deny their own nature and stay "in the closet".  Which I consider to be
barbaric treatment.  Homophobia is a major problem.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: Beth, can you provide a source?
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 03:49:11 GMT

In article <690@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.181156.22666@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>#In article <449@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#>In article <1g3b9fINNkpl@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jr Phillip S Buckland) writes:
>#>#	The "preferred" late-term method is as follows:
>#>#
>#>#	Manipulate the fetus until it has crowned (that is, so the top of
>#>#	its head is partly through the cervix).  Insert a suction hose into
>#>#	the soft spot in the head and suction out the brain tissue.  Continue
>#>#	with either induced birth or a forceps delivery.
>#>
>#>Do you have a source for this?  
>#>
>#And if you manage to find one, kindly include gestational age of the
>#fetus...
>
>Buckland gives his source as Beth Bartley.  I hope that she'll be
>able to answer the questions about this method - Buckland doesn't
>want to continue this thread because people aren't nice to him in
>t.a.  
>
>I really would like to see the citation.
>
I'm trying to find a case history of a third trimester abortion to
post, since somebody asked for it, but so far I've been abl;e to find
none. Zilch, nada.
I'll at least research the methods used, if I can't find an actual
case history to relate.

>[Buckland's redefinition of skull deleted]
>
>#What he seems to be saying here is that since it could eventually
>#become a skull, it's a skull now. Sounds like just another variation
>#on the old pro-force "since it could become a baby, it's a baby now"
>#line.
>
>Uh huh.  He just prettied it up a bit.
>
Made a nice effort at it anyway. :)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,talk.religion.misc
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)Summary:
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Somewhere in Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:58:01 GMT

In article <15DEC199211015011@zeus.tamu.edu>, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes...
>In article <Bz9JF9.Inu@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes...
>| 
>|It works both ways.  One can say "Let's force ALL kids to practice
>|some form of religion".  Or, one can say, "Let's force ALL kids to
>|not practice ANY form of religion".  The latter is what is happening.
> 
>	Let's just say, "Let's not force any kids to practice a religion,
>but let them do what they wish without the official sanctioning from the
>government or administration."

Precisely!!!!

> 
>Gadson

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11399 alt.politics.clinton:18415 alt.politics.bush:14435 alt.politics.homosexuality:7863 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9930
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: Lift the ban on shower curtains :-)
Date: 11 Dec 1992 20:51:47 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec11.190639.6287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
> If this is such a big concern why not install shower curtains?
>
> Or does showering together in the nude do something for male bonding :-)

Heavens.   Are you suggesting that the straight boys don't want 
to shower with us, but they don't want to shower in cubicles 
either, just so that they can go on showering with one another 
while escaping any "taint" of being just a itty-bitty bit gay?

Actually, I could believe that if I could first convince myself
that they could figure something like that out.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: Jim.Shirreffs
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:33:53 GMT

I'd like to take a shot at answering this question. Although I never witness
such an extreme case, it is not all that unusal. During my time in the USMC I witness
several lessor beating of people who were disruptive.  The reason for the beating
is unit disipline.  A combat unit can not afford to have someone incapable of doing
their job.  If such a person is disiplined by the other members in the unit it is hoped
that the offensive behavior will cease.  A combat unit is an entity unto itself. A
unit tries to solve it's problems internally. I suspect that things just got on of hand 
in the case in question.  I never saw combat but I was in a combat unit, things are a lot 
different out in the field, then they are back in the good old USA.

jim shirreffs
i speak for myself and only myself
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: FROGMAN
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 09:55:10 GMT

About "Ain't Got No Home" in Lost Boys, I hereby confirm.  That little
punk Corey Haim does a pre-pubescent rendition while taking a bubble
bath.

Glad to be the one providing info on a matter substantive as a lame
vamp flick.


Regards,
David
dnm9@columbia.edu
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Summary: Why do you think Helms is a racist?
Date: 14 Dec 92 07:20:24 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1550@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
writes:
>stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>: Several people have stated now that Jesse Helms is a racist.  Why do you
>: think that?  I'm not saying he isn't, but I don't know any reason to think
>: he is.  What do you know I don't?  Thanks in advance.
>
>Umm... the fact that he built his entire early career on opposing 
>the civil rights movement, often in stridently racist terms?

Being against the "civil rights" movement or some "civil rights" groups
is not the same as being against civil rights.  Don't you think a
person can be against those without being a racist?  What specific
actions or pronouncements of his make you think he is a racist?

>You could look it up...

Where?  What I want to know, is what he said or did that makes *you*
think he is a racist.  I don't know where to go to look that up.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11790 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10287 alt.politics.clinton:18787 alt.politics.bush:14644 alt.politics.homosexuality:8063
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:34:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec16.100149.24033@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE>, k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
|> In article <1glf73INNa02@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1992Dec15.093547.16763@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE>, k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
|> >|> In article <14DEC199213373618@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
|> >|> >In article <645@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes...
|> >|> >| 
|> >|> >	There is a distinction between Gay identity and Gay behaviour.
|> >|> [...]
|> >|> >
|> >|> >	Gays are like Blacks in that there is something about them,
|> >|> >irrespective of thier behaviour, which they cannot seem to change.  In 
|> >|> >particular, Gays are sexually responsive to members of their own gender.
|> >|> >They cannot love members of the opposite gender in the same capacity.
|> >|> >This is a trait which they are either born with or acquire sometime before
|> >|> >they have an awareness of it.  
|> >|> >
|> >|> >	Blacks cannot, without much effort, change their skin colour,
|> >|> >and Gays cannot change their gender attraction.
|> >|> >
|> >|> On the contrary, I have known several "gay" people who rejected 
|> >|> homosexual practices and are now heterosexuals. Whether or not
|> >|> they still feel "attracted" to same gender relationships is a point
|> >|> of debate (they claim to me that they're not).
|> >
|> >Jeepers.   Talk about missing the point by a mile.
|> >
|> On the contrary, I have a very clear idea of what the original point was/is.
|> I was merely trying to point out that the analogy may not be totally
|> consistent. If anyone missed anything here I believe it was you.


      +	"....Gays cannot change their gender attraction."


      +	"On the contrary, I have known several "gay" people who ........
	......Whether or not they still feel "attracted" to same gender 
	relationships is a point of debate (they claim to me that they're 
	not)"


jon.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:29:53 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com>, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
|> 
|>  	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
|> 	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
|> 	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
|> 	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.

Sure.  Very easy.  How about, "Where do we go now?"  We've
been everywhere on this planet, it's time to start exploring
everything else in the universe.  Let's go see what's on Mars,
or the moons of Jupiter.  

We started out in Africa, and spread slowly all around the world.  
We have moved from walking to riding animals to ships to cars 
to aircraft.  Why not take the next logical step in our evolution?
We have always been curious explorers, and we can't change our 
nature now.  

Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton