HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: evans@cs.uwp.edu (Randy Evans)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Parkside
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:56:24 GMT

: 	Do the Gays who are currently showering with Hetero men in the
: military get turned on?  For that matter, I have been told that Gays who
: shower at gyms which are predominantly Gay do not get turned on.

I have showered with both straight and gay men at gyms and have had no 
problem with getting turned on.  This was both in group showers and shower
stalls.
-- 
..............................................................................
.                                                                            .
.                                Randy Evans                                 .
.                                                                            .
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: doolin@hydra3b.cs.utk.edu (David Doolin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: What! Me worry?
Date: 12 Dec 1992 21:04:10 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Department of Computer Science
Distribution: world
Reply-To: doolin@hydra3b.cs.utk.edu (David Doolin)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra3b.cs.utk.edu

	Since I don't have a TV, don't listen much to the
radio, and am too busy to read the paper, I have found these postings to
be very interesting and informative, although I only read about 200
of them.  Mostly it supports my contention that the vast majority
of all in this nation, right and left, have entirely too much
free time.  Indeed, here I sit wasting an hour on subjects I know
little about contemplating remarks made by people, right and left,
who I sincerely hope are not as profoundly ignorant as I am.  Nations 
rise, as ours has, and all the history I have read (alot) indicates
that nations fall.  To assume we won't is hubris.  A common thread
in the fall of all civilizations (or dynasties) I have read of involves
the people or their rulers focusing inward rather than outward; on them-
selves rather than the nation.  Issues such as "gays" in the military,
animal rights, "freedom of choice" ( every is free to choose... to
abstain from sex ), etc., etc. really show a society on its way to
decadence.  Good thing we have those oceans to protect us...
	I don't monitor this newsgroup but I may reply to any 
articulate comments, right or left, sent email.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11403 alt.politics.clinton:18418
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Taxing medical benefits ... NOT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:41:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.195620.6688@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>
>Ted Krueger posted a few days ago a comment concerning a New York Times
>article he saw in his local paper. According to Krueger the story said
>that "the Democrats" were planning on "taxing health benefits" thus
>actually increasing taxes on the middle class, something Clinton has
>promised to avoid at all possible cost. Well, looks like he spoke too
>soon.
>
>In my local paper (which is owned by the NYT) today there was a story
>which directly contradicts these assertions. The headline was "Transition
>aide says Clinton won't put tax on medical benefits". In the story, Judy
>Feder, who is Clinton's transition team health policy chief, said that
>President-elect Clinton is not planning to seek new taxes on employee
>medical benefits to pay for health care reform. She said, "That was not
>contemplated in the campaign, and there has been no change in that."

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 ending
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.
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:49:56 GMT

In article <BzJ2Ko.CrF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>
>>What the fuck is with people?  I like looking at naked women -- so what
>>do you think I am going to do, tackle the first one out of the shower
>>stall?  I like looking at men -- so am I supposed to tackle them too?
>
>Y'all are gettin pretty hypocritical... according to all you PC feminist
>folk, sexual harassment is ANY BEHAVIOR OF ANY KIND THAT A WOMAN FINDS
>OFFENSIVE INCLUDING LOOKING AT SOMEONE.
>
>Double edged sword here liberal folk, wake up and smell your own hypocrisy.

Who are you talking to?  I don't hold this view.

>I would be VERY offended and uncomfortable to have to shower with a gay
>guy staring at MY tush... therefore by you PC people's own definition this
>constitutes sexual harassment.

Of course, if you don't happen to know that the guy next to you is
gay, it's kind of a moot point, isn't it?

>Also, there's another consideration which you are all ignoring and that is
>this:

Oh, goody.  This should be fun.

>Let's assume that 80% of the military are "prejudiced" against homosexuals,
>and that in combat this fact WILL endanger the group because they are not
>cohesive.  Now, even if we assume gays are correct that they should not be
>ostracized for their sexuality, is it REALLY worth letting tons of people
>die for this?

Who's going to die, and for what reason?  If I were in the military, I
would sure as hell not come out if it appeared that such an action
would endanger the other people in my unit.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Subject: Re: How many gays are there anyway?
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 07:28:58 GMT

: Well I have been following the gays in the military thread here and one
: of the most common pro arguements is that it will improve the military
: by increasing the manpower pool. I would just like someone to post how
: much of a numerical difference letting the gays in will make. Can
: someone post what percent of the population is homosexual. Please post
: it don't send it to my account, I'm running a bit low in the memory

From what I understand, this number is supposed to be apx. 10%. 
However, that "scientific" estimate is probably high. From what the 
media says on the topic, one is given the impression that the number 
is close to 50%.

Felix Gorney


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: "follow-up" "to" "a" "post"
Date: 18 Dec 1992 23:24:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) says:

>Isn't it funny that the people who "claim" to be "the most" in favor of 
>"not judging others based on their beliefs" often show a propensity for 
>crashing fundamentalist Christians into the walls.

   Isn't it funny that people who can't write very well, like for instance
YOU, Ted Krueger, put "too" many "quotation" "marks" around "words" "once
in a" while?  

>Their creed must be, "Don't judge others...unless they're Christians."  
>I see this creed rampant in our society today.

   If they're lesbian Christians then I like to leave them alone. 
Otherwise they're fair game.
-- 
    Vern Morrison               |  Only the strong survive: "I'm just not
    aa680@po.cwru.edu           |  going to have too much sympathy when I'm  
    vern@cray.csuohio.edu       |  putting in 50- to 80-hour weeks and not     
    Parma, Ohio: a modern Eden  |  seeing others keep up." --John A. Hnat
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Rush Courts the FAAAR Right
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:27:15 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester


Is Rush moving farther right?  

Last night on his TV show, he stated that the lack
of religion in America was causing many problems
in society.  He said, in fact, "any religion."  But 
then he said things to the effect of "Why don't they 
teach the ten commandments in school anymore?"  He 
then proceeded to blame drug use, abortions, guns in 
school and other societal ails on the lack of religion.

Rush implied(IMHO) that christianity was more normal
and morally correct than other religions and deserves
to be taught in public schools.  He was also blaming
the removal of religion from schools for many problems
facing youth.  And of course, he blamed the liberals.

1.  Is Rush courting the far right?
2.  Is Rush trying to make up for the "orgasm" show?


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11599 alt.politics.correct:5983 alt.activism:19566
From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.rush.limbaugh,alt.activism
Subject: Re: How overcrowded is the world? ?
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:43:29 GMT
	<1992Dec3.132253.13569@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<GPRIORES.92Dec4120127@fish.oracle.com>
	<1992Dec6.012016.24459@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Dec6.012016.24459@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> In article <GPRIORES.92Dec4120127@fish.oracle.com> gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi) writes:
>>Exactly. My problem with these figures is that, while the entire
>>world's population could _live_ on .5% of its surface, it would take
>>6% of its surface to _support_ us. Population grows exponentially. How
>>long before that 6% is 20%? 60%? Over 100%?
>>the future that's scary...
> The future is only scary if you believe that our technology will not 
>be able to solve most problems connected with the numbers you spread out 
>above (20%, 60%, over 100%).

I realize that this is a very tired and misused observation these
days, but we simply can't just be generating problems and assuming
that "the future" will take care of the solutions. I agree that
there's a lot of extremely exaggerated alarmism out there, and I agree
that technology can help mitigate the problem, but we have to
recognize that we have a potential problem before solutions,
technological or otherwise, will start being developed.

I believe that we ought to recognize that we have a potential problem
and start at least thinking about solutions _now_, as opposed to when
the potential problem turns actual.


> Then you ascede my point, namely that the world is not overpopulated.

I agree that the world is _currently_ able to sustain its current
human population. That says nothing about the future, and the world
doesn't have to be incapable of supporting all of its human
inhabitants for it to be considered overpopulated; it might be a much
more comfortable place with a tenth the people on it. If there were a
tenth the people in, say, the San Francisco Bay area, the smog would
hardly be noticeable, there wouldn't be a water shortage, and the ski
lift lines in Tahoe would be a lot shorter. By certain criteria, the
Bay area is overpopulated, even though there's certainly enough food
to go around.

                                     Cordially,

                                          -g
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: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:55:06 GMT

(Followups are set to alt.politics.homosexuality.)

In article <1gnskcINN6ac@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>> >In article <645@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes...
>(I may have the author confused here..)

I think it was Gadson Sandor (rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu) who wrote this
sentence.

>> >	Blacks cannot, without much effort, change their skin colour,
>> >and Gays cannot change their gender attraction.
>
>Because gay-rights activists often 
>equate the two (blacks and gays)

Actually, I don't think I know of anyone who says that racism and
heterosexism are equally bad.  Comparable, yes.  Equally bad in a
*moral* sense, yes.  IMHO, the effects of racism are presently far
more severe than those of heterosexism.

>and equate the way they would like 
>to see stereotypes removed (like forced education in public schools) 

True.

>there has been some credence given to the notion that the gay-rights 
>movement might very well want the same type of minority status, with 
>the attached quotas, given to homosexuals.  

I don't think that's either likely or desirable.  I will certainly
oppose an Affirmative Action hiring plan for queers.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11905 alt.politics.clinton:18860 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10442 alt.politics.bush:14734
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: An Apology to Ted
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:43:47 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec15.042117.3695@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>Ted is typical of Arizona...

>The last state to pass a Martin Luther King day

You left out, "The only state to pass a Martin Luther King Day Holiday by 
popular vote."

-- 
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: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: More thoughts on economic illiteracy (d)
Keywords: economics, illiteracy, Clinton, Perot, NAFTA
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:44:25 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

It was a nice superficial explanation of the economics involved, but
I'm surprised that someone who "studies economics for a living"
would attempt to explain NAFTA with such a simplistic analysis.
I'm afraid that the discussion takes advantage of the fact that
most people are not knowledgeable in economics - without such
knowledge, it's difficult to argue any of the points.  (Of course,
ignoring political realities in the explanation did give people
some points to argue.)

I'll be interested in seeing more of this.

Susan
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11415 alt.politics.clinton:18425
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Legislating niceness (Was Re: Gays in the Military)
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:55:36 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Dec10.144800.354@hsh.com> , paul@hsh.com writes:
>Gee, that's nice.  And again, it's a Pyrrhic victory along the lines of
"the 
>operation was a success, but the patient died."  Think about this:  would a 
>typical middleclass Joe Landlord continue to risk such suits?  Or would it 
>be safer to succumb?  
>
>>>There was an actual case (in California, I believe) where a woman refused
to
>>>rent her apartment to an unmarried couple because it went against her
>>>religious beliefs.  They sued (what else?)  how would you rule in this
>>>case?
>> 
>> That would depend on just what law, if any, the landlord broke when she
>> denied the couple.  I don't believe there is any law which specifically
>> prohibits discrimination based on marital or cohabitational status.  Don't
>> ask for a ruling without providing adequate information.
>
>Too bad that you hadn't read about it.  I wish I had saved the clipping. 
But 
>I am certain that California law (and that of other states) prohibits 
>discrimination based on "race, creed, religion, gender, MARITAL STATUS,..." 
>and about six other bases.  C'mon, you California readers  can you bear 
>this out?

OK, I think I have enough information to answer your first question.  I
would rule in favor of the couple and against the landlord, based on the
information given.  Under the law you cite, the landlord had no right to
discriminate against the couple based on her personal religious convictions,
when those convictions are in conflict with the laws of the state.  I so
rule without regard to the fact that I personally agree with the law, as
stated (I obviously can't comment on the "about six other bases".

You are free (even encouraged) to campaign for the repeal of laws you don't
like.  Or if you feel are in conflict with your state of federal
constitution, to have them overturned in court.  =That= is how the system
works.  Not always perfectly, but it =does= work, and justice is =usually=
server.

"But what about the landlord's rights," I hear you cry!  The landlord has a
right to operate within the law, just like everybody else.  People should
not engage in occupations that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

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.politics.clinton
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 09:56:11 GMT

In article <YOUNG.92Dec15130822@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.084759.10407@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
>
>>   As a Christian I view the sexual behavior of the parents as the central
>>   moral issue, not their parenting skills. 
>
>Now I admit that this line is somewhat out of context, but if I get
>your drift you are saying that it is not important if dad kicks the
>shit out of his kids, locks them in the closet and feeds them a diet
>of dog food and grass, as long as dad is screwing a woman he's married
>to?  But if dad is screwing 'Uncle Bob' then there's something wrong
>with the family?  This makes me more glad than ever that they aren't
>permitted to teach Christian ideals in the public schools.
>
Yes, you most certainly are taking it out of context and you are 
most certainly not "getting my drift". I made this remark purely
with respect to gay couples raising children who behave normally
in every other respect. Next time i'll spell it out in excrutiating
detail so you won't get confused. I'm trying to have a somewhat
rational discourse with people of different views here. Your response
seems like little more than raw flame-bait to me.

*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: howiegbk@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jr Howard Mea Turner)
Subject: Re: Lush Rambo (WKRP lampoon)
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:59:40 GMT

In article <BzF8r0.MD6@cda.mrs.umn.edu> luhmanjp@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu (Joe Luhman) writes:
>Did anyone happen to catch this weeks episode of the new WKRP in Cincinnati?
>I don't normally watch the show, but as I was flipping through the channels,
>I noticed that they were lampooning Rush on the show.  I'm a Rush fan,
>but the lampoon was hilarious!!  I was literally rolling on the floor!

>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Joe Luhman    |  luhmanjp@cab.mrs.umn.edu                        |

Rush also made a guest appearance (different name, of course) in the
comic book "The Punisher".  Complete with snippets from the show like
"a homeless update" "feminazis", etc. etc.  Check it out.  Best
$1.25 you ever spent.  If you email me, i can send you the number/
edition.

Howard
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11940 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10469 alt.politics.clinton:18887 alt.politics.bush:14753 alt.politics.homosexuality:8196