HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:34:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.041725.8115@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>
>I remember that my dog killed one of her "sons" because he was born sick.
>In a few days all the other kids were kind of independent, while one was
>quite sick. She killed him without much of a problem.
>Not cannibalism but....
>
Infantcide!  God, what a bitch! 8-)
-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:25:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article Nathan Engle writes:

>    To me Bush's "School Choice" plans sound a lot like a bunch of 
>disgruntled parents wanting to suckle up to another governmental teat.

So far, Wil or I (or both) have taken issue with nearly every statement
in your post except this one.  So I'll give this one a try.

$4000 per year is really not unaffordable to nearly anyone who really
cares about their children's education.  (Now $25K/year isn't peanuts,
but that's what the market will bear for some rather elite colleges.
$10,800 isn't peanuts either, but Sidwell is the elite of the elite.)
So, a $2000 contribution towards that $4000 is not necessarily all
that big a deal.  (But I guess it might be to someone who was really,
really poor.  A pair of graduate students?)

At any rate, I could care less about $2000 per year.  It's the
principle I care about.  I am actually going to claim that
FAIRNESS ought be a sufficient argument for SOME of the taxpayer's
dollars to follow a student to a private school.

I am also going to claim that fairness ought to require that any
public school student should be able to transfer to any other
public school in the same system REGARDLESS.  (Normally this is
forbidden of course.  We wouldn't want parents/kids to be able to
choose which public school they attend.  That would be competition!)

So, I think your "sounds a lot like a bunch of disgruntled parents
wanting to suckle up to another government teat" is way off base.
I think that "competition" would "require" public schools to improve
or close down and that's why it would be good.  And school vouchers
is one good way to foster competition.

I guess we "right-wingers" just have too much faith in "competition".
Please explain to us again why this kind of competition would be
a terrible disaster compared to the current terrible disaster.

[10 leaves on this tree now - it's fun to run up and down and read them.]
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:19:29 GMT

jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (jesse fuchs) writes:

>	BTW, ever see a "Kill a Queer For Christ" bumper sticker? They're
>very popular down in the South...my ex-girlfriend, who's from Alabama, got me
>one as a gag gift for my birthday (Along with a tape called "Rappin' for 
>Jesus" and a copy of "Final Exit" - we're talking about someone who really 
>thinks on my wavelength here.)

I just wanted to point out that, while I spend a lot of time driving
around Dallas, Texas and I have traveled a great deal the surrouding
states, I have never seen one of these stickers.  I've never seen one
in a novelty store, either.  To describe them as "very popular" is
just plain incorrect.

Maybe I just haven't had enough coffee yet today, but I'm getting
rather tired of the slams that the Southern U.S. constantly receives
from others.  If these slams were targetted at an ethnic group they
would be denounced as bigotted.  But Southerners are prejudiced,
homophobic hicks who marry their siblings when it comes to
joke-writing time.  Oh, we're supposedly Fundamentalist Christians,
too.
-- 
-----------------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,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:32:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.044034.28829@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.230757.1009@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) drivels:
>
>>No.  I think that some things should never be addressed in public 
>>schools.  I do not, for example, think that it is ever correct to 
>>teach children about having sex with farm animals (which has been 
>>done in some Planned Parenthood books designed for use in public 
>>school sex-ed programs).
>
>I am truely surprised, and if the situation is as you report, then
>I will be aghast.   Can you prove that such a book exists?  ISBN,
>publication date, ordering information? 


I believe there are some references to this in the book ' Why Johnny
can't tell right from wrong. by Kilpatrick'. Check it out. My copy is
currently loaned out so I wasn't able to confirm it. 95% certain the
information you are looking for is in the first 3 or 4 chapters, with
references in the back.
-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush Newsgroups on Net
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:55:42 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

My site currently receives just alt.rush-limbaugh.  A few weeks ago
there was some discussion about splitting/adding some new groups.

Please post or email me and let me know what Limbaugh groups are
available so I can make a request to my news administrator.

Dittos


-- 
David De Trolio                     (detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We can have increased revenue in the United States without punishing
those who have obtained economic success and personal achievement.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12922 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11415 alt.politics.clinton:19551 alt.politics.bush:15458 alt.politics.homosexuality:8892
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:19:23 GMT

Nathan Engle (nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu) wrote:
:     Back during the Gulf War there were a lot of peacenik types going 
: around talking about stopping the war by withholding funding. As I recall 
: Rush criticised these people very severely, even going so far as to call 
: them unpatriotic and/or unamerican. I have to wonder, in light of the 
: arguments that have been proposed here, what the reaction would have been 
: if the peaceniks had tried to argue for the idea of "Defense Vouchers" 
: which they could elect to spend on whatever form of national defense they 
: thought was the most effective? I might also wonder what would be the 
: reaction to the idea of "Transportation Vouchers" to allow people to 
: elect just which potholes they want to have fixed. I'm not saying that 
: either of these propositions would be good ideas, but I do think that it's 
: a double standard to hand money to the Pentagon with the insistence that 
: Pentagon experts determine how the money should be spent, but when we hand 
: money to educators all the sudden we want everybody to have individual 
: control.
: 

Defense vouchers make ZERO sense at all.  Unlike public education, defense
is clearly defined as to its implementation and maintenance in the constitution.
Potholes?  See one, and call public works for your township.

How about if we get legislation vouchers?  That way, we could pick and choose
which laws we wish to exempt ourselves from just like our congress critters
do.


: --
: Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
: Psychology Department               Indiana University
: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM (John Birge)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:40:55 GMT
Reply-To: birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: guerciotti.ebay.sun.com

So back to my original question...

Loren are you the product of Public Schools?

Have you ever had to deal with that bureacracy?

I wonder cause you missed the whole point of my post. 

Which dealt with the incompetance of the public schools.
They have failed in their mission and at least in the case I 
noted, desiminated misleading information. The stats provide the
evidence you seek. If Sex Education was effective the statistics 
would be on the decline not remaining level or increasing. The 
expressed intention was to curtail these very problems. 20+ years
later and....

>	I agree that that is a deplorable state of affairs, but
>European teens manage a similar rate of sexual activity without such a
>great teenage-pregnancy rate. Are the Europeans smarter than we are
>about sex?

By the way where is your bibliography to back up this claim? Speaking
of......

     ......rigorously demonstrated Cause and Effect.

For all we know the fact that most European educational systems do not 
exclude religion from their schools is at the root here. 

You went to private school didn't you? Come on admit it.

Ta Ta

John
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Does Rush ever post here?
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:36:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article kellyb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:
>The ultimate chicken would never have the balls.

Rush's time is too valuable to talk to turkeys.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 14:12:39 GMT

In article <C03vn5.77K@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>  >Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, the
>  >statement that it is a lifestyle choice is scientifically questionable,
>  >but if it is, so what?  Christianity, meat-eating, and monogamous
>  >marriage are not dictated by nature--they are all lifestyle choices.
>  
> I don't know who wrote this but a lot of folks are taking it at face
> value, I would like to this statement supported. I for one do not
> believe it.  *every*  I think not.

I have been unable to locate the file containing the extensive list of
references, so I went to my local used book store, pulled a half-dozen
books off the "Animals and Nature" shelf, and found that homsexuality in
various mammalian species was discussed in Herbert Wendt's THE SEX LIFE
OF ANIMALS (1965); Susan Michelmore's SEXUAL REPRODUCTION IN HUMANS,
ANIMALS, AND PLANTS (1965); and Francois Bourleiere's THE NATURAL
HISTORY OF MAMMALS (1954).  Michelmore cites instances in several
mammalian species (including such varied species as mice, elephants, and
dolphins, in answer to one poster's question).  Wendt also refers to the
large body of study in this area regarding primates in particular done
by H. C. Bingham, C. R. Carpenter, G. V. Hamilton, A. J. Kempf,
A. H. Maslow, Robert M. Yerkes, and S. Zuckerman.

Note that this was found simply by checking the half dozen books that
happened to be in one used book store at a given time.  It would seem as
though finding further documentation in this area would not be
particularly difficult, but if I find the more complete file, I will
certainly post it.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
-Nathan Engle
From: djrea@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (david.j.rea)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: BIRTH/CONTRACEPTION
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:46:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

-> I'll say it again.  So what?  A sperm donor is "a man somewhere in
-> the process" but no sperm donor can EVER be held liable for child
-> support. The only functional difference between one and the other is
-> whether or not the woman knows the guy's name.
-> You are clearly wrong.  No man is part of the birth process.  No man
-> is responsible for birth, according to secular reasoning.  Only women
-> can be responsible for birth since only women allow birth to occur,
-> and it is only at birth that a human being exists, according to the
-> same secular reasoning.
----------------------------------

If no man is part of the birth process, and no man is responsible
for birth(according to secular reasoning), then no man should have to
pay child support. According to secular reasoning, only women allow
birth to occur so only women are responsible! 

...um...maybe you mean "sophistical" reasoning...you know false logic?

False logic is a real bad way to make your point.Your above statement
sounds alot like "ALL SEX IS RAPE!!" I know at least 2 women that will
disagree;-)   No...not personally...

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:58:26 GMT

wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>tinkess@cambridge (Randall Tinkess) writes:
>| I see no advantage to putting a member of the first family at risk to
>| satisfy conservative whiners. And if you don't think there is any risk 
>| I suggest you look closely at the D.C. school system. 

>Ah, but think of the symbolic importance of such a gesture.  Risking
>one's only child to stand up proud and tall with Americans everywhere
>and say, "I'm with you, Mr. and/or Ms. and/or Mr. Mainstream_America.  

    I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here that's developing from 
Rush's oft-repeated claim that symbolism is more important than substance 
in the Democratic party. Now when Democrats make symbolic statements (in 
the same way that Dan Quayle's comments about Murphy Brown were symbolic), 
it's seen as conclusive proof that Rush is right, but when Democrats make 
rational decisions based on substance and realism it's seen as proof of 
hypocrisy. As far as I can see, there's no way for Rush to ever lose in 
an exchange like that, even in cases like this which I would have said 
was pretty clear proof that Rush's assertions about Democrats are not 
universally true.

>I do not blame Gov. Clinton, either.  It is hypocrisy that I find
>objectionable.  The rich and famous Clintons of the world can afford to
>send their children to private, elite academies, while the middle and
>lower classes are stuck with the drug- and violence-infested public
>schools.  

    I suppose that I find hypocrisy objectionable as well, but I think 
that I may be seeing hypocrisy in a different area than you. Rush rides 
Democrats endlessly for being "Symbolism over Substance", but yet in this 
instance where substance apparently won out over symbolism it seems like 
you're now saying that Clinton should have been symbolic instead of 
substantive?

    What the Clintons are doing for their daughter is only hypocritical 
if you accept the initial Rush-thought that Democrats always have to act 
based solely on symbolism and that not doing so contradicts their stated 
goals. Unfortunately, although it certainly contradicts the version of 
their goals which Rush has made up, it isn't inconsistent with reality.

    Gotta watch those Rush-thoughts. Sometimes they don't actually agree 
with empirical truth.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:47:11 GMT
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.dtcc.edu

In article <nate.1038@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>Rush certainly has his own opinion about what's necessary for public 
>education to succeed, however I would note that his opinion is not shared 
>by very many of the teachers and administrators who have to deal with the 
>system every day. 

  Isn't that like asking the asylum inmates how to run the asylum?  Or did
I miss something?  Those people you are talking about ARE the problem!
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 7 Jan 1993 16:22:10 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> The most fundamental and pervasive *intellectual* reason why Western
> civilization regarded homosexuality as evil in the first place stemmed
> from the idea that it was unnatural, and the reason it was thought to
> be unnatural was that animals were thought to seldom or never engage
> in homosexual behavior.  This line of thinking goes back to the Greek
> philosophers, and when combined with the idea that God created nature
> in a certain way, and that God had explicitly prohibited homosexuality
> because of its unnaturalness (as Paul apparently thought), we find the
> intellectual basis for the wide-spread aversion to homosexuality.

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.  

Walter
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:02:45 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <3705.97.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us> laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) writes:
>
>Oh, and his wife is the one with the bucks. She makes about $300K a
>year at a real, nongovernment job.

More like $130K, and the law firm that employes her does alot of
government work in AK.  They feed at teh public trough.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:39:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.233515.2655@brtph560.bnr.ca> woodstock!chris@mcnc.org writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.152505.22773@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>|>  Article 2, of the Colorado Constitution is amended by the addition of
>|>  Sec. 30, which shall state as follows:
>|> 
>|>  NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL
>|>  ORIENTATION.  Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
>|>  branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political
>|>  subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt
>|>  or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby
>|>  homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
>|>  relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or
>|>  entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
>|>  status, quota preferences, protected status or claim or
>|>  discrimination.  This section of the Constitution shall be in all
>|>  respects selfexecuting.
>|> 
>|> As you can see, the amendment was cleverly phrased to imply that it prevents
>|> gays from acquiring special rights, but if you exclude the filler, you get:
>|> 
>|> Colorado...shall not adopt any statute...whereby homosexual...practices or
>|> relationships...shall entitle any person... to claim of discrimination.
>                                                        ^^
>Greg -- I think that you might be misreading that....  Here's how I read it...
>
>Colorado...shall [not] adopt any statute...whereby homosexual orientation...
>shall be the basis of...discrimination.
>
>The part that I've highlighted with the ^^'s should be an "or," not an "of".
>The way you're reading it, it implies that the amendment does not allow 
>a homosexual to file a claim that says s/he's been discriminated against, 
>which is definately not what it says.
>
>What it does say is basically, "You're gay?  So what?  We don't care.  We won't
>give you any special treatment, nor will we discriminate against you."
>
	Well, what happens if its read like this:

	Colorado ... shall [not] enact, adopt or enforce any statute ...
	whereby homosexual ... orientation ... shall constitute ...
	the basis of ... any person ... [to] claim ... discrimination.

	It says that discrimination based on homosexuality can never
	be illegal, ie. it will always be legal to discriminate in the
	state of Colorado based on a person's homosexual orientation.

-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality