HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Disproving homophobia
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 03:02:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <l92gliINNh43@mizar.usc.edu> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.175103.16357@amhux2.amherst.edu> 
>twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>> In article <rc9mv3l.jfh@netcom.com> 
>> jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:
>>
>> >What's the equivalent proof that someone isn't homophobic?
>>
>> What's the "proof" that someone is?
>
>If he refuses to kiss me on the mouth in a social setting.

I'll make an exception if I plan to go to bed with someone later.  But then
it's not really social, I guess. 

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton   jfh@netcom.com   P. O. Box 281107   SF, CA   94128-1107
From: aag@aber.ac.uk (Angela Gilham)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Something Bush said....
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:13:44 GMT
	<1992Aug20.043148.23893@walter.bellcore.com>
Organization: Computer Science, University of Wales, Aberystwyth

In article <1992Aug20.043148.23893@walter.bellcore.com> 
news@walter.bellcore.com writes:
   buckmr@vccsouth28.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
   >
   > Gosh, I wish Margaret Tutwiler was a dyke! [abstruse]
   >

   Every time I hear her voice on the radio, I'm more and more
   convinced that she's being played by Lily Tomlin, so I'm
   sure your wish has been granted.  And as long as I never see
   her on TV, I'm not going to be disappointed.

   Debby
   dfs@bellcore.com

Yeah, but she signals dyke! Have you *seen* some of those dresses?
I've never seen a straight woman with such bad clothes sense (a bright
turquoise thing from the Gulf Crisis comes vividly to mind) . . . it's
almost as bad as the true dyke lack of dress sense exhibited on the 
k. d. lang video I was watching last night ;-)

Ang
--
Angela Gilham. Dept of Computer Science | "You walked out of my front door,
University of Wales, Penglais,          | I wasn't then, but now I'm sure;
Aberystwyth. SY23 3BZ. UK               | I need to be at least 2,000 miles 
aag@aber.ac.uk      +44 970 622433      | away from you!"  --- Erasure
From: gklein@uoft02.utoledo.edu (Gary Klein, bear at heart)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Credit Union Memberships for Domestic Partners?
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:57:53 EST
Organization: Carlson Library, Univ of Toledo

In article <1992Aug17.182100.8899@agora.uucp>, doretta@agora.uucp 
   (Doretta Schrock) writes:
> So far several of you boys have written to tell me you can't imagine that
> there would be any problem getting my partner a credit union membership.
> Not only can't you imagine it, you're just sure I must be mistaken.
>... 
> I checked with them about domestic partners rules and was informed that the
> rules do not currently allow for such people.  I was furthermore informed that
> if I wanted to change that I would need to make a written request to the board
> of directors.

     As a founding member of a FEDERALly charter credit union, and having just
checked with my FEDERAL campus credit union, I am absolutely certain that there
is NO RESTRICTION against accepting a "domestic partner" as a member IF AND
ONLY IF the charter of the federal credit union refers to HOUSEHOLDS instead of
families.

     Unfortunately, do to a recent change in the leadership & office files, my
campus credit union cannot locate a copy of its own Charter & Bylaws, but I was
assured that the UT-MCO Federal Credit Union has been accepting gay couples &
unmarried couples as members.  As the 3 people explained to me, even if it the
exact wording doesn't say so, they have been taking the memberships all along
without any problems!

     The credit union in Buffalo that I was associated with was based on
membership in one of three local Food Co-ops, which had a large number of
"alternative family arrangements" in many households -- people living in
communal houses,  couples who raised children but never bothered to get
married,  and gay couples.  The credit union organizer were very cognizant of
the needs of the Food Co-op members, but we had to fight tooth & nail with the
officials from NCUA to get the exact wording that we wanted.

     NOTHING in federal law says that credit unions have to be linked by
employment.  There are credit unions based on College Students,  Religious	
membership,  Food Co-ops,  Professional organizations,  Residents of certain
neighborhoods, as well as place of employment.

UPSHOT:  If they cannot produce "the law" that they are "quoting", then hold
         them to the point of producing the text that they claim ties their 
         hands!

         If you do not challenge them on a given point, WHO WILL!! ???
-- 
                                               "Librarian, Leather bound"
Gary Klein,   Business Librarian,  (Univ of Toledo)           * * * * 
PO Box 12650                  Toledo OH  43606-0250            *   *   
(w): 419-537-2629      fac2813@uoft01                            *   
(h): 419-243-2740      fac2813@uoft01.utoledo.edu         B4 t+ w- g s+ k
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: robertl@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lodenkamper)
Subject: Re: Utopia (was Re: mandatory service)
Organization: Stanford University
	<1992Aug12.033954.28682@reed.edu>
	<ROBERTL.92Aug11210033@luciano.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Aug12.122024.26409@macc.wisc.edu>
	<ROBERTL.92Aug13022443@luciano.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Aug13.182121.29682@riacs.edu>
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:14:59

In article <1992Aug13.182121.29682@riacs.edu> David Christopher Rogers
<drogers@riacs.edu> writes: 

   Jess said: 
   >   Utopia is so simple, if you work at it!  :-) It's all a
   >   matter of giving and getting; our trouble is we want to do
   >   the getting without doing the giving. 

   [I read this first, and its presciption for utopia reminded me of the 
   old saw about how to succeed at playing the stock market:  
   "buy low, sell high".  Robert replies to Jess:]

       Message-ID: <ROBERTL.92Aug13022443@luciano.Stanford.EDU> 
       From: robertl@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lodenkamper)

       >My purpose wasn't just to snipe at Jess's proposal --- even
       >though it is, like all utopias, a tempting target.
       >
       >Instead I want to emphasize that Jess's utopia, the communist
       >utopia, the libertarian utopia, the socialist utopia, the
       >benevolent dictator utopia and any others I've forgotten all
       >fail for the same reason --- they ignore human nature.

   Or more to the point, they ignore the "fundamental aspect of human
   nature" that YOU find important.  In fact, each of them purports to
   use some aspect of human nature to achieve their goals, and gets
   hoist by some other inconvenient aspect.

I'm assuming that enough evil, greedy and/or power mad people exist
(and will exist under any utopian scheme) to wreck any system that
doesn't take this unfortunate fact into consideration.

This is not the only important aspect of human nature --- it is merely
one that makes the most trouble for utopian schemes, which is why I
mentioned it.  I did not intend to thereby single it out as the most
important aspect of human nature.  It isn't.  I'm in no position to
say what is.

   The United States has a fascinating history of attempted Utopian 
   dreams, and the reason most do not turn out as expected has less to
   do with ignorance of human nature as with the breadth of human nature:
   our violence, our love, our self-interest, our altruism, our refusal
   to learn the obvious and our desire to know all, are difficult to 
   span in one philosophy.

I don't think altruism, love and curiousity wreck utopias.

It's certainly true that the breadth of human nature rules out most
simple solutions.  The negative aspects of human nature rule out the
simple utopias, and the positive aspects of human nature rule out the
simple distopias (on ethical grounds).

-Bob
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: buckmr@vccsouth29.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: And The Band Played On back on track...
Summary: old news from lA Times
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:38:03 GMT


Ron Biduk posted to gaynet@athena.mit.edu:

According to an article that appeared in the August 10th issue of the Los
Angeles Times, the TV dramatization of Randy Shilts' bestseller on the
beginning of the AIDS crisis, "And the Band Played On," has a new director
and will start filming in October for HBO.

Director Roger Spottiswoode (who directed "Stop or My Mom Will Shoot!" and
"Shoot to Kill") will replace Joel Schumacher, who withdrew from the film
last September, shortly before production was to begin.  Schumacher complained
of problems with the script and HBO said at the time that it would be
undergoing "fine-tuning" while a new director was sought.

The two-hour film will probably air in late summer or early fall of next year.
Shooting will take place in Atlanta and San Francisco, with casting scheduled
to begin shortly.

The TV screenplay, written by Arnold Schulman, is told from the point of view
of two characters-scientist Don Francis and AIDS activist Bill Kraus.  Randy
Shilts, who was hired as a consultant, "loves the script that we have now".
Aaron Spelling and E. Duke Vincent are executive producers.

Ron Biduk
UCLA Biomedical Library

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. 
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
"Show me a Black man who is not bitter and I will show you a nigger in need of 
 psychiatric help." --James Baldwin.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Too straight looking to be gay??? (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:16:59 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Aug20.012058.5470@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>Mlle dyer, mlle hughes, & mlle twpierce:

Oh, my, what an insult.

>I had no idea that you three debutantes were so incestuously interconnected.
>Thank you for settling a bet for me, though, and making me $10 richer.  
>I bet another masc. gay friend that none of the net queens on soc.motss
>would be able to offer coherent counterarguments.  He believed,
>however, that you would be able to contain yourselves and post something 
>of value.  

Hey, "Bob", you forgot to tell us about all the net mail you've
been receiving supporting your position.  God, you're lame and
pathetic.

>Oh, and as for you three ladies and me "on top":  
>There isn't a nickel's worth of difference between any of you and an
>actual woman; (of course there isn't; you like it that way).

A *VERY* *HAIRY* *BALD* woman with a beard.

>Given the choice, I'd still opt for a real lady instead of 
>any of you three "wannabe's".  Even I have *some* standards.

So do we, hon.  Crawl back under your rock.  By the way, you're
not given to placing personal ads, are you?

Unspeakably vile indeed...

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: AH.PBL@forsythe.stanford.edu (Mark)
Subject: Re: Gay names
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:34:06 GMT

In article <alices@vadier.gr.osf.org>,
emcmanus@gr.osf.org (Eamonn McManus) writes:
>Sim Aberson has already pointed out that in the Real Gay World, Mark
>(or Marc) seems to be disproportionately common, and I can confirm
>that this phenomenon exists here on the right-hand side of the
>Atlantic as well.  I also feel compelled (for reasons known only to
>Frederic Maffray) to add Alex to the list.  Oh yes, Alex.
>
>Of course, if a higher proportion of Marks or Alexes (Alices?) are gay
>than in the population as a whole, it follows that any particular Mark
>or Alex you meet is more likely to be gay than, for instance, a George
>or a Dan.

  It's all true.  But what does that make "Marky Mark"?

  -- Mark (My mother said that she liked this name because it was
  "masculine".  <giggle>.  Ssssilly goose.  She also liked Jim Nabors
  and Barry Manilow.)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Disproving homophobia
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 06:20:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Several of us have accused Bob "Another Reason to Buy DR-DOS" from Seattle
of homophobia.  

He hasn't posted back to say "Oh no I'm not", but suppose that he does.
What could he say to convince us?

I've been accused of homophobia myself, sometimes correctly (I'm working on
it), and sometimes for things which I think are matters of individual
taste, such as not liking to kiss strangers on the mouth in social settings. 

Naturally, I don't think that my dislike of uninvited intimacy with
strangers is homophobic, but there are those who do.  What could I say or
do, other than adopt their beliefs, to persuade them otherwise?

Is it meaningful to state something which can't be disproven?  For example,
the theory of gravity is meaningful partly because it can be easily
disproven - hold out an abject in a gravity field and see if it moves.  If
it doesn't, and there's not another explanation, you've disproven the
theory of gravity. 

What's the equivalent proof that someone isn't homophobic?

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton   jfh@netcom.com   P. O. Box 281107   SF, CA   94128-1107
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: norris@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff Norris)
Subject: Re: He calls this an introduction?!
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:59:00 GMT

lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Lovegod) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.042153.28616@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)  
>writes:
>} "Lovegod", contempt is not a good starting point to make friends.
>Maybe I would agree if that was my starting place.
>Nelson, I think you've misconstrued my whole point.  I wasn't saying that I  
>personally was being discriminated against in any way.
>It's funny to note that I've gotten more response by not being as loving and  
>gentile as you may think someone who calls himself "Lovegod" should be.  That's  
>too tough.  I'm not going to love anyone to the point where they think they can  
>just say any old thing to me and I'm not going to occasionally be a bitch in  
>return.  It doesn't happen often, but when it does, I make it count.

Oooo. Kay. (placatingly) Let's *all* just admit we can be bitches and then
try to play nicely together.

Donald (Lovegod) - I realize you got blindsided and are reacting defensively,
      but adding insults to your elders (for lack of a better term) is most
      definately not going to win much sympathy. (of course, maybe that 
      doesn't interest you.)
Nelson, THANK YOU DEAR for pointing out that Donalds stabs are not typical
of motss youth.
And Arne... well, I'm already flirting with Arne elsewhere in this thread.

jeff - who, if this works, might just consider a job as a marriage counselor
(motss marriages, of course).
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: gay vegetarians anonymous (was, be kind to small furry animals)
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:17:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.132040.11756@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:

>Remember earlier this year, when the group who protests against killing of 
>little animals for fur coats by throwing paint on fur coats started doing
>the same to leather outfits?
>
>Can they say "By-product"?

I don't know.  Can they?  What's the evidence that leather is really a
"by-product" of the existing meat industry, rather than an economic
goal in itself?  Seems to me even if the meat industry wasn't too
strong, there would be reason for people to produce leather.

You could use the same reasoning to defend the meat industry, on the
basis that meat is a by-product of leather production.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Introduction
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:35:14 GMT
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison


In article <l93781INNoqv@mizar.usc.edu>
adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:

>Ever one to flog dead horses, provided they're not

You know, that phrase, to flog dead horses, invariably
conjures up a scene in "Crime and Punishment" (the book, the
book), in which a drunk beats his tired old nag to death.
It is -- bar none -- the most vivid description of cruelty
and depravity that I have ever read.  I've read this novel
five times, twice in English and three times in Russian, but
I have to skip that scene now, I simply can't take it any
more.

This little factoid is not directly pertinent to your
posting, but I thought I'd just throw it in as an example of
the kinds of echoes we can set off in the lives of others
without ever suspecting anything of the sort.

For me, this has been the Summer of Death.  First my dear
mother, then my dear friend, and soon another friend here in
Madison, and on and on and on!  And I've just read Terry
Bartlett's account of going to Rob's and seeing Oriana.
I've been *so* worried about Oriana, a kind of displacement
of my grief.  So "beating a dead horse," no matter how
innocent, is a terrifically charged constellation.

>crossposted dead horses, I once again venture into the fray.

>In article <1992Aug18.185239.7284@macc.wisc.edu> 
>anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>>In article <l928ovINNe3n@mizar.usc.edu>
>>adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:

>>>And I haven't noticed *your* introduction, Jess, dear.

>>Not needed, sent in private rather a long time back.

>Oh, but Jess, you didn't read the rules carefully.

I almost never observe rules.  I recommend it.

>Lovegod
>wants everyone here (and I do hope he meant the people who
>post in soc.motss, not everyone who reads soc.motss) to *post*
>a c.v., or biographical essay, or *something* to introduce
>themselves to everyone else.

I believe he's recanted.

>Of course I'd be willing to play 
>along and post one for myself, but I think you know me well 
>enough by now to know what I'd do.  Actually, what I started to 
>do.  I conflated thumbnail bios of J. Edgar Hoover and Gloria 
>Swanson.  It was *faaaaabulous*, too, but probably way over
>Lovegod's head.

Oh, over everyone's, I suspect.

This must be the Approved Version.  Shirley, this klatsch
would prefer the Tabloid Version.  I mean J.Edgar and
G.Swanson sounds suspiciously like the real thing.  Where's
the dirt?

>But wait.  You wrote that you sent your introductory bio in
>private a long time back.  Do you send your bio to all new
>subscribers to motss?  

Nooooo...  not *all* .....

>How come *I* never got one?  <Pout>

Did you ask sweetly?

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Subject: Re: Too straight looking to be gay??? (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:57:23 GMT

katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
: k
:[a load of shit deleted]	
:	
: FUCK YOU, SARVER, YOU IGNORANT, MISOGYNIST, ARROGANT, STUPID, ASSHOLE.


IC
From: cardenas@blue.ucsb.edu (Cardenas;Mary;P.;;;MECE;Graduate;930630;;200)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: musical finale
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:25:48 GMT

Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison) writes:


>I myself was more thinking of Metallica's _Fade to Black_ and
>_End Game_ by Ian Anderson.... but that's more how I'd see

>-----
>[> George D. Madison | NBCS: B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv | Just say NO to razors! <]
>[> It's a BEAR thing -- you wouldn't understand. <|> furr@cup.portal.com <]

Oh cool!  A mosh pit
at a funeral....Boggling.
Maybe you can get Metallica 
to play too...they always wear black.

mary
From: tachyon@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Tane' Tachyon)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Those Who Are Gone Now
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:13:38 GMT
Organization: Tachyon Labs
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Aug18.025657.588@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>
>Responding to David Christopher Rogers's excellent
>suggestion to add to the FAQ a list of motssers who are
>now gone, he begins:
>
>rob@mtdiablo.concord.ca.us <Rob Bernardo>
>
>To be added:
>
>seth@pbhya.pacbell.com <Seth Miller>
>[???] <Doug Mosher>
>ozdaltx!root@uunet.uu.net <Robert Scott>
>
>Rest in peace, all, we remember you.

Tom Shearer
Randi Pollard (I hope I'm not mangling his name)

I don't know their net addresses.

-- 
 ____________________________________________________________________________
|tachyon@deeptht.armory.com  \        /__    One of the Bivariant Illuminati |
|      tachyon@ucscb.ucsc.edu  \    /   /  I only like sigs on *other* people|
|         tachyon@gorn.echo.com  \/   /  I should go log off and get to work!|
 ----------------------------------\/----------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Presumption
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 07:23:12 GMT

In article <17472@autodesk.COM> randyc@autodesk.com (Randy Clark) writes:

>	We're talking about labels -- as we so often
>	do -- and labels are *always* going to be imprecise.
>	Words are always imprecise, compared to reality ...
>	especially the reality of people's behavior.

This is true enough, but it assumes that the labels in question are
meant to describe the *whole* of the one being labeled.  Or, at least,
it assumes that labels are usually interpreted as such.  The latter
may indeed be true, but if is not, then there is nothing inherently
imprecise about labeling.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Bisexual just means you pay for it."
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Rock Hudson
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: History (was Re: Snaps (no, not *that* kind, Elizabeth) (was Re: New queer terminology) (was Re: The media, again)
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:55:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Aug21.235554.373
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <l9arc9INN709@mizar.usc.edu> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>My 21st birthday was in 1976 -- that glorious year of the bicentenial, 
>the punk explosion, and, closer to my heart, DISCO DISCO DISCO.

So tell me, Arne dear - did you ever wear polyester?
-- 
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                                    D is for lots of things
Newsgroups: soc.motss