HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden)
Subject: Re: ""Gay rights group files complaint""
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, Ca.
	<RHAYDEN.92Nov19205017@hqsun2.oracle.com>
	<1992Nov20.175625.24981@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:14:58 GMT
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 <1992Nov20.175625.24981@oracle.us.oracle.com> dgilly@us.oracle.com (Daniel Gilly) writes:

   >Nothing, in my opinion.  But the fact that it isn't a choice seems to
   >be a persuasive argument that makes people think a little deeper about
   >the subject.

   Some would argue this fact.  I feel that the degree to which one
   feels it's a choice is somewhat related to the point in time when
   one identified "being different" from the social mainstream.  
   For example, those who remember yearnings for motss at some early
   age, say 5, often feel they were born that way.  I cannot, and am
   not, denying this is a fact *for them*.

   However, IMHO, the argument that it isn't a choice makes people think
   *less* deeply.  As you note below:

   >Note that the Catholic church finally recognizes the lack of choice,
   >and therefore is forced to take a (somewhat) more liberal position on
   >gays.

   If I'm not mistaken the church's position is, "Love the sinner, but
   not the sin."

   I think Laura's point, which is a good one, is that we need to focus
   on a different issue:  the idea that homosexuality is *not* a sin.
   Hence, it doesn't matter whether it's chosen or innate.

Hmm.  I think it's situational.  When I brought up the "it's not a
choice" argument with my brothers, it seemed to be persuasive.  When I
brought it up with my sister (who seems to be much more deeply
religious), it didn't phase her.

But, in the end, you're probably correct.  I just always have that
nasty habit of trying to argue on their turf...
--

  - Ronald Hayden

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
   | Documentation Manager, Oracle Toolkit Group                    |
   | Co-chair of Oracle Lambda, Oracle's Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual group |
   | Writer, magician, and various other things                     |
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: michaelh@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Mike Hennahane)
Subject: Re: Bear Crap
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 18 Nov 92 09:03:27 GMT

jns@elea.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer) writes:

>Since anti-bear postings are a reasonable response to
>'over-representation', could you tell us the correct 
>amount of representation please so that we could avoid
>future unpleasantness?  A list of bear topics and
>affectations would be useful too, just to avoid confusion.

my posting said *perceived* over-representation and the main point
that i was making was about the *form* of GDM's postings.  *i* know
that he is not speaking for all bears, but i was hypothesizing that
sometimes that concept is lost and other bears have to bear the brunt
of any offense people take (no pun intended:-)

i don't think that there's anything wrong with people expressing their
preferences in partners (smooth or hairy, butch or femme, ...).  i do
think that criticism is deserved if someone goes beyond "this is my
preference..." to "this is the only real preference..."

>[...]  But excuse me
>if I care not to minimize bear visibility to the point
>of invisibility.  I don't care to underestimate the 
>potential increase in self-esteem of the reader who, not
>looking like Marky Mark or Jason Priestly, discovers that
>there are men who appreciate a mature figure and hirsute
>aspect.

maybe i should have been clearer, but i think that this is important,
too.  i think that it's too bad that a lot of the bear traffic has
gone to the bear mailing list.  but, i don't think that asking people
to respect other people's tastes the same way that they would like
theirs to be respected is an unreasonable thing.  most people seem to
be pretty good about this on motss.

--mike
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)
Subject: Re: Men Not Getting It (was Re: Twice Fucked)
Organization: International Irony League -- Death before smileys!
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:06:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.160349.4486@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> How, really, can anyone not "get it?"

Beats me. I got it last night. 'Course, I was dressed up real
pretty...

Ummm... are we talking about the same thing?
-- 
Andrew Michael Solovay    

"We know that Solovay is a misogynist and an idiot..."
                --Melinda Shore
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Subject: Re: Redheads (was: Can anyone tell me about this TV show?)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:53:28 GMT
Organization: (getting there)

In <69742@cup.portal.com> Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison) writes:

 >Of course, the red in my beard is really only easily visible
 >in bright light, and when we were all at Rooster Rock, I'm sure
 >there were more visually exciting things than counting the
 >different colors in my beard. ;-)

Of course, when I saw you on the beach you were leaving the 
clothing optional area and were (as far as I could tell at that
distance) fully dressed, but *I* noticed.  I'd been led to believe
(but I don't know how) that your hair was lighter in color than it
is, so I was surprised.

But I had the sense that Coren was baiting you.   No?


Mara



-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!)
Subject: Re: Velveeta (was Patrick Stewart & "Space Age")
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:50:26 GMT

nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
>Well, I admit that I've eaten Velveeta (TM) 
>a can of chopped Rotel tomatoes
>Frito-Lay packages a cheese dip in little cans
>Spaghettios

With exception ov Velveeta, I've never eaten anything listed above.

I was asked what I wanted to do on my trip to San Fransisco. I answered
that I had some fixed stuff I just had to experience, one of them being
going to a really big supermarket and looking at all those boxes,
probably buying the worst of them to try..."like Twinkies and cheerios
and stuff."
"Twinkies? FJ, those are horrible!"
-"Oh probably. But I want to know just _how_ horrible."

							FJ!!
Xref: sparky soc.motss:48646 talk.politics.misc:61102 ca.politics:9751
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: A Strand of Bigotry
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:25:54 GMT
Followup-To: soc.motss
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Nov20.170316.17817@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

>In article <13302@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes
to Greg Hennessy:

>#You are the best example of why liberalism is fascism.

>Liberalism isn't fascism, your strawman characterization of liberalism
>is fascism. 

Right. It's easier to visualize the difference if you put each of
government, business, and the individual on the vertex of a triangle.

Fascism is government and business conspiring against individual rights.

Liberalism is government and the individual conspiring against business
(and sometimes government) "rights" (either real or imagined).

Libertarianism is business and individuals conspiring to restrict the
rights of the government.

Brian
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Patrick Stewart & "Space Age"
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:09:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.053627.25536@reed.edu>
      nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:

>In article <1e9nj1INN4ep@mizar.usc.edu>
>     adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:

>>Re: [Patrick Stewart]
>>I was at a cocktail party he attended once (name- drop, name-drop,
>>name-drop) and his RAOUNDED TAONES are even worse in person.
>
>WHAT?! How dare you insult Patrick Stewart you.. you.. velveeta eater.
>He's more of an icon than Marlene Dietrich and Errol Flynn, put together!

>I think I would swoon dead away, were I at a cocktail party with
>Patrick Stewart. How do you do it?

   Well, Nelson, I wouldn't go so far as to call him a bigger icon than
Errol Flynn... and I've discovered a fondness for Danny Kaye recently.

   But ignore him; he's a philistine with no appreciation for the finer
things in life... like older, refined, mature men.

         Elf !!!
-- 
      __        | The post you have just read is real, but it could
      \/        | have been avoided.  Inbreeding is everyone's
Elf Sternberg   | problem.  Contact your local Mormon church and 
elf@halcyon.com | be sure you aren't marrying a close relative.
From: bbeer@stein.u.washington.edu (Bob Beer)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Queers in military in other countries???
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:36:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov19.003650.11918
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

n article <5276@calmasd.Prime.COM> wlp@calmasd.Prime.COM (Walt  Peterson) writes:
>In article <1e9k7mINN23a@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu} cf379@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (J. Alan) writes:
>}

(stuff deleted)
>
>Of all of the NATO nations, only the US and UK currently have an
>absolute ban on out gays & lesbians serving in the military.
>
In Greece and Turkey, where things are homophobic if ever there was a homopho-
bic culture, queers are not banned from the military.  They are required to
serve just like anyone else.  Many young men spend lots of time, energy and
money trying to avoid their military service, and I have several friends who
wish to God that gays *would* be banned from the military!  :)

(Of course, if they are known, they are persecuted just like in civilian life)


Bob Beer
u.washington.edu
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Can anyone tell me about this TV show?
Date: 17 Nov 92 05:32:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Nov17.053243.25307
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <46001@ogicse.ogi.edu> markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey) writes:
>Now, before all of you redheads get your blood pressure up, let me
>personally assure you that Nelson has nothing against redheads.

good heavens, no! My first lover was a redhead! Some of my best
friends are redheads! I just don't want to be one myself.

>He really didn't mention a thing about red beards, however.

oh dear, don't get me started.

>Nelson, dear, did I ever show you the pictures of me in my nice
>red beard?  There is a chance that someone may talk me into growing
>it back, so you may get to see it first hand.

You keep teasing me like this...

>I know, I'm a tease, but Nelson really is quite fun that way.

...and it keeps working.

>I can't wait to see Nelson with facial hair!  I didn't think he
>was old enough. <running for cover - NOW!>

I'd come find you, and thwack you, but it's probably raining and it'd
take me an hour to get to your house on my bicycle.

And the sad truth is, he's right folks. I'm not old enough to have a
beard. I'm old enough to shave, but I lack the testosterone necessary
for a full beard. Some day, maybe. For now I either have to scrape my
face regularly or look scruffy.

Whimper.
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                   Finger nelson@reed.edu for my public key
From: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: the purpose of soc.motss
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:38:09 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <1992Nov9.003412.9316@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess
Anderson) writes:
|> I can tell you this: how it was created cuts exactly zero
|> ice *now*.  The only thing that counts is how it is.
|> There's no "supposed to be" about it.

I agree; sorry I used this as a reason.  I should, in fact, have appealed to the
fact that most of us seem to prefer it this way.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Blah, blah, I want your blood
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:51:17 GMT

A local radio station was holding a promotion for _Dracula_ where
a person could get 2 free passes to the premiere by donating blood.
Needless to say, I wasn't able to get tickets through that venue...

John, feeling tainted

--
John Dorrance        * Sexyfunky Motherfuckerdiva *   thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu

		I bet if you threw that ass into the air
			It'd turn into sunshine!
From: dh0a@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DONALD L. HARDY)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Kudos to Cambridge, Mass.
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:28:27 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

Saw a feature on the news last night.  Cambridge recently passed a "Domestic
Partnership" statute, extending rights of hospital vistation, prison
visitation (for those psycho/deranged serial killer lesbian prostitues we have
been hearing so much of lately   :-\  ), equal access to children's academic
records, and, most interestingly, work benefits to "domestic partners,"
whether gay/lesbian or unmarried heterosexual.

Or is this old news??

D.
-- 

******************************************************************************

Donald L. Hardy                                    Office of Physical Planning
Project Planner                                    Lehigh University
dh0a@lehigh.edu                                    (215) 758 5110
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mdrayton@sr.hp.com (Mike Drayton)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals raising children
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:07:25 GMT

Chris Black (black@lester.sybase.com) wrote:
> In article <BxM8Cz.Jp0@scd.hp.com>, mdrayton@sr.hp.com (Mike Drayton) writes:
> 
> |> I finally said "I'm gay" to my 9-year-old son...
> 
> One thing you should be aware of (we should all be aware of;  it's
> pretty horrible) is that a lot of kids today use "gay" as an all-purpose
> synonym for "bad".  They'll say "that's so gay" in a situation where I
> and my friends in our youth might have said "that's so stupid".  So
> maybe it's partly about the associations the word has in his circle.

Yeah, I imagine so.  I haven't heard things like "that's so gay" in 
person when I'm around kids that age, but I heard this morning that
they have a game called "smear the queer", in which they pick on 
one kid to jump on and lightly rough up.  Early training for gay-
bashing, I guess.  It looks like they learn the words and negative 
associations first, and learn the adult meanings (I was going to 
write, "lexical meanings") later.
 
> Best wishes in your ongoing coming-out process.

Thanks.  It's kind of a hobby.

Mike Drayton      mdrayton@sr.hp.com       Hewlett-Packard Co.
                                           Santa Rosa, California
From: dh0a@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DONALD L. HARDY)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Patrick Stewart & "Space Age"
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:20:03 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>> Where is Patrick Stewart from,      >Somewhere in the UK.
>> and whence his manner of speaking?

In a recent episode, Jean Luc was transformed into a 12/13 yearold by a
transporter malfunction.  I found it fascinating that he spoke with an
absolutely FLAWLESS British public school accent.  Where did this come from?
I thought he was a French fellow, raised in the wine country.

Does this mean that in the future we have succeeded and finally eliminated
French as a language!?!?!?

Donald, driven to distraction trying to force his Anglophilic voice to sing
        French in recent months, but who loves it when he can finally form
        those Oh-so-singable vowels.

        Oh, Janequin and Saint-Saens make me crazy...
-- 

******************************************************************************

Donald L. Hardy                                    Office of Physical Planning
Project Planner                                    Lehigh University
dh0a@lehigh.edu                                    (215) 758 5110
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Re: Can anyone tell me about this TV show?
Organization: insert anything here
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:45:03 GMT

mudge@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (MUDGE BRIAN WAYNE) writes:

>  THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (no, i'm not shouting, that's the way they
>print it) Nov-13, 1992.  I don't remember which section, but you can
>bet it wasn't "finance".
>  Apparently, some researchers think that e-mag waves do something funny
>to the pineal gland, causing a cancer link.
>  Unfortunately, the study was not a causality one.  That is, they first
>started with X number of cancer patients, and then found out how many
>of them used electric razors.  Naturally, the electric razor use could
>be merely coincidental.

	Yup - it's psuedo-science.  There's lots of it going around
these days.

	I leave it up to the reader to look for it - I won't be baited
into giving a list ;-)

	I'll bet most of those people surveyed also used toilet paper...
which of course then makes it carcinogenic...  (if that sounds ridiculous
you should read some of the REAL reports!)

BBC
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Size of LGB Vote
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:07:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.183905.25643@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> A few hundred well-chosen phone calls and a very well
> designed questionnaire instrument can indeed tell you a lot
> about any population you want to look at.  You can, if you
> work at it, determine within about three percent how many
> closeted gay men buy "green" toilet paper or any other
> cockamamie statistic you want.  Randomizing the sample is
> not difficult, but the questionnaire is *really* tough.

  I might buy this for uncloseted, but *closeted*? It seems
that the first thing any survey has to overcome is that the
participants are truthful and it seems very unlikely to me
that a closeted person would be truthful. It also seems
probable that a good deal of "uncloseted" people would
lie as well. This is really why I find it difficult at
best to accept these supposed earth shattering revelations
about the gay household. 
  If I had to make a guess, I would think that the gay population
is not very much out of line with the rest of the population. 
Things like not having kids probably skews disposable income,
but that is probably about it. It has been my experience that
one finds about the same cross section of people who are gay.
  It would be interesting, however, to get a new Kinsey like
study. The fact that Kinsey was done in the *40's* where homosexuality
was view by everybody like leprosy I'm sure skewed the results.
Today, we would at least would be likely to get a more realistic 
result. Until society accepts homosexuality, I don't think we will
ever know its full extent though.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: What Gay Sex (was Re: How Many Homosexuals?)
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:58:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: macc.1992Nov16.165850.21754
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison


In article <1e8d84INNhhn@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
ai888@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Flesher) writes:

>>  autochthonous?  Say what?

>I knew this would happen. _I_ didn't say it; _Jess_ did. 

If you knew, you could have prevented it, probably.

>So ungainly a phrase as "autochthonous impulses" could 
>never have dropped from my honeyed lips. By the way, to 

That, honey-lips, I believe.

>judge by the lone example of the concept that was eventually 
>provided by Jess at my prodding, the phrase simply 

Perhaps I was too polite.

>means "whims". (How many bytes did you waste there, 
>Jess?)

It's to whims approximately as Marky Mark is to Mozart.
(Not as many as I wasted trying to give an honest answer
to your questions.)

-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]
Xref: sparky soc.motss:48239 talk.politics.misc:60735 ca.politics:9654
From: ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: How Many Homosexuals?
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:35:55 GMT
Reply-To: ailanth!ailsa@wang.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy)
Organization: Ailanthus Project

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

> The fact remains that 30% of the men reported being passive in anal
> intercourse at least once, but only 4% of the men reported engaging in
> gay sex at least once.
>
> Doesn't this strike anyone as just a wee bit strange?
>
no.  i've been active in anal intercourse with men more than once
(whihc by definition means that said men were passive, in case anyone
missed this fact.)  this does not consitute gay sex by any definition
*I* have ever heard...

                                                       -ailsa

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                    ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com
                                                        ________
I don't care what consequence it brings,        Silence \      / Action
I have been a fool for lesser things.              =     \    /    =
                                                 Death    \  /    Life
                                                           \/
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: paul@psych.toronto.edu (Paul Hastings)
Subject: Re: Bears and Lookism (was: Marky Mark)
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:38:02 GMT

In article <BxxFB0.91H@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.213558.4677@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca> aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>>Interesting discussion. How about the perspective of someone who is ugly?  
>
>But first you'll have to find someone who'll come out as ugly...

NEVER!

>>Personal tastes are fine; like you, I have no sexual taste for  
>>the hairless set. But saying "ugh" is just plain cruel. 
>
>Cruel?  I don't think so.  One has to accept that, whatever one's looks,
>some people are going to swoon over them, most will be indifferent, and
>some will go Ug. 

Speak for yourself, Hon.

>In plainer words: if he has set himself up to sell his visual
>attractiveness, then his attractiveness (or lack of it) is a matter for
>fair public comment.  This, I'd say, would include utterances like Ug
>as much as those like Yum.

...which you follow with...

>6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....

Yum so far, child.
Brian dear, set up your fab system and lets delve into the pix.  
Let's see if Kay lives up to the trailers.

>Kay Dekker

Deck 'er?  Why, we haven't even been formally introduced.

-paul

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Hastings    paul@psych.utoronto.ca          545 Dovercourt Road
University of Toronto      416-978-3990          Toronto, Ont.  M6H 2W5
M. Mark: I can teach you to dance with no intoxication.  (yeah, right!)   
Newsgroups: soc.motss