HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Guy Fired at SUN for obnoxious postings
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:04:33 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: QueerNet

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug10181925@sgi300.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.212048.8238@queernet.org>, rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
>
>> He spouted that stuff at and to fellow Sun employees, clients
>> and vendors, both in internal and external forums.
>This is also
>the first mention of clients and customers.  That also is relevant,
>if true.

Posting something to Usenet is, of course, spouting it at Sun's clients
and vendors.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:39:22 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Aug15.010025.16509@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug14.232306.12149@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
|> >mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
|> 
|> >>Excuse me, but why is it homophobic to dislike gays?
|> 
|> >Homo' phobic : derived from Latin roots 'homo', meaning 'same', and
|> >		'phobos', meaning fear.
|> 
|> So should we call White racists who hate Blacks negrophobes?  Seems a
|> bit idiotic, no?

We already have a word for that, it's racist.  So, did you miss
a couple of decades somewhere?
-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Recall Gov. Pete Wilson
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:12:04 GMT

In article <l8jck5INNk6t@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM (Kristian Skrinak) writes:
> In article 55671@olivea.atc.olivetti.com, ses@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Darlene Wiedman) writes:
> >There seems to be a lack of leadership in Sacramento (witness the budget
> >fiasco), so I am considering starting a petition drive to recall Gov.
> >Pete Wilson.  I have called the Secretary of State and I will be receiving
> >all the info I need in a few days.
> >
> >What are your views on this matter.  Is it worth my time to try to get this
> >initiative under way?
> 
> Why blame Pete Wilson? Ask yourself seriously, do you really know the issues
> at hand or are you making an emotional outburst.

The governor is required--under the state constitution to submit a
budget to the state legislature by a specified deadline.  He failed to
do so.  He submitted his budget on *July*1*--the *beginning* of the
new fiscal year.

> If anyone is showing leadership in this fiasco it is Pete Wilson. You should
> really be going after Willie Brown.

We should go after *both* of them--plus the minority leader in the
Assembly and both majority and minority leaders in the Senate.

> The fact of the matter is you will go nowhere with your effort. Taxpayers
> are at their limits in this state and Pete Wilson is the only one on their
> side. 

Pete Wilson is on Pete Wilson's side.

There's a man with line-item veto.  All he has to do is quit trying to
stop the legislature from passing a budget and then make whatever cuts
he wants.  If the vetos are overriden, *then* he can palce the blame
on the legislature.  Until then--he's just as culpable as they are.

So far as I can tell, a lot of the currnet mess is a ploy on Wilson's
part to get his favorite ballot proposition passed in November.  When
that day comes--remmber that the guy with line item veto *already*
wants to make a new power grab.  Vote accordingly.  Remember also that
the legislators hadn't the guts to put what they thought best on his
desk--and toss them out, too.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4603 talk.politics.theory:3701
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Punishment vs Restitution   was Pro-abortion's view on life
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:49:07 GMT
	<1992Aug14.173917.4633@clipper.ingr.com>
	<1992Aug16.042538.6698@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
	<1992Aug17.185253.7078@clipper.ingr.com>
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: ald@clipper.ingr.com's message of 17 Aug 92 18:52:53 GMT

ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
|A great many crimes are committed by drug addicts who are not
|sensible enough to consider the alternatives, or who are desperate
|enough to take a chance on jail.  (80% of bank robberies in LA,
|for example).

I'm really curious about this.  What percentage of crimes are
"Drug-related" and how have crimes increased since drug crimes became
an issue--say since 1970 and since the War On Rights?

|Re-legalizing drugs would prevent a lot of crime, but that is another
|topic.

Actually, I suspect a lot of drug crime is really artificial (assuming
you can accept the notion that using drugs in not an artificial
crime).  That is, more and more people are in jail for possession and
the like as opposed to doing something (eg robbing for drug money).

--
Peace.
                  "That was a stupid slip.  Nobody trusts a Greyhound rider."
                            - Kyle Baker, _Why I Hate Saturn_
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Xref: sparky ba.politics:4694 talk.politics.misc:40871 alt.activism:15158
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,ca.politcs,alt.activism
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:39:05 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
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 <1992Aug19.195523.15868@queernet.org> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
>In article <=75mtmb.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
>>>>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
>>>>but the pretty ones are such a waste.

>>>Sexist asshole.

>>Why is this sexist or an "asshole" remark. It is a true remark to the best
>>of my knowledge.

>Because it suggests that women are there only for the sexual satisfaction
>of men, and that any other use of them is a waste...

No it doesn't.  It suggests that most men feel that way, at least at
times.  Do you disagree?  Most feminists seem to agree.

>And while the entire statement (about "the dominant reaction among straight
>males") is likely true, the fact that the author saw fit to share it was
>the motivation for the "sexist asshole" remark.

So, in other words, because I share a true statement with the net that
describes a situation that you think is unpleasant I am evil.

The PC police ride again...
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: cast@novell.com (Neal Castagnoli)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Taking Our Own Outing Initiatives: One Lesbian Perspective
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:43:51 GMT
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug14225006@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.175337.28339@novell.com>, cast@novell.com (Neal Castagnoli) writes:
>
>> Do you or don't you support the right of a parent to have
>> sexual intercourse with their 8 year old child?  If you don't,
>> then don't you believe in society's (police force or whatever)
>> right to be coercive?
>
>Well, Phil has taken his shot with this question, and 
>I'm not satisfied with his response so I'll take a stab
>at it myself.
>
 . . .

>initiate coercion.  The act of an adult to induce a child to
>engage in some sort of sexual act is itself inherently
						^
>coercive because of the child's inability to understand the
   ^
 (What makes you feel this?  Cultural upbringing?  I feel the same way,
  but intellectually am not so sure that this is an absolute.)

>nature of the act and the inability to protect his or her
>self from the necessarily predatory nature of the act of the
>adult.

So do you agree or disagree that society defines some of these values?
Particularly, Phil pointed out that in Digger society the act of a parent
having sex with a child was acceptable (the norm?).  So at least there is 
precedence for considering parent/child sex a *social* value.  Either you 
don't accept this premise (I think a difficult premise to argue against), or 
you accept society's right to initiate coersion.  Which is it?
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: Oh, I love it, I love it, I love it!
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:39:12 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.

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>You are so far off the argument that I am not even remotely disturbed by your
>twisted view. But please, get with the argument, comphrehension before
>posting is, so, uh, civilized. Try it, you'll like it.

You can say whatever you want, Phil, as long as you understand that your
claiming that it's OK for you, gay-baiter, to call someone "faggot" and
get away with claiming that it's OK because their friends do it, is not
true. When it comes from you, it clearly isn't with a friendly intent.

"... so, uh, civilized."

Nor is it civilized to engage in sophistry as a rationale for gay-baiting.

Try to stick to the point. Which is whether "faggot" is a suitable thing to
call another human being you don't know well enough to judge their reaction
to such epithets.

I say it isn't. You say it is. Am I wrong ?

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Ross Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:54:56 GMT

In article <athos-090892212149@kip2-40.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.180704.1772@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve
>Thomas) wrote:
>
>> I think this thread is getting rather tired, mostly because the other side
>> refuses to lay thier cards on the table, and keep sticking to the memorized
>> party line that the anti-choice propaganda factory puts out...  Ho hum...
>
>And what have you offered that is not "Pro-Choice" dogma?  Anything new
>from you?
>

You can accuse me of anything, but not this!  My arguments for pro-choice
were in fact, if you read them, quite different.  If it is any indication,
I didn't see anybody here on the net rushing to agree with MY "angle of
attack" (even _frightened_ Clayton...).

I've argued in favor of choice from the standpoint of Natural Rights, and
thier non-applicability to the unborn, and the applicability to the born
(in this context, pregnant women).

I said this in my first post: I'm not, as the mainstream pro-choice groups
are, for "free abortion on demand".  (This is true for most of the LP
sympathizers here on the net).  Unlike the much of the LP fold here, though,
I do not take the argument of, "it may be murder, it may not be, so let's
legalize it just in case" (IMHO, I don't think THAT argument is going to get
you anywhere; the primary argument is: a fetus is a person, or it is not.
You can't evade THIS issue.  I've argued that a fetus is NOT...).

I've managed to stand out politically, even amongst the "radicals" here on
the net, much less the main stream ABC News coverees.  Crazy mabey, radical,
different, stupid, sophomoric, absurd, or absolutely correct mabey; but
not, even you have to admit, the same stuff everybody else is offering...

(I don't post when there's already somebody else arguing my angle, only
when I have something new to offer...)

I'm not sure I should expect you to understand my arguments, and therefore
they all might sound the same as all speech in a foreign language sounds
the same.  But you've already shown us all what an open mind you have to
new ideas (not).

On a contrary note, I noticed that you've managed to use the term
"Pro-Choice" instead of a name-calling name like "Pro-Abortion" or
"Anti-Life", or "Pro-Murder", etc.  I'm glad we can at least agree on
semantics...

||-------
Steve R. Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com

"You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator."
        - Lisa Simpson

Xref: sparky ba.politics:4574 talk.politics.theory:3694 alt.individualism:5258 sci.econ:6867
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory,alt.individualism,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Why should Freedom of Association not apply to commerce?
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:21:25 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

[deleted misc.legal from distribution]

In article <xx6m1r+.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.195009.6774@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>    >I am interested what kind of concept of "man" would allow the
>    >philosophical isolation of the commercial and the personal
>    >aspects of human life. If I had to guess, I would assume that
>    >it would be some deterministic model. Rather than risk being
>    >accused of setting up a net.strawman, I await the arrival of
>    >the real foe...
>
>Well, a real foe can not exist. 

Try to appear objective, Phil, if just for the sake of your own net.credibility.

A real foe certainly can exist, because it is all a matter of perspective.
Intellectuals have been taking potshots at Homo Economicus for over
half a century.  The question is whether a competing perspective to H.E. 
is intellectually defensible, and how useful it is in practice.

There is an excellent discussion on this ongoing battle in the latest issue
of Critical Review, a quarterly minimal-statist publication which is
edited by Jeffrey Friedman.  *Highly* recommended.  (8-)


--Al Date
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:24:37 GMT
Organization: Memes-R-Us
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.

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>BTW - lavender-neck is the new homosexual version of red-neck
>      goose-prancing is like goose-stepping (as in, what's the difference
>      between a fascist and a liberal? nazis wear jackboots, liberals
>      wear earth shoes). I.e., these are political insults.

Button-pushing ... the last refuge of phools everywhere ...

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion's view on life
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:25:38 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Aug14.173917.4633@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>
>I prefer the idea of actual monetary
>compensation of the victims by the criminal to the idea of punishment
>by society for vengeance's sake, even if we assume that the
>criminal is locked up.
>
What happens if the criminal has no money or has so little money?
(perhaps lack of money is part of the cause of the crime?)  How does
the victim get paid?  Does that mean the state has to take over?  Does
that mean taxpayers will be taking over the brunt of the punishment?  What
about the poor (as in moneyless, almost) criminal?  If the state has
to pay for his crime, he'll just keep on committing more crimes at
OUR expense!

And what of the rich criminal?  Since he can afford committing crimes, 
he'll have the freedom to commit so many other crimes.

Oh boy.  What a society.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:20:05 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: ba.politics

In article <1992Aug13.185205.5751@clipper.ingr.com>, ald@clipper.ingr.com
(Al Date) wrote:

> >I would hope that any court would try me for murder if I, say, attacked a 6
> >month pregnant woman and intentionally "killed" the "thing" growing within
> >her.
> >
> 
> You see no difference between that and a woman deciding to abort her
> own fetus because she has found that it is hopelessly brain dead?

What are you saying: it's murder if I do it, but not if she does it?
--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4433 ca.politics:6691 misc.legal:15968
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Puberty = Adulthood   was   Abortion Rights
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:29:08 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <athos-090892210100@kip2-40.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.104339@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George
>Neville-Neil) wrote:
>

>> |> Understandably, he went nuts.  Not only was he circumvented, but he was not
>> |> allowed to bring up his child the way HE wanted to.  The school basically
>> |> told her that she was going to have sex anyway, so here, use these and all
>> |> should be well.
>> |> 
>> 
>> Well, if she's old enough to make those decisions (unlike her parent) 
>> then let her.  At least she was using condoms, and trying to protect 
>> herself.  Do you realize that up until this century she would have
>> been eligible for marriage at that age ?
>
>Sure, but the point is that the parent is being removed more and more from
>the equation in raising their children.  We were fine when parents made
>this choices.  Now, parents have responsibility, but less and less power.
>

Germane to this discussion,
recently some Ohio teenagers got lost while hiking outside Yosemite.
 
They panicked, and figured that the only way to attract attention was
to start a fire.  Needless to say, this became a *big* fire.  
So, of course, their parents are being held responsible for $5 million 
in fire fighting costs and damages.

It seems to me that the responsibility lies with the teenagers.  Parents
cannot *prevent* teenagers from going hiking or drinking or
having sex, so how can the parents be held legally responsible 
when a teen screws up? 

Before the sexual glands are developed, parents can exercise some
semblance of control over their children.  Afterward, the chances 
diminish considerably.  

The legal age of adulthood should be set at puberty.  


--Al Date
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:35:38 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 <1169@pb2esac.UUCP> jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand) writes:
>In article <5y4m_ck.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>I can not understand the inability of the self-stated homosexuals on this
>>newgroup to understand that for many people, what they do is disgusting or

>In actuality Phil is correct here - I believe a major part of what scares
>the bejesus out of strayt America (and what often remains unsaid) about gays 
>is plainly and simply their disgust with the idea of anal intercourse.  This 
>does not speak, of course, to the stature of lesbians in the eyes of strayts, 
>but IMHO their sexual practices have through the ages been viewed with less
>disgust.

1.  Why do you say "scares"?  This is one of the things I find most
irritating about gay rights activists.  Blacks don't run arround
calling people who don't like them "negrophobic".

2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
but the pretty ones are such a waste.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 16:48:15 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <ohmjt08@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >In article <=75mtmb.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff
    >>Dauber) writes:
    >>>In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com>
    >>>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
    >>>>2. As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among
    >>>>straight males is that the ugly ones are welcome to do
    >>>>whatever the heck they want, but the pretty ones are such a
    >>>>waste.
    >>>>
    >>>Sexist asshole.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Why is this sexist or an "asshole" remark. It is a true
    >>remark to the best of my knowledge.
    >>
    >Because he is treating women as objects. They are not people,
    >they are just objects for him to fuck.
    >
    >Is that simple enough for you?

Very revealing Jeff. Very revealing. I looked at the remark, as indeed I would
believe that most men that see sense in the remark, as a comment on the
waste of a person with positive attributes into a lifestyle that is
felt to be less than positive.

But you seem to view the world, and believe that other people see the
world, of human beings, as nothing but "fuck objects".

Keep it up and I'll start to totally agree with Clayton.

There's more to life than the area just below the belt Jeff.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)