HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:50:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.090834.13365@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
    >Ha. I have called you on FOUR errors of fact in FOUR posts.
    >In one day. I suggest that maybe your sources might be
    >correct, but you aren't reading them correctly. I also note
    >you rarely give references.

In your mind. Certainly more references than you.

    >You see, there are alternate explanations for what happened
    >with Watchler. He was a big shot in GOP circles, was well
    >respected by both parties, and was in line for a Supreme
    >Court nod because he did good work. He went after a woman he
    >knew through GOP politics; turns out she was also
    >well-connected, and sicced the FBI on him because she was a
    >pal of Sessions. It is just as conceivable that Bush & Co.
    >are learning on everyone to leave him alone since he's a good
    >party member.
    >
    >Why is your version of this any more valid than mine? By the
    >way I think they're both wrong; I bet MONEY is why they're
    >not giving him any trouble.

Tell me, just HOW much money does a Republican have to give to Democratic
Governor Mario Cuomo to get him to say "No matter what [the judge] had done,
it was a narrow ... aberration", and to also remark "what did the charges
have to do ... with what kind of judge he was, the kind of man he was?".

Of course, you consistently avoid, over and over again, the issue.
What dear old Sol did is far worse than Packwood. Packwood has NO Democratic
friends -- Wachtler has a great many. If Packwood is being crucified, then
Wachtler should be excuted. Except one is Politically Correct, and one isn't.
And we generally find more PC among Democrats than Republicans.

Now, run along and scream about errors and typos and whatever else makes
you feel good, but, you are ignoring the issue.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:19:05 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec23.063331.15606@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Sorry, that was a sucker line. Then you do not support AB101, or any
>other law, or part of a law, that would force a landlord to rent to
>you, even if you were a homosexual and he didn't want to rent to
>homosexuals?

>Yes or no?

No. I thought you already knew that. Perhaps you forgot.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,scruz.politics,ca.politics
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: Wire Stories on Iran-Contra 12/28/92
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:59:26 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <1ht099INN5dh@hal.com> berggren@hal.com writes:
>I'm just passing on a posting of considerable import, for your reading pleasure.
>Please copy and distribute as widely as possible.

What has this to do with groups for California *state* or Santa Cruz and 
Bay Area *local* politics?
-- 
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
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 23 Dec 92 06:42:15 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <13713@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Why are homosexuals such lying stupid scum?
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.

The line in your signature proves your inability to understand and
use new tools.  C++ will probably be the programming tool of the
future- unless it is overtaken by another.

If you can't learn anything new- you might as well be an auto worker.
They can't learn anything new either.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: On the usefulness of ba.politics
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:38:24 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: QueerNet

In article <1992Dec30.080959.12043@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>The Bay Area is one the great areas of ferment that change can come from.

So what?  That doesn't mean that *every* political issue in the world has
more relevance to the Bay Area than to the whole state of California, the
entire United States, or the whole world.

This group is for the discussion of issues of exclusive or disproportionate
importance to the Bay Area.  Are you incapable of telling when this is true,
or do you think it's here for people in the Bay Area to discuss politics in
general?  If the latter, bub, you're wrong.

>To that end, I feel it is important to take issue with all that would
>increase the power of the State over the individual, whether it be
>taxes, AB101/EEO laws, eco-fascism, Politically Correct speech laws,
>or whatever.

Fine.  Discuss municipal or county taxes here, and others in ca.politics or
talk.politics.misc.  Discuss AB101 in ca.politics; discuss Concord Measure M
here.  Discuss EEO laws in specific local jurisdictions here; discuss EEO
laws in general in talk.politics.misc or alt.discrimination.  Discuss local
examples of what you dub eco-fascism here, and others in the proper
newsgroups.  Discuss what you dub Politically Correct speech laws in the
Bay Area in this group; discuss the concepts or other specific examples in
alt.politics.correct or talk.politics.misc.

Is this too tough for you, Phil?

If the net is going to be at all liveable at this size, rather than at the
size it was when you or I started dealing with it (1985, for me), we must
respect the wishes of others to be able to use the newsgroup hierarchy as
a tool for trimming their news load.

Maybe you need to look at it as an FOA issue: you're forcing your presence
on people who don't wish it, and are trying to use a "door" to exclude you.

Or maybe you should think of it as an "appropriate context" issue...
>Either you believe:
>   Any adult can with his/her property what he/she damn well pleases, provided
>   there is no initian of coercion,
>
>Or you don't.
>
>One is about freedom.
>
>The other isn't.

If it were relevant, I'd add that one is about freedom without responsibility,
and the other is about responsibility without freedom.  But it isn't; if you
wish to discuss that statement, please move the discussion to 
talk.politics.misc.
-- 
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: ba.politics
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Date: 23 Dec 1992 07:09:48 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec23.063048.15348@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <92357.48577.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>    >And how is "Go to the back of the bus, nigger" much different
>    >than "Get the hell out of the Army, you faggot?"
>
>So therefore, you disapprove of seperate but equal facilities (bunk rooms,
>showers and such) for women. They just be racist artifacts.
>

As usual you run off and avoid the main argument.  You must use tangential
approaches in order to make yourself look valid.  Get off of the women
issue and get back to issue.  And the issue simply is 'should gay people
in the military, but expelled when found out or admitting they are gay?"

Is the male so weak that he fears someone might be watching him, or
might see his ??????.

>
>-- 
>I believe Gennifer Flowers.
>

And I sure she enjoyed every minute of it, don't you?

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:30:59 GMT

In article <44026@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.063048.15348@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >I know someone who was in the Air Force, stationed at the
    >"Blue Cube" for years. He lived off-base in an apartment. He
    >had a security clearance. He was highly regarded by his
    >co-workers and superiors as a competent, dependable, and
    >trustworthy non-comm officer. A very few of his fellow
    >servicemen knew of his homosexuality, but of course it made
    >no difference to them, one way or the other since the
    >activities and duties performed in the "cube" have nothing to
    >do with sex.
    >
    >Someone outside the Air Force apparently had some beef with
    >this person and decided to destroy his career. It was not
    >hard to do. One phone call to an officer at the base in
    >Sunnyvale and the witch hunt began. The long and the short of
    >it was that this person was discharged from the Air Force
    >after eighteen years of honorable service. And even though it
    >was an "honorable discharge", his career was ended before the
    >twenty-year mark.
    >
    >Now perhaps someone can explain why the military should be
    >allowed to keep such practices in place.

Of course, what if Comrade spy had happened upon this fact? What a lovely
pressure point for blackmail, eh? 18 years in, 2 to go, just a few satellite
pictures please ...


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Subject: Gee, he just "kissed a woman"
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:45:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.230457.26712@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>As I believe that both Democrats and Republicans are the "same" I do
>not make much of the distinction.

Ahh, but you do make a distinction of sorts: you bend over backwards
to play down what Packwood (a Republican) is accused of and focus
on how bad the Democrats are:

>Now of course, it also very un-PC of me to somehow think that kissing
>a woman on the cheek is less worse that seducing teenage pages, keeping malke
>prostitutes, running your car off a bridge and leaving a young female
>"companion" to drown, or just having several different women a day in the White
>House.

Presto - Packwood's offenses are merely that he "kissed a woman"!  How
innocent-sounding!  Maybe "wrong", but just a tad misguided perhaps, right
Phil, and of course *nothing* like what the Kennedys et. al. did.  I mean,
how is a poor male Senator supposed to date or anything without making
*some* sort of "advance" towards a woman he wants to take out?

This attempt at subtly rewording things to, as usual, make the
Republicans sounds OK "compared to the Democrat/PC crowd" is
your perogative, Phil, but your motives are transparent.

>WHICH ONE IS WHICH HERE? Kiss a women, lose your office. Commit manslaughter
>and lie about it, get relected.

It's a bit disingenious (sp) to compare these two incidents as if they
happened days apart from each other and the exact same electorate is
judging each.  I have the distinct impression that if the most liberal
Senator pulled what Kennedy did, in today's climate, he'd be out on his
ear before the Packwood investigation could even get started.

I have not yet been shaken in my conviction that the Libertarian-leaning
"the Republicans and Democrats are just the same creeps" folks are often
merely grumpy closet Conservatives (who don't like paying taxes).  Postings 
which scramble around to show Packwood's alleged violations in a kinder 
light merely confirm this.


jb
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:22:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.113059.1409@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <44026@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
>    >The long and the short of
>    >it was that this person was discharged from the Air Force
>    >after eighteen years of honorable service. And even though it
>    >was an "honorable discharge", his career was ended before the
>    >twenty-year mark.
>    >
>    >Now perhaps someone can explain why the military should be
>    >allowed to keep such practices in place.
>
>Of course, what if Comrade spy had happened upon this fact? What a lovely
>pressure point for blackmail, eh? 18 years in, 2 to go, just a few satellite
>pictures please ...

You realize of course, that is probably the strongest possible argument for
abolishing the ban on gays in the military ?  We already have enough 
real security risks without creating them for our adversaries.  If there
were no ban on gays in the military, this guy would tell "Comrade spy" to
take a flying leap.

Guido
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:52:12 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Dec22.011656.8158@netcom.com>, madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
# Typical.  Cramer refuses to acknowledge any information that
# disagrees with his ridiculous theories, and Ronzone, as usual,
# completely changes the subject.
# -- 
# Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com

I didn't ignore, I was on vacation.

Why are homosexuals such lying stupid scum?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7847 ca.politics:10463
From: rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:28:50 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ca
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1gvsreINNiv7@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>
>Yes materialism to the ultimate.  Just blow em away jack, that it make
>stop.  Oh course, let's look at punishment by death, that has sure
>cut down on murders, hasn't it?? :->

It hasn't *only* because it is not properly carried out.

Look how many times the sentence has been changed, commuted to life
inprisonment, where they then get out in 10 to 15 years on 'good
behavior'.

Well it sure as heck wasn't 'good behavior' that got them in there in the
first place.

Of course they will 'do the crime' again when they know a death penalty
only means 10 years in jail.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Russell Hockins               |  This civilization is recyclable           |
| Innovative Interfaces, Inc.   |              ( well most of it anyway )    |
| My own opinions  no one elses |  packet : ka6foy @ ki6yk.#nocal.ca.na.usa  |
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:58:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.055306.7609@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>That's the whole issue. You arrogantly think that YOU *know* what is an
>irrational prejuduice and that others don't.
>

>
>They have as much right to be subjective in their life as I do mine.
>
>But I don't try to use force to "change" their minds.
>
>You state "I just don't want said landlord to believe that his
>irrational prejudices will go unchallenged via constant discourse.".
>
>That about sums it up -- you want to use force to change men's minds.
>
>Bloody fascist. Just change you name to Roehm the secodn and have done with it.
>
>Intolerant scum -- just can't stand that people don't beleive the way you
>want them to, eh?
>

Kind of interesting statements, considering the source.


-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:59:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.223239.21162@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.174104.3073@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>    >This still doesn't answer my original point that maintaining
>    >the ban on gays in the military poses a BIG security risk for
>    >the U.S. What benefits do we get from this ban which would
>    >justify it given that it poses such a risk ?
>
>Anything that one is "ashamed of", i.e., hides from neighbors, coworkers,
>families, is a major susceptibility to blackmail.

Of course, then I suggest that we add adulturers, voyuers, swingers,
nudists, nosepickers, and people who watch "Americas Funniest Home
Videos" to the list banned from military service.

Of course, the military currently ejects people who are PROUD of their
orientation (some of the people kicked out recently were ejected because
they either participated in "gay pride" parades or publicly acknowledged
their homosexuality).  So it is the one's who represent NO security risk
who are being discharged.

Guido
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:40:37 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <469@vega.iii.com> rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins) writes:
>In article <1gvsreINNiv7@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>>
>>Yes materialism to the ultimate.  Just blow em away jack, that it make
>>stop.  Oh course, let's look at punishment by death, that has sure
>>cut down on murders, hasn't it?? :->
>
>It hasn't *only* because it is not properly carried out.
>

Prove this.  I don't believe crimes of murder that involve passion,
gangs, or just insanity will change because they will thinking, "oh
I better not murder someone becuase they will kill me".

>Look how many times the sentence has been changed, commuted to life
>inprisonment, where they then get out in 10 to 15 years on 'good
>behavior'.
>

Yes this is all part of the balancing act that the justice system goes
through (and sometimes too much) in the attempt to make sure that punishment
by death is appropriate and fair.

>Well it sure as heck wasn't 'good behavior' that got them in there in the
>first place.
>
>Of course they will 'do the crime' again when they know a death penalty
>only means 10 years in jail.

Why not try and correct the situation before it starts to happen.  We 
as a society promote violence as the due process of eliminating those
we decide are criminals.  Controls applied after the fact usually don;t
work, but if we condition and education before the fact we may have a 
better handle on overall control of violent crime.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: A Call For Reality - An End To Mean Spirited Posting
Keywords: Pedophile Acid Rain Pollution
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:26:50 GMT

In article <4909@wet.UUCP> mhi@wet.UUCP (Philip E. Murphy) writes:
    >What the U.S. has done consistently (for capitalistic
    >reasons), is to shun any report that would impinge on free
    >raining capitalism, be it here or abroad. This has been true
    >since Kit Carson burned down the peach trees of the Navaho
    >all the way to U.S. backed overthroughing of socialistic
    >leaning countries.

Oh, Like National Socialist Germany? Or the USSR? And our desire
to overthrow those noble experiments in horror, the PRC, North Korea,
and Cuba?


    >... their point valid. Their technique would find a great comrade
    >where Lysenko alive today.

Sorry, I've ALREADY call your kind of thought Lysenkoism. You believe
in acid rain killing the forests? Gee, that's very PC(tm) but where is your
proof?


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:38:42 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec29.223003.20946@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

[BK:]
>>Look, men are used to seeing other men's naked bodies. Gay
>>men can't be held responsible for creating a climate of fear.
>>They CAN be held responsible for their sexual conduct, but no
>>another person's thoughts.

>O.K. then, do you, or do you not, think that seperate facilities for
>women and men (communal sleeping showering, shitting) is justified?
>If it IS justified, then why?

Well, admittedly it does go against engrained traditions, but we've
seen that co-ed dorms can exist peacefully at universities, and even
co-ed showers. So it IS possible. Sort of like nudists becoming accustomed
to the sight of other people naked. Nudity and sex are very much conflated
in our society.

>Why can women have seperate facilities from
><people sexually attracted to them> but men can not?

Practically speaking, women are much less accustomed to male nudity than
other men are, and this is why we see so few cases of male-male sexual
harassment.

>Or how about, just for you :-), all your changing rooms in clothing stores
>are glass enclosed? If it would bother you, why?

Of course. It wouldn't bother me more that women were seeing me than
men---the root of nakedness-anxiety is that the spectators are strangers and
are clothed. We are at ease with nudity only if the majority of others
are naked in our presence.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: ba.politics