HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 13 Aug 92 06:43:26 GMT
Reply-To: jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand)
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, Ca.

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.

jb
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4522 talk.politics.theory:3679
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:10:58 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <athos-140892101358@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.184932.5632@clipper.ingr.com>, ald@clipper.ingr.com
>(Al Date) wrote:

>> 
>> How can you consider, for example, something without a brain to be fully 
human?
>
>Because I know of people who do nothing but stare out windows all day in
>old folks homes, their brains not quite as quick as they used to be.  These
>people have rights, although they are not quite like you and I.  So, when
>do we consider the brain to be fully formed and how do we base the handing
>out of human rights to that thing?
>

I will ignore your failure to distinguish a rather slow brain from no 
brain at all.

My point is that human rights are 
social conventions which primarily allow responsible adults to 
interact in society.  The only people who have a full set of rights
are the people who can handle the responsibility of respecting  the
rights of others.  For example, children do not have the same number and kind
of rights as adults do.  Convicted criminals do not have the same number and
kind as non-criminals do.  Alzheimer's patients also lose their rights
as they lose their minds--they must be confined so that they dont
harm themselves and others.  

We are very liberal in our granting of the right to life, but
it is a mistake to think that such rights are inalienable, or natural,
without some kind of a societal reference [and with all due respect
to Thomas Jefferson].  Rights are conditional, not absolute.
They are conferred by degrees, one is tempted to say they are 
earned in many cases.  They entirely sociological in origin.

The amount of human rights which society recognizes is directly 
proportional to the human's ability to act responsibly in society.  
Without a brain this is impossible.  But having a brain is not
the sole criterion; it is a necessary,
but insufficient requirement for full human rights.

To extend any social rights to fetuses, especially early ones without
brains, at the expense of the earned rights of the woman,
is unimaginable from this perspective.   

Now, if the woman chooses to grant such rights to the fetus within
her domain, then it is done, because she represents the social
universe of the fetus.


--Al Date
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: query
Keywords: them weirdoz
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:59:38 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Aug17.022827.20442@leland.Stanford.EDU> mrmu@leland.Stanford.EDU (Marianne Mueller) writes:
>Am I the only person in the bay area who suspects that
>
>	Clayton Cramer
>	Phil Ronzone
>
>are really, truly, agents for the NSA?   Sent here only to 
>emasculate and ruin any effective local newsgrouping? 
>
>Am I just paranoid?  Are these men (sic) truly BAD? 
>
>Enquiring minds wonder, 
>
>Marianne Mueller

Pardon my ignorance, but what does the NSA stand for?

Not the National Security Agency, right?
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion's view on life
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:39:17 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Aug13.235251.1902@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.011647.13766@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>>
>>People need to take responsibility in all aspects of their lives, but 
>>it is fruitless to try to punish them for past indiscretions.  It
>>simply doesnt work.  
>>
>Okay.  We should make rape legal, murder legal, drugs legal, child
>abuse legal, etc.  It is fruitless to punish them for past indiscretions,
>right?  Maybe we should even abolish jails.  Or even abolish parents
>for putting restrictions on their children when they do wrong!


Do you have a dictionary?  

An indiscretion is not a crime.  A past indiscretion is an act which
is later perceived to have been a mistake *for that person.*  
What good it does to punish people further for mistakes for which 
they, and they alone, are already suffering is beyond my comprehension.

Jail is a place to keep violent people away from society, *to prevent
further harm.*  It also allows vengeance to be vented through this idea
that criminals are being punished, for the supposed benefit
of the victims.  I see this as illusory.  

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.


--Al Date
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4675 alt.activism:15094 talk.politics.misc:40641
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Political Correctness (was Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective))
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:28:52 GMT
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA

In article <1992Aug15.221404.8652@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) 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.
>
>I'm giving this a slightly wider dissemination because I think it's a
>beautiful example of poltical correctness.

What is "political correctness?"

>Look at it.  I state a fact that Dauber doesn't like.  He responded
>with a personal attack.  I said something that attacks his view of the
>world, therefore I am evil.

Did you not invoke personal attacks by saying that the only purpose of
a woman is to serve a man sexually?  Where do you get off spouting
such idiocies, and then whining that people don't like you?

Actually, don't tell me where you get off.  I don't think I want to
know, as long as you don't do it on my computer screen any more.

-- 
____ 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: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:10:15 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 <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:

>>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".

>We only call you homophobic when you take your dislike of gay rights
>activists and apply them to all homosexuals.  Disliking activists is not
>homophobic, I know lots of homosexuals who do not like activists.

Excuse me, but why is it homophobic to dislike gays?

>>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.

My, my aren't we impolite today.

What's your problem?  Are you claiming I'm wrong?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Ross Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:26:49 GMT

In article <athos-160892171730@kip2-54.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.162851.26877@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve
>Thomas) wrote:
>
>> You're a very close minded person; far more so than anybody I've seen here
>> on the net thus far...
>> 
>
>Okay, so I am closeminded.  I don't see how, but what the hell.  If
>believing that a fetus is a life and has rights is "close minded" then
>fine.  I also believe that by the same definition, abolishonists were
>"close minded" as were people who felt that women had the right to vote as
>are those who feel women should be able to go into combat and that gays
>have a right to serve in the military.  I think I am good company here.
>

I was refering to the statement you made: that you hadn't read any of my
posts.  I believe you were talking about my post, and I had refered to
previous posts where I supported my position.  You were simply refuting
my _conclusion_ without reading my _reasons_ for those conclusions (even
though I read YOUR posts, and directly attacked your reasoning).

Simply believing in something is not dogmatic: believing in it, and refusing
to here arguments to the contrary is close minded and dogmatic.

And no, you're not good company.  I'd sooner argue with my pet rock...

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

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

Newsgroups: ba.politics,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc
From: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Keywords: spokespersons, alternative lifestyes, poor
Reply-To: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:20:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.154755.9413@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>In article <ac#n28l.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>> 1. Clayton is a not a pig. Why do you call hum one? 
>
>Claytoon is a pig.  Anyone who's spent any time around
>livestock can tell you that.
> 
>> 2. You called him a lying pig. Now, in my expereince, when a real lie gets
>>    told, the person calling it generally posts the rebuttal. Those with
>>    no rebuttal just call names. Well, Marianne?
>
>...
>I realize that you're at a significant disadvantage both
>because of your limited intellectual abilities and because
>...
>I was making fun of you.

Folks who stare at more than the inside of their own eyeballs might begin
to see a pattern developing from these who are asserting themselves as
spokespersons of of the 'alternative sex' community.

Looking at the evidence, it is quite obvious that these particular people
quickly resort to juvenile wordplay when confronted with statements which
they either don't like or can't refute.

I have the pleasure of acquaintance with many, many people who practice
alternative lifestyles, and frankly, my dear(s), you are (a) poor
representative(s).  It is unfortunate that a large number of the people
who read and/or participate in the discussion are going to come away with
an impression created by you.

don't like the cross post?  too bad.  i trust you'll make me famous.
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: query
Keywords: them weirdoz
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:01:51 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <-19mhck.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> Actually, Clayton and I are AI programs, with the purpose of selecting out
|> the truly intelligent posters on the newsgroups -- for inclusion in the
|> first and third ships. The rest, like you, will be placed on the third
|> ship. If you don't understand the allusion, never mind -- you won't have to
|> go on any ship at all.
|> 

You can't even quote tired old sci-fi correctly Phool.  It's the A and C 
arcs, and the B arc is for all of the useless people, like
telephone sanitizers.  Shall I draw you a bath before you leave
captain?

|> By the way, the post above is a real example of an ad hominem attack --
|> at least if you're going to try anad attack someone, try to do it with
|> wit or style, or at least be amusing.
|> 

You, of all people, shouldn't talk, as you show finesse at
none of the above.


-- 
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
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Why should Freedom of Association not apply to commerce?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 16:59:20 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba

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. The attempt to make an artificial
distinction derives from the desire to A). Have a personal lifestyle
that is viewed by (perhaps) the bulk of the population as negative
(if not disgusting) while B). Avoiding taking resposnibility for the
impact that one's life has on others.

In short, they want to eat their cake and have it too.

To have the right to pursue happiness in their fashion while denying it
to many others.



-- 
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 ...)
From: bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM (Kristian Skrinak)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Recall Gov. Pete Wilson
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:53:25 GMT
Reply-To: bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg9.corp.sun.com

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.

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

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. 
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 06:50:56 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug17.190133.8014@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
    >But this is getting away from our point, which is "why is it
    >homophobic to dislike gays ?", and the answer is, "because
    >that's what the word means, Michael."

Nope. A phobia is an unreasing, irrational fear. Dislike is dislike.

I dislike broccoli. I have no phobia about it.

I dislike "homosexual culture". I can and have been in the Castro district
many times without the slightest a trace of fear. The guy that cuts my hair
describes himself as a flaming faggot and I have not the slightest fear
of him. And so on and so on.


-- 
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 ...)
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: query
Keywords: them weirdoz
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:25:47 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <-19mhck.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Actually, Clayton and I are AI programs...

"Artificial Intelligence" requires intelligence.  Looks like good old
natural stupidity to me.
-- 
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: jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:09:41 GMT
Reply-To: jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand)
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, Ca.

In article <!75m-ta.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1169@pb2esac.UUCP> jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand) writes:
>    >In actuality Phil is correct here - I believe a major part of
>    >what scares the bejesus out of strayt America (and what often
>
>First, I find the term "straut" incredibly offensive, so it woild be
>appreciated if y'd refrain from it. Heterosexual is acceptable.

I promise I will never use the term "straut". :-)

Seriously, though, how can I apologize properly?  I'm really sorry.
To help us all out here, maybe you could do us a favor and give us
a list of terms you, Phil Ronzone, find "offensive" and a list of
what is "acceptable", so we can all adjust our postings accordingly.

jb
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: My Purpose In Getting NAMBLA Shunned
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:37:40 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <1992Aug18.161106.25757@tc.cornell.edu>, Melinda Shore writes:

>>[]
>>Claytoon, you're a lying pig with a marginal grasp on
>>reality.  Every time I hear a news report about a sniper
>>in California gunning random people down in the street
>>or about some other psycho committing a mass murder, I
>>listen for your name.  Get some help.
>>--

Are these personal attacks really necessary?  Personal attacks are usually the
last line of defense for a defeated combatant.  You have certainly not been
defeated.  I agree wholeheartedly with what I have seen you post regarding
NAMBLA's right to assemble and dislike of the actions they advocate.  They
must certainly be allowed to *discuss* or *advocate* the changing of laws
regarding sex with little boys, but that doesn't give them legal authority to
*have* sex with little boys (with whom informed consent is not possible).
I have seen people on both sides of this issue make mistakes in confusing the
"right to exist" with the "(nonexistent) right to be accepted."

On one side, people mistakenly associate defending NAMBLA's right to exist with
supporting their agenda.  Similarly, people on the other side are mistakenly
associating "distaste for a lifestyle" with "denying the right to live that
lifestyle."  I support NAMBLA's right to assemble, though I find their agenda
personally disgusting.  Why do people have so much trouble understanding a
position like mine?  Why do people seem to think that a refusal to condemn is
the same as acceptance?  Some people are willing to live and let live.

You express your positions well.  There's no need to stoop to personal attacks.

>>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
The Federalist Papers:  Cliffs Notes for Constitutional study.  Use it.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: OK Jeff, answer this one please
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 06:29:39 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <ompbtuk@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <t19mftm.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

    
    >>"You are such a prime example of "white male" it boggles the
    >>mind." J. Dauber
    >>
    >>
    >When I was using the term "white male" (quotes for stereotype
    >maladjusted) to describe characteristics associated with this
    >class of people.
    >
    >
    >
    >Applying a characteristic of a small group of people to a
    >large group of people is using stereotypes. Applying the
    >characteristics of a stereotype to one person is not the same
    >thing. It is the difference between talking about an
    >individual and talking about a group of people.

Jeff, I finally abandoned my many options of reply (which illustrate
your totally hypocritical posturing) and leave to you the honor of
painting yourself your due color ....

So let me see, using Jeff's logic, if I see ONE black person eating
a watermelon, I can say ....




-- 
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 ...)