HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: The usual
Date: 20 Nov 1992 22:20:42 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Nov20.203319.21345@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.174512.139@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>In short, most hetereosexuals do not like homosexuals. Period. And they
>>don't like them for what they ARE, not some set of myths about what they
>>ain't. Got it?
>>

BOGUS- BOGUS- BOGUS.  Where do you get your facts that 'most' heterosexuals
do no like homosexuals?  This is a poor attempt to try and establish some
kind of self-generated fact on your part.

Most of my friends are heterosexual, and they know I am gay, and they like me,
not becuase I am gay- they like me becuase of who I am and what I am, not what
I do in private and not about who I see and live with.

Period.  Got it.

>>PEOPLE DON'T LIKE YOU!

I can probably say that a lot of people on the newsnet don't like you, and that
is just from what you say, not because your heterosexual or becuase of your skin
color or not because of your occupation.

Period. Got it.

>>
>>If someone says, "you are a homosexual, I don't like homosexuals, I won't
>>deal with you", what's your problem? Is your self esteem so low that you
>>must seek COERCIVE LAWS to "FORCE" people to deal with you?
>

Are people so narrow minded and ignorant and selfish that we must inact legislation
in order to protect people from the actions of others.  It appears that the
answer is yes.

I think you need to get a handle on the coercion and taxation things.  And also
on the reasons of why you might dislike something or someone.

It is one thing to dislike a piece of clothing or the color of a dish, but
to dislike (and vehemently) something which is part of a persons physical,
mental, or emotional states is bordering on bigotry.  And I am not talking
about disliking someone becuase they are murders, crazy, etc. etc.

I am talking about disliking someone becuase they are fat, maybe ugly to you,
the color of their skin, the color of their hair, etc. etc.

Disliking someone because they are gay, is irrational...



Xref: sparky ba.politics:7190 ca.politics:9607
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: The usual
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:05:32 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Nov16.235309.1104@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
    >Speaking for myself, NO. I do have some friends who are
    >somewhat promiscuous, but its more in line with one or two
    >partners a week.
    >...
    >Well, the men do. But I still dont understand why you would
    >have hatred towards me.

Tim, you (and others with the same misconceptions) must learn that there is
a HUGE difference between hate, phobias, and a strong dislike.

For example, I do not date obese women. I consider obesity to be very
unappealing. yet, I can't think fo a single fat woman that I hate.

Considering that per Kinsey, the LIFETIME AVERAGE number of partners for women
and men are on the order of less than 12 each (6 and 9? 3 and 6?) or
thereabouts (exact figures unavailable right now), can you understand
that 1 or two partners a WEEK (50 to 100 a YEAR, 1500 to 3000 in 30 years)
is considered disgusting by many?

For many people, sex is part of a continuum of a relationship with another
person and part of a total relationship -- one that is built over time
and not part of "1 or 2 partners" a week.


I've read where Michael Douglas, the actor, has a "situation" where he
beds 1 or 2 (or more) different women a week. I find that disgusting as
well.


Make no mistake, it is perfectly moral to bed as many adults as you can
get to agree with it, 1 per lifetime, or 1 per hour, it is all moral.


But moral is not approval nor liking.

We all eat food, yet, to constantly stuff one's face is disgusting.

People that need to use certain drugs (the illegal kind) -- what they
do too is moral, yet disgusting.


Get used to it -- it's part of being legal. What you do (if one is homosexual)
is moral, yet considered disgusting by many people. That is their
right to feel that way as much as it it your right to fuck what you want.

It's not hate, it's not fear, it's not a phobia. It is just dislike.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7239 ca.politics:9663
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Your Right it is the (Re: The usual)
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:44:15 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Nov18.221458.24541@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>I would suggest in turn that you use accepted definitions from
>dictionaries, especially, in this case, medical dictionaries.
>
>A phobia is a "lasting, abnormal or irrational fear of ...".
>
>While you are free to use words per any arbitrary definition, the above
>example of ad-hoc definition twisting marks you as intellectually
>dishonest -- at best.
>
>

So you still stand by your definition of 'moral'- sorry it was completely wrong.
I admit that I spill up in not adding the irrational fear of... to my phobia
definition, but then again I believe that most fear and dislike is irrational
since it usually stems from the unknown or a failure to understand a situation.

So that is all you could do huh? Try and shoot down one little bit of the whole.

Come on now let's see that 'medical' definition of moral.

>
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: The usual
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:22:59 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov20.203319.21345@pb2esac.uucp>, jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.174512.139@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
# #In short, most hetereosexuals do not like homosexuals. Period. And they
# #don't like them for what they ARE, not some set of myths about what they
# #ain't. Got it?
# #
# #PEOPLE DON'T LIKE YOU!
# #
# #If someone says, "you are a homosexual, I don't like homosexuals, I won't
# #deal with you", what's your problem? Is your self esteem so low that you
# #must seek COERCIVE LAWS to "FORCE" people to deal with you?
# 
# The next time I talk to any black acquaintances I know who are fired from
# their job because they are black or not allowed to rent in a neighborhood
# because they are black, I will apply the Ronzone Philosphy and tell them
# if only their self-esteem were OK they wouldn't have a need to be bothered;
# it's just that some people don't like them, for whatever reason, and they
# should just get used to it and not try to rock the boat and change anything.
# 
# jb

That's NOT what he said.  There is a difference between trying to
change things (boycott, education, and other non-coercive measures)
and having the government FORCE people to do what you think is right.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Making the most of Truth (was Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:53:16 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Nov16.174133.15779@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>1. Anti-semitism is based on lies. To dislike Jews because of the
>   anti-semitic incorrect propaganda is irrational.
>
>2. Dislike of homosexuals is based on reality -- most people do not like
>   what homosexuals do (and are).
>
>The image of Jews murdering babies for religious (or any other) purpose
>is a horrible image, and one that most people find monstrous. Thankfully,
>it is not true.
>

But how then do you justify the fact that the Old Testament on the story
of the Exodus- has God 'murdering' childern?  And then how do we end up
extrapolating these ideas into our modern viewpoints of people. 

I think you need to retain an historical perspective on just what religions
have done in the far past and not so far past, in order to promote their
own paradigms.  Christianity has quite a trail of blood leading up to
its doorstep in the name of God and Jesus.  And many of these victims were
childern.

In no way I am trying to say that Jews murdering babies for religious (or any other)
purpose is even remotely true.  But what I am pointing out is that somewhere
in all of our histories that are nasty and unpleasant things.

Is it possible that during the rise of Facism that some of the ancient ideas
and stories portrayed in religious documents may have been extrapolated to
fit the times.  The manner in which we manipulate truth is just as dangerous
as creating lies and falsehoods from thin air.

>The image of a bathhouse, where men have anonymous sex with other men,
>often dozens per night, and sexual envelopes are pushed (fisting et al)
>is a disgusting image to most people. Unfortunately, it is true that
>these things happen.

And unfortunately you seem to indicate that this is the norm for gay people.
And quite frankly it is not, not even near.  I and many, many of my friends
would never do what you indicate in the above statement. And what in the
world is 'sexual envelopes are pushed'?

Do you think that any Jews have killed childern?  Do you think that they may
have killed childern and adults in relationship to religious ideas?  Do you
think Christians or Muslims etc etc. have killed childern and adults in
relationship to religious ideas? or for religious beliefs?

If one takes information from the basis for religious beliefs of various groups
one could derive or arrive at incorrect conclusions about given groups of
people. Or at worst could derive a conclusion (historical) that is very unpleasant
or not very pretty picture.

>
>As usual, MPA is having his difficulty distinguishing between fiction
>and reality.
>
>
>-- 
>I believe Gennifer Flowers.
>

Poor Gennifer she can't get ahead on honesty and work, so she uses whatever
tools necessary to get what she wants.  Penthouse, Inquirer, Star.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7236 ca.politics:9660
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: The usual
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:19:25 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Nov17.203740.12994@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
    >Yet you propigate lies about homosexuals. You try to infer
    >(sp) that all homosexuals have dozens of anonymous partners
    >every night.

No, I have not. There is probably no single thing that ALL homosexuals
do. You DO propagate lies, as per:

    >First, many heterosexuals have one or two partners per week.
    >For both heterosexual and homosexual men, this usually occurs
    >during their youth. Go visit any college campus. Then, as the
    >male gets older, the number of partners drops. For both
    >heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Oh? Not per Kinsey. A few men, perhaps, but many? No.

    >The point is that promiscuity is not relavent to the
    >discussion of gay rights.

Who said anything about rights? Rights are not the issue. Like and
dislike is the issue.

-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7283 ca.politics:9732
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Saying something once or 100 times does not make it so
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:53:52 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Nov19.030202.13238@pb2esac.uucp>, by jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand):
> In article <1992Nov18.222815.26131@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>>For example, if I was a big-time big-game hunter as a hobby, would
>>PETA be wrong to not hire me for a computer job? 

> Yes, IMO.

Oh Jack, tell me that you left your terminal logged on!
What if PETA had two equally qualified applicants, Phil,
and another guy whos hobby was picking daisies?  Could
they not use this as a discriminating factor?  And just
who would enforce this discrimination?  The government?
Should ACT-UP be forced to hire Patrick Buchanan?  When
I last rented one of my rental units, I said no to a guy
who had three large dogs because the walls are thin in
places.  Was this wrong?  If so, why?  If not, then what
is the difference between this and the example above?

>>After all, what harm have I done to them? 

> Excellent point - none.

Wrong.  He would stand against everything that they are
fighting for.  Should GM be forced to hire a guy who
wants all cars banned?  Should a day care center be
forced to hire a convicted child molester?

>>Yet, as they would find my hobby most upsetting,
>>it would be torture for them to be forced to hire me.

> Too bad for them.  Some of my current hobbies might upset some of my employers
> as we speak.  At my company, we haven't yet been convinced of the ultimate 
> wisdom of letting irrelevant things like this dictate our hiring practices.
> Your company may be different, I have no idea.

And you think that your company shouldn't have the
right to make these decisions for themselves?
If you were the personnel manager, would you like
to make your own decisions, or have Big Brother do
it for you?  I guess if you choose the latter, it
does lift some of the responsibility, but I stray...

> Clayton loves to repeat unsubstantiated claims over and over regarding
> gays.  You also love to repeat over and over and over again "It is
> totally moral to discriminate...", apparently in the belief that either
> we haven't heard that this is your opinion, or in the belief that
> some of us will just cry "Uncle" at hearing it pronounced as Truth by
> you so often and accept it.

I take it that you do not believe it then.  What if
you wanted to rent a room in your house, and William
Dannemeyer was the only applicant?  Would you want to
be forced to rent to him?  What if he wanted to have
sex with you?  Would you discriminate against him?

> It is hard to imagine many things more irrelevant than whether Phil Ronzone
> believes Gennifer Flowers.

But did you believe Anita Hill?  :-)
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7291 ca.politics:9755
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Saying something once or 100 times does not make it so
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:01:36 GMT
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.

In article <1992Nov19.175111.597@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Sure -- after all, if you don't believe that it is totally moral to
>discriminate, then you accept that it is O.K. to use coercion on people.
>You seem unwilling to examine the consequences of your position.

No, it is precisely because I have examined the consequences of
encouraging everyone to discriminate against everyone at will
that I find that more frighteneing than what us Evil Liberals
advocate.

jb
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7166 ca.politics:9603 talk.politics.misc:60445
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: PR's hate (was Clayton's bogus numbers)
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:53:09 GMT
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group


In article <1992Nov16.174731.16439@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|>
|>Oh? I'm making up lies about homosexuals?
|>
|>Tell me -- do homosexuals have sex with other men? 

I can only speak for myself.  The answer to your question is Yes.

|>Do homosexuals
|>have bath houses where they have sex with multiple (dozens) of
|>anonymous partners in a single night?
|>

Speaking for myself, NO.  I do have some friends who are somewhat 
promiscuous, but its more in line with one or two partners a week.

|>
|>    >But you don't even do that - you try to incite other people
|>    >to hate homosexuals on the basis of things that they DO NOT
|>    >do.
|>
|>Wrong again knee-jerk breath. Homosexuals DON'T have sex with other
|>men? 

Well, the men do.  But I still dont understand why you would have hatred
towards me.

--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7336 ca.politics:9809 talk.politics.misc:61337
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 23 Nov 1992 04:22:32 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Nov23.001208.4586@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.201615.10549@udel.edu> carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
>    >Strange. I have friends who were gay for years before I found
>    >out. They're completely indistinguishable from anyone else.
>    >If you met them, you'd never be able to tell that they were
>    >gay.
>
>Just normal everday people. So? They say that a lot about some mass murderers.
>
>An example, good or bad, of "someone we know who is also X" is basically
>useless, unless used to refute a strong assertion that ALL X are ....
>
>

So Phil what is your point?  Don't you understand the intended meaning and
use of langauage.  I think what the poster is attempting to say is that
people have a variety of backgrounds and tastes for themselves that do
not intrude, nor distinguish them from what everyone claims are everyday
normal people.

So what is the point in bringing up mass murderers.  What is interesting
is that you are attempting either in a deliberate fashion or in a flippant
posturing to still bring about some type of negative connotation to groups
of people by relating them to unrelated groups of people.

You if anyone seem to make statements as though everyone understood
what you were trying to say.  As though we are all in on the subtle
nuance of your speech. It is called 'failing to assert context'.

I think that the poster meant exactly what you placed in the last 
sentence of yours above.  

There are people posting here that attempt to lump together groups
of people into one category.

Use your own philosophy, look at the context that the poster is using
in an attempt to refute other posters.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7192 ca.politics:9608
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: What boundaries for discussions (politics,homosexuals,molestation)
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:44:33 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

A net users has asks me (very nicely) to discontinue certain types of post
on the *.politics groups, especially this one.

It is difficult to know where the boundaries are sometimes for particular
discussions (arguments, flame throwing, etc.).  Especially in the case where
a discussion might lead off onto areas that may seem unrelated to this
particular category.  IMHO this is unavoidable, but also I do see that some
subjects can go off tangentially and become some other subject.

The poster has notified others who are posting along the same thread... 
homosexuality, molestation, rights, etc.  And I have noticed that it has all
gone quiet today.

So do we continue to post here with the attempt to keep on track, or move to
some other areas for heated exchange and debate. e.g. soc.motss, alt.homosexual,
etc.
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Defintions (was Re: Your Right it is the (Re: The usual)
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:37:57 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <4508@news.chips.com> markst@chips.com (Mark Storkamp) writes:
>In article <1ebgvlINN374@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.180532.5228@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>>
>>So let's get down to the nitty gritty definitions-
>>
>>For Example- phobia = A strong fear, adversion or dislike.  Now about you say
>>there is a HUGE difference between phobia and strong dislike, there seems to
>>be a definitional inconsistency here.
>
>Indeed there is. Would you please cite your reference for these definitions?
>Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary (Office Edition) lists the following:
>
>Phobia - A persistent illogical fear.
>

And I stated in another posting that I had left off the irrational or illogical fear.

The American Heritage Dictionary - 2nd ed.

phobia- 1) A persistent, abnormal, or illogical fear of a specific thing or situation.

AND     2) A strong fear, dislike or aversion.

phobe- One that fears or is averse to a specific thing.

>>Now let's look at the word 'hate', to feel dislike or distaste for. Now if we 
>>look at this defintion it seems to imply 'strong dislike', and if we carry it
>
>Hate - To feel animosity or hostility toward:detest.
>

The American Heritage Dictionary - 2nd ed.

hate- 1) To feel animosity or hostility toward. 2) To detest.

AND   3) To feel dislike or distaste for:  hates washing dishes.
      4) Intense dislike.

>I see no 'dislike' here. (I personaly dislike a number of things, such as
>scratches on my car.  I feel no hatred towards the scratches)

Then I suppose you should learn how to read a dictionary.

And scratches? yes one can say I dislike them, but some will choose to say
I hate them... there is an equivalence, but in general I believe hate to
be directed at living things.

>
>>one more step- and use phobia then it means that you or I have a strong dislike
>>for some particular thing, e.g. hydrophobia strong dislike of water.
>
>hydrophobia - 1. Pathological fear of water. 2. Rabies

The American Heritage Dictionary - 2nd ed.

hydrophobia- 1. Fear of water 2. rabies.

>
>Please, let us not reinvent the english language to suit our own purposes.
>If you re-read Phils post, you will find it quite suitable as it is.
>

Yes please try and understand the english language and the structure of defintions.

>He did quite well.  Please let me know how you came up with your definitions.
>
So you agreed with his defintion of 'moral'?  You did not respond to that one.
why?

I would try looking that one up-  Phil's defintion of 'moral' is by his own
defintions and that there is no right/wrong judgement process involved.

Plus you should read some of his other postings very carefully.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7259 ca.politics:9695