HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:43:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.224716.8847@panix.com> mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>We had one bozo here who said-- and I quote:
>   >>>I can't *see* the point of feminism if it isn't to clue in the type
>   >>>of person I used to be, and then to continue educating the type of
>   >>>person I've become.
>
>Jess said it many articles ago:  Feminism is not about men, it's
>about women.  Smart men, who understand why there is feminism and
>agree with its principles, find ways of educating themselves. 
>I'm not holding my breath on this one.
>
>
>-- 
>
>  Mara Chibnik
>  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.

So you can hurt me and ridicule me, Mara.  What a revelation.

Somehow, reading that quote out of context it doesn't say what I wanted it
to say.  It would have been nice of you to ascribe enough humanity to me
to ask for a clarification.  Fine, you've got me, I'm down and deserve to
be beaten for failing to communicate, and for stumbling over my ideas badly.

Bonus points to you for making me feel like such an idiot as to try and
reply seriously to you in mail.  Please, upon receiving that email
feel free to use it to finish me off.  At this point it's a mercy killing.

What I might have really meant by any of this doesn't seem important any more.



Brad

Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Het males & bi-femmes
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:47:22 GMT

In article <1ht4d3INNnfe@agate.berkeley.edu> rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
:In article <85883@ut-emx.uucp> robear@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jay Michael) writes:
:
:->	   ____________     ____________
:->	F <____________> M <____________> F          (polyamorous male)
:->
:->	I'm not going to say much about this because 1) It's not really bi-
:->related, and 2) It would seem the females are getting the shaft.
:
:Pardon me? I have something of this arrangement, and I fail to see why the
:females are getting the shaft here.

Indeed.  Are we talking about The Head With Two Things here or something?

G
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 11:23:02 EST
From: Len <DICKSONE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Purity
 <93001.010248SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <1i2qagINN5ht@rave.larc.nasa.gov>
 <1i3hr2INN9in@agate.berkeley.edu>

First post so I'm not sure if I'm doing this right... Here goes!

>What I am wondering is why there is such a strong demand for purity in
>our lebels?  And if we will ever be accepting of exceptions when they
>initially come up, or do we have to continue to bash out some elbow room
>if we want be a little deviant?

>We keep having to redefine our labels..  the words dont mean the same
>things they used to.  But does anybody but me wish we would outgrow the
>damn things?

> ....jeff

    I gave up on labels a long time ago.  When asked if I'm bi, my usual
response is `Um... yeah'  I'm quite sure (for now) that I'm not gay, I know
I'm defintely not straight.  I suppose I fit the definition of one who has
been intimate with men and women (though usually not at the same time *blush*)
    I guess if I must have a label, I'd like `personsexual' please :)

    So, now do I get swamped with demuffin hugs? *hope hope*

(El)Len
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: FeminIseultIsm
Date: 21 Dec 92 12:51:22 GMT
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin

In <BzFHqv.46E@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott) writes:
>[...] Maybe people just prefer to bicker.
>Two posts I made in a more theoretical 'let's understand this' tone
>warranted only one reply that limited itself to one word I used.

Oh gawd, not this one again. It should be put into the FAQ list. All
together now:

	Just because you did not receive any responses to your posting
	does *not* mean that people have deliberately, maliciously and
	conspiratorially chosen to ignore it.


Ciaran.
-- 
---- Ciaran McHale (cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie)
\bi/ Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
 \/  Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-6772204
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: safarj@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu (Jonah Emanuel Safar)
Subject: Re: Purity
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:18:46 GMT

Len <DICKSONE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>First post so I'm not sure if I'm doing this right... Here goes!

Muffin Alert!  <Whoop!> <Whoop!> "Shut that damned thing off Number One!"

>    So, now do I get swamped with demuffin hugs? *hope hope*

>(El)Len

You betcha.
Helm, lock in on Muffin... Fire hugs one and two...
<Sound FX>
<Hug!>  <Hug!>
Direct hits.  Status?
Officially demuffined.

-Points (Dragon at the helm)
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
 If the President won't do it to his wife, he'll do it to his Country. -Unknown
________________________________________________________________________________
Jonah E. Safar             R.P.I., Troy, NY              EMail to:safarj@rpi.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Het males & bi-femmes
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:18:04 GMT

In article <85883@ut-emx.uucp>
     robear@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jay Michael) writes:

>   F <> M <> F          (polyamorous male)

>   I'm not going to say much about this because 1) It's not really bi-
>related, and 2) It would seem the females are getting the shaft.

   Hmph.  Sez you.  Personally, I've been in a *wonderful* relationship
that looked like M <> M <> W, with me in the middle, which had an
incredible amount of energy passing around.

>   So perhaps it is just as well that for most het males these 
>possibilities lie purely within the realms of fantasy.

   Also, sez you.  I was doin' stuff like what you suggest six years
ago.  Your post really said more about how you feel towards women than
it did anything about polyamorous arrangement.

>Robear, H.M.

         Elf !!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.
From: pclary@mushroom.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Missing the UK (was:  Introduction, or De-Muffining)
Date: 27 Dec 92 17:47:01 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA - aka Barnum & Bailey

(Hello and welcome to all the recent exmuffins by the way.)

orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons) wrote...
>(About complex "tangles"...)
You could call it that <grin>.

>unfortunately, I don't have the willpower
>to stay away from the UK. (I am worried about just what would
>happen when I next visit, considering all of the, umm, interesting
>things I've discovered about myself in the last, umm, five trips.)

Wah!
I wanna go back.  I wanna go back.  I wanna go to Dave's party in
Cambridge, and I have no money to do so.  <mope mope mope>
Not even Ciaran making up wild stories about me robbing banks
at "vibrator-point" can change financial realities right now. <sigh>

I miss you all very much.  (It has been awhile since July huh?.)

Ellen
(Who hasn't stooped to doing sexual favors in trade for a UK plane 
 ticket....yet.)

New email address:
ellen@dgi.com
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Organization: UNIX System Laboratories, Summit, NJ
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:42:30 GMT

In article <BzM8Fq.97F@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>
>Do you believe that applying sound marketing principles to
>getting your ideas actually ADOPTED by lots of people is a
>nitwit idea?  If so, then you must enjoy talking *INSIDE*
>your safe-space.  

Do you have any idea what marketing is?  It is polite, it is
rude, it is nice, it is mean, it is communication, it is
miscommunication, it is above all getting people to pay attention.

There is nothing fundamental about sugar coating anything, ideas
included, that 'sells' it better.  There's nothing nice about hate
and bigotry and they're very well marketed, so lay off the bullshit
that if feminists would just dress up their ideas in pretty clothes
they would sell because:

1) its not necessarily true

2) it assumes that ONLY by being nicey-nicey it would sell

3) it assumes that its the feminists' job to do this in the
first place.  (hell, I spend some of my time educating ignorant
strayt people, but it isn't MY job, its theirs)

Ry
ry@usl.com
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: More total blatant fluff
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 12:01:39 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

nigel@kathunk.phaedrav.on.ca, who thinks Aussies are odd, wrote:
>Muffy Barkocy, whom I agree makes a fine avatar of various goddesses, wrote:
>: Ah, well...I'll have to get more and better GIFs made...*grin*.
>
>Oh boy, maybe I get to use my darkroom and high-res scanner when
>Joe and Karina get here.  alt.b.p.e.bi.bunnies anyone?

   Oh ho!

   I've been told about the darkroom, but a scanner as well, you say?

   Hmmm. You old rogue, you... 8-P

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: YES!  It works!!!
Followup-To: soc.bi
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 05:09:38 GMT

In article <0C1A3726A02003D4@TUDOBM.TUDELFT.NL> C.G.C.vanDijk@IO.TUDelft.NL writes:
>Hi everybody,
>
>After one-and-a-half years of holding my breath: I am here, and with
>this post I just stopped being a muffin!
>
>For any welcoming hug (shy smile, quickly evolving into shameless begging)
>please hug Kay too, who found this way of posting for me.  I have really
>felt bad about not being able to post for all this time, all you nice
>people flirting and we poor muffins-against-our-will being on the
>side line.  But no more :-) :-) :-)

*Hug* *Hug* *Hug*
<nibble> <snuggle>
*Hug*

>PS: With regard to recent postings on net.personality: I'm mid twenties,
>bitter funloving cynic idealist, 6'2", blue eyes, and at the moment,
>I wear my hair like Jesus wore it (Halleluja I adore it).

Mmmm... mighty tasty ;)

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
                      |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:17:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.185313.19414@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:

>  But she has never yet heard of anyone who was under rude attack
>  killing the instinct for self-defense and saying: "Wait a
>  minute--I believe you have a point there. It's a good thing you
>  yelled and threw paint at me because it made me realize that
>  you are right and I was wrong. I appreciate your calling this
>  to my attention."

I would dearly love to write to Miss Manners and prove her wrong.  A
Clay Bond flame brought me around a couple of years ago.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:44:42 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Understanding
 <MUFFY.92Dec23234918@remarque.berkeley.edu>
 <92359.165646SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1992Dec26.050250.4321@news.acns.nwu.edu>

[Graydon, gibbering faintly]
>>If you wanted to argue that I'm using a gender biased aesthetic I'd
>>tend to agree; what maybe I'm asking is what saying you're 'bi'
>>is intended to communicate about your aesthetic.

[Albert Lunde, some of whose paragraphs went the way of all things]
>Well, I'm not Muffy or Mike, but I'm going to jump in with a few
>sweeping (anti-)generalizations.

>I would tend to define "a bisexual" as a person who at times has felt
>significant sexual attractions to members of both sexes. The word
>"significant" is important to me -- if you, for example, have passing b
>thoughts, but dismiss them as of no importance, I'm in no hurry to call
>you bisexual. On the other hand, I think feeling and desire are more
>important than sexual experience in defining "sexual orientation".

Does significant mean 'lie awake at night torturing self with what
you'd like to be doing with the attractee'?  'Tendency to act like
an idiot in the presence of'?  'Outright languishing'?  'Occaisonal
fantasizing'?

>(Thus, you may feel free to call yourself bi regardless of if your
>criteria are gender-based or not, if it seems to fit.)

I don't call myself bi.  I'm pretty sure I'm a recovering romantic,
and that's about as far as I'm definite about the general case
of any of this stuff, as far as the in-head part goes.  My hormones
are a who-knows, lots of stuff I haven't tried.  My aesthetics skip
men, mostly, but that is changing slowly.

>I'm not sure that saying one is "bi" communicates anything about one's
>aesthetics as such.  If it weren't for the pervasive heterosexism
>polatizing society, I sometimes doubt bisexuals would have anything
>in common -- we'd just be this vauge mass of people "in the middle".
>The social pressure to be het, or failing that "to choose", creates
>a shared experience that we might otherwise lack. Though we might
>still be a bit more *flexible* than the mean ;).
>--
> Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
>                      |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Being required to challenge societal assumptions is a pretty strong
common ground, though.  My own neccesity for doing that was a parent
both schizophrenic and misanthropic.  Left me with a very tenuous
self image.

I still get a sense that there are some aesthetic consensi that I'm
not getting; if I manage to figure it out from continued reading,
I'll see if I can express it.

Graydon
From: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Het males & bi-femmes
Date: 30 Dec 1992 21:40:34 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec30.065251.23679@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:

->OCCASIONAL???

Oh ... just a tad more frequent than that, methinks :)

->I think that part of why the idea of bisexual women in particular is
->enticing to men is  the idea that "ah, they're having sex, hmm, I'll jump 
->in".  

Ah, they're having sex, hmm, I guess I'm sleeping on the sofa tonight :)

->Most straight men seem to have an easier time accepting bisexual
->or lesbian women than bisexual or gay men - and I think it's not just 
->that straight men might be "concerned" about being "hit on" [everyone
->gets hit on, women usually - learn some social skills, brother]. I
->think it's because oral sex & hand/vaginal contact is more "acceptable"
->to anal sex.

Hmm.  Thing is, I think you'd find quite a few hetboys who are disgusted
with the idea of gay oral sex too.

I suspect that at least part of it is that they find it easier to deal with
things that they may do also ... so the average hetboy can deal with active
oral &| manual sex with a woman, so it's not a big thing if another woman
does it.  It's not something "I find sick and perverted and would never do,"
you know?

Then again, I suspect it's just a matter of ignorance; there's the whole
image of how two women make love that reinforces the image (Now, now, we all
know you're not supposed to use dildos, vibrators, strap-ons, or any of that
stuff; and of _course_ women would consider each other's anuses sacred and
sick and would _never_ consider having anal sex).  

-roy, firm believer in strap-ons.

Firm? Did I say firm? Pardon ... I didn't mean that.


-- 
Roy S. Rapoport     internet: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu      bitnet: rsrsoda@ucbocf
anonymous mail: wi.5836@n7kbt.rain.com        androphile, gynophile, kerryphile
"What I used to think is me / is just a faded memory." -NIN
DISCLAIMER:  I speak for the University of California at Berkeley.  Rrrright.
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:11:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.152529.14544@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.114848.11713@panix.com> mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>>
>>I've already written one rather angry letter to Brad.  I'll try not
>>to write any more to or in answer to him.  But I am really  very
>>angry, and the main reason I deleted the rest of his article is that
>>he goes on to say some stuff that offended me as deeply as anything
>>I've ever seen in soc.motss.
>
>Me too, particularly the ending which I read to say "I've really stuck
>my neck out, so even if I being really offensive and wrong, you damn
>well better not call me on it."  I am at a loss on how to respond
>to it without spending hours and hours writing, and given that I worked
>16 hours yesterday, and will probably do the same today, I don't have
>the time, even if I had the patience.
>
>Ry
>between phone calls with folks about Novell's agreement to
>acquire USL from AT&T.  You heard it here first.

No, the ending merely meant not to edit the post down to one quote  and
then attack that, though suprisingly not the quotes I thought would
be picked out were.  Reply to the *whole* *content* of the post or
none of it.  Which is why I've ignored every response I've seen so
far.

You can call me an asshole, but at least do it for the right reasons.
Don't misdirect or rephrase what I've said to set up an attack.  And I'm 
no more impressed with the lot on the other side of this than they are
with me, nor inclined to give their voice any more credence than they
have given mine.  You all strike me as a pretty hateful and reactive bunch,
who have no quarter for anyone outside of your political sphere.

Pretty well completely damn pointless, on all sides.


Brad
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: a *bench* of bisexuals?
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:21:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.021520.10927@vax.oxford.ac.uk> cen@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
:We had a meal at Wong Kei's, where they seem to have given up discourteous,
:fast service in favour of vaguely sullen and inefficient service. So we had

Thank ghopod.  Some people *liked* it you know.  Weird...  I might try
it again.

:So, after that we went off to the Wonderful-Dutch-pub-nearby-which-serves
:-draught-Oranjeboom (was it De Han, Iseult? Anyway, thank you for introducing

Is that De Hems in Macclesfield St by any chance?  Where they have a Dutch
night once a week in the room upstairs? (Not to mention the Oranje-Boom-Boom
nights...) 

:the women of the party weren't Clive's satellites, especially as we demonstrated
:our "hot bi babes" qualities and Kateri/Clive wondered whether we'd get kicked
:out. Ang has already encountered my charmed life. And a rose-seller thought he

Na, you're OK in there.  I've never been kicked out :-)

G
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Okay...okay...here is an official demuffin...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:35:09 GMT

Hey everybody, I'm back!!!!!

And <consults clipboard> I see I'm just in time for an _important_
demuffining.

My Empress Sue, I kneel before you and--no, you don't have to
take your clothes off, I don't do _that_ on a first posting ;-) --
anyway, I wish to welcome you to our humble little kingdom. Long
may you prosper!

And slurp, gobble, crunch... <wipes crumbs and drool off chin)

And of course, H U G S ! ! ! !

Tep
-- 
Did you really think I spoke for anyone else? Boy, you're gullible!
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Seperatists etc.
Date: 21 Dec 92 12:48:59 GMT
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin

Damn! Damn! Damn! Lately, my news feed seems to be about 3 days old.
This makes it difficult to follow, and partake in, threads.


In <1gum0bINNgqa@agate.berkeley.edu>
rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
>Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>->I have some feeling of affinity to lesbian-feminist seperatists.
>->At the same time, I can't be one and I realized some years ago that, as a 
>->man, there was nothing I could do to satisfy the most extreme positions.
>
>Well, assuming you don't mean to imply that lesbian-feminist separatists
>(can we just use LFSers?) are somehow more extreme than other feminists, I
>would like to point out that there _is_ something that you, or I, or any
>other man could do to satisfy the most extreme positions [...] But then
>again, most of us are unwilling to die for almost any cause,
>especially that espoused by a fanatic.

I am not sure if I have interpreted you correctly. If I have then you
seem to be saying that extreme feminists wish to see men dead. That is
not feminism; that is anti-male hatred. Of course, the two are not
mutually exclusive, but I do not like to think of them as being confused
with each other.

As for your comment:

>But then again, most of us are unwilling to die for almost any cause

I will, of course (just to be contrary:-), disagree with this. Judging
by how often wars occur, it seems to me that quite a lot of people are
willing to both die and kill for _a_ cause. Of course, not just _any_
cause; it would help if it were a cause that one believed in :-)


Ciaran.
-- 
---- Ciaran McHale (cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie)
\bi/ Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
 \/  Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-6772204
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss