HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Bisexual libertariansn ear
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:05:41 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Nov6.231754.8252@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
| Interesting that Steve Conley pointed out that a lot of bisexuals are
| libertarians. I am one myself--I've got the card and everything! Could
| this be a trend?

Greetings.  Sounds like a good one.

| More to the point, how hospitable has the LP been to non-heteros
| compared to the Democrats or Republicans?

For the most part -- quite hospitable.

A story...

When I was running for California State Assembly in San Diego in 1982, a
gay bar had a candidate night.  The Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian
gay outreach groups were there... and 6 Libertarian candidates.  No Republican
candidates.  No Democratic candidates.

People caught a clue with virtually no prompting.

   Fritz

Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:38:09 GMT

In article <BxGv34.848@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>This is disingenuous.  No-one on this group has ever claimed to be PC or
>suggested that it's a good thing.  "PC" is a paper tiger, a blanket
>insult.  The left call all their opponents "fascists" when they can't
>think of anything to say, and the right call them "PC".  A few years

Blatantly not true.  Look over the last few postings and you'll find
at least one person proudly trumpeting his PChood.  I always thought
it was a paper tiger of the right too.

G
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:37:41 GMT

In article <Bx8o98.9E@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
     pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:

>I have this problem with the bi network generally; most of the people
>around are into some form of mysticism and the ones remaining are
>obnoxious anarcho-capitalists like Graham.

   Howzabout an obnoxious anarcho-capitialist bisexual sadomasochist
polyamorist who's actually a killer Tarot card reader?  Yes, I admit
it, I'm really good with the Thoth and (preferred) Palladini decks...

         Elf !!!
-- 
      __        | The post you have just read is real, but it could
      \/        | have been avoided.  Inbreeding is every-one's
Elf Sternberg   | problem.  Contact your local Mormon church to be
elf@halcyon.com | sure you aren't marrying a close relative.
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd)
Subject: Re: Finally Doing It ... Coming Out
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 01:01:56 GMT

orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons) writes:
: In article <1992Nov8.170758.10738@leland.Stanford.EDU> mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd) writes:
: |Mike, who admits to being the original owner of that particular catalog,
: |and considering the summum of what it was exchanged for, is quite happy
: |to live without it for a while
: 
:    If you need more, just let me know and I can make the
: appropriate deliveries when I return from my next trip to the
: UK. 

David!  I'm amazed you think I was only referring to the tangible assets
accrued during your visit!  *incredible innocent grin*  Or perhaps you
didn't, and you're saying you won't be through again until you next
bounce over the pond :-(

: (And for the life of me, I don't know what became of that
: catalogue; I don't appear to have it, and if you don't have it, I
: suppose we must have left it in the pub when we left on Tuesday...)

*LAUGH*  Now >THAT'S< a political action; leaving a vibrator catalog
lying around in a straight pub/restaurant for some unexpecting vanilla
het to stumble over!  I feel like a Gideon ... :-)

hugs
Mike, much amused
-- 
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)
Subject: Re: Bisexual libertariansn ear
Organization: International Irony League -- Death before smileys!
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:19:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.015614.16099@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.231754.8252@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>(David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>More to the point, how hospitable has the LP been to non-heteros
>>compared to the Democrats or Republicans?
>
>I'm not out anywhere except the net, but if I were I'd be out to my
>friends in the LP.  In fact, I'm seriously considering coming out to
>two of them.  They're very, very tolerant people.

June Genis (the LP candidate for Senate who ran against Boxer and
Herschensohn in CA) marched in the Libertarian contingent at the
S.F. Freedom Day Parade, even though she's straight. Does that
count as hospitable?

The LP is far and away the most sex-positive party...

-- 
Andrew M. Solovay	    "Until there was rock, you only had God."
					--Ziggy Stardust

#include <disclaimer.h>
From: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:42:56 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.) writes:

>J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>>elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>>>		... I'm allowed to generalize.  And while I will treat
>>>each person as a person, androgynous new-age bisexuals are running in
>>>the red even before they start...
>>
>>Sounds like prejudice to me. If they're bisexuals they can't be that bad,
>>and I don't like to see this sort of oppression in this group.
>
>"If they're bisexuals, they can't be that bad."  THAT sounds like prejudice
>to ME!  Prejudice = pre-judgement, right?  On the basis of someone's sexual
>orientation?  Isn't that what we're supposed to be fighting.

Yes, I'm afraid I *am* prejudiced towards bisexuals, all other things being
equal. Sorry.

>Elf didn't say that he didn't like androgyny per se (which is his choice
>in any case), he said he didn't like androgyny as some kind of "correct"
>face of bisexuality (if I may interpret, slightly).

That wasn't my interpretation. He wasn't attacking "correctness" in general,
he was attacking a specific group.

>And what's this "oppression" you're talking about?

When someone comes into bi-space and attacks part of the bisexual community
(ie new age bisexuals), attacking and seeking to ridicule their beliefs, to
me that is oppression. I want the bisexual community to be all-inclusive.
Elf's view seems to be that we should not welcome all bisexuals, only the
ones he approves of. If I was an androgynous new age bi, I would feel
oppressed by this.

>  He's just giving his
>damn opinion.  Is that oppression?

His damn opinion is divisive and negative towards others, so yes.

>  Sounds like PC-talk to me.

It is a matter of indifference to me whether my views happen to coincide
with what is currently PC or not.


/jon
-- 
   ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley \  /_   Could be an ever opening flower...  //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \/ /  It's the beginning of               // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/__a new love inside________________///////////  //
From: h431@quads.uchicago.edu (heather e blair)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Androgynous, Feminine and Masculine Bisexuals...
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:26:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Nov6.222601.21655
Reply-To: h431@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

My $.00002:

I share Elf!'s discomfort with people who talk in terms of "masculine"
and "feminine" archetypes, with men who are "discovering the woman
within" and so forth.  These ideas seem to support stereotypes about 
male and female behavior and support the idea that men and women have
different "essential natures". [recognize that phrase, folks?]

I know that a lot of the people who believe in this stuff are trying to
say that men and women both have within them "the masculine" and "the
feminine", but why not just junk those terms and say that men and women both
can be aggressive or passive, logical or intuitive, warlike or peaceful, 
etc?  


-- 

- Heather Blair       h431@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: sthor@ctp.com (Sarah Thornburg)
Subject: Re: wups!
Organization: Cambridge Technology Partners
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:56:37 GMT

>Q:  how many of soc.biers are married?  just curious.
>
>js

I'm engaged - does that count?
(And the finace is bi also, although as far as I know, he doesn't read this
group) so if you count engaged, that makes 2 of us!

So we can hug each other together!

*Sarah*  :)
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Finally Doing It ... Coming Out
Date: 6 Nov 92 11:39:02
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu's message of 6 Nov 1992 10:17:07 GMT


In article <1ddgn3INNkoh@agate.berkeley.edu> rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
> Their reactions to me dropping out of school for a semester/year lead me to
> believe that they will be happy knowing I'm happy.  I may just be overly
> optimistic ... but *shrug* Got to give it a try.

> So ... now, the question is, how does one do this thing?
> I can see two main avenues:
> A) Let it drop in during a casual conversation
>    ("Oh, and so I met him, and he's _so_ cute ...")
> B) Sit them down for a talk
>    ("Mom, dad, sit down please....")

> Any suggestions?

Fresh from doing this myself, I appreciate the problems in bringing it
up, even when you expect a semi-favorable to favorable reaction.  I had
a very hard time figuring out how to start.  I brought up bisexuality by
talking about some of my friends, but since she's queer-positive, that
didn't really spark any discussion (it was like saying I now had some
friends who were artists or something...just a fact, not a topic of
discussion).  I brought up being involved with a woman, but that was so
general that it was not clear to me if it was clear to her...*grin*.  If 
you say something like "he's so cute" and they don't say much, how can
you tell if they're just taking it as a general comment and not related
to your *personal* attraction.

On the other hand, the very serious "let's sit down and talk" tends to
imply a problem, which might interfere with your convincing them that
you don't consider it to be a problem.

In the end, I found that "I got involved with this woman and I have
discovered that I am attracted to women, too" was very effective...
clear, not defensive, not a *huge* deal, but something I thought was
important enough to make sure to tell her, etc.

I guess I think option A, with additional commentary to make it clear
that this is a direct attraction of yours, which extends (or could
extend) to other men as well, is a good way to go.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Date: 12 Nov 92 10:35:02 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

In article <1992Nov11.200834.14602@athena.cs.uga.edu> kraig@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kraig Count) writes:
>All groups have people that take a viewpoint to an extreme and in
>effect go off the deep end.  

As a card-carrying extremist, I beg to differ.  I fail to see why an
accurate opinion should lie between extremes.
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: tmo@harry.engin.umich.edu (Tanya M Ollick)
Subject: Re: a tiny bit more out
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 17:19:51 EST
Organization: University of Michigan (CAEN)
Originator: tmo@harry.engin.umich.edu


In article <1992Nov4.213850.19519@ctp.com>, sthor@ctp.com (Sarah Thornburg) writes:
> This is my first post here, but I've been reading for a while, and finally
> felt the urge to express just a little thought.  I am bi, and I certainly
> know the frustration of feeling like I can't meet anyone else bi in the
> area, but at the same time, I am not I guess what people would consider
> really out.  If anyone asks, or it comes up in a discussion, I don't hide
> it, but I don't ever wear pins or T-shirts or whatever to advertise my own
> bisexual pride.  I am what I am and I'm damn happy about it.
> 

  That's the same thing that I do and feel. I'm not particularly outspoken about my beliefs in any area, so I'm not surprised that I don't wear anything that signifies "taking a stand." The recent political events, however, are changing my views a bit. Statements, even quiet ones, are important.

  I was curious, however, how receptive the locals were to pins, etc., so I asked a friend who did wear them in to work (at a hospital). She laughed and said that no one seemed to get it. Several people asked her what it meant, including another lesbian in her department. And, in truth, I haven't seen much of anything around town (except a lot of "Boys' Night Out" dances). I must be in all the wrong places.


> Thanks for listening.
> *Sarah*  :)
> 

No problem. *hugs* and welcome to the group.

TMO
From: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:51:15 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>     J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>>miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.) writes:
>>>J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>>>>elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>>>>>      ... I'm allowed to generalize.  And while I will treat
>>>>>each person as a person, androgynous new-age bisexuals are running in
>>>>>the red even before they start...
>
>>>Elf didn't say that he didn't like androgyny per se (which is his choice
>>>in any case), he said he didn't like androgyny as some kind of "correct"
>>>face of bisexuality (if I may interpret, slightly).
>
>>That wasn't my interpretation. He wasn't attacking "correctness" in general,
>>he was attacking a specific group.
>
>   Correct.  And just as you're *allowed* to prefer bisexuals in
>general, I'm *allowed* to reject, as an individual, mealymouthed,
>incense-burning new age idiots who insist until they're red in the face
>that they haven't got an ounce of agression in them and that "[I'm]
>just part of the patriarchy" because my S/m scenes sometimes epitomize
>agression and masculinity, _and_ agression _as_ masculinity.

Of course you are dear, nobody has said anything isn't *allowed*.

>   Clue to this, Jon.  It strikes me that we're soooo accepting of the
>beliefs of others.  It's _okay_ for gay men to find women
>uninteresting.  It's _okay_ for straight people to find members of the
>opposite sex exclusively exciting.  If someone came in here and said
>"I don't find redheads exciting," they'd get a lot of pouts, but I
>doubt anyone would question their right to feel that way.  But to say
>"I don't find blacks exciting," is to court a lynching at the hands of
>the mob, apparently with you in the lead.

Not a fair analogy. You didn't just say you didn't find androgyny exciting,
you said you didn't like them. And more to the point - and this is what
my post objected to - you used soc.bi to do it. If you went into an ethnic
meeting-place and shouted "I don't like blacks" I might be more inclined
to leave you to the mob.

>   You don't like me, Jon, and you don't like my feelings.

This is not true; nor is it relevant. I don't dislike you, Elf, or your
feelings (whatever they may be); and my posting was not >in any way< a
personal attack.

>   And you know what?  Over the 'net, that's fine with me.

Oh, jolly good.
*hugs* to everyone but Elf, in future then...


/jon
   ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley \  /_   Could be an ever opening flower...  //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \/ /  It's the beginning of               // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/__a new love inside________________///////////  //
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Homophobic garbage
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:30:11 GMT
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

In article <1992Nov12.071816.29439@vpnet.chi.il.us> orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons) writes:
>|1)   You need to include <stdio.h> if you're using printf
>
>   Not necessarily.  You'd only need stdio.h if you were using a compiler
>or system that did something bizarre with arguments and had to tell cc
>that printf is really and truely warped.

By coincidence, I have a program before me this very minute which
contains the line: #include <nonstdio.h> - seems *far* too appropriate.

G
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: PC (was Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:46:53 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov9095243@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.e
du (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>"PC" is not just language, it is thoughts and actions, too.  So, if you,
>for example, express the thought that women are not inferior to men and
>should not be treated as such, you are being PC (worse, you've been
>brainwashed by the evil feminists, who are, of course, PC as all heck).
>Just try it in alt.feminism and see what I mean...*grin*.

I don't think anyone's objecting to the ideas and attitudes that are
considered 'PC'.  I think that what people are objecting to (at least,
what _I'm_ objecting to) is the way it is asserted by PC-ites that one
should adhere to this code of believe because it's Correct.  It is the
Right Thing To Do.  No rationale, no logical arguments, just "It's Correct."


>Yeah, it's silly to have ideas like everyone should be treated as
>individuals, rather than discriminated against because they happen to
>belong to a particular group, and to insist on expressing them.  

But that's not what 'PC' is, or at least, that's not the way I perceive
it.  To me, it's a brand of social fascism in which some self-appointed
censors tell me what to think, say and believe.  'PC' is strangling
academic freedom, freedom of expression, and rational discussion of certain
issues.  I believe in being polite and considerate, but the 'PC' I've seen
on this campus at least goes WAY beyond that.  A lot of 'PC' speak is being
written into campus speach codes.  What happened to free expression?  I hate
to break it to you folks, but nobody has the right to live in a world free
of offensive language.

>It's
>silly to think that maybe we shouldn't destroy the environment we have
>to live in, and take steps to try to reduce that destruction.  Both of
>these concepts have gotten me labelled as PC, without any question of
>what words I choose to use.  

But when someone disagrees that our environment is in the situation that
you perceive it to be in, do you attack that person for not being PC?  When
I say that I think Global Warming (tm) is rubbish, I get labelled as PI.
My reasoning, of course, is ignored.

>Well, guess what?  I was able to figure
>those things out for myself; I didn't subscribe to the PC newsletter to
>tell me what to think.  Not that anyone who likes to use PC as a
>derogatory term will believe that.

I believe you entirely, and I respect you for choosing your own beliefs.
Will you respect me for choosing mine?

I *don't* think that PC describes a set of political, social, and cultural
beliefs.  PC is the way a certain set of ideas is thrust upon people, and if
those ideas are even so much as questioned, the "blasphemer" is insulted,
ostracized, and in some cases, punished for violating his/her university's
PC rules.  When I say 'PC', that's what I'm talking about.  It exists, and
it's evil.

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Altruism (was: two men)
Date: 9 Nov 92 09:39:42
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Oct14211849@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<BwBpo5.7B1@newcastle.ac.uk>
	<MUFFY.92Oct23103547@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<BwqMF6.GGw@newcastle.ac.uk> <MUFFY.92Nov4084700@remarqu
	<BxGBxp.Azt@newcastle.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk's message of 9 Nov 92 13:53:48 GMT

In article <BxGBxp.Azt@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>Thus, you disconnect yourself from her, saying that what happens to her
>>doesn't really matter to you, personally, at all,

>Not at all - I care about other people more than about myself. How much
>more "connected" can you get?

I don't understand your definition of "care," I guess.  If I care about
someone, then when I do something for them, it makes me happy.  More
than that, I find it hard to be happy unless the people I care most
about are happy, so it is very important to me, personally, to do things
which might help them be happy.  How is it that you can say that you
care more about someone else than you do about yourself and yet not get
anything out of helping them (except a sense of being a good person)?

When I *care* about someone, they are part of me, and good done to them
is good done to me.  That's what caring is all about, for me.

>>[...] she is part of
>>my world, and I want *both* of us to be in a world where people help
>>each other and care about each other.

>It's you who is disconnected from her - you see yourself as changing the
>world and helping yourself, I see myself as helping the person.

No, I don't see myself as changing the world, although I suppose I can
see how you interpreted it that way.  I see myself as acting in
accordance with what I would like the world to be.  If I'm sufficiently
lucky, it may be that that will cause the world to change, but I
certainly don't expect most of my actions to have more than a local
effect, changing the world in just the tiny way that any action does.

I really don't understand how you can say that you are "connected" to
someone when you also say that you don't get anything out of helping
them.  If someone matters to me, then anything I do to/for them matters
a lot to me.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn