HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Nilges
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:00:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.correct
Organization: Stanford University

In article <MealnSe00VpJE5kEVI@andrew.cmu.edu>,
	ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
#..From the keyboard of Mr Hasnain.. (attribution lost in followup).
##In the midst of this debate on free speech, I want to pose a question:  Does 
##free speech exist in the US at all?  And if it is not consistent on all 
##levels then it does not exist.  I will add that it is interesting how many 
##people choose to defend the "racists" right to free speech when:
##
##1.  Doctors cannot mention abortion as an alternative to patients.
##
# 
# A doctor can only be barred from mentioning abortion if he has accepted
# federal funding under a special title designated solely for pre natal
# care.  The choice of accepting that money implies a contract in which
# the doctor agrees to not talk about abortion in return for the funding. 
# If a clinic or physician wishes to discuss abortion, there are other
# funing titles that allow it, and those are what should be sought.

Indeed this is so, but it is not of course a limitation on free speech in
the constitutional sense.
Employees are normally required to perform services on behalf of an employer,
and the Doctor<-government relationship is no different. Employees of
McDonalds who lambasted customers with the joys of vegetarianism would soon
be out on their ears - why should it be any different for physicians?
It is merely an illustration of the old saying, "He who pays the piper calls
the tune".

Something to think about for all those naive folks out there who look forward
to the day when a national health care system is in place in the US.


# 					"If patriotism is the last refuge
# 					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
# 					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
# 					Bob Jackson

Tony Cox, Stanford, CA			"Knowlege, Sir, should be free for all"
					Harry Mudd (Star Trek - Trouble with 
					Tribbles).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Male Bashing
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 23:14:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.103824.16417@doug.cae.wisc.edu> sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
>I read an article in the 8/30 Chicago Tribune with the headline
>"Woody's out of line, even by male standards."  As if male standards
>were so low, that it is nearly impossible to violate them.  It also
>ignores that it takes two people, therefore ignoring any standards
>that Soon-Yi Farrow Previn may have.
>
>Were I to write an article "Mia's out of line, even by female 
>standards", I would be jumped on by every feminist in America.  But
>male bashing is OK.
>
>BTW, the article was written by a male reporter for the Chicago Tribune,
>Frank James.

What exactly did the article say?  Did it really say that "male
standards" are so low, or that they are different from "female
standards"?

For example, many women may feel more sympathy for a 47 year old woman
whose 12 year male lover started dating her 21 year old stepdaughter
than they do for the male lover.  Many men may feel more sympathy for
the man.  If we take these people's opinions as typically "male
standards" or "female standards," Allen would be judged more harshly
by the "female standards."

If the article really did say that all men are scum, but Allen is
horrible even by scums' standards, yes, that is male bashing.  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: Divulging your HIV status
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:24:23 GMT

In article <1685313073.S927566@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU> S927566@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU writes:
>I am interested in finding out how other licensed healthcare professional
>feel about revealing their HIV status to their patients.

I am not a healthcare professional, but I am married to one, so I will 
answer anyway.

>Should you omit this information, and only reveal it if asked?

It is up to the individual.

>Should you answer honestly?

Again, it is up to the individual.

> Should you be required by law to reveal your status?

Absolutely not.  The chances that a competent healthcare professional
will transfer the HIV to a patient are miniscule.  However, due to
the AIDS hysteria going on in this country, forcing people to share this
knowledge will cause trauma to everyone involved.  In addition it is an
invasion of the healthcare workers privacy, for no reason other than 
irrational fear.

>ALthough it may work well to advertise your homosexuality to appeal
>to that group, would one be risking his business by being open about his
>HIV positivity?

Certainly.

>  Also, if you were a patient, would you want to know his
>HIV status and/or do you think it is your right to know?

It is not my right to know.  I pay my doctor to keep me healthy.  Just because
I pay a doctor does not mean I have the right to know about his/her personal
life.  In addition, if my doctor is not taking the proper precautions, I
do not want to be seeing that doctor anyway, so the point is moot.


The frustrating thing about this issue is that the people who are arguing
in favor of forcing doctors to announce their status are ignorant about
the accuracy of HIV testing as well as methods of transmission.  The
fact that testing HIV- means nothing does not seem to get through.  The
fact that a doctor is significantly more likely to become infected from
a patient than a patient through a doctor does not seem to be understood.

All that most americans seem to understand is that HIV kills (which is not
absolutely true).  They also seem to think that having someone who is
HIV+ near you means you will become infected (which is not true).  They
also seem to think that many people have become infected from their 
doctors (which is in question in most cases.... It seems, based on knowledge
of the progression of HIV illness that Kimberly Bergalis did not get 
infected by Dr Acer).

There is too much ignorance concerning HIV for healthcare professionals
to have to be open about their status.  


Jeff
-FWA
From: tooka@train.EBay.Sun.COM ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Wanted: Gay Toastmaster's Information
Date: 1 Sep 1992 22:13:41 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tooka@train.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: train.ebay.sun.com

Hello all,

I live in the Bay Area (East Bay) and would like to
be develop public-speaking skills and socialize
with others in the process...

Would any of you out there happen to know if
there exists such a thing as a Gay Toastmasters
or public-speaking skills workshop with many
gay members. 

Thanks for your help.

-Tony
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Heredity of homosexuality
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:56:51 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <78584@ut-emx.uucp> zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:

>And therein lies the difference between racism and discrimination
>against homosexuals.  One is proven to be hereditary and so cannot be
>changed and is not a subject for ridicule.  The other seems very likely
>to be a personal choice, and like all personal choices, is subject to judgment.


Three responses:

1.Why is it that most species of mammals have incidents of homosexuality?

2.Why is it that people who know nothing about homosexuality keep saying it
is a choice, while almost every homosexual I have ever met say that it was
not.  Why do people assume that we know nothing about ourselves?

3.Why is it that bigots assume that it is okay to discriminate based on
a "choice" while it is not okay to discriminate by heredity?  I was born
jewish.  However, being a homosexual was much less of a choice than choosing
to be an agnostic.


FWA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Who is Gabrielle LeMemer
Summary: I received an interesting message.
Keywords: weird
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:37:29 GMT

I received a rather interesting message for one Gabrielle B. LeMemer 
warning me that the apolocolypse was due Oct. 28. [Darn, I was hoping
I'd get to vote for Clinton.] I'm assuming that my name made a list
as a result of the BSA debate here.

Is this person for real? If so, everyone can consider themselves warned.
See you for armageddon.

Paul

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: sej5g@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Susan Elizabeth Juroff)
Subject: Re: Why?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:34:09 GMT

How much participation in a known gay-friendly BSA do you think there
would be?  And would it not come under attack from all sides?
I am not saying these are reasons not to try...I just think
that the opposition would be overwhelming and the poor boys
undergoing the ridicule would not find the support that the
group was intended to provide...
     I also agree with the argument that to stay inside a group
and help it to wake up and change is the best thing that you
can do for the group (and yourself, if you happen to have
invested a large portion of your life in it).  
     People are afraid of gays, but nobody
wants to be a bigot.  Informing people may be a step toward the
harmony for which purpose the seperate group was intended. 
     Take the Catholic Church, for example (and I am NOT
intending to start a religious debate here, ok?  It's just an
example).  All of the Catholics I know who have learned that
they are gay have either left the church for the Episcopal
(sorryspelling) church which has a much more enlightened view
or left religion entirely.  A friend of mine will not become a
priest as he wanted to in the Catholic church because of this.
At first his attitude was, as was said earlier, "fuck you"
then, I'll go where I'm wanted.  But we play right into the
hands of those who want to erase gays from the church if we
simply leave.  Same in scouting.  Of course, I've not heard of
an uproar in the Girl Scouts as there has been one in the BSA,
but frankly I think that is because at least half if not most
of those in high office are lesbians or well accustomed to
working with lesbians.
     Met the love of my life at Girl Scout Camp, ya kno?
Invisible is not nonexistent...

Susie
--
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Why?
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:13:38 GMT

Why would gays want to get into the BSA?


AAp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: test
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:45:31 GMT

tesT
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Why?
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:07:29 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Aug25.171338.7943@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
|> Why would gays want to get into the BSA?
|> 
|> 

Well I liked the sex when I was in it. :-)

For a serious answer...  There are plenty of things that could
be considered "good" about the BSA.  There is a group of boys in
the same age group who can learn to work together and learn about
each other.  I enjoyed my tenure in the BSA because I learned a
lot about nature, the environment, how to survive on my own
etc. etc.  I had an excellent time from the time I started as
a cub scout until leaving my boy scout troop in my mid teens.

I decided to leave when new leaders took over and decided to run
it as a military boot camp.

Later,
George




-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Dartmouth condemns Oregon anti-gay and -lesbian referendum
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:39:31 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug26.094041.26228@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Student.Assembly@dartmouth.edu (Student Assembly) writes:
> 
> The Student Assembly of Dartmouth College has passed by 22-8-1 a
> statement reprinted below condemning the upcoming referedum in Oregon
> to incorporate anti-gay and -lesbian provisions into the state
> constitution.  Right now, it is legal in all 50 states to evict gay and
> lesbian tenants, fire gay and lesbian employees, and execute other acts
> of discrimination.

I weep for the state of higher education in this country.

Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New
Jersey have all passed laws prohibiting discrimination in housing and
employment on the basis of sexual orientation.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"IQ describes how big your gas tank is, but it doesn't tell if you're
running on empty." -- Harvey Newstrom (hnewstro@x102c.ess.harris.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,rec.scouting,alt.athiesm
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Subject: Re: Levis Drops Boy Scouts...
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:45:03 GMT

holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
: In article <1992Aug18.221441.8981@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu 
: (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: > A clarification. Discrimination in employment, housing, and public
: > accommodation
: > 
: > on the basis of:                                   is generally:
: > -----------------                                  ------------
: > religious belief (including lack of belief)        illegal
: > political belief                                   legal
: > sexual orientation                                 legal but illegal in
: >                                                    some places.
: > 
: > So, you can be legally fired from your job in Peoria, Illinois, for
: > being gay, but not in Urbana, Illinois. You can be legally fired for
: > being a Republican (or Democrat), but not for being a Jew (or a
: > Christian, or an athieist).
: 
: I would be quite surprised if one can be fired because of their political
: orientation legally without further cause.

: Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.

Yeah? I wonder how long a communist would be employed at Fermilab?


Kathy
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: observation
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:12:12 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <p55qg7k@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
|> 
|> In past elections, homosexuality was not an issue.  There
|> was no gay bashing by republicans, there was no defense of
|> homosexuality by democrats.  There was no visibility of
|> homosexuals at all.
|> 
|> Four years later homosexuality has become a major point in
|> both republican and democratic politics.  Yes, it sucks that
|> the republicans are gay bashing in their convention, but it
|> does bring to light one thing.  We have made a giant step forward;
|> we exist.  We cannot be ignored.  This is the first step towards
|> a greater acceptance.  First one must exist.  Now, we exist in the
|> minds of all of america.
|> 
|> This, at least, is progress.
|> 


Not to be overly cynical, but wasn't this the same situation in 
pre-Nazi Germany?

Your pleasant thought for the day.

Later,
George


-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: buckmr@aix.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Dartmouth condemns Oregon anti-gay and -lesbian referendum
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:16:19 GMT

Student.Assembly@dartmouth.edu (Student Assembly) writes:


>The Student Assembly of Dartmouth College has passed by 22-8-1 a
>statement reprinted below condemning the upcoming referedum in Oregon
>to incorporate anti-gay and -lesbian provisions into the state
>constitution.  Right now, it is legal in all 50 states to evict gay and
>lesbian tenants, fire gay and lesbian employees, and execute other acts
>of discrimination.  A few cities around the country have enacted civil
>rights ordinances for gay and lesbian citizens.  The Oregon measure
>would prohibit any city in Oregon from protecting them, would require
>public schools to teach that homosexuality is Rabnormal, wrong,
>unnatural, and perverseS and Rto be discouraged and avoidedS (quoted
>from proposed amendment), and may force the state to fire all lesbian
>and gay state employees, including teachers.
Yes, but honey, there are 6 states with some measure of protections for 
Queer folk. It is most definitely illegal to fire someone for being gay in
Vermont, Connecticutt, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Hawaii.

I like the resolution idea though and will work on it, too. 

Hopefully you have passed the word along to other colleges?
-- 
RON BUCKMIRE
Association for the Prevention of the Sale of Clothing to Richard Grieco
11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Why?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:21:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.171208.183857@zeus.calpoly.edu> jkusters@zeus.calpoly.edu (Chrome Jester) writes:
>aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) divulges:
>->Why would gays want to get into the BSA?
>
>
>Now some time has passed.  I look back upon my time in Scouts and think to
>myself that Scouting was more responsible for the way I am today than any
>other influence, even my parents.  I am a much better person now for having
>participated.  I want (most) of the values of Scouting to continue being
>taught to young boys for a long time to come.  I would like to get back into
>Scouting in order to help teach these values to the next generation of
>Scouts.
>
>However, due to the (to me completely irrelevant) fact that I am homosexual,
>that I fall in love with men rather than women, I am deemed to be unsuitable
>for getting involved.
>
>I think that Scouting is a great idea, and can be a great benefit for the
>youth of this country.  I am saddened that it upholds discriminatory
>practices that are irrelevant to bringing up better youth.
>
>JOhn.


Then, I would say that people should make a new Boy Scouts organization, 
where kids are thaught all those great things, and where, also, there is 
no segregation of any kind.
Just let them have their BSA where people are segregated, and make a new one
where you have the best of them plus the best of you and all the others.
It sounds like it is impossible to breake with BSA. And, to me, it sounds 
like fighting for a corpse.
Let them die and let a new organization be born, and call it something like
Boys and Girls Scouting in America.
Then, everybody will be happy: You can teach, the others can learn, the
tradition still goes on, and all can get toghether.


>-- 
>/-John A Kusters, jr.--------------------------------------------------- ______
>| jkusters@ares.calpoly.edu   b0- f- w g- s-- r p++                      \    /
>Silence keeps us all in darkness, We can't change things overnight;       \  /
>But we can shed a little light, Be Political not Polite! -Romanovsky & Phillips

AAP

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,rec.scouting,alt.athiesm
From: sej5g@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Susan Elizabeth Juroff)
Subject: Re: Levis Drops Boy Scouts...
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:00:38 GMT

Is there no gray area?  Aren't religion and politics tied
together too often to count?

Thisisn't an intended flame or anything...I just thought it
interesting that one could make such a clearly defined
statement about things so wrapped up in each other.

Most way-religious, self-proclaimed so, that I know, are also
very supportive of Bush.
Most socially active lesbians I know are supporting Clinton.

etc.


Susie
--
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Who is Gabrielle LeMemer
Keywords: weird
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:11:43 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <palane.714850649@pv742b.vincent.iastate.edu>, palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:
|> I received a rather interesting message for one Gabrielle B. LeMemer 
|> warning me that the apolocolypse was due Oct. 28. [Darn, I was hoping
|> I'd get to vote for Clinton.] I'm assuming that my name made a list
|> as a result of the BSA debate here.
|> 
|> Is this person for real? If so, everyone can consider themselves warned.
|> See you for armageddon.
|> 

I haven't gotten this notice.  But my husband was talking to his 
parents today.  They're Mormons, and there is now a big rumor
in the church that the second coming will happen on April 19th
of '93.  I told him I'd put "Lunch With Christ" in my book
for that day.

Maybe it's just a full moon?

Later,
George

-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Divulging your HIV status
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:21:33 GMT

In article <1685313073.S927566@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU> S927566@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU writes:
>I am interested in finding out how other licensed healthcare professional
>feel about revealing their HIV status to their patients.

I'm not a healthcare professional but am a potential patient..

>Should you omit this information, and only reveal it if asked? 

As long as you don't do anything that could spread it to the
patient I think its irrelevant and you wouldn't need to reveal it.
Off hand I can't think of any case where it would matter.

>Should you
>answer honestly? 

Yes. Or refuse to answer and explain why its irrelevant.

>Should you be required by law to reveal your status?

No.

>ALthough it may work well to advertise your homosexuality to appeal
>to that group, would one be risking his business by being open about his
>HIV positivity?  

Unfortunitly I think they would. Personally I wouldn't take this into
consideration but I think enough people are ignorant. On the other hand
you might get a good deal of HIV+ patients.

As far as homosexuality, I would much rather deal with a homosexual doctor.
So that I didn't have to potentialy deal with a homophobic doctor. Of
course a straight open minded doctor is find as well.

>Also, if you were a patient, would you want to know his
>HIV status and/or do you think it is your right to know?

No.


-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Divulging your HIV status
From: S927566@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:38:59 GMT
Organization: UM ST. LOUIS

I am interested in finding out how other licensed healthcare professional
feel about revealing their HIV status to their patients.
Should you omit this information, and only reveal it if asked? Should you
answer honestly? Should you be required by law to reveal your status?
ALthough it may work well to advertise your homosexuality to appeal
to that group, would one be risking his business by being open about his
HIV positivity?  Also, if you were a patient, would you want to know his
HIV status and/or do you think it is your right to know?
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality