HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:29:40 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec22.055306.7609@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:


>In article <105448@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

PR:
>>>C. The anus is not designed for sexual intercourse.

>>How so? (Hint, I'm humoring you---this argumment has been
>>trotted out many times by pinheads on alt.sex) Does sexual
>>intercourse have only one purpose?

>Whooosh -- right over your head Brian. That's the whole point. For example,
>it is biologically built into us to fear and be wary of heights. They've
>shown this in babies barely old enough to crawl.

You didn't answer my questions.

>>>Why do YOU want a law that would force, say, a Christian
>>>landlord that believes stronlg that homosexuality is a sin to
>>>rent to a homosexual?

>>I don't. I just don't want said landlord to believe that his
>>irrational prejudices will go unchallenged via constant
>>discourse.

>That's the whole issue. You arrogantly think that YOU *know* what is an
>irrational prejuduice and that others don't.

You haven't shown that your prejudice is rational, nor demonstrated that
my acceptance is irrational.

>>Religion can destroy critical minds.

>>>I don't ask YOU why you are homosexual. I don't ask you why
>>>you are "fucking the wrong sex"

>>Your implications of my hypocrisy would be believable were I
>>actually asking why YOU are heterosexual, etc.

>>You just don't understand. You think your prejudices are not
>>to be questioned.

>What abigot. O.K. Brian, why are you so irrational against having
>hetereosexual sex? Huh, why? We evolved, and indeed can only propagate
>by sexual intercourse of the two sexes? Why do persist in performing
>irrational acts? Why, huh, why?

I've tried heterosexual intercourse, and found it mildly pleasing.

We don't even need to stick one penis into one vagina to reproduce nowadays.

>That's the difference between us -- you want to be the way you are, and
>yet get all upset when some people don't like the way you are and want to
>have coercive laws to "force" their acceptance.

No sir. The difference between us is that I have an open mind, and yours
is less open.

>You state "I just don't want said landlord to believe that his
>irrational prejudices will go unchallenged via constant discourse.".

>That about sums it up -- you want to use force to change men's minds.

Since when is discourse "force"? Gee, silly me, I thought it was persuasion.

Merry Christmas, or merry <fill in atheist holiday>

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:36:13 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <1992Dec23.063048.15348@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>So therefore, you disapprove of seperate but equal facilities (bunk rooms,
>showers and such) for women. They just be racist artifacts.

Why are we so hung up on showering and sleeping quarters? There are,
after all, many other situations that need attention.

Consider a situation that is all to common:

I know someone who was in the Air Force, stationed at the "Blue Cube"
for years. He lived off-base in an apartment. He had a security
clearance. He was highly regarded by his co-workers and superiors as a
competent, dependable, and trustworthy non-comm officer. A very few of
his fellow servicemen knew of his homosexuality, but of course it made
no difference to them, one way or the other since the activities and
duties performed in the "cube" have nothing to do with sex.

Someone outside the Air Force apparently had some beef with this person
and decided to destroy his career. It was not hard to do. One phone
call to an officer at the base in Sunnyvale and the witch hunt began.
The long and the short of it was that this person was discharged
from the Air Force after eighteen years of honorable service. And even
though it was an "honorable discharge", his career was ended before the
twenty-year mark.

Now perhaps someone can explain why the military should be allowed to
keep such practices in place.

>You are so right -- it must be SO humilating for all those women in the
>Armed Force to not be able to shower, shit, and sleep (in the same bunk room)
>with the men. It must be agonizing for them.

You know, the odds are that you (everyone reading this) have shared a
public restroom with a gay person. Did you survive the experience?
Perhaps we can hear some war stories about the ordeal. Can I expect to
see a sign bearing the words, "Straight Men" on the door of the Fry's
men's room in the forseeable future?

I can guarantee you shared a high school locker room with gay people.
Did you survive? Did it "turn you gay"? Did it corrupt your morals? Did
you even know who they were? How did you know?

Men and women are built differently. They look different, even with
clothes on. I had always assumed that this was the rationalization for
separate toilet and dressing facilities, not some worry about mental
processes concerning attraction or lust. Nor had it occurred to me that
the reason for separate facilities was to keep men and women from
uncontrollably screwing each other.

Do men feel uncomfortable if they have to shower, shit, and sleep (in
the same bunk room) with women? Maybe. Who cares? A gay man is not a
woman. He is as much a man as any other, bigoted claptrap
notwithstanding.
-- 
 John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:43:46 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec21.214821.2250@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <105393@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>Tell us WHY you think homosexuality is inherently sad, sick
>>and self-destructive. Reason demands an answer. So far all
>>you've said is that it's your opinion, like hating lima
>>beans. Opinions don't mean much without an argument.
>>...

>A. Guys butt fucking each other is unnatural.

Unnatural? You haven't even defined the term. Anal intercourse---is it
natural in heterosexuals, but unnatural by definition in homosexuals?

>B. We have evolved to sexually couple male/female.

We have the choice of whether or not we want to reproduce.

>C. The anus is not designed for sexual intercourse.

How so? (Hint, I'm humoring you---this argumment has been trotted out
many times by pinheads on alt.sex) Does sexual intercourse have only
one purpose?

>D. Homosexuality in other species, such as rats, is only observed in
>   pathological conditions.

Not true at all. Emphatically not true.

>E. And so on ...

Which means what? Other similarly nebulous ill-defined points of attack?

>There, homosexuality is not rational.

No, your prejudices are irrational. There's a subtle difference that
your prejudices themselves won't let you see yet.

>So what? Everything not permitted by the State is forbidden by the State?

This is irrelevant to the argument.

>Homosexuality is not rational. Not biologically, and perhaps not emotionally.

You are jumping the gun. Population control via homosexuality in a certain
proportion may indeed be sociobiologically beneficial.

And emotions aren't rational to begin with.

>So do "we" now get to "ban" homosexuality because it's not rational?

Again, this red herring is irrelevant.

>Why do YOU want a law that would force, say, a Christian landlord that
>believes stronlg that homosexuality is a sin to rent to a homosexual?

I don't. I just don't want said landlord to believe that his irrational
prejudices will go unchallenged via constant discourse.


Religion can destroy critical minds.

>I don't ask YOU why you are homosexual. I don't ask you why you are "fucking
>the wrong sex"

Your implications of my hypocrisy would be believable were I actually asking
why YOU are heterosexual, etc.

You just don't understand. You think your prejudices are not to be questioned.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 00:10:42 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.


phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) babbles:

>>What follows is an article from the New York Times. Why am I
>>posting it here? I feel that some of the issues pertain to at
>>least some of the threads I have seen in this group (and the
>>other groups that I am posting to). The article is about the
>>calculated destruction of the Bosnian Muslims. The article
>>contains extremely graphic descriptions of brutality,
>>torture, and rape.
>>
>>Rape After Rape After Rape
>>
>>ZAGREB, Croatia. What is happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina
>>to Muslim and Croatian women seems unprecedented in the
>>history of war crimes. Women are raped by Serbian soldiers in
>>an organized and systematic way, as a planned crime to
>>destroy a whole Muslim population, to destroy a society's
>>cultural, traditional and religious integrity.


"I take exception to the hyperbole of "unprecented in the history of
 war crimes"."


You would, Phil, you would.

I posted something on this to UUS-L a week or so ago, after hearing it
on the CBC. ( Or was it QUAKER-L ? )

It seems to me that this is an organized effort to break the spirit of
an entire people, carried out with the assistance and approval of many
highly placed people in positions of responsibility.

According to the CBC's report, there are some 32,000 victims of these
government-organized 'camps', and some 13,000 pregnant women. Those are
13,000 children carrying the genetic markers necessary to identify and
probably convict 13,000 men whom participated in this brutality, and I'd
hope to see them prosecuted and punished accordingly.

I'd hope they fink on their cohorts, too, to save their cojones.

The people CBC spoke to represented the groups as separable into four
subgroups :

	- those women whom wanted to kill themselves ;

	- those women whom were full of anger ( IE, they wanted to kill
	  men ) ;

	- those women whom were incapable of dealing with it and just
	  stared at the wall, catatonic ;

	- and those women to young to be considered 'women' at all.


Go ahead, Phil. Defend it.


-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: More nails - Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 23 Dec 1992 06:35:35 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <13713@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Why are homosexuals such lying stupid scum?
>-- 

More nails in the coffin of your arguments- you are incapable of
logic and intelligent reasoning, it appears that you are incapable
of compassion and understanding as well. That is sad for you.
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:05:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.011656.8158@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
    >I loved the way Ronzone berates me for supporting PC-ness
    >because I pointed out his argument about Democrats helping
    >their own didn't hold water. Note he didn't at any point say
    >"I was incorrect."

Oohhh, Maddi, it takes so little to please you. Now I know why r.h.f. has been
acquiring such a Politically Correct whiff lately (no joke).

I quoted a WSJ article about the difference in how politicians accused
of sexual misconduct had been treated. The article mentioned Sol Wachtler
without mentioning his political affiliation -- as the article was
portraying support by some very liberal Democrats, include Democratic
NY Governor Cuomo, it was a natural assumption om my part to assume that
Wachtler was Democratic. Well, he wasn't.

But like Republican Governor Weicker, his politcs are very very leftish.
Sol Wachtler is (was? :-)) a very liberal support of women's issues and
other popular leftish (and typical Democratic) issues.

So let's make you happy with your trivia -- I was incorrect on the political
affiliation.

However, you have managed to entirely be "silent" on the core issue:

Sexual misconduct by the Politically Correct politicians is treated much
much more lightly than equivalent misconduct by Politically Incorrect
politicians.

Packwood, the boobhead, is initially charge by women with incidents that
were all MORE than 10 years old. And what has he done so far? Well,
a lot of pinching and some fondling. And the screams for his head mount,
most politically motivated.

Now, a very very liberal Republican -in-name judge basically stalks a woman
that ended their affair, threatens her children, and he gets the Governor
of New York telling us we should not consider this conduct but to "look
at his [judical] accomplishments".

And Democrats can commit manslaughter and cowardice (ask Kopechne's ghost),
fuck teenage Congressional pages, or keep homosexual prostitures in their
homes, or try to get the mistresses on the state payroll, and nary a peep.

I mean, WHY hasn't NOW gone after Ted Kennedy? Or Clinton for Flowers?



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: David;'s challenge
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:13:30 GMT

In article <lji7u5INN6li@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
    >What I've seen of your posts recently (mistaking Republicans
    >for Democrats, then trying to redefine the terms to cover the
    >error) leads me to believe that I don't really need to read...

Tsk tsk -- no way Jose. I could have only mistaken a Republican for a Democrat
if I knew (or cared) whcih was which. However, the correct classification
IS PC .vs. non-PC.

Of course, if you want to play the childish Maddi-games, then go to it.

But ask yourself this -- WHY would the third most important Democrat, the
Governor of NY, come to the aid of a Republican accused and fairly
obviously guilty of some pretty sick crimes? Along with what the
WSJ calls the "Eliteb liberal circles in New York"?

And this at a time when other Republicans like Packwood are getting bashed?

Note that Wacthler is well know for his very "correct" views on womens issues
and has had strong Demovratic political support.


Why?



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:27:18 GMT

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >   >

>    >I loved the way Ronzone berates me for supporting PC-ness
>    >because I pointed out his argument about Democrats helping
>    >their own didn't hold water. Note he didn't at any point say
>    >"I was incorrect."
>
>Oohhh, Maddi, it takes so little to please you. Now I know why r.h.f. has been
>acquiring such a Politically Correct whiff lately (no joke).

Care to document that charge of PC-ness in r.h.f., or is this
more Ronzone name-calling?  

>I quoted a WSJ article about the difference in how politicians accused
>of sexual misconduct had been treated. The article mentioned Sol Wachtler
>without mentioning his political affiliation -- as the article was
>portraying support by some very liberal Democrats, include Democratic
>NY Governor Cuomo, it was a natural assumption om my part to assume that
>Wachtler was Democratic. Well, he wasn't.
>
>But like Republican Governor Weicker, his politcs are very very leftish.
>Sol Wachtler is (was? :-)) a very liberal support of women's issues and
>other popular leftish (and typical Democratic) issues.
>
>So let's make you happy with your trivia -- I was incorrect on the political
>affiliation.

It isn't trivia; it was an important part of your point and I
demolished it.  You didn't acknowledge it until I and 3 others
called you on it.  In the 2 years I've followed this group, this
is the *FIRST TIME* you have *EVER* admitted making  mistake.
And you have made a lot of them.  Usually, when you called on
the facts, you change the subject and bring up some controversial
flame-topic in hope no one notices you didn't address the issue
that you'll say anything, no matter how false, to prove your point.

>However, you have managed to entirely be "silent" on the core issue:

I was silent because I didn't really have anything to say about
it, pro or con.  I think Packwood should be thrown out of office,
I think Clarence Thomas should be impeached, and I think Kennedy
should be tried for manslaughter and perjury.  Since I didn't
disagree with most of what you had to say, I saw no need to comment.

You see, I think *all* sexual harassers should be punished.  Not
just the ones whose politics I disagree with.  You only want to
see the Democrats punished.  That's where we differ.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:07:12 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <92357.38599.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
[stuff with which I generally agree.  Give gays an equal opportunity,
which includes the equal opportunity to be prosecuted for harrassment.]

However, you should note that there are other opinions on this that
are self-consistent in a weird sort of way.

If the guys at the TailHook Club thought that their behavior was
within the permissible bounds of male behavior (presumably they did,
else they would not have acted as they did) they might imagine (and
not particularly wish to experience) gay males acting in a similar
fashion.  Note also the comments of Larry Michels (now ex-head of
SCO): "how serious a crime is that [unwanted hugging and kissing]?"
Presumably, the crime is no more (and no less) serious if the unwanted
hugging and kissing is homosexual.

(Note the implicit assumption that men are more likely to be the
sources of unwanted hugging and kissing.)

David Chase
Sun
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: David;'s challenge
Date: 29 Dec 1992 19:48:59 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Tsk tsk -- no way Jose. I could have only mistaken a Republican for a Democrat
>if I knew (or cared) whcih was which. However, the correct classification
>IS PC .vs. non-PC.

Well, if that's the correct classification, you ought to stick to it,
especially since it is your classification.  You SAID "Democrat" --
presumably you misspoke, and meant to say "PC"? 

By the way, isn't it a little weird to be so pedantic about the
dictionary for some words (e.g., "homosexual" or "coercion", two of
your favorites) and then use terms that aren't even found in the
dictionary, let alone defined?  (well, recent dictionaries might
include "PC" for "Personal Computer", but I don't think that's what
you meant.)

Generally Phil, I'd rate this as Classic Ronzonian Jabber.  Sorry, try
again.

David Chase
Sun




Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:41:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.051533.16249@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>On the other hand, the KGB teaches that homosexuals are much more vulnerable
>targets for espionage that hetereosexuals. The KGB teaches that homosexuals
>have much more trouble enaging in emotionally secure relationships, and are
>(hence) much more vulnerable to their handler providing the (apparent)
>secure emotional attachment.

The official policy of the Soviet Union has for years been exceedingly
homophobic.  To take anything the KGB would have to say on this issue
at face value is IMHO, stupid.

This still doesn't answer my original point that maintaining the ban
on gays in the military poses a BIG security risk for the U.S.  What
benefits do we get from this ban which would justify it given that it
poses such a risk ?

Guido

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:16:56 GMT

Typical.  Cramer refuses to acknowledge any information that
disagrees with his ridiculous theories, and Ronzone, as usual,
completely changes the subject.

I loved the way Ronzone berates me for supporting PC-ness
because I pointed out his argument about Democrats helping
their own didn't hold water.  Note he didn't at any point
say "I was incorrect."

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:46:15 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec28.114046.1520@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <44026@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:

>>Men and women are built differently. They look different,
>>even with clothes on. I had always assumed that this was the
>>rationalization for separate toilet and dressing facilities,
>>not some worry about mental processes concerning attraction
>>or lust. Nor had it occurred to me that the reason for
>>separate facilities was to keep men and women from
>>uncontrollably screwing each other.

>1. Women would complain immediately if restrooms in this country would
>   be made into unisex rooms overnight.

Why women, and not men also? Because men would initiate the hanky panky?

Naw....only GAY men do that. Not the angelic straights...

>We have SEPERATE facilities for men and women because both sexes prefer
>to have control over their sexual contexts. Women don't want men in their
>locker rooms, and mostly, men don't want women in theirs (football teams
>and women reporters).

Again, why the subtle difference in how you word your arguments about men 
and women? Why the implication of ALL women, but only "mostly" for men?

Come on, admit it---the reason we have separate bathrooms is so that men
don't sexually harass women.