HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Unlikely things found in my mailbox
Organization: TFS
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:00:56 GMT

h431@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Hmm, my problem with Chomsky is his idea that if you give The People The Facts,
>(e.g. get articles about East Timor in the newspaper), The People with react
>with the proper emotion (i.e. Outrage), and replace the USA's evil foreign
>policy with one that respects human rights all over the world.
>
>While it does help to have a press that really tells you what's going on in
>the world, I doubt that in every case The People are going to react the way
>Chomsky wants.  The People grumbled loudly enough to keep USA troops out of
>Nicaragua, but not enough to stop a covert war.

The American people are at least in the "group-mind" sense complicit with
the Media's making sure we don't have it pictured to us what we are doing
there (you name where) in the way the local population experiences it.
The American people, whoever they are, are going to have reaction to
acknowledging American Guilt so it is easier Not To Know.

I'll give Chomsky this (and so I think do you:) tell the whole truth.
I've said, tell them the truth that we are manipulating people and nations,
put it to a vote, and see what happens. If the majority says, yeah, sure,
bomb them anyway, fine. But we've been fed a big stream of how noble
America is - the media-consuming public has to experience cognitive
dissonance to believe in democracy, then turn around and violate rights
of citizens, if they do it openly that way. Dead Babies at our hands is
a bit strong if you know you voted for it explicitly.
From: Drakon@cup.portal.com (HARRY BENJAMIN GIBSON)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Bi way of...
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 15:50:13 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

Everyone keeps recommending this book to me called "Bi Any Other Name" (you
know who you are:) and I finally decided to get up off my fat butt and find 
it. The first place I looked was the local B Dalton's and Waldenbooks. Hey
it was worth a shot. Right?

So we checked a few more stores, (my wife and I) and nothing. Then Alice says
that she seems to remember a bookstore called Sister something a couple of
months ago. So I sez "We need a phone booth"

And lo there was one just to the side of the road. I looked up and down this
stretch of road and never noticed this particular phone booth or seen any 
others. And what is even more amazing is that it had a Yellow Pages that were
not all ripped up!

Found the address for Sisterspirit in San Jose and took off for it. We were
able to go right to it through the maze of San Jose and didn't make one wrong
turn. (To those who have driven with me, this qualifies as a miracle of modest
proportions) We get to the store only to see a big "Closed" sign. But the
lights were on so we tried the door. It seemed the clerk had come in early and
forgot to change the sign.

They had one copy left and I had just enough money in my wallet to take care
of it. The whole episode was one weird coincidence after another.

Anyway, I sitting here reading it, keeping my eye on the closet in case Rod
Serling pops out.

Ben Gibson
Twilight Zone, CA

(or should that be "BiLight Zone")
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver)
Subject: Re: == No Subject ==
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 17:26:25 GMT

rhiann@shelley.u.washington.edu (Sandy  Hereld) writes:
> pclary@radish.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary) writes:
>
>>I do wonder if anyone has ever come up with a good 'pledge' to the
>>gay rainbow flag?
>>
>>A somewhat anachistically inclined,
>>Ellen
>>
>Funny you should ask.  My girlfriend, Rachel has written one, (It's not
>in front of me either) and is putting it on rainbow tie-dyed t-shirts.
>I'll try to remember to get the text from her.

& here is the Bongo pledge which Ellen mentioned earlier..

"I plead alignment to the flakes of the untitled snakes of a merry cow & to
 the Republicans for which they scam - one nacho, underpants with licorice
 & jugs of wine for owls". I believe Groening has written another, but it's
 not in the _Big Book of Hell_.

Tanaqui

Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Subject: Re: Language is a virus (was: Various)
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:45:09 GMT

In <1992Sep10.235045.15144@leland.Stanford.EDU>
hardie@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ted Hardie) writes:
>I'm pleased to see that the movers and shakers of the recent spite-fest
>here on soc.bi have given up the fight; it wasn't helping anything

Gee, Ted, why do you suppose I'm gonna react to the above by telling
you to fuck off?

	Fuck off.

Email me (or post; whichever you prefer) if you can't figure it out.


#flame off

>I would like to point out to all concerned, though, a facet of the
>argument that seemed to add much to the misunderstanding: the descriptions
>of [a sex-sex group with an added individual rather than as a mixed-sex
>group]

That's an interesting observation, but I'm not sure it is applicable to
the "whatever..." thread. The flames didn't spring out of an ernest
discussion/argument, but rather out of Eric misinterpreting Ellen's
witty one-liner as ernest discussion.


Ciaran.
-- 
Ciaran McHale                                                             ----
Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.       \bi/
Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-772204 email: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie \/
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Appreciate Me Now and Avoid the Rush!
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:51:27 GMT
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

In article <25494@castle.ed.ac.uk> sara@castle.ed.ac.uk (Swamp Thing) writes:
:gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
:
:>Say, can anyone play this game?  I'm getting really homesick for
:>chocolate-walnut fudge from the place on the Royal Mile :-)
:
:OK, everybody send me lots of money and I'll send you chocolate and/or
:fudge.  No need to send an address for the confectionery to be sent to
:as I'm psychic.
:
:Sara

Ah, but will you deliver it by hand too? :-)

(Let me see now... that'll be $10 for the fudge and $30 for the rail ticket,
right?...)

*slurp*  (that was aimed at the fudge of course)

G
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: whatever . . .
Followup-To: soc.bi
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:46:18 GMT

In article <iw.716170611@tosser> iw@tosser.Rational.COM (Sults) writes:
>And of course, sweetie, you are quite right.  All women do when we
>are in bed together is hold hands and stare lovingly into each others
>eyes, though occasionally, we might get around to a little bit of 
>stroking and ever so gentle caressing.  Of course being the gentler
>sex we never wrestle with each other or pin each other down.
>We never fuck each other till our brains spill on the floor, with fists,
>dildos, even bigger dildos or what ever else comes to hand.  

And men are never romantic or sentimental; we never want to just be
held or cuddled; *real* men are strong and brash and perform
on demand.  Men's sex is always brief, violent, and impersonal.

;)
-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: (re) Introduction
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:02:01 GMT
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

In article <1992Sep3.201309.20595@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> crabtree@drivem.enet.dec.com (Alyson Crabtree) writes:
>	I don't know if any of y'all remember me.  I used to lurk 
>	around here as adc3h@virginia.edu, but many moons ago I had 
>	to put on my Usenet blinders in hopes of actually FINISHING
>	grad school.

I'm rather embarrassed to admit that the reason I remember you is because 
I was once totally infatuated with a gorgeous redhead called Sue Crabtree.
I remember her specifically as the first person I came out to as bi back
in about '77 or '78.  It went down so badly I crawled back under a rock
for several more years till I grew up.  I had almost forgotten about that
till you turned up.

Ahem.  *Hugs*

G
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: hardie@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ted Hardie)
Subject: Language is a virus (was:  Various)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:50:45 GMT

I'm pleased to see that the movers and shakers of the recent spite-fest
here on soc.bi have given up the fight; it wasn't helping anything and
the acrimony level combined too wierdly with the constant flow of
e-hugs (they didn't cancel each other out, for me--just made reading
soc.bi an odd, Lynchian experience).

I would like to point out to all concerned, though, a facet of the
argument that seemed to add much to the misunderstanding: the descriptions
of "a single man in a group of women" and "a single woman in a group
of men".  The words changed several times, and the ones I've chosen aren't
necessarily the originals--they're the extremes.  While everyone else
got concerned over what happened in these situations, I found the basic
wording niggling at me.  Objectively viewed from a space alien's perspective
both situations would seem to be "mixed groups of men and women", with a
difference in proportion.  Yet everyone seemed to accept the notion that
in such a situation it was a "group of women" or a "group of men", with
an added individual.

This may be based on the writers' experiences of such things, but it
takes away much of the effect of the properly-used "me" language that
different writers employed, because it presumes that the composition of
the group appeared the same to all concerned.  It pre-defines someone as
an outsider because of their gender rather than analytically demonstrating it.

I wonder, in fact, to what degree this linguistic/conceptual habit is
responsible for the behaviors being described.  I think if I
understood a group to be defined by one subset of its members, I might
be tempted to ignore the members who were "peripheral" (given my own
proclivities, I might also be tempted to concentrate on the
peripheral.  I can't really say, because I don't recognize any
situations in which I think that way [there may, of course, be some
that I don't recognize]).  If there is a reason for making that
definition, then I suppose you only need warn the peripheral person of
what status awaits; if there is no prior reason to define things in
gender terms, avoiding it might produce quite different results.

Your homework for tonight, class....

(Sorry.  Accidentally hit teacher mode.  Back to your regularly scheduled
activities.)


Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: A nagging question
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:35:08 GMT

In article <michael.langthorne.1-150992124745@langthorne.edmedia.nd.edu> michael.langthorne.1@nd.edu () writes:
>so John, what if people are just sexual?  let me re-phrase that; what if,
>at the age hormones start guiding the mind and body, people simply become
>sexual?  Labels and questions and kicking oneself would lose a lot of
>value!

I don't understand the question.  Isn't that what happens?
--scott
From: pflynn@ccvax.ucd.ie (Peter Flynn, Official Muffin-sampler)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Disturbed
Date: 9 Sep 92 01:54:40 GMT
Organization: University College Dublin

In article <iw.715973411@tosser>, iw@tosser.Rational.COM (Sults) writes:
> tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver) writes:
> 
>>Tanaqui, Member of the Mile High Club, too |-)
> 
> An innocent question - what exactly counts as membership to the Mile 
> High Club.
> 

Join me at the airport and I'll show you :-)

///Peter, feeling blatant tonight :-)
From: sara@castle.ed.ac.uk (Swamp Thing)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Appreciate Me Now and Avoid the Rush!
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:56:41 GMT
Organization: News Addicts

scotth@hoshi.corp.sgi.com (Scott Henry) writes:

>You call three day expiration falling "way behind?" We've got 24 day
>expiration for normal groups (like soc.bi), which is how I've managed
>to get 834 articles behind today...

Er, but that's the whole point!  If I don't read at least once every
three days then I miss things altogether.  I mean, three days is
*nothing*.

>I'm sorry you and Chris weren't able to find the time to stop in and
>visit me when you were up in this neck of the world, though.

Alas, that was how the cookie crumbled.  Next time ...

Sara
-- 
 >{8-)     Sara Hopkins     (-8}<              _____^__
 Geography Dept.  Edinburgh Uni.  Drummond St. \ OOO/ / The Thing
 Edinburgh,  EH8  9XP,  UK. +44 (0/31) 650 2662 \++/ /   From
 >{8-) sara@geovax.ed.ac.uk (-8}<   ** nice **   \/\/ The Swamp
From: sara@castle.ed.ac.uk (Swamp Thing)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Bi pamphlet - enough already! 8->
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:04:40 GMT
Organization: News Addicts

gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:


>If only I had a clone.  Hmmmm.

I am a clone, I am not alone, every fibre of my flesh and bone
Is identical to the others, everything I say is in the same tone
As my test tube brothers' voice, there is no choice between us,
If you had ever seen us, you'd rejoice in your uniqueness
And consider every weakness something special of your own
Being a clone there is no thing to identify, 
Even this doggerel that pours from my pen has just been written by
Another twenty telepathic men, ah word for word
Oh for the wings of any bird other than a battery hen

That's the spirit of the age ...

Sara (OK I nicked it off Hawkwind)
-- 
 >{8-)     Sara Hopkins     (-8}<              _____^__
 Geography Dept.  Edinburgh Uni.  Drummond St. \ OOO/ / The Thing
 Edinburgh,  EH8  9XP,  UK. +44 (0/31) 650 2662 \++/ /   From
 >{8-) sara@geovax.ed.ac.uk (-8}<   ** nice **   \/\/ The Swamp
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Subject: Re: whatever . . .
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:48:04 GMT

In <9225811.19213@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> nsn@ee.mu.OZ.AU (Nick Nicholas) writes:
>But I also, like Moz, was irritated at seeing Ciaran in holier than
>thou mode.

I tend to post in one of several modes. Sometimes I engage in honest,
serious discussion, other times I post humour. When I am really pissed
at someone I tend to either adopt a blunt, "fuck off" approach (as
directed at Ted recently) or a smug self-righteous stance (as evidenced
in a lot of my responses to Eric.)

While I am sure that my self-righteous, pool-cue-up-the-butt (-;-)
stance will annoy some people, I find it quite an effective tool to
help me articulate my anger in a (usually) constructive manner. It
usually results in shorter flame wars than a "fuck off" approach.

Which approach I choose depends on the exact context and also the mood
that I am in.


>And something else. For the past... oh, ages, I've been lurking here, 
>venerating you lot. Well, I will no longer. It's not fair to you, and it's
>not fair to me. You lot aren't horny gods with semiannual epiphanies in
>hottubs in Britain. You're human. You are not my betters, you are not
>my superiors. In fact, you're as fallible as monosexuals (even if friskier :)
>And it's an act of self-definition when I stand apart from you lot, and say: 
>"This is *my* pain, and I don't care if telling you about it lowers my image 
>in your eyes. I can live without your respect, because my business now is 
>to earn *self*-respect."

Bravo! That's one of the best things I've read on soc.bi in ages.
Congratulations on figuring out it out and having the guts to say it.

>Yours both sheepishly and defiantly,

I hope the sheepishly bit wears off soon.
BTW, did I ever tell you that you're sexy when you are angry?


Ciaran.
-- 
Ciaran McHale                                                             ----
Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.       \bi/
Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-772204 email: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie \/
From: h431@quads.uchicago.edu (heather e blair)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: This thread is disturbing to me (Re: whatever )
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:56:47 GMT
Reply-To: h431@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Sep12.130702.7069@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:

I'm finding this thread very disturbing.  The tone of the messages from
ecsd seems to be "no woman has a right to reject the sexual overtures of
a man".  I say "tone" because the arguments are hard for me to dig out
of the prose, so I will restrict myself to commenting on the "subtext"
rather than the "text".

>
>It's my big theme now (due to events in my local e-mail) to pull women
>up and say, if you don't like how men have treated you, it's more than a
>bit cynical to use "their" tactics on them, then deny you are other than
>holy.
>
>All I see men doing is trying to reconcile. Their largest "crime" seems
>to be waving their cocks out the window saying "wanna share??" - it may
>be crude, but it hasn't the intention to hurt. 

If I take this statement at face-value, it's extremely disturbing.  You're
describing rather nasty sexual harassment.  Literally this happened to
a friend of mine.  A man masturbated at her while she was driving down the
highway, everywhere she turned to get away, he followed her in his car.
Nope, no license plate.

>Women say "crude assholes
>suck off!" and that DOES have the intention to hurt - 

What would you say to a sexually threatening person?  You have to be
ferocious or you could end up raped.

>and the reply is
>the response is "justified", further there seems to be no notion that
>the women making this response have any responsibility to see the irony
>of it.

Do you mean that it's "ironic" that we have to use violence to repell
violence?  I don't think so; the "tone" again seems to be that women
must always be nice, even when they believe themselves to be in danger.
And the above kind of gesture is certainly threatening enough that if it
happened to me, I'd consider myself in danger, and gear up for flight or
fight.

>
>I have yet to see (not that that proves anything) men abusing women in
>this or similar ways in the net, but be assured I would attack them just
>as viciously as I already had done here. I'm attacking the ATTACKER.

Now this statement makes me wonder how the "waving the cock out the
window" example was meant to be taken in some special metaphorical sense.
But what that sense is, is totally obscure.  "I'm attacking the ATTACKER"
again sounds like "women must always be nice, never turn down requests for
sex, and if they do, I'll verbally blast them."
>
>-ec "mr. high-minded moral virtue" sd

What's extra disturbing is I have sometimes felt almost as angry about
being rejected by women.  The cure is to step back and tell myself
that there will be people who like me in that way, and people who don't.

It is ALWAYS ok to say no to somebody.  And you don't have to have a 
reason.
-- 

- Heather Blair       h431@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: hardie@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ted Hardie)
Subject: Re: Language is a virus (was: Various)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 18:27:08 GMT

I write:
>>I would like to point out to all concerned, though, a facet of the
>>argument that seemed to add much to the misunderstanding: the descriptions
>>of [a sex-sex group with an added individual rather than as a mixed-sex
>>group]
In article <1992Sep11.114509.11140@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>
>That's an interesting observation, but I'm not sure it is applicable to
>the "whatever..." thread. The flames didn't spring out of an ernest
>discussion/argument, but rather out of Eric misinterpreting Ellen's
>witty one-liner as ernest discussion.
>
>
>Ciaran.
>-- 
>Ciaran McHale                                                             ----
>Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.       \bi/
>Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-772204 email: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie \/

How you use language has an effect whether you perceive the discussion
to be "serious" or not.  If you discount the harm done by "thoughtless",
habitual remarks, you are seriously missing the point.  I am trying
to point out that this statement pre-defines something in an exclusionary
way, which has consequences.  As I said before, if you want the consequences,
or if you had a reason for the definition, then fine--warn those affected
and go about your business; if you don't, you may wish to think about altering
the pattern of thought/language.

For those wondering about my reaction to the rest of Ciaran's post, I
dealt with it in e-mail.  And I would like to point out that if the
original post, which Ciaran seems to excuse as a flirt which it was not
our business to interpret, had been done in e-mail, then none of this
overflow of bile need have bothered any of us.

Please listen to Handel's "The Water Music" before flaming me, as I
will listen to it before replying, and we should start even.

					Ted


Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: whatever . . .
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:04:37 GMT



Gosh, a lot of you are truly hyped up on this whole issue.  Ellen made a comment
about her experiences with a group of women and one man.  I agreed with her that
I had seen this happen too and gave *my* views on what *I've* noticed.  I wasn't
trying to infer that this is necessarily what always happens, just what I have
seen and my interpretation of it.  I was not trying to infer the women are the
gentler/softer sex.  And I was not trying to infer that women always have softer
& gentler sex.  What I was trying to get across is that in all case *I've* seen
where there is a group of women and one man, that man gets ignored because he
tends to be more physical and sexually abrasive/rough.  Maybe part of the reason
this has happened is because the man involved has usually been het... or maybe
it's because sometimes it's the women's first time together.  I didn't think that
this idea would be so hard for those in soc.bi to comprehend... and I certainly
didn't think it would be so misinterpreted.

e-mail me if you have comments, so we can kill this thread.


    __o     Brad Booth              | "I want you
  _`\<,_    Bell-Northern Research  |  to know me only as
 (*)/ (*)   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  what I believe I am."
----------  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |     ... 54-40
Newsgroups: soc.bi