HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kc2@doc.ic.ac.uk (K Campbell)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Request for repost of "How to..."
Followup-To: soc.motss
Date: 16 Dec 1992 19:12:54 -0000
Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: finch.doc.ic.ac.uk


In article <1992Dec16.142621.46021@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>,
 dh0a@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DONALD L. HARDY) writes:
|> Could someone post the "How to tell if your son is gay."
|> 
|> I have the lesbian version, but would like the male version.  Thanks!
|> 
|> D.
|> -- 
|> 

I'm intruiged, Donald (so much so that I can no longer spell, it seems).

How DO you tell if your son is a lesbian?


        ################################################################
        ##  Kenny Campbell         ______     If at first you don't   ##
        ##  Imperial College       \    /     succeed, failure might  ##
        ##  London                  \  /      be your style.          ##
        ##  kc2@doc.ic.ac.uk         \/                 Quentin Crisp ##
        ################################################################
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Re: Parking (was Re: Castro Street (Re: Two threads ... ))
Organization: insert anything here
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 15:45:47 GMT

coren@speed.osf.org (Robert Coren) writes:
>rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>> Apparently stop signs,
>> red lights, pedestrians, signaling, etc are all optional (this
>> isn't true in Massachusetts, and every know an d then I have to hear
>> baout someome whining their ass off about how they got
>> a ticket on a bicycle!

>Which is extraordinary, considering how difficult it is in
>Massachusetts to get a ticket for a moving violation while driving a
>car.

	Yeah, all the moving violations I ever got were out of state...
(NM has such flat roads ...)

	I suppose it would pick up if they ever put wheels and a motor
on Dunkin Donuts...   :-)

BBC
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Tom Snyder (Re: More on Roseanne & Cast)
Date: 19 Dec 1992 02:05:16 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1992Dec19.014143.15650@spdcc.com> 
joe@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis) writes:

> I've heard things about Snyder but... that's beside the point.
> "Tomorrow", though now it seems like ordinary public access cable
> ("Hollywood Kids"), actually was quite influential to me in defining
> one of the primary functions of television - to get people to perform
> self-consciously.

Yes, and this self-consciousness was particularly
noticeable on "Tomorrow".  There's Tom, lounging
around in casual clothes, chain-smoking, talking
to his camera operators, floor manager, director.
There are his guests, trying to look just as at
ease as guffawing Tom, but usually not succeeding.

> There are documentary film styles which do that, but
> none so well; you don't have the same feedback systems. People mug and
> go on for TV in ways they just never would for film (outside of "The
> Factory"). Is that interesting? It is when you've got great
> personalities. (who said: one doesn't rehearse for television - it is
> all reherarsal).

Addison DeWitt in "All About Eve" to Miss Caswell after her
disastrous audition.  (Paraphrase: "Next stop is TV." "Do they
have auditions for TV?" "That's all TV is: one long audition.")

> The second functions is the highlighting the random nature of life.
> The discontinuities between episodes of any show, from "Dallas" to "I
> Love Lucy" are perfect; no character development, no morals, no
> antecedent/consequence; and most importantly, no
> thesis/antithesis/synthesis. It all becomes crablike, scuttling from
> scenario to scenario, endless repetition of a few basic forms without
> rhyme or reason. All serialized fiction forms are inferior to
> television.

I have always assumed this repetition of a few basic forms,
these odd discontinuities, were the result of writing by
committee and pandering to the lowest common denominator.

> No ObMOTSS.

Ah, but that's in the eye of the beholder.  There's lots of MOTSS
content here as far as I'm concerned.

Arne

Xref: sparky soc.motss:52974 alt.politics.homosexuality:8150
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 18 Dec 1992 15:58:43 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden) writes:
> Churches are the biggest single contributor to these causes.  They
> organize their people to get signatures, encourage them to vote, use
> their tax-free status in highly dubious manners to get these laws
> passed.

I'll buy that.  Fortunately, there is some movement in that area; 
the sale of religious literature is now taxed.  It's one small 
step, but at least *a* step, with a long way to go. 

walter

Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi
From: ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark)
Subject: Re: The MOW Platform (was Re: NOTICE - Details...)
Organization: UNIX System Laboratories, Summit, NJ
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:02:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.015407.16075@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>And the fact that it is "sending a message" is exactly
>the point. If you haven't noticed, those sheer numbers are going
>to be defined as supporting said platform. If you support it
>(or enough that it's worth the compromise) that's fine. If you
>don't you're either a bloody hypocrite or a moron.


Timeline:

Day of March: Media reports lots of Queers in DC, maybe makes passing
reference to platform, probably shows footage of Queer weddings, drag
queens.  Politicians take note of platform. maybe.

Week after March:  Politicians remember lots of Queers came DC and
wanted them to do some stuff.

6 months after March: There are a lot of Queers, I should be careful
not to piss them off too much.


In the longer term, the platform will make piss all difference EXCEPT
in the coalition building we're doing, it will get forgotten by all
but the loony fundies who will always find something to foam at the
mouth about.  Frankly, I couldn't care less what's in the platform,
unless its something really really awful like saying fundie loons are
people too.  The long term impact of this march is a whole bunch of
Queers in DC, and a few days after the march is over, if not before,
no one but the organizers and the people they did coalition building
with will care.

Ry Schwark
ry@usl.com
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: joe@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis)
Subject: Against_Nature suprising Survey Results
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:46:00 GMT

In a new underground European magazine called /Against_Nature/
published by Spurious-Verlag, Germany, I found an interesting exit
poll conducted by the Lesbigay Internation World-Domination Advocacy
Council with 22,438 people in Denmark and Germany upon exiting voting
for Maastricht ratification.

	73% cited heterosexual contact within the lifetime
	64% cited heterosexual contact within last 5 years
        61% cited heterosexual contact within last 6 months

Heterosexual contact had been defined as vaginal penetration by an
erect male penis, and subsequent ejaculation in the vagina.

	96% of men who had viewed video pornography had viewed an
            erect male penis and were not sexually unaroused
	90% of men who bought or rented video pornography rented
            pornography which depicted erect male penises and in which
            men masturbated themselves at least once
        53% of men had rented or bought one or more times
            pornography which had two men and one woman having bisexual
            sex
        33% of men were interested in pornography where father and son
            had sex with one woman at the same time

--

Surprising, I know, that these polls prove that contrary to the
popular 10% figure, a hefty 27% of respondants (mixed men and women)
were life-long homosexuals, and that the longer one lives, the more
likely it is that one becomes heterosexual. It is most likely that a
person is exclusively homosexual when one considers the most recent
sexual history; Instantaneous /limit case/ poll extrapolations
indicate that most people are homosexual most of the time, granted
that masturbation is in a /tautological pleonastic/ sense, purely
homosexual, an inescapable fact. Heterosexuality can actually be
considered to be an anomaly, and the preponderance of 'heterosexuals'
in the population a popular self-delusional myth. 

--

The popularity of video-pornographic scenarios confirms the studies
conclusions. One wonders whether or not granting special status to
sexual behaviors which have obviously been learned, and after peaking
some time after middle age, gradually become less of a driving force
in social activities.


-- 
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (REAL LIFE?!?!  HA!!)
Subject: Re: Legos
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:51:58 GMT

kenr@cabezon.uucp (Ken Richards) writes:

>So I'm sitting here looking at all the new Lego kits I bought for myself
>and am wondering: A 28 year old Lego Maniac - is this a gay thing or just an 
>engineering geek thing?

Well, I love Legos, but I'm not an engineer.  I'm also not willing to go out
and buy new kits, but I have a huge box of kits from when I was 8 that I pull
out and play with once or twice a year.  I do agree with whoever said it was a
young-at-heart thing, but from the responses I see it sounds like a gay thing 
too.  Hmmmm......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael T. Chaffee        | mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu  |  ______    
                                                       |  \    /   HATE
"I chased a rainbow down a one-way street.  Dead end." |   \  /  is not a
     - S. P. McCall                                    |    \/  FAMILY VALUE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Castro Street (Re: Two threads: women posting and "cures" and its spinoffs)
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:28:59 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <mattm-151292093736@mcmelmon.apple.com> mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>Quite.  Pity, that.  Not, of course, that you didn't carefully 
>avoid the tripe's point:  what is it that men in the Castro could
>do to make women feel less invisible and more valued?  Owen, with
>some prodding for explanations, answered:  nothing.

The trouble with that answer is that it doesn't capture all the ways
in which people feel unwelcome in a place, and it's too facile, given
the complacency and cluelessness of most people in the face of their
own unexamined privilege.

Think of a social club, and a bunch of cigarsmoking male powerbrokers
asking themselves the question: "What can we do to make women/blacks/
Hispanics/etc. feel more welcome here?", and the answer: "Nothing."
Tell me, Matthew, seriously: is this the only answer possible?  It's
certainly a _likely_ answer.  What does this say about the capacity for
self-examination for any group in power?

>What can men do to make women feel less invisible and more valued on 
>soc.motss?  Answer:  nothing.  These are the responsibities of women.

See above.

I was pissed at Tracey's comments because I felt that in that particular
post of hers, she was villifying and dismissing people who deserved neither
and who are generally people of good will.  I wasn't pissed at her because
her points in general were off base.  Women have to take their rightful place
on motss, but _only if they want to_, and there's a long history here of
women peeking in, hanging around for a bit and deciding that it's not worth
their effort.   This bothers some men (a lot more than it does some women)
who ask: "What can we do to make women feel more welcome here?"  I think it's
good that the question gets asked in the first place, even if the answer
isn't always particularly clear.

>If men start talking about "women's issues" - everything's
>fine until the male expresses an opinion counter to the 
>prevailing female mindset.  Whereupon we are back to "misogynistic
>pig" crap that seems to flow so easily from certain quarters.

No, Matthew, please don't describe yourself as "the male", or the
inevitable reaction to your brand of tripe as representing "the
prevailing female mindset".  Just because you're clueless, vulgar,
and revel in the reactions you produce, doesn't make you any less
a misogynistic pig.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Common Sense (was Re: A reply to Mr. Pierce)
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 13:06:46 GMT


In article <1992Dec16.173128.7836@wolves.Durham.NC.US>
wolfe@wolves.Durham.NC.US (G.  Wolfe Woodbury) writes:

>I am reacting to the (which appears to me as) mindless and
>automatic reactions of some forks to the casual appearance
>of "bitch" in a posting.  The use of that word *is*
>(admittedly) misogynist, but no more or less so than lots of
>other words used in all sorts of places.

You could rethink this, to everyone's benefit, especially
yours.  If you admit it's misogynist, it can hardly be an
excuse to indulge in that kind of talk just because other
misogynist usages are common.

You've more or less excused yourself from having to give any
credence to the annoyance most women and many men feel when
you use that term.  That would be a fine example of male
privilege and insensitivity in action.

Substantively, the rest of the excuse you provide is _a
posteriori_ self-justification for action you yourself admit
is reprehensible.  This adds up to not using common sense.

>My sensitivity in these cases 

(or willful absence of it, in the given case)

>is that I seem to be seeing objections to the use of
>language that is motivated by the "facist" protectors of
>"political correctness" simply because what is being talked
>about is something that is disagreed with.

This whole line is getting rather tired, in my opinion.  It
seems to me that more and more people are justifying their
actions in terms of the perceived failings of others when
called to account for socially regressive behaviors.  The
person who calls us out can be a complete ninnyhammer and
still be right in the given instance.

If the criticism you get is inconsistent logically (rather
than inconsistent with what you take to be the habits of the
person criticizing you), you can object on those grounds;
otherwise, you're accountable, no matter what else.

It's avoiding that accountability for one's actions that
underlies what you say above about people who use the word
"bitch."

>I see similar uses of words and phrases in posts by others
>passed over with absolutely NO comments about the
>inappropriate language, but that is in threads where the
>PoPC (protectors of political correctness) are engaging each
>other in full caballistic amity.

Bogosity to the max, of course.

>(I doesn't help that I've been getting around to reading
>motss at 1 and 2 am in the mornings!)

Show a little respect, then, and don't post when you're
thus impaired.

-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Subject: Re: NOTICE - Details of the March on Washington
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:57:46 GMT

In <1992Dec11.153134.11417@rtsg.mot.com> yorton@turtle11.rtsg.mot.com
(James J. Yorton) writes:

>[misgivings about the March on Washington (MOW) because its charter
>is too broad and hence much less likely to succeed, and perhaps even
>backfire]

If you are not comfortable with the march then I suggest that (i) you do
not go, and (ii) you do not complain about it being misguided etc.

(ii) is quite important since it seems to me that most infighting among
activists is caused by arguing that "my activist tactics are better
than yours; in fact, your tactics cause more harm than good so you
should stop using them and use mine instead." I have yet to see
*anything* good come about from such arguments. It just seems to lead
to burnout and/or feelings of betrayal. Surely it is much better to
just say "I'm not comfortable with the tactics which you are using so
I'll do my own thing. I wish you luck in your efforts and you can wish
me luck in mine." Let the folk who want to march on Washington do their
march even if you think they are misguided, and you can concentrate on
your own projects---projects which, no doubt, some folk will think are
a waste of time.

On the other hand, you could offer *constructive* criticism. For
example, you could point out what you think are the weak points of the
march's charter and try to guess how the "moral majority" will twist
the facts; and you might be able to offer short, sharp
counter-arguments to whatever the opposition is likely to throw at us.
(A posting by Tom Linconcelli (sp?) has taken this approach.)


Ciaran.
-- 
---- Ciaran McHale (cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie)
\bi/ Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
 \/  Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-6772204
From: jefu@nmt.edu (Jeff Putnam)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: soc.motss.*
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:29:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: nmt.1992Dec18.142958.13448
Organization: The Museum of Differential Geometry

In article <17606@umd5.umd.edu> jns@elea.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer) writes:

>I am feeling rather reactionary about the idea of splitting
>soc.motss. ...

While a split may be a problem I think that the volume is sufficient
that it is probably both inevitable and a Good Idea.  

>The only one I've heard so far that I *really* like is
>that of Michael Pettersen (msp@phsyique.ens.fr) who
>suggested that we create

>> soc.motss.a 
>> soc.motss.b 
>> soc.motss.c 
>> soc.motss.d

... and he eventually proposes :

>soc.motss.red 
>soc.motss.orange 
>soc.motss.green 
>soc.motss.blue

I like this proposal.  Strange it may be, but It looks at least like
an interesting experiment and is probably well worth trying.  
Together with a "soc.motss.info" that is, to hold the GLAAD and
other announcements.  

It might well not work, but its worth a try.   It would be nice
though if there were ways to inhibit cross posting.  I'd like to
see a rule (perhaps enforced by software) that newsgroups that are
_too_close_ in content should not allow  cross posting.  I stopped
(some years ago) reading the sf-lovers group in large part because
of the star trek cross posts.  Similarly here, if this split is
to accomplish anything, cross posts between the groups need to
be severely limited, or cross posting is likely to become the default.

On another topic, I'm opposed to renaming it from "motss".  Partly
inertia, partly because I think that "motss" is nicely inclusive,
partly because I just think that "motss" is a cute word.

-- 
jefu <=> Jeff Putnam - New Mexico Tech <=> jefu@nmt.edu 
"Daffodils go Ping! and Oink! // They Really are alarming 
I'm scared of big geraniums // And I'm sure that Lilac's harming"
(Dr. Bertram X. Fegg)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: gerkman@binky.csc.wsu.edu (Joseph M. Gerkman)
Subject: Re: Aladdin
Reply-To: gerkman@binky.csc.wsu.edu (Joseph M. Gerkman)
Organization: Washington State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 06:33:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.044810.1660@leland.Stanford.EDU>  
prufrock@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scot N Gibson) writes:
> In article <1992Dec14.235201.5875@dvorak.amd.com> tdbear@dvorak.amd.com  
(Thomas D. Barrett) writes:
> >>
> >>"I am getting pretty fond of you, kid.... *Not* that I am ready to 
> >>pick-out curtains or anything, you know" 
> >>                  -the Blue Genie to Aladdin
> >
> >I definitely caught this one the first time AND the second time.  It
> >wasn't IMHO anything worse than Men on Films type humor... it was 
> >a little stereotypical, but was not otherwise attacking.  I wouldn't
> >think that it would be negative to a g/l youth.
> >
> 
> Yes.  I agree.
> 
Just to add in my 2 cents...same here...

> >As a side point... I hate to admit it, but I am absolutely in love
> >with Aladdin... can't decide if it is the singer or the voice-over
> >guy or even the animation guy... 
> >
> >Tom
> >
> 
> Oh honey, me too.  I've seen it twice, and I'm ready to go back.  For
> some reason, he's quite the cartoon hunk.  It's funny: one of my good
> straight friends who I've strongly suspected of having "those"
> tendencies has seen the movie three times already, and is obviously
> infatuated with Aladdin.  He has pictures up and everything.  I just
> sit back and :).
> 
As for Aladdin, what a hunk!  I was standing in line at the grocery store  
and peered into People this month...they had a picture of the kid who was  
the voice behind Aladdin...and he's rather cute, and he does resemble  
Aladdin quite a bit...although, during my morning exercises I saw the  
weather guy from Today(?) interview Tom Cruise and he mentioned that  
Aladdin was modeled a bit after Tom at least according to the animator.   
But for me...I'm gonna go on believing it's this cute kid from People...

I can't wait to go see this movie again!  I and my SO thoroughly enjoyed  
it the first time, although we had to act 'normal' because I was also with  
my cousin's kid.  Darn, I hate it when that happens...

> --scoT 
> 
> 
> -- 
>  ______  | Scot N. Gibson  | "At times, indeed, almost ridiculous-- |
>  \    /  | Stanford Univ.  |  Almost, at times, the Fool."          |
>   \  /   +-----------------+-------------+             - T.S. Eliot |
>    \/    | prufrock@leland.stanford.edu  |--------------------------+

Joe Gerkman
gerkman@binky.csc.wsu.edu
From: markm@ogicse.cse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Phobe Alert: OCA - Round II
Date: 16 Dec 92 01:28:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.47331
Distribution: world
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR

Scott Lively of the Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA) has announced that
a new anti-gay ballot measure has been reviewed by the OCA legal council
and is ready for the initiative process.  The OCA did not announce when
the intend to file the measure, but it could be as early as January.
Lively went on to say that the measure would closely resemble CO:2.

What's that phrase?  Oh yeah, "peace on earth, good will towards all."

--mark
--
Mark Morrissey           One Hatred to rule them all.  One Hatred to find them.
markm@cse.ogi.edu        One Hatred to bring them all and in the darkness bind
                         them.  In the land of Bigotry where the Shadows lie.
From: lawson@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Alan Jackson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Homosexuals
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:33:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: samba.1992Dec11.193325.24347
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <thaaang.724051084@cwis> thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes:
>rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
>
>>> czmt@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Season Marie Taylor) writes:
>
>>>  ...(btw...did she tell you she has a date on sunday?  some guy with a
>>>motorcycle in her gymnastics class...
>
Wow!  I met him today....very attractive.  Why do all the cute ones have
to pretend to be straight? 


Huh? ----->AJ
Newsgroups: soc.motss