HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: James.Gorak <James.Gorak@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: 1983 Plymouth Toresno (Milwaukee)
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Distribution: wi
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:12:05 GMT

  
                      +----------------------------------+
                      |            Low Miles             |
                      |                                  |
                      |    Excellent Miles Per Gallon    |
                      |                                  |
                      |        Call Mary 283 2053        |
                      |                                  |
                      +----------------------------------+
 
                 Posted for a friend.  Respond directly to Mary
-- 
James.Gorak@mixcom.com
From: marcuss@microsoft.com (Marcus Stringer)
Subject: Lesbigay Christians
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:37:24 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: pnw
Keywords: Christian

Just in case some missed my last posting.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|////////////////////////////////////

Calling all Seattle/Puget Sound LesBiGay Christians, and their FRIENDS!!!

I'm not a regular reader or mailer to this group.  However, for some
time now, I've been interested in a newsgroup for and about Gay 
Christians and their friends.  I wish to try this on a small scale
first, hence the Sea-Puget Sound specific header = Please do not 
forward yet!

Purpose:

1.  Share information of our stuggles, accomplishments within
    the Chruch.

2.  Increase communication/resources for an organized and stretegic
    voice against the religious far-right movement.

3.  Foster greater visibility, and work within the gay community
    through social, and spiritual networks.

4.  And any other suggestions.

==============================

If you are interested, please email myself, and I will create a 
distribution list of interested parties.  If you are technically 
minded and can help, PLEASE SAY SO in your message.

Thank you,

M
Newsgroups: pnw.motss,alt.support,alt.personals.misc
From: marcuss@microsoft.com (Marcus Stringer)
Subject: Lesbigay Christians
Date: 21 Nov 92 05:11:10 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: pnw
Keywords: LBG/xtian/friends

Calling all Seattle/Puget Sound LesBiGay Christians, and their FRIENDS!!!

I'm not a regular reader or mailer to this group.  A small group 
has formed for Gay Christians and their friends.  We are still on
a small scale, hence the Sea-Puget Sound specific header.  Our mail
distribution  set-up isn't finished.
		****Please do not forward yet!****

Purpose:

1.  Share information of our stuggles, accomplishments within
    the Chruch.

2.  Increase communication/resources for an organized and stretegic
    voice against the religious far-right movement.

3.  Foster greater visibility, and work within the gay community
    through social, and spiritual networks.

4.  And any other suggestions.

==============================

If you are interested in joining, please email myself, and I'll add you to
the list.

Thank you,

Marcus
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: when in doubt, blame the woman
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:21:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: Ikkoku-K.MS-C.722560902.1103527590.mrc
Organization: University of Washington
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0

``Maybe she's the one who gave me AIDS.''  -- AIDS poster boy `Magic'
Johnson, referring to a lawsuit filed against him by a woman who
alleges that he transmitted the AIDS virus to her during unprotected
sexual intercourse.
From: mce5921@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Martin Emde)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: San Juan Island Advice
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:01:55 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Boeing

Can anyone out there in netland recommend a good place to stay
on any of the San Juan Islands (preferably Orcas).  

Thanks,

-Martin

-- 
Martin C Emde  <mce5921@bcstec.boeing.com>  uunet!bcstec!mce5921 
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group - 777 Electrical Systems
Renton, Washington  USA
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:44:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group

In article <1992Nov14.165247.19799@eskimo.com> kurt@eskimo.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.225408.25565@nwnexus.WA.COM> edm@halcyon.com (Ed Morin) writes:
>>sgs@stein.u.washington.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
>[...]
>>I think "tolerance" is a whole different issue.  I don't think tolerance
>>should be taught - that is a personal decision dictated by one's own personal
>>beliefs.  Of course, the law requires a certain amount of "tolerance" for
>>somebody to be left alone - and that should be taught.
>
>Jeez -- what's wrong with tolerance?  Sounds like you think if a parent
>wants to teach their kids *intolerance*, maybe because somewhere in the
>bible it says "yea, tolerance of others not-like-me is harmful", then
>the parent has an absolute right to do so.  IMO this is just child
>abuse.
>

What, Kurt, you've never heard the song in "South Pacific" called
"You've Got To Be Taught":

	You've got to be taught to be afraid
	Of people whose eyes are oddly made
	And people whose skin is a different shade
	You've got to be carefully taught.
	
	You've got to be before it's too late,
	Before you are six or seven or eight,
	To hate all the people you're relatives hate.
	You've got to be carefully taught.
	You've got to be carefully taught.

	etc.



-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:25:35 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1992Nov15.230206.1025@eaglet.rain.com> rick@eaglet.rain.com (Rick Lindsley) writes:
>pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>
>    But this wasn't the point I was addressing, and I think you know it.
>    On that point, you seem to support making certain acts illegal if done
>    to person A, but not if done to person B.  I support making the given
>    acts UNIFORMLY illegal, or not illegal.  Not writing laws to benefit
>    certain people exclusively.  I hope you see the difference, without
>    conjuring up some sort of red herring.
>
>But isn't that the basis of all laws -- certain acts are illegal with

*ALL* laws?  And you follow with:

>person A, and not with person B? It's illegal to sell alcohol to
>someone who is 17, but not someone who is 27. Similarly it might be
>illegal (varies by state!) to have sex with a 17 year old, but not with
>a 27 year old.  Would you advocate a "uniform" alcohol law, or age of
>consent? Either you can or can't sell alcohol, or you can or can't have
>sex.

Laws relating to alcohol are not relating to RIGHTS.  And these are also
describing a condition (being a child) that EVERYONE passes.  Being/not
being a minority such as a black is not something one grows into or out
of.  As to rights, one does not gain full rights of citizenship till
they become 21 (18 in some states).  And this covers all people, not
just a specified group.  Poor analogy you try here.  Try again.

>And for a ridiculous strawman, it's illegal to take somebody's car on a
>joy ride .. unless of course they said you could. All these
>exceptions!!  Can't we agree on a uniform application of the law? :)

Above doesn't even warrent comment.  But then, common sense has never
been a strong point of statists (or socialists)...

>I don't think uniform is what you really want. All laws divide people
>into two classes, the haves and the havenots. All you want is to draw
>the line in a different place than the people arguing with you. In
>other words, your definition of uniform differs with theirs.

Nope again.  *YOU* want lines drawn setting up special classes.
I want them removed.

Big difference. 

Laws (those worth having) provide sanctions for behavior where one person
infringes on the rights of another:  You don't take for yourself someting
someone else has worked to obtain.  You don't force someone to serve
you against their will, and without compensation, etc. 

I want it even ALL ways. Not artifically 'tuned'.  But that is oh-so
incorrect politically and also out of fashion these days, isn't it.
Soooooo un-cool, as well.  That's life ...

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"
From: johnl@pcx.ncd.com (John Light)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Keywords: el-mundo-zurdo(Gloria Anzaldua),immediatism,anarchism,queers, feral-humans,freethinkers,[lL]ibertarians,gays-and-other-sex-radicals, strategy,tactics,intelligence,psy-ops,deception,disruption,memetics, screwing-things-up,aikido,entropy,doxies,o
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:50:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: pcx.1992Nov16.235031.8704
Organization: Graphic Software Systems, Beaverton, OR

In article <1802@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

[arguments deleted about what constitutes a special right]

>>The problem I see is that as more of us are threatened by a deteriorating
>>society, some of us will believe that we are safer if society's resources
>>aren't wasted protecting lesser citizens.  In fact, none of us is any
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>safer that the least protected citizen.
>
>Freudian slip here?  'lesser' than you envision yourself, perhaps?

I constructed that sentence with great care.  The clause in question starts
with the phrase "some of us will believe".  The remainder of the clause is
written from the perspective of the those who believe that way.  I am
certainly not one of the people who believe that way, so you have no
reason to infer that I see "lesser citizens".  My view follows and is
carefully constructed (except for the typo) to say that I only see
"less protected citizens", which certainly includes people you believe
are getting "special rights".

>I don't know for sure, but I would suspect that members of the groups
>being discussed would be less than thrilled that you regard them as
>'lesser citizens'.   It kind of gives credence to the idea that much of
>the advocacy for special protective status arises from feelings of guilt
>arising from ones own prejudices that one is trying to conceal by putting
>it on everyone else.  Getting one to go along with what is really an
>unfair practice by attaching guilt to those who oppose is hardly a new
>tactic.  It would be very unfortunate if it worked as well as some wish
>it would: one could silence all opposition simply by tossing a few
>derrogatories around...

What claptrap.  If you find my writing too hard to read, I can drop to
a lower grade level with some effort.

John Light
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: Special Rights (was: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9)
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:46:47 GMT

miller@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com (Mark Miller) writes:

>I'd like net.reaction to the following hypothetical situation:

>A church has an opening for a youth group leader. One applicant
>says that he is a homosexual. The church's board of elders (or
>other governing body) refuses to employ the applicant on the basis
>of his homosexuality, citing Romans chapter 1 and saying that the 
>applicant's beliefs contradict the church's values.

>In your opinion, has the church acted properly? Should the church be
>forced to hire and/or compensate the individual?

This *may* be a moot point in that since Churches are usually classified
as non-profit, I believe that they fall under different guidelines
concerning employment and are exempt from EO laws.

If I am wrong, I have a question . . . If the church would have to
either hier and/or compensate the above individual (should they not
hire him), would the church (i.e. Catholic churches) also then have
to allow for women to be priests?  I know I'm deviating from the above
hypothetical situation, but I think this argument is in direct correlation
to the above.

allen
From: robd@shotgun.wv.tek.com
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Special Rights (was: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9)
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:06:03 GMT
Reply-To: robd@orca.wv.tek.com
Organization: Network Displays Reliability Engineering

In article <16390002@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com>, miller@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com
(Mark Miller) writes:
> A church has an opening for a youth group leader. One applicant
> says that he is a homosexual. The church's board of elders (or
> other governing body) refuses to employ the applicant on the basis
> of his homosexuality, citing Romans chapter 1 and saying that the 
> applicant's beliefs contradict the church's values.

OK, one opionion.....

Any private organization/group has the right to limit its membership and
structure in any stupid way they see fit, for whatever stupid reasons
they belive in. Hence the word private.

Conversly, a public group or organization(government, schools for example)
do not have the right to limit membership/participation for ANY reason
(excluding criminal/safety issues...) relating to personal belief. Being a 
member of the public in and of itself qualifies one to participate fully
and equally in public structures.

          +====================================================+
          | Robert Dixon, Reliability Engineering Proj. Leader |
          | Tektronix, Inc., Network Displays Division (NWD)   |
          |             phone - (503) 685-2811                 |
          |         email - robd@shotgun.WV.TEK.COM            |
	  |              DoD #0176  AMA #(classified)          |
	  |             "I ride, therefore I am"               |
          +====================================================+
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: rick@eaglet.rain.com (Rick Lindsley)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Organization: Quagmire Annex
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:46:28 GMT

I wrote:

    But isn't that the basis of all laws -- certain acts are illegal
    with person A, and not with person B? It's illegal to sell alcohol
    to someone who is 17, but not someone who is 27. Similarly it might
    be illegal (varies by state!) to have sex with a 17 year old, but
    not with a 27 year old.  Would you advocate a "uniform" alcohol
    law, or age of consent? Either you can or can't sell alcohol, or
    you can or can't have sex.

pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

    Laws relating to alcohol are not relating to RIGHTS.  And these are
    also describing a condition (being a child) that EVERYONE passes.
    Being/not being a minority such as a black is not something one
    grows into or out of.  As to rights, one does not gain full rights
    of citizenship till they become 21 (18 in some states).  And this
    covers all people, not just a specified group.

So, what you are saying then, is that laws which do not apply to rights
may discriminate against some groups, and that conditions which
everyone shares may be used to separate people into groups, right? That
it is ok to have liquor laws because drinking liquor is not a right,
and it is also ok for them to be based on age because age is something
everyone grows out of (and into)?

Also, it might help for you to define "rights" as you see them. Do you
mean "Bill of Rights" or ..?

I just want to make sure I understand before I offer my next
situation.

    *YOU* want lines drawn setting up special classes.  I want them
    removed.

    Big difference.

If that's what you want and that's what I want, I agree. I think,
however, that what we want is actually quite a bit closer together
in form, and just substantially different in substance.

Rick
From: goetz@reed.edu (Norman Goetz)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Special Rights (was: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9)
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:54:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Nov23.225404.10136
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon

In article <16390002@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com> miller@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com (Mark Miller) writes:
>I'd like net.reaction to the following hypothetical situation:
>
>A church has an opening for a youth group leader. One applicant
>says that he is a homosexual. The church's board of elders (or
>other governing body) refuses to employ the applicant on the basis
>of his homosexuality, citing Romans chapter 1 and saying that the 
>applicant's beliefs contradict the church's values.
>
>In your opinion, has the church acted properly? Should the church be
>forced to hire and/or compensate the individual?
>
The church should not be forced to hire this person.  I believe
that the current gay rights measure in Portland contains an
exemption for churches; I'll be really embarrassed if I'm wrong ...

This is true separation of church and state.  Churches should be
allowed _as much as possible_ (human sacrifice, for instance,
would be too much) to practice their own beliefs within their
own church members.  In exchange, churches are prevented
from inserting into constitutions or legislation a mandate which
forces citizens with other beliefs to follow theirs.  This last
is where bogus legislation has recently arisen.  The conservative
churches believe (like all other religions) that theirs is the
only true faith, and so they must force everyone else to follow
it.

As appalled as I am that measure 9 was even on the ballot in
Oregon, I don't think "force feeding" gays into the midst of the
OCA is the smartest way to effect change.  OCA members are too
irrationally terrified to profit from it.  Besides, it's the
constitutional thing to do to exempt churches, and it's
constitutions that need to be preserved, to protect us all.

Another scenario:  A company hires a new executive, who is a
member of a church that believes gays are sub-human.  Over the next
few weeks she realizes through casual office conversation that
two of her subordinates are quietly and honestly gay.  She
summarily fires them, choosing her religion over her legal
responsibility to the company.  The company should in turn fire
her, for breaking the law and opening the company to lawsuit.
The company may not know her beliefs in advance, because they
are prevented from asking and possibly discriminating on the
basis of religion.

Another twist to gay rights laws that this scenario points out
is that members of certain churches will as a class be
incompetent to hold many high-paying executive and public
positions, unless they totally supress important parts of
their religious beliefs in their professional lives.  Measure 9
was also partly a jobs bill for members of the OCA.

-- 
Norman Goetz		Network Technician		Reed College
audio: (503) 771-1112 X 646	Internet: goetz@reed.edu
This has been a test life.  This was only a test.  If this had been an actual
life you would have been given instructions on where to go and what to do.
From: miller@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com (Mark Miller)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Special Rights (was: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9)
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:14:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: b-mrda.16390002
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplanes MR&D

I'd like net.reaction to the following hypothetical situation:

A church has an opening for a youth group leader. One applicant
says that he is a homosexual. The church's board of elders (or
other governing body) refuses to employ the applicant on the basis
of his homosexuality, citing Romans chapter 1 and saying that the 
applicant's beliefs contradict the church's values.

In your opinion, has the church acted properly? Should the church be
forced to hire and/or compensate the individual?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark R. Miller                     | 
Boeing Commercial Airplane Company | 
Seattle, WA                        | 
Internet: miller@b-mrda.boeing.com | 
Voicenet: (206) 237-0960           |  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: The title says it all.
Date: 21 Nov 92 01:00:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov21.010031.15521
Distribution: pnw
Organization: UW Computing

In article <1992Nov20.215124.19938@tvnews.tv.tek.com> bob@tv.tv.tek.com (Bob Wakehouse) writes:
>
I didn't quite follow your point there...
Xref: sparky pnw.general:2787 seattle.general:3693
From: zander@sumax.seattleu.edu (Carol Zander)
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
Subject: Re: Folk concert -- Lee Murdock, Friday, Nov. 20
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:22:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: sumax.5795
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Seattle University

In article <1992Nov15.003617.2873@u.washington.edu> pkemp@byron.u.washington.edu (Paul Kemp) writes:
>In article <5764@sumax.seattleu.edu> zander@sumax.seattleu.edu (Carol Zander) writes:
>>The Seattle Folklore Society presents midwestern folksinger, songwriter,
>>and ragtime and blues guitarist
>>                          Lee Murdock
>>in a house concert on
>>                    Friday, November 20 at 8pm.
>    What's a 'house concert'?  Is it wheel-chair accessable?
>

A house concert is a concert that is in a house ... a great
venue for people that aren't that well-known.  This saves on
the cost of renting, etc and makes an otherwise not possible
concert possible.  It's also a great setting ... intimate.

Is it wheel-chair accessable?  Well, depends on the house.
Some are not unless you count carrying the wheel-chair in
the house as accessable.  These are folk-sy events and I'm
positive carrying a wheel-chair in would be just fine (if
it's okay with the person in the chair).

The house for Lee Murdock does have about 7 stairs to the
front door.
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: bob@tv.tv.tek.com (Bob Wakehouse)
Subject: The title says it all.
Summary: The title says it all.
Originator: bob@spot
Organization: Tektronix, Inc.  Beaverton, Oregon
Distribution: pnw
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:51:24 GMT


Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: rick@eaglet.rain.com (Rick Lindsley)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Organization: Quagmire Annex
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:02:06 GMT

pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

    But this wasn't the point I was addressing, and I think you know it.
    On that point, you seem to support making certain acts illegal if done
    to person A, but not if done to person B.  I support making the given
    acts UNIFORMLY illegal, or not illegal.  Not writing laws to benefit
    certain people exclusively.  I hope you see the difference, without
    conjuring up some sort of red herring.

But isn't that the basis of all laws -- certain acts are illegal with
person A, and not with person B? It's illegal to sell alcohol to
someone who is 17, but not someone who is 27. Similarly it might be
illegal (varies by state!) to have sex with a 17 year old, but not with
a 27 year old.  Would you advocate a "uniform" alcohol law, or age of
consent? Either you can or can't sell alcohol, or you can or can't have
sex.

And for a ridiculous strawman, it's illegal to take somebody's car on a
joy ride .. unless of course they said you could. All these
exceptions!!  Can't we agree on a uniform application of the law? :)

I don't think uniform is what you really want. All laws divide people
into two classes, the haves and the havenots. All you want is to draw
the line in a different place than the people arguing with you. In
other words, your definition of uniform differs with theirs.

Rick
From: lowe@fnx.uucp (Phill Lowe)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: San Juan Island Advice
Date: 20 Nov 92 04:45:31 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: I/Ovations

We had a very nice stay at the Tucker House B&B in Friday Harbour.