HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: A Strand of Bigotry
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:50:24 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <13298@optilink.COM>, walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
> 
>> And you have not responded to the point that there are no absolute
>> rights, and there are conflicts between your right to choose who you
>> rent to, and the minorities right to be able to rent a house.
> 
> There are no conflicts here.  But those who want to rent
> should not have the government on their side forcing
> someone to rent to them.  That is a conflict.

Ah, but there are.  The conflict is between two rather basic, fundamental
human rights--the right to Freedom of Association vs. the right to Equal
Opportunity/Access.  Unfortunately, neither of these rights is spelled out
in detail in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
Both, however, can be derived from language in both of the documents.  The
real crux of the argument here is which of these rights should be paramount
for any given situation.

What many people claim is that the right to equal opportunity/access in such
fundamental human endeavors as jobs, housing, and such outweighs the right
to freedom of association.  What others claim is that the right to not be
forced to associate with people you don't want to associate with outweighs
their right to equal opportunity/access.

So which should be paramount?  Damned if I know.  I do know, however, that
this debate up to now has been singularly unproductive because neither side
is willing to budge.  I've posted before on this and, at the same time,
suggested some compromises that could foster useful debate.  I got some
responses from the people who favor equal opportunity, but got dead silence
from those who favor freedom of association.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew        |  Clayton Cramer:  "[Brian Kane] and Paul Bartholomew
                        |  are among the best examples of how screwed-up and
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov |  emotionally disturbed homosexuals are."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 23 Nov 92 12:00:30 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <13314@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
> I completely agree.  I am completely willing to tolerate homosexuals.
> They, for some reason, are unwilling to tolerate people who 
> disapprove of homosexuality.  Hence, their constant yammering for
> the passage of antidiscrimination laws.

And the fact that they are constantly discriminated against (as were, and
perhaps are, blacks, women, Jews, and other protected minorities) obviously
has nothing to do with their "constant yammering" for the passage of
anti-discrimination laws.  I'm rather curious, by the way, about the leap
of logic from "antidiscrimination laws" to "unwilling to tolerate people
who disapprove of homosexuality".  Care to explain this?

> But they aren't content with that -- they have to have laws to
> shut up people that don't approve.  They want us all shut up, and
> forced to pretend approval.

Strange, but when I read the texts of AB101 or AB2601, I don't find anything
in those laws that would force you to shut up and pretend approval.  However,
I am fairly certain that a large majority of the people who read this news-
group, both straight and gay, would be very happy if you would shut up (the
pretending of approval is optional).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew        |  Clayton Cramer:  "[Brian Kane] and Paul Bartholomew
                        |  are among the best examples of how screwed-up and
                        |  emotionally disturbed homosexuals are."
                        |  Of course, Brian's bi and I'm straight, but when have
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov |  facts every stopped Mr. Cramer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: A Strand of Bigotry
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:09:19 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <9211191903.AA05634@lynx.corp.frame.com>, by jrd@frame.com (James Drew):
> Clayton Cramer (cramer@optilink.UUCP) points out:
>> Somebody excised from the previous posting says:

>># THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRACTICE BIGOTRY. 

>>So why is there a right to practice sodomy?

> Bigotry is a non-consensual activity, one person imposing their beliefs on
> another without permission.

> Sodomy (be it just anal sex, or oral as well) is a consensual act.  If it is
> non-consensual, then it is rape.

It sounds like you have a bit of confusion of what bigotry
is.  It is a preference, and nothing else.  For example,
if I am a member of the KKK and believe in its teachings,
that has done you no harm.  If, however, I commit violent
acts against you (for whatever reason), only then have I
violated your rights via a non-consentual activity.  I
have always associated bigotry with intolerant, religious,
ignoramouses, so I looked it up in Websters:

big-ot:  one intolerantly devoted to his or her own church,
party, or opinion, a fanatic, enthusiast, or zealot.

It seems that I (as well as another well known netter) was
not far off of the mark unless you consider one's thoughts
to be a non-consentual activity against someone else.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:21:04 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <13166@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <1992Nov12.231349.29610@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> #   This, of course, is right in line with the hypothesis that Kane,
> # et. al. have been trying to make: molestation is an issue of
> # violence, power, and control; not sexual gratification or orientation.
> # The Joel character is *exactly* in line with this characterization.
> 
> Yet at least one of the interviewed scum was, in fact, interested
> in sex with adult women, and another raped prepubescent boys only,
> and both boys and girls after puberty started.  This suggests that
> Kane's position is wrong.

Not at all.  If you have been reading carefully, you'd realize that Mr.
Kane has never claimed that *all* molestations were of that sort.  He has
been presenting evidence, rather, that molestations fall into two cate-
gories--evidence that you have been carefully ignoring.  What you have
said does nothing to suggest that Mr. Kane's position is wrong.

> Take a look at California's laws on child molestation.  It's
> obvious they are written the way they are to benefit homosexuals.

Oh, please....  Talk about paranoia.  This is right in line with your
claim that homosexuals control the California legislature.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rr@chem.ucsd.edu (Roxanne Rohmann)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Your Right it is the (Re: The usual)
Date: 18 Nov 1992 04:47:16 GMT
Organization: Chemistry Dept, UC San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: chedccf0.ucsd.edu

In article <1ebgvlINN374@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
 > In article <1992Nov17.180532.5228@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
 > >
 > >Tim, you (and others with the same misconceptions) must learn that there is
 > >a HUGE difference between hate, phobias, and a strong dislike.
 > >
 > So let's get down to the nitty gritty definitions-
 > 
 > For Example- phobia = A strong fear, adversion or dislike.  Now about you say
 > there is a HUGE difference between phobia and strong dislike, there seems to
 > be a definitional inconsistency here.
 > 
While your articles are interesting and usually well-reasoned,
I would like to butt in here and correct the definitions you 
used at the beginning of this follow-up article.  Since you are
using sloppy definitions, much of the rest of your article doesn't
hang together.

hate:  Intense hostility or aversion usually deriving from
fear, anger or sense of injury.

phobia:  An exaggerated, usually inexplicable or illogical fear
of an object.

dislike:  A feeling of aversion or disapproval.

Please note that the major difference between dislike and hate
is intensity of the aversion, while the characteristic that 
differentiates phobia from the other two is "illogical" and 
"exaggerated".  

That being the case, I don't find that the original poster's
claim of dislike of homosexuality to be either far-fetched 
or unreasonable.  It is simply a dislike.  I have known
and been friends with male and female homosexuals who
have disliked the thought of heterosexuality; it is s
something they find disgusting.  This doesn't strike me
as unusual, either.

   ---Roxanne Rohmann
From: Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com (Rick Donnelly)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Wilson recall campaign info
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:54:16 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Taligent, Inc.

In article <lgtqsaINNqk3@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David
Chase) writes:

> 
> Just cause I'm curious (and inclined to sign), is this "reactionary
> assholes against Wilson", or "gay-symp communist scum against Wilson"?
> 
> Or, is this a bi-extremist (analogous to bi-partisan) recall campaign?

It's none of the above.

The Bite 'em Back campaign was formed as a result of last summer's
budget fiasco by concerned citizens from just about all walks of life.
Its purpose is to "bite back" the state's leadership, which has
apparently lost sight of its purpose, and make state government
accountable to the people once again.

Its goal is to recall Wilson and otherwise disempower Willie Brown
and David Roberti (since they cannot be recalled).  Obviously it is
a non-partisan effort, as it is attacking one Democrat and two
Republicans.

I've been working with the group for awhile and I honestly can't
characterize any of the people I've known in it as extremists.  It's
just a bunch of fed-up citizens.  (A lot of them are folks who were
paid in IOUs during the last budget crisis and don't want to see a
repeat next year!)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Donnelly                            My opinions, not Taligent's.
Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com
From: robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Enough already
Date: 21 Nov 92 13:43:03 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

The following is excerpted from postings and e-mail correspondence;
(I'm sure Alvin won't mind, as he suggested I post this to other groups)

Subject: Re: I'm Ba-aa-aa-ack! 
In ca.politics you (The Chipmunk) write:

> It would seem that the news service here is repaired finally.

> If anyone flamed me to a crisp over the last couple of weeks, you'll have 
> to do it again because anything after Oct 26 fell on the floor.

> (Didja miss me?)

[my e-mail response:]
I did attempt to send you a rather violent flame, because you have
persistently tried to inject discussions concerning California politics
onto this newsgroup.  Let me condense my flames here, by stating
categorically that ca.politics is *not* the appropriate forum for
California politics.  If you wish to discuss such crap, please do so
in alt.politics.homosexuality, ca.driving, rec.gardening, rec.games.frp,
soc.motss, talk.abortion, or talk.religion.misc, or other more
appropriate newsgroups.  Better yet, crosspost to all or more of them.

If you persist in your abuse of the Usenet, further action *will* be
taken!  And while I'm at it, one other thing, ...  :-)


[alvin's reply:]
>
>B-{)  B-{)  B-{)
>
>THANK YOU, ROB!!
>
>This note simply made my day!
>
>I'd suggest sending it to rec.humor.funny, except that only ca.politics
>readers could truly appreciate it.
>
>Cheers!
>
>Alvin
--
Rob
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:59:24 GMT

In article <13248@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <102358@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>> In article <13210@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes
>> to Steve Kellmeyer:
># #Do we take this to mean that you believe that homosexuality
># #should be illegal, or that child molestation shouldn't be?
># #Even the most pathetic homophobes know that homosexuality
># #"activity" is victimless.  Wake up, get a life, get informed!
># 	       ^^^^^^^^^^
># 
># Try telling Clayton Cramer that homosexuality is victimless. 
>
>Homosexuality is victimless.  Child molestation (which homosexuals
>do in very disproportionate numbers) is not.

Nonsense.

The only way that you've been able to produce any "evidence" that homosexuals
are more likely to molest children is by taking the group of child molesters
and defining them to be homosexual.

It's as if you took a group of convicted murderers, and named 60% of
them Clayton, and then said "See? People named Clayton make up 60% of
this group of murderers! We should discriminate against people named
Clayton."

>Quit misrepresenting me, you lying fool.  You and Paul 
>Bartholomew are among the best examples of how screwed-up
>and emotionally disturbed homosexuals are.

And you, Clayon, are a fine example of how screwed up and emotionally
disturbed homophobes are.

	<MC>
-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     || "Only love
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS||     can make love"
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || 	-Peter Gabriel
|| carroll@udel.edu             || 
Xref: sparky ca.politics:9721 soc.motss:48522 talk.politics.misc:60978
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ca.politics,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Rights and Laws
Date: 20 Nov 1992 01:15:23 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

>Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
>Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
>University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
>ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams


So what are these 'rights' as referenced by John Adams... they have to be
ones that do not interfere or injure others.  This is the real 'problem'
about the scope of personal rights and civil rights.

All of this talk about liberals this or liberals that, is mostly nonsense
and propoganda.

The process of legal and civil legislation involves a constant balancing
act between personal rights and civil rights.  No man is an island.
Xref: sparky ca.politics:9835 talk.politics.misc:61487 ba.politics:7355
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:16:01 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov22.205924.11854@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
> In article <13248@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Homosexuality is victimless.  Child molestation (which homosexuals
# #do in very disproportionate numbers) is not.
# 
# Nonsense.
# 
# The only way that you've been able to produce any "evidence" that homosexuals
# are more likely to molest children is by taking the group of child molesters
# and defining them to be homosexual.

Only by using the standard definition of a homosexual: someone who has
sex with the same sex.  YOU are the one who is trying to redefine
homosexuality so that it excludes homosexual molesters.

# || Mark Craig Carroll: <MC#     || "Only love
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Xref: sparky ca.politics:9707 talk.politics.misc:60911 ba.politics:7263
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:47:48 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <13248@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <102358@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

># Try telling Clayton Cramer that homosexuality is victimless. 

>Homosexuality is victimless.  Child molestation (which homosexuals
>do in very disproportionate numbers) is not.

By saying homosexuality has no victims, you are then contradicting your own
theory that homosexuals are the victims of child molestation. And once again
(is this EVER going to sink in?) it is FIXATED MOLESTERS, not homosexuals, who
molest in disproportionate numbers.

>Quit misrepresenting me, you lying fool.  You and Paul 
>Bartholomew are among the best examples of how screwed-up
>and emotionally disturbed homosexuals are.

I'm sure this news will be shocking to Paul's girlfriend or wife (I'm not sure
of his marital status).

Brian
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Regaining ca.politics
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:01:03 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <1992Nov22.011155.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu>, dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu writes:
> Let me encourage all ca.poltics readers to do the following: send
> a reply to every posting in the homosexuality flame wars asking
> the poster to keep the discussion out of ca.politics. As a lone
> renegade, I won't have much voice, but if others want to regain
> the newsgroup, I encourage you to join me.
> 
> -dh

As a frequent participant in the debate (at least for the past couple of
months), it would be rather hypocritical of me to do this.  Nonetheless, I
wholeheartedly support this effort to regain ca.politics.  I would like
nothing better than to see this whole subject dropped.  After all, the debate
has continued for more than a year and a half and I suspect that not much
new has been said for some time.  The readers of this group have more than
enough evidence to decide whom they believe.

Interestingly enough, on one side of the debate, you've had Mr. Cramer for
the entire period of time.  On the other side, the personnel have changed
frequently over the entire period.  Not, as Mr. Cramer claims, because of
the overwhelming irrefutability of his logic or evidence, but for other
reasons which I'm not going to list because Mr. Cramer would claim that it
is a personal attack on him.

In my own defense, I would like to add that I do not originate postings in
this debate, but simply respond to Mr. Cramer's postings.  If he were to
stop, so would I.  In fact, I would be more than happy to give him the last
word, as long as it truly is the last word.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew        |  Clayton Cramer:  "[Brian Kane] and Paul Bartholomew
                        |  are among the best examples of how screwed-up and
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov |  emotionally disturbed homosexuals are."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mspayer@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Mike Payer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Enough is enough is enough is enough is .........................
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:54:46 GMT
Reply-To: mspayer@PacBell.COM (Mike Payer)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <6SCTBH0J@dri.com> bondi@dri.com (Bob Bondi) writes:
>Why don't all you homo loving conversationalists create a special group for
>your views? I subscribed to CA.POLITICS for discussions on politics. Not a
>raging argument between those who like/dislike homosexual behavior!
>
>I guess this means I'll get all kinds of crap for this idea, but, you all are
>really saying the same stupid things over and over and over and over and over
>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
OVER AND OVER  ... you were two overs short :-) :-) :-)
....MSP
>when will you ever get tired of it?
>
>Thanks.
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 23 Nov 92 12:07:45 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <1992Nov23.001208.4586@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> In article <1992Nov22.201615.10549@udel.edu> carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
>     >Strange. I have friends who were gay for years before I found
>     >out. They're completely indistinguishable from anyone else.
>     >If you met them, you'd never be able to tell that they were
>     >gay.
> 
> An example, good or bad, of "someone we know who is also X" is basically
> useless, unless used to refute a strong assertion that ALL X are ....

I see.  Then you agree that Mr. Cramer's constant refrain of "reading
soc.motss convinced me that homosexuals are [fill-in-the-blank]" is also
basically useless?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew        |  Clayton Cramer:  "[Brian Kane] and Paul Bartholomew
                        |  are among the best examples of how screwed-up and
                        |  emotionally disturbed homosexuals are."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:29:24 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <13210@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes
to Steve Kellmeyer:

>Do we take this to mean that you believe that homosexuality
>should be illegal, or that child molestation shouldn't be?
>Even the most pathetic homophobes know that homosexuality
>"activity" is victimless.  Wake up, get a life, get informed!
	       ^^^^^^^^^^

Try telling Clayton Cramer that homosexuality is victimless.