HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Cross-Posting
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:30:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.050428.16771@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> 
> If an article truly belongs in soc.motss, in most cases it's
> a good idea to edit out the names of other groups.  If the
> article you're responding to doesn't really pertain to
> soc.motss (according to your own best judgment), then when
> responding it makes sense to edit soc.motss out of the list.
> 
> Care and concern of this sort could help (greatly, I think)
> engender a high level of quality in this newsgroup.

Indeed gentle sir.

Why , Its already like a breath of fresh air.

I've made my 93 resolutions already, and the care and concern you 
mention are very high on my list of family values for the coming year.

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Dworkin (was Re: Liberty)
Date: 30 Dec 92 04:30:29 GMT
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison

In article <1992Dec30.032822.18408@riacs.edu> David
Christopher Rogers <drogers@riacs.edu> writes:

>Message-ID: <1992Dec30.002532.28638@macc.wisc.edu>
>From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)

>>[T]here clearly is a much smaller tendency to hold over-zealous
>>woman-haters accountable (their numbers are massive) than to
>>hold over-zealous man-haters (their numbers are much
>>smaller) accountable.

>This argument has been made a number of times, and is
>likely true, but I'm left to wonder what is the conclusion I
>am to draw from this?  It's the kind of argument often used
>to excuse the lesser of two evils.  Is there something more
>subtle I'm missing here?

Fair question, of course.  Not to excuse anything, however,
but only to point out that those who are finding such
vociferous (and I think mostly nugatory) fault are ignoring
some relevant issues of proportion.  As I've been at some
pains to point out, I'm in no position to criticize
Dworkin's writing directly, as I've not read it.  But as
Arne points out, the systemic oppression of women in our
society is one thing and man-hating is another, I maintain
quite a smaller, thing.  This excuses neither, but if men
are going to try to render Dworkin such a demon, then to be
at all credible, they are going to have to move heaven and
earth in an effort to rectify women's inequities, in the
process impeaching largely themselves, which they are
singularly loath to do.

-- 
[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
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: Congratulating (het) parents on their new baby
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:45:57 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <1992Dec24.134511.1528@walter.bellcore.com> tam@westmark.com (Tom Merkel ) writes:
>Having been through this process twice myself...

Born again, Tom?
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Soc.Motss.* / Automoderation.
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 11:37:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.063607.23298@netcom.com>
jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:

>In article <1992Dec20.223503.4350@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu
>(Nelson Minar) writes:

>>No, the problem with automoderation is that it's a
>>technical nightmare.  It would require all postings to
>>soc.motss to be channeled through one machine: the
>>moderator's.  You've just turned the random graph of Usenet
>>into a hierarchical tree.  If that one machine is down, or a
>>piece of the network is gone, then parts of motss aren't
>>propagated.

>That's the case with any moderated group, and people seem
>to be able to live with it.

Bet you anything (your article didn't need to be
cross-posted, btw) that no moderated group gets 400 messages
a day.  The topic is not about having one of several
soc.motss.* groups be moderated, it's about automoderating
*all* of the one group.

On a more philosophical level, the *main* thing here is what
the humans do or don't do, and I really don't like
algorithmic approaches to human problems.

<> If the world were a logical place,  men would ride
<> side-saddle. -- Rita Mae Brown
-- 
[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
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: The WRONG Cure
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:30:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.194846.13325@bsu-ucs> d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.204834.17145@athena.mit.edu>, tcarlin@athena.mit.edu (Thomas B Carlin) writes:
>> =====================================
>>>Well!  There was a time when I _thought_ I didn't want to be homosexual.
>>>As I discovered, it wasn't because I wanted to be straight, it was because
>>>the Christians messed me up so much that I was ashamed of being gay!
>>>(Yes, I did read a book called _You Don't Have to be Gay_)
>> 
>>>I suppose some of these same people have been so brainwashed by Christian
>>>groups that they can't accept themselves. 
>> 
>> Remember, Christianity can be cured!  Thanks to their help, only 1 out of 5
>> people in the world are now Christian, and that number is dwindling.  Send
>> your money NOW!
>> 
>
>Breakdown of Christians Vs. Godless heathens (_1993_Universal_World_Almanac_)
>
>christians - 1,548,5000,000 people (32.4% of the population)
>nonreligious/athiests - 1,026,400,000 (21.3% of the population)
>
>The Xians are still ahead...
>
Excuse me but the non Xians are the one in the lead (67.6% to 32.4%).
Looks like out numbered by 2 to 1.



Ciao!
	John S. :^)
	teddybur@netcom.com
__


Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Age-ism and the gay community
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 10:45:50 GMT


In article <1992Dec21.213438.2450@nwnexus.WA.COM>
elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>In article <1992Dec20.172122.5221@macc.wisc.edu>
>     anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>>Hairlessness is in the genes; why hold someone accountable?

>I suppose I might get into trouble for this-- No, I *know* I
>am.  Jess, one of the things that bothers me most about
>seeing this line, especially in something you write, is
>that, for me, it's painfully obvious that along with simple
>things like hairlessness, eye color, and height, _race_ is
>"in the genes."

>So is sex.  Male or female, something in the genes.  For me,
>it's ridiculous to hold someone accountable for that, too...

I'm afraid I'm missing your point, Elf.  I agree it hardly
makes sense to hold a person accountable for their genetic
endowment, whether it's the hairiness, the race, or
whatever.

If you mean I'm suggesting we should hold people accountable
for things they *can* change, since that's closely allied
with a common canard about sexuality, I'm not suggesting
that principle be applied to *all* things.  Clearly we can
hold people accountable for *some* of their choices, but
probably not all.  And in the great debate over whether
sexuality involves choice, I'm in the "not on the
existential level" camp.

-- 
[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
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Private antidiscrimination policies in CO (was Re: Attention...)
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:54:30 GMT


In article <1hv70lINN69f@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman) writes:
|> > 
|> > In a civil case of breech of contract, you'd have to prove that NO OTHER
|> > reasons were used in the firing. The company could get out of it simply by
|> > stating that you weren't living up to job expectations.
|> > 
|> > Even though you know it was for sexual orientation.
|> > 
|> > Bites, huh?
|> > David
|> 
|> I don't think that would work, unless your job evaluations showed you 
|> really *were* a bad employee.  And WHY would a company fire a good 
|> employee *just* because he is gay?  

I don't understand it, but I don't understand fundamentalist
Xtian hate, either.  The point is not why it happens, the point is that
it does happen.  Why do the Armed Forces kick out their top performers
*just* because they are gay?

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
From: scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Congratulating (het) parents on their new baby
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:42:45 GMT
Organization: BASIS International, Ltd., Albuquerque NM USA

In article <1h7g64INNsh7@rave.larc.nasa.gov> carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:
>In article <Bzo2DH.DFx@cs.columbia.edu>, ji@cs.columbia.edu (John Ioannidis) writes:
>|> Every once in a while I'll read on the local bboards in the places I
>|> have accounts at, that Mr&Mrs so-and-so had a brand new baby, vital
>|> statistics of the baby follow, and the message ends with how the
>|> father is proud and the mother is resting at the hospital. The message
>|> is invariably congratulatory.
>|> 
>|> So here are my questions:
>|>
>
>I question whether these are serious questions.  They do seem to be 
>intentionaly clueless, but to give you the benefit of the doubt:

That's what I call setting a tone.

> 
>|> 1. Is it a het thing, and I just don't understand?
>
>Not a het thing, no.  More of a thing to do with people who are interested
>in children, future generations, families, etc.  Also, a thing to do with
>people who are interested in their friends and co-workers lives and who
>try to care about what their friends care about.

I think you misunderstood John's post.  Nobody was questioning the
joy of having a baby nor the sharing of the joy with friends and
family.  What was in question was the self-congratulatory nature
of such announcements and the theories behind the "proud father"
syndrome.

I offered a flip response to what was obviously a flip question.
I find it revealing that a couple of posters flew off the handle
on this subject.  Have we discovered a new sacred cow?

-- 
Scott Amspoker                       |    
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM |  Too bad ignorance isn't really
                                     |  bliss.  Then it could be outlawed.
scott@bbx.basis.com                  |
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Miracle cure for homophobic states
Date: 31 Dec 1992 00:30:16 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman) writes:
> We now enter another dream scenario sponsored by David Speakman...
> 
> On Jan 21, President Clinton signs an omnibus executive order outlawing
> discrimination against the lesbigay community in all federal employment and
> withholds federal funding from all states, municipalities and other local
> governments with ant-gay rights laws.
> 
> _____________End dream secquence_______________

You know, that may not be a bad idea...there might be legality 
problems with the funding thing, but does the Fed have an 
EE statement that covers sexual orientation?  They should. 

Walter

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: jab@Ingres.COM (jeff bowles)
Subject: Re: Pedophilia
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 27 Dec 92 17:50:33 GMT

>In article <72346@cup.portal.com> elc@cup.portal.com (Edward L Cole) writes:
>>Young men, even though they are legally of age, are still
>>prone to the social and sexual manipulation by older men.

Isn't everyone? I think that there was a school of thought that labeled
our society as begin dominated by old men. (Old white men, I'll add.)

(I thought my KILL file got rid of all "pedophile" articles. Need to
recheck it.)

	Jeff Bowles
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: EE statements (was: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado)
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:15:03 GMT

In article <1hthe3INNa5s@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>> My insurance premium is higher because I have to pay heterosexuals 
>> to have children.  So are the tax payers.

>Would you feel better if people stopped having children?  

Those of us who are denied things like spousal benefits for
our partners have good reason to question the subsidization
of heterosexual issue.  We'd like equity.

And what the fuck are you doing here, anyway?  Your relentless
homo-baiting has gotten unimaginably tiresome.  Is there some
reason why you've become one of the highest volume participants
in soc.motss?
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: grant@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Grant R. Guenther)
Subject: Re: Bar etiquette
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:51:47 GMT

In <1993Jan3.062520.3441@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:

>It works great in coffee shops, although I've never tried to meet a
>sexual interest this way. [bonus question - why aren't there ever
>coffee shops where the intent is for you to meet other queer people?]
>The ones I know that tried have all failed. Is booze necessary?

How about "The Second Cup" at Church and Wellesley in Toronto - and many
others in the chain, too.  Even the dinky little one in the mall here
is probably the busiest daytime cruising spot in town :-) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant R. Guenther    Math & Comp. Sci., Laurentian U., Sudbury, Canada
grant@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca 			     We are everywhere
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat)
Subject: Re: Need A Date for a HS reunion (New Jersey)
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:05:24 GMT

In article <1h22kpINN645@plts.uucp> tal@plts.uucp (Tom  
Limoncelli) writes:
} By the way, the date is Dec 26.

As fate would have it, I'm on my way to New York on Christmas  
Day.  On Amtrak!

Donald - Could this be love?
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Re: Changing standards of female beauty (was Re: Ageism)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:08:07 GMT

Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison) writes:

>Adolphson whines:

Is something wrong with your ears, twinkie dear? All these whining
noises; perhaps you haven't gotten all the piss out of them since
your last rendezvous...

>>Yeah, well, I take this stuff as seriously as that humorless 
>>fellow from Glendale takes hair and cigars.

>Hm.  I'm "humorless" for responding to what I find important,
>but *you* are just being a good net.citizen for Pointing Out
>The Truth when it's something *you* find important.

Is it merely Arne's opinion that *X* had his eras wrong?

>Quelle Self-Centered Shithead.

>But we knew that already, of course.

Yeah; isn't it fun?

--
thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu * John Dorrance * Disco Diva y Flamenco Chico

      You're like one of those... 'Cabbage Patch' creatures...
Xref: sparky soc.motss:53622 soc.bi:17254
From: DLM
Subject: Re: The Melmon Method (was Dworkin)
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 11:47:24 CST

In article <mattm-221292152459@mcmelmon.apple.com>
mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
 
>> >heterosexual men would be well advised to at least
>> >consider the fringe benefits of homosexuality...)
>>
>> Aha! The *true* purpose of your attack on women!
>
>"My attack on *women*"  Beautiful.  But the PC checkmate only works
>on people who give a shit, dear.  Dworkin does not equal All
>Woman-Kind.  An attack on her can only be portrayed as an attack
>on All Woman-Kind by the lunatic fringe of the feminist movement,
>who count for squat - and scant more.
>
>*X*
 
Jeesh! Who spit in your Post Toasties this morning? Can we say "Humor"?....
nope, didn't think so.
 
Hoping Santa brings you a sense of one...
Diane
From: mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: The Melmon Method (was Dworkin)
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:05:31 GMT
Followup-To: soc.motss
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <168C6A5D3.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu>, DLM wrote:

> Jeesh! Who spit in your Post Toasties this morning? Can we say "Humor"?....
> nope, didn't think so.
>  
> Hoping Santa brings you a sense of one...

If *you* were being humorous, then I apologize.  But *I* was not
*entirely* serious in the suggestion that heterosexuals might find
the fringe benefits of homosexuality attractive...

*X*
From: AS.DLH@forsythe.stanford.edu (David Hatt - 5-0083)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado
Date: 30 Dec 1992 20:22:03 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <mattm-301292152023@mcmelmon.apple.com>,
mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>Over and over and over we have *seen* CONCRETE EVIDENCE that the
>*legislative* process is a fine load of CRAP, and that it can
>be abused by BOTH sides of the ideological spectrum - rabid
>fundamentalists and totalitarian queens *both*  I most certainly
>DO NOT apologize for using the strongest language possible,
>because I am so FUCKING TIRED of blubbering socialiste faggots
>bitching about how corporations are ALL OUT TO GET THEM and
>how, WITHOUT LEGISLATION, some nasty CEO is going to take away
>all their PRECIOUS RIGHTS.
>
>The FACT of the matter is that corporations were under NO FUCKING
>LEGAL OBLIGATION whatsoever to ENACT the fairy-friendly EE
>clauses in the FIRST FUCKING PLACE, and that having done so, there
>is NO REASON to suspect they will pull out.
>
>I sure as HELL trust that large corporations will be less
>affected by the BLOW-HARD winds of POLITICAL FASHION - one way
>or the OTHER - than any God-damn LEGISLATION.
>
>FUCK government intervention.  PERIOD.
>
>*X*
>(and as for Donna Who being able to put ANYTHING "best" - HAH!)


Because, Matthew, to me, regardless of the corporations EE rules, if
some CFV or OCA says a corporation is "promoting" homosexuality
which is now against state law, i.e., domestic partner benefits,
joint checking accounts, adoption, rental rights, the company could
be subject to jail or a boycott or a letter writing campaign from
the CFV's or OCA's members.

I think a boycott would work.  It worked in Alabama under Martin
Luther King, Jr. with the bus boycott and it can work now in
Colorado.  This boycott is only temporary.  I'm sure the gays and
pro-gays are working on some plan to overturn #2.


I'm not worried about some CEO taking away my rights, I'm worried
about Pat Buchanan, Dannemeyer, Shelton, George Bush, Dan Quayle, ad
nauseum taking them away.

We have seen where Terry Rakolta has turned a huge letter writing
campaign against advertisers who advertised on TV shows that
"promoted" homosexuality.

I think the anti #2 people did what they could but they can't be
behind the curtain when a voter closes it.

Some time ago, there was a huge brouhaha about Amendment 101 which
gave gays and lesbians some rights.  Every day there was a huge
discussion of how we can get Governor Wilson to approve it.  As the
days dwindled, the pressure got more intense.  I called the
governor's office several times.  All the polls said it should be
approved - but what did Wilson do?  He vetoed it.

But something like #2, a few gay business owners will be temporarily
hurt as I'm sure blacks were in the bus boycott.  And it's only
temporary.

That's my two cents.

Dave

speaking to you live from.....

dave.hatt@forsythe.stanford.edu
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Private antidiscrimination policies in CO (was Re: Attention...)
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:54:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec31.195431.29600
Organization: insert anything here

smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>(not to bait anyone..)  Did these places have laws that allowed this?  If 
>they did, why wasn't there any boycott movement against these states? 
>What has been done to fix those situations? 
>

	We're still trying to get anti-discrimination in those states.
While you're right in saying that they aren't bastions of equality,
they didn't pass an amendment making it impossible to INTRODUCE
anti-discrimination, like CO did.

	No fear Walter...*most* of them saq what CO did and got
the message --- at least half are now going to try and pass their
own CO:2 by 1994.  So they'll all be equal in their pro-discrimination
stance...  and lucky us won't even be able to take them to court...

BBC
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: Charlie Fulton <charlie@isis.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: EE statements (was: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado)
Organization: Ctr for Advanced Rsrch in Oppressive Binarisms
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
     <mattm-301292180454@mcmelmon.apple.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:34:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.002311.28876@lclark.edu> 
Bil Snodgrass, snodgras@lclark.edu writes:
>We also as a society have to pay to feed, clothe, house and 
>render medical care to neglected children.....
>We have to pay for police protection to protect us from  
>the teenage gangs.......
>
>But for some reason the traditional family who use to do 
>everything on its own now has to have handouts from society 
>and work to support their habits.....

If I may elaborate on your attitude a bit:

"And to think that *my* *property* *taxes* are being *wasted*
on the "education" of these whelps, these wriggling, loathsome
products of filthy breeders.

Since *I'm* not allowed to adopt children, I consider the entire
enterprise of raising them to be heinously selfish.  Society
hates me, therefore I have absolutely *no* stake in its next
generation. 

One salary is usually insufficient to raise a family these days?
So fucking what?  I don't care if both parents *must* work
to make ends meet.  I will not have my taxes wasted on day care!!!!
The breeders made this mess; let *them* clean it up!"

The real point here: homosexuals must be permitted to indulge in
this selfish "habit" of family raising with its incredible
perks.  The surplus of neglected children requires more, not fewer, 
families.  It would be nice if we lived in a world where one parent
could devote themselves exclusively to the family in most cases,
but we don't.  Institutions must fill the void and "fuck the children"
is not an appropriate solution.

One does not; however, deserve any kind of financial reward merely 
for entering into a  long-term relationship, be it homo- or 
heterosexual.
 
Charlie