HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcapps@agora.rain.com (Brent Capps)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: subscribe
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:14:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: agora.C1DEop.DDC
Organization: Open Communications Forum

zwicky@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Arnold Zwicky) writes:

>in article <C1BGxH.E55@agora.rain.com> bcapps@agora.rain.com (brent
>capps) responds to markd@urjwc.ucla.edu (mark a. davis)'s request

>    >>Please subscribe me.

>by exclaiming
> 
>  >Oh dear, we've converted another one.

>no, NO, brent!  get it right.  it's *recruited*.

OK Mark, within four to six weeks you'll be receiving your Queer Card (TM)
entitling you to cut in line with participating Maitre'ds, qualify for first 
class airline upgrades by simply flashing your card to the air mattress
(aka space waitress), extra drinks from humpy bartenders, dress and
decorate tastefully, entertain with wit and charm and generally frustrate
clueless anal retentive persons who can't understand why homos should have 
such special rights.

>arnold (in a small window of feverless functioning, in the midst of
>  several days of an appalling cold/flu/whatever)

Well arnold, this never would have happened if you had only kept up with 
your dues.
-- 
Brent Capps    (B4) htw-c++g+k++s-e++    | "I tried using UNIX once, 
bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff)        |  but I felt as though 
bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff)     |  I was 'bothering' it."
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: military ban legislation upcoming
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:34:06 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In <1993Jan26.214535.26972@spdcc.com>
  rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) comments:
|	Two things I think we need to have passed in this country
|IMMEDIATELY:
|
|	1) line-item veto
  . . .

I have a problem here because I don't know what the line-item veto
proponents are asking for - they always argue that the President
should have the same ability as the governors of <N> states.

Massachusetts has the line-item veto, but that kind of veto would not
help a President in this case.  The governor can ONLY use it to veto
individual line items in a budget or appropriations type bill.  This
power does not enable him or her to veto arbitrary sections of
arbitrary bills.  I suspect that any line-item veto currently proposed
as amendment to the US constitution is planned to work the same way.

	/J
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: MOTSS-oriented music?
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:33:28 GMT
Organization: Castle Anthrax

In article <63-JNEWS-2.1@wonky.UUCP> ailsa@wonky.UUCP (Ailsa N.T. Murphy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.203627.12693@netcom.com>, jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:
>
>> In article <1993Jan23.085540.12922@fuug.fi> an6245@anon.penet.fi
>> (Nobody in particular...) writes:
>>>I've seen posted on here lists of both MOTSS-oriented movies and gay
>>>TV characters.  I haven't seen anything yet related to MOTSS-oriented
>>>music.
>>
>well, i can list QUITE a few motss-oriented musicians:
>
>[...]
>the Indigo Girls 

Article Queen sez: It's just "Indigo Girls". No "the".
-- 
Andrew Solovay    

"Wait a minute! You guys are NINJAS!"
                ---The Tick
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: allen@serval.net.wsu.edu (Jonny Allen)
Subject: Re: "No Wavering on Gay Soldiers"
Reply-To: allen@serval.net.wsu.edu (Jonny Allen)
Organization: Washington State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 20:50:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.121605.1315@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, sbrack@jupiter (Steve Brack) writes:
|> tdbear@dvorak.amd.com (Thomas D. Barrett) writes:
|> : In article <AWOOTTEN.93Jan21160942@slacktide.cv.nrao.edu> awootten@slacktide.cv.nrao.edu (Al Wootten) writes:
|> : >As president, he should stand behind his beliefs as forthrightly as he did
|> : >as a candidate.
|> : 
|> : Bush and my ex-rep in CA Tom McClintock practiced this and I hated
|> : their philosophy.  Our elected officals represent US, not their
|> : personal views.  Yes, we elect them based on their platforms, but that
|> : does not mean that they have the right to vote against the will of the
|> : people.
|> 
|> 	At the federal level, the government functions not as a democracy, 
|> 	but as a republic, where we elect leaders & trust them to use their
|> 	judgement.  

I agree with Steve, and IMO it can be a Good Thing, depending which side of
an issue you are supporting. For instance, my congressional rep, who happens
to be Speaker Foley, noted (in the press) that most of the calls and letters
he it getting support the ban, but that he sides with the president because
"he believes lifting the ban is the right thing to do."

In this case I like Foley's judgment better than the judgment of most of his
constituents.

-jonny
From: sbookey@ep.ieee.org (Seth Bookey)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Out on the Net
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:33:23 GMT
Reply-To: sbookey@ep.ieee.org
Organization: IEEE, New York, NY

I read the rec.arts.tv.soaps network, and when one man asked what other male
viewers thought of a certain male character, it was presented as, "Well, the
women go gaga over him, but what do the men think?"  Obviously, he did not
have gay men in mind.  So, I came out to the net, protesting that male
viewer does not = straight male viewer only. Male viewers = straight+gay
male viewers.  I also mentioned that all the men I know who are avid
soap watches are gay.

Well, I started a flame war that lasted two weeks, with most of the response
to me in private being positive.  The four people who were my detractors
did so publicly.

While I should not have generalized, I did maintain that with the proper heading
of TAN for tangential, I have as much right to discuss a gay point of view as
others do to discuss how they changed their names when they got married, Star
Trek, haggis, etc.  I was told that the soap opera net should only be used to 
discuss the soaps.  But all those other topics were being discussed. I pointed
out that I have the right to discuss this topic, and the real issue was that the 
four detractors just didn't want to have to hear about homosexuality.

The people who were supportive were mostly women, followed by gay men and lesbians.
No straight men sprang to my side.  Typical.

So, my big question is, how have others fared on the net when they came out on
other newsgroups?

have a good weekend.  Please respond to me at my email address--there are too many
postings to fish through, and I do this at work.

Seth
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: dem@cs.princeton.edu (Doron Meyer)
Subject: Tips for coming out to friends?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Computer Science Department, Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:57:53 GMT

Hello again everyone.

I'm starting to contemplate coming out selectively to very
close friends.  However, I want to make sure to do it right,
as I can't undo things if I screw them up.

What I'm asking is what things that worked and what you
wished you had done when coming out to your best friends.

Did it work better to mention it in passing, as if it was
inconsequential (i.e. "I can't wait until the next meeting of <insert
gay and lesbian organization here>") or to be straight out? (i.e.
"Bob, I have to tell you something important that I've been hiding;
I'm gay.")

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Doron
From: markw@meaddata.com (Mark Wasson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: GLB-TV
Date: 28 Jan 1993 00:05:15 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: linguist.meaddata.com

My Tuesday night TV kind of jumped out at me in how prominent gays/gay
issues were featured.  I expected it from the Maria Shriver special,
(The Gay Nineties: Sex, Power and Influence), but the other shows did
just as much.

NBC Nightly News

In addition to a fluff piece that essentially was a promotion of the
Shriver special, John Chancellor's commentary was four-square in favor
of lifting the ban on gays in the military.

Key West (new series, FOX, 9-10, EST)

I thought I'd give this new show a try, since I saw part of some
episode being filmed when I was in Key West last fall.  There is some
ongoing subplot in which someone was elected mayor after raising the
incumbent mayor's homosexuality as a campaign issue.  When she first
meets with the civil service staff, they challenge her on having
raised the issue.  She awkwardly asks if there are any gays among the
staff, and about 1/2 raise their hands.  The most vocal gay in that
meeting eventually helps out the mayor in a situation with a large
contributor who didn't get his way on some decision.  The mayor's
storyline will apparently be ongoing, since it was not connected to
the protaganist's, and yet one of the scenes I saw being filmed had
them talking.

Considering how exaggerated (to the point of caricature) that most of
the characters were portrayed, the featured gay man seemed quite
everyday.

(General review - "Key West" seems to be a Northern Exposure wannabe
without being so intellectual.  Far more woment walking around in
bikinis than I saw on my visit, presumably as part of FOX's attempt to
sell young male viewers to advertisers.  It's mindless TV that I'll
probably stick with, at least until I see what I watched being filmed.)

The Gay Nineties:  Sex, Power and Influence (NBC)

A rather catchy title - I'm sure it brought in the viewers.  Basically
it seemed to be a reasonably good attempt to present ordinary everyday
gays to mainstream America in order to get past some of the
stereotypes.  There were some stories on everyday life, problems
encountered in a hostile community, and growing political influence.
----
Just an everyday normal night of TV?  Not yet.  The nightly news
did a good job last night, but has often been sensationalistic in the
past.  It should seem normal for shows like Key West, Melrose Place
and Roseanne to have gay characters, but three shows in one TV season
does represent progress.  And specials like Shriver's that focus on
family or work issues should include same-sex families and gay workers
as part of the broad mosaic of families and workers - neither singling
them out for special attention nor ignoring them altogether.

But all in all, congratulations to the broadcast medium for at least
one night of GLB-representative TV.

Mark





Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: larry@bradley.bradley.edu (L. D. Stratton)
Subject: Re: Finally!!!
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 02:11:51 GMT

In <C18CEu.FBy@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.161017.22398@news.columbia.edu> jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.014624.22521@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
>>czmt@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Season Marie Taylor) writes:
>>>i can't even remember when there weren't criminals in the white house, as
>>>i was only 6 when Reagan was inaugurated.
>>I was 8.

>My goodness.  I didn't expect to start feeling old so soon.

   Don't feel too bad, Tim.  I voted (first term only) for Reagan!
   Although I've been accused of it, I DID NOT vote for Lincoln.
       (But Jess A. did!)  =)
From: joe@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: safe sex question
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:01:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1993Jan22.120114.15043
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <13978@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>From article <1jhibuINNrs6@meaddata.meaddata.com>, by ptb@meaddata.com (Patrick Bell):
>
># I have a challenge for all who argue the minimal risk of HIV infection from
># cock sucking:
>
># If you knew you were HIV- and you knew your sex partner (lover, fuck buddy,
># tearoom trick, whatever) was HIV+ and he wanted you to suck his cock w/o
># a condom, would you?
>
># Now add a twist, if his cock was dripping pre-cum, would you?
>
># If you answered no to either of these questions, then why take the same
># risk with someone about whom you don't know their HIV status?
>
>Denial?

-- 
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.
From: ailsa@wonky.UUCP (Ailsa N.T. Murphy)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Blatant birthday information! :-)
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:23:23 GMT

In article <1jnc7dINNmu2@spim.mti.sgi.com>, dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>
> In article <1993Jan21.131507.8677@schbbs.mot.com>, TXK025@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Eddie Chandler) writes:
> |> Sorry everyone, just couldn't resist spilling the beans
> |> about my birthday tomorrow.
> |> I will be the ripe old age of 25! :-(
>
> 25 was a fun year.
>
hmm...  i think i married my exhusband when i was 25.  not sure though.

> |> <sob> I want to be 21 again!
>
blig.  not me.  i was living with an abusive asshole at 21, and i
wouldn't relive that for anything...  18 was fun, though...

> Why?
>
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I have found the aging process
> to be fun and entertaining.  At 26 (ooohh....) to be a different sort
> of fun from 21.  It is good to know that you slow down eventually...
>
i love gettiing older.  life just keeps improving.  first i come out,
then i lose my lesbian virginity, then i get divorced, then i escape
maine...  all the women i am attracted to are in their mid-thirties
anyway, just about, so why shoudl i dread turning thirty?  or even 40?
i've seen some REALLY attractive women who are in their 40s, and i LOVE
salt and pepper hair!
                                        -ailsa

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                           ailsa@wonky.uucp
 LIfe moves so mysterious with its cute little spins        ________
 And it's everyone's koan and door to get in        Silence \      / Action
 It's old human nature, it's cold or it's hot          =     \    /    =
 I think of you often, I like you a lot              Death    \  /    Life
 But if it's snowin' in Brooklyn                               \/
 I'd say snow is what we got.           -Ferron
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Lifting the Ban
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:55:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.171813.23658@news.columbia.edu> jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:
>How long would the generals' marriages have
>lasted if they had not only not been allowed to legally marry, but weren't
>even allowed to admit that they loved their spouse? 

Let's see.
If they cannot get legally married, they never married, because marriage
is a legal contract.
Ergo, if it was illegal to get married, their marriage would have lasted
nothing, zero, cero, nada.
Actually, it had never started to last, because it would have never
happened.

Next question?


>   Only Boys Accepting Feminism Get Kissed Meaningfully  -- Geoff Marcy

WOW! How nice to see sexist advertisement used in favor of feminism...

AAP

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Re: safe sex question
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:42:33 GMT

nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:

>speaking of objectification about dicks..

>I was talking with a motsser recently about our memories, months
>later, of the motss.con outing to the nude beach. I remarked that
>there was only one naked person I really remembered in his complete
>nakedness. That was John. And I remember him because he had a
>remarkably nice penis.

>There, now I've said it.

This takes me by complete surprise. I'm muchly flattered.

John, who thought there were many other dicks he saw that day that
he'd rather suck, but still wouldn't mind hearing a little elaboration
just for the ego boost

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

	  If I wait for the rain to kiss me and undress me
		Will I look a fool - wet and a mess?
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Are Gay Men Richer, Really?
Summary: sampling error
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:37:46 GMT

In article <mattm-210193132157@mcmelmon.apple.com> mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:

>I suspect there is some statistical error in this analysis.
>National income is a well understood, often measured phenomena,
>and the figures are accurate.  However, breaking down national
>income into whos and whats is less precise.  While knowing
>black or hispanic or female incomes is fairly straightforward,
>knowing 'gay' income is considerably less so.  Who are the
>surveyors going to see first?  The most visible gays.  And
>which group of gays is most visible?  Probably white middle-aged
>men.  And so what we are seeing is what we already know:  
>white middle-age men have higher incomes than the rest of
>society.  

Precisely.  And the same problem besets *any* attempts at doing
statistics on GLB populations -- it is simply NOT known what
the distribution is.  This vitiates most of the homophobic drivel
(like Arthur Hu's, for example) which purports to draw conclusions
that the data simply do not support.

The best one can hope is that conclusions are drawn with upper or
lower bounds on the basis of some understanding of the specific
sample used -- and that ignorance of how generalizable such conc-
clusions might be is highlighted up front.  If Kinsey's pioneering
work had ever been followed up, we'd be in a better position to make
sample spaces and take statistics to address whatever questions we
might want to study.  We can still use his data *tentatively* to
help interpret other samples -- but there just ain't NO WAY that
ANY "statistical" result on homosexuality can be better than a
speculative first guess (and most "market research" or "political"
use of statistics in this area is so corrupted by bad data and bad
assumptions as to be worthless.)

BTW: Matthew, with this post, has disabused me of the longstanding
notion that I should create a killfile, just for him.

-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: gnn@cs.vu.nl (Guest GNN)
Subject: Re: Challenge: Documentation of Nonpromiscuity
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:13:07 GMT

hsu@walnut.sfsu.edu (William Hsu) writes:

>Now, of course that doesn't prove that there aren't fewer Asian gays.
>After all, maybe there *are* fewer Asian gays, and *all* of them
>go out, all the time. (Or we do it with mirrors, or something.) 

With mirrors?  Ouch!!  Or you could do it on mirrors, which just
requires that you have a lot of windex around to clean up with.

Dag,
George (In a silly Monday sort of mood :-)

Xref: sparky soc.motss:57804 ca.politics:10619
From: Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: soc.motss,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Book Review "The Homosexalities"
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 23:12:36 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1993Jan20.203519.22734@psych.toronto.edu>

... pseudo scientific lies ....

Nope, actually there are lots of books like this, and it looks like the
consensus of the scientific/medical community unafraid to be non-PC is that
homosexuality can be changed in some cases, or problems treated, and taht
gays have more than their share of psychological problems and uncontrolled
or unhealthy sexual urges. There was a guy on Today who said that there
are no cases of psychological homosexuality. Evidently, he's not aware of
actual medical or scientific facts.

That doesn't mean we can bash gays any more than we should hate blacks becaus
that group is more prone to crime. It does mean that any talk that gays
are statistically and psychologically just like anybody else is pure bunk
for anyone that bothers to dig in the facts (as is drug use and
promiscuity). Any bunch that simply throws away all relevant facts and then
stands on no supporting evidence in my mind has some problems.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Gays in Military: Powell's phone number
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Distribution: soc
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:38:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.181216.16822@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> jmh@gnu.ai.mit.edu
(Jeffrey M. Hoffmeister) writes:

>I really don't understand General Powell's logic.  Isn't he using the 
>same arguements against gays as was used against blacks?

Yep; he says "this is different."  Right.  Like (he says) blacks were
ALREADY in the military, and just had to be integrated.  (Is the guy
clueless, or what?)

I am convinced that this is one in which the generational thing is real
-- the "standard" opinions of those born before WWII is just not shared
by the younger generation(s).  Sure, there are young bigots (we get a
few here, from time to time :-)), but their stridency is at least in part
because even THEY see themselves as shrinking in influence.  The whole
military hierarchy is ROTTEN with a smug, macho, anti-woman, homophobic
agenda which *revolts* a large part of the "under 50s" -- and this is
true of conservative Republicans, libertarians and other such types as
much as of honest people like you and me :-)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
From: an104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ric Helton)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Gay Rainbow Flag Pride Magnets
Date: 26 Jan 1993 03:48:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ric Helton)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


As a fund-raiser, we are selling gay Rainbow Flag Pride magnets, each 
3 inches by 4 inches, very bright and weather proof, perfect for cars
(especially if you don't put a bumper sticker on your car because of the
damage they can cause to paint, etc.) and TERRIFIC for placing on rental
cars when you travel (like the March On Washington!) to show your pride
in a far-away city and be recognized as gay..... THey are also good for
refrigerators, filing cabinets at work, whatnot.

Write for details:  

 an104@cleveland.freenet.edu
 ric@gnu.ai.mit.edu

 GEnie: GRAFFITI

 Graffiti
 PO Box 3176
 Lithonia, Georgia 30058

 ...or call Graffiti at 404-972-4999 (soon to have 6 lines!)


-- 
 __
 \/ Ric       Graffiti BBS 404-972-4999  Atlanta, Georgia
    an104@cleveland.freenet.edu  =or=  ric@gnu.ai.mit.edu
From: SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: re: Melmon, pro or con
Date: 28 Jan 93 04:12:17 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

I offered to throw Matt a dinner at Sung Hai if he comes East,
even if he and I are the only two to attend.

What fascinated me was that he had a pack of hounds yapping
at his heels and barking "ignore him, ignore him" and then these
same folks kept on responding to each and every article he posted
for months.  Anyone who can keep the wind up so many skirts - male
and female - for so long can't be all bad.

The clincher was when Matt mentioned that he weighed 123 lbs.  I
have an image of him as an adorable sabre-toothed chipmunk.

Jack Carroll