HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:43:20 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <mc#n1mn.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.195523.15868@queernet.org> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:

>    >>>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>    >>>>2. As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among
>    >>>>straight males is that the ugly ones are welcome to do
>    >>>>whatever the heck they want, but the pretty ones are such a

>    >And while the entire statement (about "the dominant reaction
>    >among straight males") is likely true, the fact that the
>    >author saw fit to share it was the motivation for the "sexist
>    >asshole" remark.

>Oooohh, what a Politically Correct asshole. To be specific, the original
>poster (Michael Friedman) posted an observation that is, to my knowledge
>correct. Nobody has argued against that.

>Egads, if there is an asshole around here, it aint't Friedman.

>So tell me Roger, how long have you had this dislike, ur, er, excuse me,
>this PHOBIA about the truth and facts?

Hey Phil, this gives me an idea.  Maybe we should rechristen PCness as
veritaphobia - fear of the truth.  What do you think?

How does it sound?  Hey Roger, you're a veritaphobe!!! What do you think?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:10:05 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1177@pb2esac.UUCP> jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand) writes:
    >In article <!75m-ta.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>In article <1169@pb2esac.UUCP> jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack
    >>Brand) writes:
    >>>In actuality Phil is correct here - I believe a major part of
    >>>what scares the bejesus out of strayt America (and what often
    >>>
    >>First, I find the term "straut" incredibly offensive, so it
    >>woild be appreciated if y'd refrain from it. Heterosexual is
    >>acceptable.
    >>
    >I promise I will never use the term "straut". :-)
    >
    >Seriously, though, how can I apologize properly? I'm really
    >sorry. To help us all out here, maybe you could do us a favor
    >and give us a list of terms you, Phil Ronzone, find
    >"offensive" and a list of what is "acceptable", so we can all
    >adjust our postings accordingly.

Sure -- calling me "strayt" make me feel like I imagine Jeff Dauber
would feel if I called him "faggot".

Let's use "scientific" terms: Homosexual, heterosexual, Causcasian,
Negro, man, woman, male, female, etc.

Thus, you'll note I do not say "lesbian", I say homosexual or
female homosexual.

Given the Politically Correct nature of the net, it is not worth
the flames to say Negro/Caucasian, so I am forced to resort
to white/black.

O.K.?

If you can be sensitive, I can be too .... :-)



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Homophobics can't deal with the real world
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 06:46:53 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba

In article <1992Aug17.194759.512@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
    >We
    >are the only Western nation that doesn't offer access to
    >health care.

Wow, that last visit I had to the doctor must have been a dream then.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: How to Profit from Death
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:31:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.004600.8461@ntmtv>,
jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
>Sign of the time #539:
>
>In the Merc yesterday there was an article (back page of sec 1)
>about the latest financial speculation: buying life insurance
>policies from people with AIDS.
>....
>Remember all the stink about using fetal tissue for research?
>(or selling bodily organs?) This is even worse, since the only
>person who profits is the investor. (the goal of research is to
>make some medical progress)

While I aggree with Patti that the idea is somewhat grizzly, I feel
I have to challenge her assertion that the only person who "profits"
is the investor.  The person from whom the policy is purchased is
getting cash on the barrel head while they are still alive -- money
that they would not normally, and quite literally live to see.  This
money will hopefully make what time they have left more comfortable
and enjoyable.  I can't find anything wrong with that.

>P.S. Did you hear that a rich, white, hetero woman Republican spoke
>at the GOP Conv about living with AIDS?  She got it from her rich,
>white, hetero, drug-taking Republican husband.  How many more of the
>"people with family values"/"cultural underclass" have to get this
>before something is done?

Changing the subject entirely, I was at a lecture last week where a
doctoral student of a Prof. Duesburg at Berkeley explained
Duesberg's reasons for believing that the causal relationship
between HIV and AIDS is far from conclusive.  I admit to being
extremely skeptical, if not hostile, to the idea when I first heard
about it, but after listening to the evidence presented it seems to
me that Duesburg has at least made a plauiable case for taking
another hard look at the evidence.  Instead he is being shut out of
both of both the popular press and the scientific literature
because he is basically saying that in many cases AIDS victims are
responsible for getting the disease since they have engaged in
behavior (he sites primarily excessive drug use) which can seriously
depress the immune system.  This is probably not the right group to
discuss this idea further.   Can anyone suggest an appropriate
place?

/June
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: mrmu@leland.Stanford.EDU (Marianne Mueller)
Subject: query
Keywords: them weirdoz
Organization: mayan research, inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 02:28:27 GMT

Am I the only person in the bay area who suspects that

	Clayton Cramer
	Phil Ronzone

are really, truly, agents for the NSA?   Sent here only to 
emasculate and ruin any effective local newsgrouping? 

Am I just paranoid?  Are these men (sic) truly BAD? 

Enquiring minds wonder, 

Marianne Mueller


Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 16:28:58 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1707iiINNitf@hal.com> howard@hal.com (Howard Gayle) writes:
    >In article <l90h36INN6cd@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb
    >(David Chase) writes:
    >>it appears to be a Libertarian article of faith that the Free
    >>Market will cure most (if not all) ills, or at least bring
    >>things into a tolerable approximation of fairness and equal
    >>opportunity. Principles of economics, and supply-demand
    >>relationships are cited to justify this.
    >...
    >>Yet, in my fairly distracted following of economics, there
    >>are many instances where these basic principles seem not to
    >>hold. Sometimes it seems that our markets converge on a local
    >>optimum, rather than a global optimum (Ken Arrow's work,
    >>which I believe appeared in some form in Scientific American
    >>within the last 5 years). Several of the theories assume
    >>perfect information about the market, which is certainly far
    >>from the truth. Transaction costs seem to also cause
    >>deviations from theoretical perfection.
    >>...
    >There is a form of argument that is fairly common. (I
    >emphasize that David Chase is not making it here!) It goes as
    >follows:
    >
    >1) Define some ideal free market, with "pure" competition, no
    >transactions costs, or whatever. 2) Show that reality differs
    >from the ideal. Call the difference "market failure." 3)
    >Conclude the necessity for government interference.

Perhaps another approach is to cosnider that a Free Market is first
and foremost an issue of freedom -- Freedom Of Association. You can
do what you want, with what you own, on any non-coercive basis.

David's argument is what I consider proto-fascist -- i.e., the Free Market
isn't efficient he complains. And of course, it isn't. Freedom is never
efficient. You want efficiency, let's have everybody live in jails.

Think of the efficiency of standard clothes, food, living quarters, and
more that one gets from making everybody live in jail ...



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:19:54 GMT

In article <athos-180892230759@kip2-7.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>You mean like the congress did when it made the choice to screw over Bush
>no matter what cost to the nation?

And when pray tell did the Congress do that ?  When they didn't pass
Georgies economic plan like he told them to ?  Remember his State of 
the Union address where he told the Congress that they had to pass
his economic plan or the dying economy was all their fault.  Boy,
what leadership !!!  If George Bush can't deal with Congress, perhaps
we should elect a President who can.  I should remind you that Ronald
Reagan was able to get most of his major economic policies implemented
even though he also had to deal with a hostile Congress.  The fact is
that George Bush just doesn't have the leadership qualities needed to
shephard legislation through the Congress.

>We'll never know, will we?  That's what is HOSED.  Congress made a decision
>to halt any victory for Bush.  Foley said this himself by admitting that
>the only legislation he would pass on to Bush was stuff he knew Bush would
>veto.
>
>Government at work, I suppose.

Yep, if you can't get the job done, be sure that you can blame someone
else.  George Bush is always sure to have someone to blame.  Remember,
Harry Truman said "The buck stops over there at Capital Hill !!!" or
something like that.

>We've had compromise, and it failed.  Bush compromised in 1990 with a tax
>increase, and congress f***ed him by not cutting spending as they promised.

HAHAHAHAHA.  If that's true, why was Bush so stupid as to agree to this
without getting the spending plan in writing first ?  Second, if Bush
was so opposed to this extra spending why didn't he veto it ?  He 
hasn't had a veto overturned yet.

>Wilson also did the same thing, with the same results.  That's what you get
>when a Republican starts acting like a Democrat.

Oh, so when a Republican does something you don't like its just 
because they are acting like a Democrat.  How can we be sure that
Mr. Bush won't succumb to this "Democratitis" during his second
term (especially when he won't have to worry about running for
re-election again).


Guido
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:08:03 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <r19mffm.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> No. It reflects the reality of life. Let us be very realistic. People have
|> different amounts of "good things" going for them. If say, a 40-year old
|> woman with a long history of prostituition, drug use, jail time commits
|> suicide rather than use the needle again, I would say that perhaps it was for
|> the best, considering the pain, degradation, and horror that she has seen.
|> 
|> If a 21-year old woman commits suicide over the despair at her first failed
|> big love affair, I would say what a waste -- because she in all likelihood
|> made a bad decision based on the spur of the moment despondacy.
|> 
And if a certain idiotic engineer decided to off himself rather than
show more of his stupidity to the world I would tell him to go for it.
Who are you to measure another persons worth to the world?  There are whores
who I'd rather save before the likes of you.

|> The full range of human potential includes hetersexual behaviour in
|> my book (as should be obvious to you). However, some people,
|> with ugly looks or ugly personalities (or "broken" personalities), perhaps
|> have trouble with hetersexual relationships and turn to alternatives.
|> 
Hahahhah!!  Oh this is mighty good.  Really.  I know a lot of nice looking
dykes who are fully functioning and did not need to have the alternatives
of marriage to a moronic self centered boor like yourself.

|> The poster has (apparently) an underlying belief that I share -- that
|> many, perhaps the vast majority, of female homosexuals are pretty ugly
|> in body and/or spirit.
|> 
As if you know more than 5.

|> Sure, there are pretty ones, but in my observation, they are few and far
|> between.
|> 
Your observations, as is generally the case, are rather narrow.

|> So to see someone that has all the qualifications for a full and complete
|> life chose a side avenue, that in many peoples opinions offers a less
|> complete and (more potential for unhappiness), yes, what a waste.
|> 
Kind of like your own conception?  Too bad your parents didn't consider
that vasectomy sooner.

|> In the same way, if I saw a black high school kid with an outstanding mind
|> and a love for science pursue a professional sports career, I'd also
|> say, what a waste.
|> 
|> Get it?
|> 
Yup, you're a bigot, plain and simple.  Why is the example a "black
high school kid"? 

Get real, or get lost, loser.

-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: query
Keywords: them weirdoz
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:44:58 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug17.022827.20442@leland.Stanford.EDU> mrmu@leland.Stanford.EDU (Marianne Mueller) writes:
    >Am I the only person in the bay area who suspects that
    >
    >Clayton Cramer Phil Ronzone
    >
    >are really, truly, agents for the NSA? Sent here only to
    >emasculate and ruin any effective local newsgrouping?
    >
    >Am I just paranoid? Are these men (sic) truly BAD?
    >
    >Enquiring minds wonder,
    >
    >Marianne Mueller

Why no, Marianne, I don't think you are paranoid. Mant paranoids are otherwise
quite intelligent, and rest assured I certainly wouldn't accuse you of that.

Actually, Clayton and I are AI programs, with the purpose of selecting out
the truly intelligent posters on the newsgroups -- for inclusion in the
first and third ships. The rest, like you, will be placed on the third
ship. If you don't understand the allusion, never mind -- you won't have to
go on any ship at all.

As your post so vividly illustrates, many posters are rather incapable of
expressing true rational thoughts, at least in the posts they make.

For example, other than an attempted slur at around the 1st grade level,
WHAT if anything have you contributed to rational thought or even just
plain old reasonable discussion?

You have instead demonstrated an overt lack of self-esteem;
why else would you have called a few people names and then
ask the net in a plaintive cry for support, "am I right guys,
huh? huh?". It is understandable, the nature of an individual
immersed in PC-dom does react badly to intense debate
involving ideas and more than one point of view.
    
On behalf of our creators (Robert Crumb & Associates), we do apologize
for confusing your Politically Correct(tm) mind with real thoughts. If
you promise to never ever read any of the newsgroups we post in, we
promise it won't happen again.

By the way, the post above is a real example of an ad hominem attack --
at least if you're going to try anad attack someone, try to do it with
wit or style, or at least be amusing.




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:27:47 GMT
Organization: Memes-R-Us
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>I assume you are homosexual.

Then you haven't paid a whole lot of attention ...


-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion's view on life
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:52:51 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Aug13.011647.13766@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>
>People need to take responsibility in all aspects of their lives, but 
>it is fruitless to try to punish them for past indiscretions.  It
>simply doesnt work.  
>
Okay.  We should make rape legal, murder legal, drugs legal, child
abuse legal, etc.  It is fruitless to punish them for past indiscretions,
right?  Maybe we should even abolish jails.  Or even abolish parents
for putting restrictions on their children when they do wrong!
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: Recall Gov. Pete Wilson
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 21:31:26 GMT

In article <l8jck5INNk6t@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>If anyone is showing leadership in this fiasco it is Pete Wilson. You should
>really be going after Willie Brown.
>
>The fact of the matter is you will go nowhere with your effort. Taxpayers
>are at their limits in this state and Pete Wilson is the only one on their
>side. 

Speak for yourself.  I am a taxpayer.  I do not believe that we are excessively
taxed.  I believe that it is much more important to fund education than it is
to fund your lawn.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 19:55:23 GMT

In article <=75mtmb.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
>>>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
>>>but the pretty ones are such a waste.
>>
>>Sexist asshole.
>
>
>Why is this sexist or an "asshole" remark. It is a true remark to the best
>of my knowledge.

Because it suggests that women are there only for the sexual satisfaction
of men, and that any other use of them is a waste...

And while the entire statement (about "the dominant reaction among straight
males") is likely true, the fact that the author saw fit to share it was
the motivation for the "sexist asshole" remark.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 06:54:35 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug17.191435.8632@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
    >Your attempt to claim the moral high ground is a laugh, Phil.
    >
    >>Keep it up and I'll start to totally agree with Clayton.
    >>
    >The differences in opinion between you and Clayton are few
    >and far between, and not worth exploring.

You have a real problem with the English language.

Read carefully.

When John Redneck comes up to me and says "I think all faggots should be
killed", I agree with him.

BECAUSE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WHAT HE JUST SAID IS INDEED, WHAT HE THINKS.

I may not agree with his think, but I do agree with people when they
tell me what they think.

The original quote was to the effect that most hetersexual males think
that a pretty woman is waste. I agree -- the observation is true in
my experience.

Jeez -- Politically Correct Thinking -- a glaring oxymoron if ever ...
-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:41:49 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <92230.52056.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
|> George, do you really think that Phil *condones* or encourages beatings with
|> a baseball bat?

I've not seen him say that he doesn't.

|> I think the "baseball bat" analogy is inflammatory.  Certainly, if the advocacy
|> of violence was being discussed, the analogy would be a good one.  I don't
|> see it, though.  

I was using that example to explain why there are "gay/lesbian" pride parades
and there aren't "straight" pride parades.  Obviously you missed it.


-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce