HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:32:23 GMT
	<athos-090892212149@kip2-40.apple.com>
	<1992Aug12.175456.13133@rossinc.com>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: steveth@rossinc.com's message of 12 Aug 92 17:54:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.175456.13133@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas) writes:

> I said this in my first post: I'm not, as the mainstream pro-choice groups
> are, for "free abortion on demand".  (This is true for most of the LP
> sympathizers here on the net).

In so far as I may be characterized as an "LP sympathizer," I
take exception to your evident misreading of what I have written.
Nowhere have I advocated free anything on demand.  Nor do I 
understand this to be the "libertarian" position, or that of
the Libertarian Party.

> Unlike the much of the LP fold here, though,
> I do not take the argument of, "it may be murder, it may not be, so let's
> legalize it just in case" 

Once again, I must take exception to your distortion.  I do 
not argue that abortion should be legal because it "may not
be" murder.  You seem to have missed the point entirely.

> (IMHO, I don't think THAT argument is going to get
> you anywhere; the primary argument is: a fetus is a person, or it is not.
> You can't evade THIS issue.  I've argued that a fetus is NOT...).

Once more, you show that you have misunderstood the argument.
Whether or not the fetus is a "person" is NOT relevant.  Even
a person, a fully qualified volitional entity with all attendant
rights, may not claim the right to life at the expense of the
enslavement of another.

If you feel compelled to paraphrase the beliefs of others, at
least make an effort to understand them and get it right.

> I've managed to stand out politically, even amongst the "radicals" here on
> the net, much less the main stream ABC News coverees.  Crazy mabey, radical,
> different, stupid, sophomoric, absurd, or absolutely correct mabey; but
> not, even you have to admit, the same stuff everybody else is offering...

I will agree that your position has many unique features.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 16:44:34 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <ohmicuo@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >In article <!75m-ta.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>It's the excessiveness that is most disgusting. I find in the
    >>same way the guy at a hot dog eating contest that scxarfed
    >>down 30+ in a hourt very disgusting to.
    >>
    >>So hey, if you want to eat 30 hot dogs in an hour, or have 30
    >>sex parners in a hour, go ahead, it's your right. But, a lot
    >>of us would find it pretty disgusting.
    >>
    >The point of the matter is, people do not behave this way any
    >longer. For that matter, I have never behaved in this manner.
    >Why do you keep labelling me as disgusting?
    >
    >
    >And, if I have never done these things that you object to,
    >why do you insist on keeping me out of all the establishments
    >that you patronize?


Woody Allen does a great scene in the movie "Annie Hall" where he's telling
his friend Max that some guy that just asked him to go to lunch was
anti-semitic -- Woody Allen says the guy said "Did you eat? Did ja' eat?
Did JEW eat?".

Hilarious scene Jeff -- study it and look at yourself. You are part of this
kind of excess. I find certain behaviours disgusting. Some of them are
sexual, some are cultural, others are, well, a variety.

I have not labelled you or what you do disgusting -- how can I, I don't
know you. I do know what you post, and the above Wood Allen style
ludicrous hypersensitivty is disgusting. It would be just amusing if it
was not for the fact that you are a proponent of a coercive State.

Nor have I insisted on keeping you out of any establishment. I do inist
on a right. I claim the right to a free press, you demand to know why I
want to publish the worst sort of pornography -- that is the style of
your (non) argument.



-- 
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: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:02:19 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug17.182649.16937@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve
Thomas) wrote:

> Simply believing in something is not dogmatic: believing in it, and refusing
> to here arguments to the contrary is close minded and dogmatic.

Surely it is, especially when you have debated this topic as often as I
have.  There aren't many arguments that are new to me, so that I have
already thought the issue over.  When you have analyzed a situation,
discussed it for, oh, 10 years, you pretty much have a firm opinion.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 02:00:51 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <ont50dc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >I allow anyone to feel and whatever they want as an
    >individual. If I see someone behaving like a bigot, a call
    >them one. (Note: key word in this sentence is individual).

One of the great things about conversation is how the underlying
structure of response/counter-response can be so revealing.

Jeff, a MAJOR difference bwteen you and I is that I do not assume
nor do I believe in way, shape, or form that it is up to ME what is to be
allowed or not allowed. It is simply foreign to me to make such a
revealing slip of the tongue as "I allow".

    >You judge everyone based on stereotypes which society
    >perpetuates. You want everyone to fit your mold. If they do
    >not fit your mold, there is something wrong with them. People
    >who do not share the "ronzone-think" seem to be unacceptable
    >in the eyes of the "ronzone-god" and must change.

Not only is this junk not true, but it is also unsupportable. based on
your recent posts, I'd say you're projecting a lot of your problems onto
people you disagree with. Or, are you going to categorize us straight white
males as all x, y, or z again?



-- 
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: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 22:12:01 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1169@pb2esac.UUCP> jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand) writes:
    >In article <5y4m_ck.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>I can not understand the inability of the self-stated
    >>homosexuals on this newgroup to understand that for many
    >>people, what they do is disgusting or
    >>
    >In actuality Phil is correct here - I believe a major part of
    >what scares the bejesus out of strayt America (and what often
    >remains unsaid) about gays is plainly and simply their
    >disgust with the idea of anal intercourse. This does not
    >speak, of course, to the stature of lesbians in the eyes of
    >strayts, but IMHO their sexual practices have through the
    >ages been viewed with less disgust.
    >

First, I find the term "straut" incredibly offensive, so it woild be
appreciated if y'd refrain from it. Heterosexual is acceptable.

I find in my experience that it is not a singulat type of sex act, such
as anal intercourse that is "disgusting", after all, that is something that
probably can be enjoyed by all combinations.

What is disgusting is, for example, what my father once mentioned to  me
about a homosexual "bar"/sex club -- where apparently the main attraction
was the use of fists and Crisco to do what I found rather bizarre
upon hearing it.

Or he last time I read a homosexual paper, which had the
paen to the joy of laying face down on a cot in a SF "bath", offering
one's butt to the enoyment of all (the guy counted 20+ in a few
hours).


Note, I would find the same thing disgusting if it was a woman.

It's the excessiveness that is most disgusting. I find in the same way
the guy at a hot dog eating contest that scxarfed down 30+ in a hourt
very disgusting to.

So hey, if you want to eat 30 hot dogs in an hour, or have 30
sex parners in a hour, go ahead, it's your right. But,
a lot of us would find it pretty disgusting.

.

-- 
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: steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Ross Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:08:10 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug13103223@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.175456.13133@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
>
>> I said this in my first post: I'm not, as the mainstream pro-choice groups
>> are, for "free abortion on demand".  (This is true for most of the LP
>> sympathizers here on the net).
>
>In so far as I may be characterized as an "LP sympathizer," I
>take exception to your evident misreading of what I have written.
>Nowhere have I advocated free anything on demand.  Nor do I 
>understand this to be the "libertarian" position, or that of
>the Libertarian Party.
>

Ooops.  I wrote that very badly.  That's _not_ what I meant.  That
paragraph is hopelessly jumbled: I meant quite the opposite...  (The "This"
in "This is true for" refers to "I'm not...").

> [Stuff Deleted]
>
>Whether or not the fetus is a "person" is NOT relevant.  Even
>a person, a fully qualified volitional entity with all attendant
>rights, may not claim the right to life at the expense of the
>enslavement of another.
>

I've never thought of it that way.  This is the first I've seen THIS argument
presented.  Given this argument, you are correct in saying that the issue of
whether the fetus is a person or not is relavent...  I'm still not sure that
it will hold up, though...

> [More stuff deleted]
>If you feel compelled to paraphrase the beliefs of others, at
>least make an effort to understand them and get it right.
>

Well, I was being pretty general.  You'll always get in trouble when you
generalize like that (see Clayton's posts...).  Speaking about the "LP
viewpoint" is a moving target.  We should talk of the LP Platform, or of
individual's statements; I made a big mistake when I tried to speak about
"...most of the LP viewpoint here on the net...".  That statement has no
clear identity...  

Egads, I must have posted that before my morning coffee...

||-------
Steve R. Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com

"You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator."
        - Lisa Simpson

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Taking Our Own Outing Initiatives: One Lesbian Perspective
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:02:08 GMT
Reply-To: jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand)
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, Ca.

In article <365ma!=.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1168@pb2esac.UUCP> jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand) writes:
>    >>I guess I equate the "whining" of homosexuals in this regards
>    >>as if I were in an all Hindu country, and I was eating beef
>    >>in public, building slaughterhouses, holding "Eat Beef" pride
>    >>marches, wearing Ronald McDonald shirts, etc. and then
>    >>whining that people don't seem to accept me. Well, grow up.
>    >>
>    >*Sigh*, too bad we can't turn back the clock a hundred years
>    >or so and just tell black folks that hey, the cultural norm
>    >regarding black people in the U.S. is something they should
>    >just pipe down about.
>
>Hmm, of course, if you seriously intend to equate the status of
>blacks 100 years ago with that of homosexuals today, you somehow would
>have to account for the difference of say, the higher average household
>income of white homosexuals than white heterosexuals.

I was trying to illustrate a general principle here, not "equate the
status of blacks 100 years ago with that of homosexuals."  Putting
words in someone's mouth to the point of absurdity is no way to win
a debate.  You argued that cultural norms should be respected - I
argue that social progress often happens when cultural norms are flung
down and danced upon.  Now, lest you or another infamous *.politics
contributor reads me wrong, I am not merely contending that every
cultural norm is worthless and needs shitcanned.  But I get nervous
when folks start saying "sit down and shaddup about your problems -
that's just the way this culture is".

Regarding your leap to contending I am somehow now required to explain 
matters of economic status, I personally do not feel that financial 
success indicates someone no longer has any right to complain they are 
not being treated fairly.   But I guess the next time I hear of any
gay complaining about a personal instance of discrimination I will
remind them about this "higher average household income" thingy.  I'm
sure they'll be quite touched.

jb
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Freedom Of Association again
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:17:49 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug20.225720.743@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>1. Does a restuarant have a right to enforce a dress code?
    >>
    >If they offer a set of clothing, probably, yes, especially if
    >they have a theme which the clothing reflects. In general, I
    >wouldn't feel it is inappropriate to have minimum standards
    >that took into account "public" perception ( a vague phrase
    >open to abuse ) and more importantly, the community's health
    >standards - the same standards which apply to custom- -mers.
    >
    >I think a symmetry between what is acceptable for customers
    >to be served and for what is acceptable for their servers
    >should exist, in general.
    >
    >>2. Specifically, can a restaurant tell you how many earrings
    >>you can wear?
    >>
    >No. They can specify "none", but I don't see how they can
    >dictate how many. They can ask, however, and a 'no' may lead
    >to further disagreement(s).

Why can they specify none, but not 1, 2, 3, less than 4, etc?

What if a casual restaurant opened up in the Castro district, and
wait-persons wore extremely casual dress. Grateful dead shirts,
punk styles, neo-yuppie, and so on.

Would you agree, or disagree, that I could wear a shirt decorated
with classical geometric designs copied from American aborigines?

Would you see anything wrong with that?

I mean, I saw this neat design in National Geographic from an
AmerInd rug design and thought it would look cool on a T shirt so
I copied it.

But then again, management might have problems with that. Because, although
to ME, it is just a neat geometric design, to the managerment, and the
customers, the Hopi (I think that was the tribe), the broken cross
is a Swastika and totally unsuitable symbology when dealing with the
public.

The point: it's not what YOU (the wait-person) thinks, it's what the customer
or, more importantly, the management thinks.

I..e, FOA is so important because it is so subjective.


-- 
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 ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4692 soc.motss:36065 talk.politics.misc:40831
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Keywords: spokespersons, alternative lifestyes, poor
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:45:31 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Aug20.172041.8222@pony.Ingres.COM>, rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner) writes:
|> Looking at the evidence, it is quite obvious that these particular people
|> quickly resort to juvenile wordplay when confronted with statements which
|> they either don't like or can't refute.
|> 
Care to quote this evidence?

|> I have the pleasure of acquaintance with many, many people who practice
|> alternative lifestyles, and frankly, my dear(s), you are (a) poor
|> representative(s).  It is unfortunate that a large number of the people
|> who read and/or participate in the discussion are going to come away with
|> an impression created by you.
|> 
We're so sorry that we don't come up to snuff for you.  We shall all
go out and shoot ourselves now.

The impression that they should come away with is that we are all
individuals.  Judging any group by what a few people are like
is bigotry.  Which is what people here have been insisting all along.


-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Taking Our Own Outing Initiatives: One Lesbian Perspective
Date: 13 Aug 92 06:28:27 GMT
Reply-To: jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand)
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, Ca.

In article <5y4m_ck.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

  [ verbiage regarding not bucking the cultural norms deleted ]

>I guess I equate the "whining" of homosexuals in this regards as if I
>were in an all Hindu country, and I was eating beef in public, building
>slaughterhouses, holding "Eat Beef" pride marches, wearing
>Ronald McDonald shirts, etc. and then whining that people don't
>seem to accept me.
>Well, grow up.

Some of us are not overly impressed by poor analogies, Phil.  Your
argument is very black and white: if people have the audacity to
visibly challenge the "accepted norms" of society they should expect
whatever rejection comes their way.

*Sigh*, too bad we can't turn back the clock a hundred years or so
and just tell black folks that hey, the cultural norm regarding
black people in the U.S. is something they should just pipe down
about.

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

Quoting ourself again?  How charming.

jb
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 06:57:32 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

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? Of course, only Phil
    >knows for sure, but my guess would be that he does not. There
    >seems to be a basic inability of some people to understand
    >the difference between "approving" of a lifestyle and
    >respecting a person's right to live as they see fit. As far ...

Well put, Tim. Actually, the last time I was aware of it, I did have
a concern about heterosexual couples being accosted by multiple
balck men armed with baseball bats. This was in Berkeley in 1984-1985.

They had a spate of them, 3 or 4 I think, right in an area I lived in.


-- 
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: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 17 Aug 92 00:11:01 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer

In article <1992Aug14.221500.5510@clipper.ingr.com>, ald@clipper.ingr.com
(Al Date) wrote:

> 
> Yep.  It is her universe, not yours, not mine, not society's.  
> You can violate her, but she cannot violate herself.  Only she
> can define the rights of the life within her.

What a crock.  So, she is God to that fetus.  She can determine the outcome
of its life, her lifestyle and the lifestyle of the father in question?  I
don't think so.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
I don't speak for Apple.  Really, I don't.
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 15 Aug 92 05:31:53 GMT
	<1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: dauber@sgi.com's message of 13 Aug 92 17:47:11 GMT

In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) 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.

Where does he state that he subscribes to this belief?
His posting is descriptive of a common attitude, not a
statement of his opinion of lesbians.  So why must you
jump to conclusions and become abusive just because
somebody explains that the world is not always a nice
place?  Your response is offensive, inflamatory, and
exasperating.  It is out of line.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Ross Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:45:35 GMT

In article <athos-170892170302@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.182649.16937@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve
>Thomas) wrote:
>
>> Simply believing in something is not dogmatic: believing in it, and refusing
>> to here arguments to the contrary is close minded and dogmatic.
>
>Surely it is, especially when you have debated this topic as often as I
>have.  There aren't many arguments that are new to me, so that I have
>already thought the issue over.  When you have analyzed a situation,
>discussed it for, oh, 10 years, you pretty much have a firm opinion.
>

Brain's hardened, huh?  From this I can say this much: the Pro-Life
movement's days are numbered.  The Repubs just got real close to removing
the anti-choice baggage from their platform, and many say the "Pro-Choice
Republicans" will eventually win out, and both of the major parties will be
united in the Pro-Choice fray.  Combine this with the proliferation of RU486
and it will be a dead issue...

Soon you'll have as much chance at getting abortion made illegal as the LP has
of getting drugs made legal.  The LP, however, does not exhibit this kind of
bankruptcy, and therefore HAS a future.  The future belongs to those who
continue to think, continue to innovate, continue to keep an open mind,
continue to solve problems with new approaches: not those who have "already
thought the issue over [ten years ago]".

||-------
Steve R. Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com

"You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator."
        - Lisa Simpson