HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: shouting in my own ear
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:08:31 GMT

In article <Bwwt1n.9yy@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>Just out of interest, why are bisexuals expected to be left-wing socialists?

Actually, the only other bisexual net.person I've met is a member of the U.S.
Libertarian Party, as am I.  Camille Paglia also calls herself a bisexual
libertarian (haven't read her books, so no flames please!).  So if anyone
is 'expecting' bisexuals to be left-wing socialists, they're likely to be
disappointed.

An interesting side note (and quick jab at the two major US parties):  An
openly gay Republican candidate for the Ohio Legislature was attacked by
his Democratic opponent purely on the basis of his sexuality shortly before
election day.  Quite a reversal of party stereotypes, but precisely what
I'd expect these days.

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: seamus@ravel.udel.edu (James G Dilmore)
Subject: Re: tackling the bible
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: soc
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:21:51 GMT

In article <BxH9Ju.DEx@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>
>The Gospels never mention it.  Paul goes on about it a bit.  Paul was a
>nasty piece of work in more ways than one.
>  __                                ____
>\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
>/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/

I have even heard some talk about Paul being a closeted gay.
(cf. the passages on Paul having an evil inside of himself)

-- 
Jim Dilmore - seamus@brahms.udel.edu    
               SILENCE = DEATH    
This is not a black and white world,
to be alive I believe the colors must be swirled- Live.~
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: sa121@cl.cam.ac.uk (S. Arrowsmith)
Subject: Re: .sig
Reply-To: SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk (S. Arrowsmith)
Organization: Surrealists against Lobsters
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:58:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.114445.2521@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> fenthe@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.210901.24110@aber.ac.uk>, ahb0@aber.ac.uk (Anna He Baik) writes: 
>> Awwww......Hugs & swsus mawr from a fellow muffin then!
>
> (swsus mawr? <sfx: blinks confusedly> )
>
Well, mawr is Welsh for "big" or some synonym thereof -- given that the
address of aber.ac.uk and following up to Mike Williams its not hard to
deduce what language is being spoken.  Quite what swsus is, I don't know
-- my Welsh vocabulary tends to be limited to words which crop up in
place names....

--
\S
SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk   | There's nowt |"And in this moment, I need to be needed
sarrowsm@nyx.cs.du.edu| so queer as  |"When my self-esteem is sinking,
                      | folk....     |"I like to be liked" -- Peter Gabriel
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: seamus@ravel.udel.edu (James G Dilmore)
Subject: Re: Looking for INFO
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:20:37 GMT

In article <lg34emINNpn7@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> fishnets@soulsteppin.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>Jim Dilmore says...
>
>It's a rumour that all skinheads are facist fag-bashers.
>
>Emily
>
Good point. Sorry about the generalization.
I have another slogan.
	"More man than you'll ever be, and more woman than you'll ever get."

:> Once again I stole it.
-- 
Jim Dilmore - seamus@brahms.udel.edu    
               SILENCE = DEATH    
This is not a black and white world,
to be alive I believe the colors must be swirled- Live.~
From: wink.NoSubdomain.NoDomain
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: _Making Love_
Date: 9 Nov 1992 21:54:06 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: geek.teng.ppd.ti.com

I have a few gripes about _Making Love_.  Just wondering what y'all think...

Synopsis:
(het)Couple married 8 years.  Yuppie.  She's a tv programming type, he's a
doctor.  All of a sudden, he's attracted to other men.  He tries it out, likes
it, and finally tells his wife about it.  He subsequently stays at a motel for a
while.  She thinks it over and tries to talk to him.  He's already decided that
thier marriage is over.  Divorce.  ...years later... She's remarried, he's got a
man.  Everyone's happy.  The End.

Does anyone have any comments? I don't want to continue if noone remembers this
movie at all...

To Roy:
You are very brave.
<big, tight bear squeeze>

js
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: This has probably already been asked...
Followup-To: soc.bi
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:42:36 GMT

In article <dbarber.721164647@crash.cts.com> 
 dbarber@crash.cts.com (David C. Barber) writes:
>This has probably already been asked and (hopefully) answered, and
>I just haven't seen the answer, but here goes:
>
>Why is the lack of acceptance from the gays as bad as the lack of
>acceptance from the hets?

My theory has to do with violating boundaries -- some folk on
both "sides" put a lot of energy into maintaining their position
on one side or the other of the het/homo division and are disconcerted
by some on who crosses the lines. They may take the existence of bis
as a challenge to their position, even when we don't state it as such.

I talk about the one box, two box, three box, and no boxes theories of
sexuality. Folk who follow the "one box" theory will tend not to
seperate homophobia from biphobia because they deny everything but
heterosexuality exists. Folk who follow "the two" box theory are most
prone to have the boundary trouble mentioned above. Folk who follow
the "three bo"x theory may say -- "Bisexuals exist, but go off and
form your own community, *you* have nothing in common with *us*."

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Altruism/Egoism (was: two men)
Organization: The Ohio State University
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:34:39 GMT

Sounds to me as though you got quite a bit out of it, Roy! :-)  In fact,
sounds like quite a fair trade.  I don't think people would be so eager
to give backrubs (and people generally are) if the rub-ee just laid there
like a sack of potatoes, but only under those conditions would a backrub
be "altruistic".

Steve
"I will liberate you for food!"
From: rowe@engin.umich.edu (Steven Rowe)
Subject: Re: Choices ( was: Re: accidently out )
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 02:58:22 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <maxine.721608382@camelot> latarra@camelot.bradley.edu (Lisa Ehren) writes:
>
>Okay, I might get flamed for this, but if I was afraid to post because of
>flamers, I wouldn't have demuffined, now would I?  :)
>
Have a demuffining hug, Lisa.  Have another.  And another...

>Anyway...I don't know if being bisexual or homosexual or heterosexual, or
>whatever else you want to call your sexuality, is a choice.
>I don't know if I, or the rest of the world, will ever know for sure.
>
>But, I do think that you were right to say "lifestyle you have chosen",
>because I believe she <generalized to everyone> did choose that lifestyle.

I chose my words carefully, and put the moderate disclaimer at the bot-
tom because (1) I am aware that some of my readers *don't* view orientation
as a choice, and I strive not to offend and (2) I didn't want to start
(yet another) flame war on this, one of the few forums where I feel
comfortable to express myself and leave behind the hassles of non-netland.

>She could have denied herself and her sexuality, she could have been
>extremely closet about it and kept the calendar in her closet...afterall,
[ a paragraph or so deleted ]

Sure, we all make choices about how we approach life, but I think the
idea behind the choice (sic) of "choice" or "preference" over "orientation"
is that some people believe they were born with their sexual orientation,
while others (myself included) believe they made a conscious choice about
with whom they have sex.  I was attempting to be inclusive.
>
>Comments?  thoughts?  Flames?  Hugs <whimper whimper, beg beg>?

You now have my comments, which I did, in fact, think about.  I don't
flame (no matter how tempting it has been at times).  Except sometimes,
in gay bars, when there's a *really* cute guy standing by the jukebox.
But that's not what you meant.  Hugs?  You don't have to beg for hugs
here (that's part of what I like about soc.bi).  Have another.  *HUG!*



-- 
Steve Rowe: B0 f- w- c g+ k+ s- e+ r-
     These folks who don't believe in evolution
are the ones who look the most like they could use some.
                                   -Frank Allison
From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Altruism
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:06:48 GMT
Organization: UEA School of Information Systems, Norwich, UK.

gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>The only value judgement I'll admit to is that I'm disappointed when
>people claim superiority for an altruistic act when the act should
>stand on its own regardless of the motivation.

"High virtue has no thought of virtue; therefore it has virtue.
Low virtue has a thought of virtue; therefore it has no virtue."

This whole discussion consists of people defining the words "altruism"
and "selfishness" in different ways, heatedly arguing that their
definition is the "right" one, and imagining that in defining a word they
are making some sort of claim about the external world.  (The definitions
I proposed of the words "altruism" and "selfishness" were intended merely
as a description of the way the words seem to be used in practice,
outside the context of undergraduate philosophical discussions.)  Such
references to the external world as are being made are to behaviours on
whose desirability or undesirability everyone seems to agree, the dispute
instead being about whether to call the desirable ones "altruistic" and
the undesirable ones "selfish" or vice versa.

Someone suggested that talk.philosophy.objectivism, if it gets created,
would be a suitable forum for continuing this discussion.  From what I
have seen of Objectivism and Objectivists on the net, it is more likely
to be a suitable dustbin to dump it in.  sci.philosophy.tech might be a
more interesting place to raise the subject (and has the advantage of
already existing).

--                                ____
Richard Kennaway                  \  /__    School of Information Systems
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk       \/  /    University of East Anglia
uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk      \/     Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons)
Subject: Re: a tiny bit more out
Reply-To: orc@amber.uchicago.edu
Organization: Department of Catastrophes
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 06:14:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.213850.19519@ctp.com> sthor@ctp.com (Sarah
Thornburg) writes about visibility:
|
|But I am curious what other people expect when they do wear their pins or
|Tshirts or whatever?  Before I even considered the fact that I was bisexual
|myself I would see people wearing shirts or pins, openly proclaiming their
|sexuality, but it wouldn't occur to me even now to go up to them and
|say,"hey, I notice you're wearing a bisexual pride Tshirt?  Are you bi?" Or
|to tell them that I respected them for wearing it?
|

   I tend to wear badges and/or pins and/or earrings and/or etc
pretty much all of the time (including job interviews, work
assignments at client sites, you get the picture...) and I don't
really expect anything one way or another.  I wear them because I
am trying to define my space (to myself) as queerspace, and if
other people recognise them, well, it's a little something extra. 
There are times when people *will* notice them and comment on them,
which is awfully nice, because in my case (with the exceptions of
some born-again christians at a customer site who became *very
unhappy with me after a week of me wearing pink triangle buttons on
my jacket...) they've all been queerfolk and/or queer positive.

   I don't know how many people recognise the pink triangle. I hope
that people do, and will react to mine by realizing that they've
just seen a gay person (so what if I'm a Kinsey 1 or 2?  That's
queer enough for the phobes!) and won't be able to ever say again
that they've never seen queerfolk.

|Maybe, I suppose.  But I don't think you should think that people ignore it.
|Or that because they don't say anything they're afraid of it.

   No, that's not my assumption.  When I see someone wearing a pink
triangle, I just grin to myself and continue on my way.

                 ____
   david parsons \bi/ "e-slut"
                  \/
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk (Clive Grace)
Subject: Re: shouting in my own ear
Reply-To: cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:12:00 +0000


> In article <memo.729553@cix.compulink.co.uk> cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:

> >I SAID, MANY HEADACHES NURSED?
> >;-)
> >
> Oooh, not so loud, please -- I still haven't worked out how I managed to
> get home in less time than it took me to get there....

Ahh, the old Dave Berry time/eye dilation syndrome. I "still" have 
this wonderful photo of you 30 seconds after appearing from the floor 
of Dave's party in Edinburgh...

boy, did you look <ill>

<mother mode OFF>
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| "When I grow up, I want to give up being  |cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk|
| a Journalist and learn how to write..."   |cliveg@cix.compulink.uucp |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: bi bi baby
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:28:07 GMT
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

In article <28040@castle.ed.ac.uk> angi@festival.ed.ac.uk (Angi Lamb) writes:
>*Blush* I saw them 21 years ago at my local youth club for the princely
>sum of 20p.  I preferred the Slade who i also saw for 20p at the same
>tender age. 

Bloody hell!  You're not a Panner too, Angi?!?  P.L.?

G
--
From: winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: a tiny bit more out
Date: 13 Nov 1992 23:26:53 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: geek.teng.ppd.ti.com

In article <1992Nov13.192335.4575@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov8.181132.2502@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu>, fenthe@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:
|> > In article <1992Nov8.183549.2737@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver) writes:
|> > > With that lycra, dear?
|> > 
|> >  Erm.. Aak! I wear lycra because I like it -- and because it makes certain
|> > aspects of juggling a great deal more convenient. (though that's another thing
|> > entirely). The fact that it seems to be popular amongst bifolk is, I assure
|> > you, nothing but a coincidence. 
|> 
|> Yes, honest. And I wear lycra because it makes certain aspects of cycling, no,
|> rowing, er... juggling. Running - that was it. Um... climbing?
|> 
|> Nope - I'm sure I must have a good reason why I wear lycra, it's just escaped
|> me at the moment.
|> 
|> Ooops. Maybe I'm just a raving fetishist? (-8
|> 
|> I'm sure it *really* *is* a coincidence that so many bifolk wear lycra, yes,
|> really I am.
|> 
|> --Clive.

Allright.  A really stupid question:

*WHAT* is lycra, anyway?!

js
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: a tiny bit more out
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:08:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.220127.22848@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> nina@Turing.ORG (Nina Karp) writes:
>It's strange -- sometimes I feel guilty for not wearing lots of triangle-y
>buttons, for not being more political about my bi-ness.  I'm a very private
>person, though, and telling the world who I sleep with feels as odd as
>advertising what color undies I'm wearing.  It's my business.

Seconded, except I don't feel guilty about it no matter how much the
politicised movements tell me I should.  I didn't go around advertising
my sexuality when I thought I was straight and I see no reason to
change.  It is, as you say, ones own business.  I've no objection to
discussing my sexuality with anyone who wants to talk about it, and
I won't stand still for bigotry when it's rammed down my throat (as
folks will notice from that posting from words-l where I don't normally
make an issue of my sexuality) but I just don't see the point in gratuitously
advertising it.

This seems to me the reason that the bi movement isn't as actively
political (present company excepted) as the gay movement.  There are
too many of us in the low kinsey area for whom our (bi)sexuality is
only a small part of our lives.  Call it cowardice or laziness if
you like, but it's there and I'm part of it.

G
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: /G=Owen/S=Smith/O=SJ-Research/ADMD=INTERSPAN/C=GB/@mhs-relay.ac.uk
Subject: Olaf's address
Organization: Yale CS Mail/News Gateway
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:23:37 GMT

I forgot something in my previous post. I got some snail mail from Olaf. 
He's lost his net access, and from what people said at Dave Berry's house 
warming party Olaf didn't get time to post saying he was losing it. 
Anyway, here is Olaf's snail mail address:

Olaf Seibert,
Vossendyk 123,    (the y should have a diarhesis over it)
653U TK Nymegen,  (same goes for this y too)
Netherlands

+31-80-561030     (the 80 might be 00 - dodgy hand writing)

and his parents' address is:

Beek 5,
5815 CS
Merselo
Netherlands

+31-4780-46205

It's a dead weird feeling posting to a group you can't read!

Owen (owen.smith%gb.interspan.sj-research@mhs-relay.ac.uk)

Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 13:27:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.233828.15250@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
<long article deleted>

Funny.  Everything *he* said, I agree with too.  Want to make it a threesome
at the weekend, Elf & Mike? ;-)

G
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: tackling the bible
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Distribution: soc
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:15:13 GMT

In article <BxH9Ju.DEx@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>They think the OT is the real deal too, they just haven't read it.

True, or at least the one I'm arguing with on words-l certainly does.
I'm currently trying to show her that despite her claim to follow the
bible literally, without interpretation, she is doing just that.  If
I manage to make that point, it'll be a lot easier to argue the
interpretation of the strictures against men lying with men.

Hmmm... maybe i should start with women lying with women.  Can't
remember the bible mentioning that *at all*.  Bit like Queen Vic...

G
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:14:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.233602.2774@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
<long reason for knowledge of tarot cards deleted>

Ah.  That makes perfect sense, and completely rational.  Yes indeed,
tarot readings and spiritualists' "cold readings" tell us a lot about
the psychology of why people want to believe, and what they reveal
about themselves subconsciously.  It could indeed be a useful tool
for psychologists with a particular class of patient.

My faith in human nature has been restored, Elf :)

G
--
From: zzaascd@hpa.ee.man.ac.uk (Colin Dente)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: shouting in my own ear
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:43:00 GMT
Reply-To: colin@manchester.ac.uk
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept Manchester University

In article <Bx63vu.A3I@ibmpcug.co.uk>, gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
|> In article <Bx5qqu.3oA@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
|> >I think what you saw was more of an attempt to be practical than to
|> >be Socialist.  Can you come up with what you think would be a more
|> >equitable funding method, bearing in mind that we want as many people
|> >to come as would wish to?
|> 
|> Yes.  Keep the free admission for unemployed/students (sorry, I can't
|> bring myself to say 'unwaged' without puking) and charge the mode
|> entry fee for everyone else.  The punitively high fees for a small
|> number of high wage earners no doubt made a piddling contribution
|> to the funds but a gigantic contribution to the political bias
|> of those who decided to attend.

Am I being dense?  I thought that the structure of admission charges
was designed specifically *not* to make the charges punitive to
anyone.  If you really earn so much that the charges would have
amounted to what I would call a "punitive" amount (i.e. more than
about thirty quid) then you really shouldn't have noticed such a
trivial expenditure.  I'm afraid that the philosophical gap between
myself and someone who is unable to grasp the validity of "from each
according to their ability to each according to their need" is usually
too great to permit communication.


|> G (Neither a socialist nor a tory.  As Kay rightly stereotypes, an
|> anarchist libertarian...)

All too often a euphemism for "selfish".  But then perhaps you don't
consider selfishness to be unacceptable behaviour...

Colin
(At the anarchist end of communist)

  Colin Dente                     | JANET: dente@uk.ac.manchester
  Manchester Computing Centre     | ARPA:  dente@manchester.ac.uk
  University of Manchester, UK    | UUCP:  ...!mcsun!ukc!manchester!dente
             	   ... I can't even *think* straight ...
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:05:45 GMT

In article <BxHBBM.5FH@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>In article <BxGv34.848@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>>This is disingenuous.  No-one on this group has ever claimed to be PC or
>>suggested that it's a good thing.  "PC" is a paper tiger, a blanket
>>insult.  The left call all their opponents "fascists" when they can't
>>think of anything to say, and the right call them "PC".  A few years
>
>Blatantly not true.  Look over the last few postings and you'll find
>at least one person proudly trumpeting his PChood.  I always thought
>it was a paper tiger of the right too.

Well knock me down with a feather, you've found one.  If you like, you
could start calling him the net.police for good measure or accuse him of
trying to censor you.  We'd all get a good laugh out of that.
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
Newsgroups: soc.bi