HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:39:52 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <102607@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <13248@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
>>Quit misrepresenting me, you lying fool.  You and Paul 
>>Bartholomew are among the best examples of how screwed-up
>>and emotionally disturbed homosexuals are.
> 
> I'm sure this news will be shocking to Paul's girlfriend or wife (I'm not sure
> of his marital status).

Currently neither.  My ex-girlfriend, though, whom I still see occasionally,
was considerably amused when I called her to report this particular bit of
slander.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew        |  Clayton Cramer:  "[Brian Kane] and Paul Bartholomew
                        |  are among the best examples of how screwed-up and
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov |  emotionally disturbed homosexuals are."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: What boundaries for discussions (politics,homosexuals,molestation)
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:23:29 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <1ebeihINN2eh@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
> A net users has asks me (very nicely) to discontinue certain types of post
> on the *.politics groups, especially this one.
[some stuff deleted]
> So do we continue to post here with the attempt to keep on track, or move to
> some other areas for heated exchange and debate. e.g. soc.motss, alt.homosexual,
> etc.

Or just drop the whole bloody subject altogether.  It's been about a year and
a half.  I think everything has been said ad nauseam.  Are you listening,
Mr. Cramer?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ca.politics:9656 ba.politics:7231
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence That Homosexuality... (too long)
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:57:00 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1ee73sINNqtb@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:

>Can sexual abuse disrupt [psycho]sexual maturation processes? Of course, and
>it doesn't matter if you started out with an inclination towards being 
>heterosexual or homosexual.

>What we need to see and realize is what the initial inclination of the child
>is sexually.

The more I read, the more I believe that each of us are born with "plastic
brains" when it comes to sex. That is, any number of stimuli may alone
or in cooperation contribute to the growth of our sexualities, with both
positive and negative feedback possible, depending on the prevailing social
norms and the pressure to conform.

What I remark to be most important is the claim by such experts as
David Finkelhor, is that the more fuss parents make about the abuse of
their children, the more likely the child is to suffer continuing self-
esteem problems. Finkelhor has found that parents who don't display
anger and desire for revenge in front of their children, who instead
only give encouragement and stress that the child should have no shame
or guilt, increase the likelihood dramatically that their child would
recover.

Therefore, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that abused children
whose families are hostile toward homosexuality (largely thru the
perpetuation of the myth that gay men are boy molesters), would be more
likely to become homosexuallt]y ego-DYSTONIC, than children whose
families are not heterosexist. After all, the child naturally blames
himself at first, and if there are ready examples of "badness" talked
about by heterosexist family members (i.e. gay men) then the child is
likely to conclude that therefore he is bad and must be "gay", too.

The other important point to make is that if you talk with gay men and
lesbians, large numbers of them who went through emotionally unsure
times in their teens (transitory ego-dystonic sexuality problems), you'll
find that most of them started out being aware of their sexualities
in a morally neutral sense. In other words, they saw nothing wrong at
first until they were subsequently exposed to more and more heterosexist
messages (and typical teenage intolerance, of course).

This would contrast DRAMATICALLY with the nature of the ego-dystonism
possibly produced by child abuse, which is in all likelihood from the
onset of abuse.

Brian
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: Who's Gunning for Dianne Feinstein's Senate Seat?
Organization: Quixote Digital Typography
Distribution: ca
Date: 15 Nov 92 09:20:38 PST

In article <1992Nov14.045244.3165@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
 
> 	The election is just over, and already they're trying to
> decide who's up for the next elections.

Ah, rumor-mongering, got to love it.
 
> 	Dianne Feinstein's term will end in 1994, and already, there
> is talk about who will run then. DF herself is expected to run for
> re-election, while on the Republican side, there is discussion on who
> will challenge her. Already, there are two names mentioned: Bob Dornan
> and John Dannemeyer, both Southern California right-wingers and
> fervent homophobes. I'm sure that both are itching to associate DF
> with San Francisco (she was actually mayor) and the sexual preference
> of many of that city's inhabitants.
 
> 	This makes me wonder about Richard Seymour, Tom Campbell and
> Bruce Herschensohn, losers in this year's race.

Let's see, another possibility is David Drier, congressman from
my district who has the largest campaign warchest of anyone in 
the house (he made more in interest in 1990 than his opponent
_spent_ that year). He had been expected to run in 1992, but he
was recently appointed to the rules committe, which he viewed as
the better job. I'd put it at 40% that he runs in 1994, and if he
doesn't run or loses 100% for 1998. Drier's the nastiest sort of
conservative republican: He seems moderate at first glance or to
hear him give a public speech, but one look at his voting record
completely belies the fact. Plus, as noted above, he's a master
fund-raiser (he funded a few of his colleague's campaigns this
year). I've heard that there are a number of dems gunning against
Feinstein (or hoping that she runs for Governor in '94). Pure
foolishness. Feinstein should at _least_ put in a full term in 
DC before making another run at the Governor's office and if we
should lose one of our democratic senators, I'd much rather see
it be Boxer (nothing substantive, I just don't like her as a
person).

-dh
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy)
Subject: Re: Who's Gunning for Dianne Feinstein's Senate Seat?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:03:13 GMT


There are a lot of names floating around, besides Dannemeyer and
Dornan, who have publicly expressed interest in running against
Feinstein.

I don't think any serious Repubs will make the race.  Feinstein
trounced a well-financed centrist like Seymour, so unless some
previously-unknown vulnerability comes to the surface, I don't
expect her to have too difficult a time of it in '94.  I think a
lot of the Repubs touted for Feinstein's seat will choose to run
for statewide constitutional offices (Lt. Gov., Controller, 
Treasurer, etc.) since some of these might be opening up.  I think
that offers a much better chance for a Repub with ambitions for
higher office.

It's pretty clear that two statewide constitutional officeholders --
Kathleen Brown and John Garamendi -- are looking at giving up their
seats to run against Gov. Wilson.  Maybe Gray Davis and/or Leo McCarthy
will get the same idea.
-- 
-------------------
Daniel A. Murphy        Net:         murphy@well.sf.ca.us
San Francisco, CA       GEnie:       D.MURPHY11
U.S.A.                  MCI Mail:    377-7947
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Your Right it is the (Re: The usual)
Date: 18 Nov 1992 16:52:07 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1echslINN378@network.ucsd.edu> rr@chem.ucsd.edu (Roxanne Rohmann) writes:
>In article <1ebgvlINN374@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
> > In article <1992Nov17.180532.5228@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> > >
> > >Tim, you (and others with the same misconceptions) must learn that there is
> > >a HUGE difference between hate, phobias, and a strong dislike.
> > >
> > For Example- phobia = A strong fear, adversion or dislike.  Now about you say
> > 
>While your articles are interesting and usually well-reasoned,
>I would like to butt in here and correct the definitions you 
>used at the beginning of this follow-up article.  Since you are
>using sloppy definitions, much of the rest of your article doesn't
>hang together.
>

Sloppy Definitions?  These are directory out of the
American Heritage Dictionary.

>hate:  Intense hostility or aversion usually deriving from
>fear, anger or sense of injury.

phobia = A strong fear, adversion or dislike. And I will add associated
with irrational or unreasonable.

Hate- from Webster's Dictionary: to have a strong dislike or ill will
for, loathe, despise.  To disklike, or wish to avoid, etc.

>
>phobia:  An exaggerated, usually inexplicable or illogical fear
>of an object.
>
>dislike:  A feeling of aversion or disapproval.

Webster's on dislike- to have a feeling of not liking- aversion,
distaste for, antipathy.

Now notice that hate and dislike can and do overlap in meaning.

>
>Please note that the major difference between dislike and hate
>is intensity of the aversion, while the characteristic that 
>differentiates phobia from the other two is "illogical" and 
>"exaggerated".  
>

Correct to a point- you may have missed the point I was trying to make,
and that is these words represent degrees of dislike, and also how
they are used incorrectly, and also, how much tthey tend to overlap
in definition.

>That being the case, I don't find that the original poster's
>claim of dislike of homosexuality to be either far-fetched 
>or unreasonable.  It is simply a dislike.  I have known
>and been friends with male and female homosexuals who
>have disliked the thought of heterosexuality; it is s
>something they find disgusting.  This doesn't strike me
>as unusual, either.
>
>   ---Roxanne Rohmann

So can you answer why?  DO you know yourself enough to see why
you might feel like this.  To see if it is irrational in nature.
I do agreee that we all have dislikes and that we need to know
why and go from there.  Many times our own dislikes are the 
product of both our own laziness and incorrect thinking.

And I take it you agreed with his incorrect definition of 'moral'?

It is not a matter of defintion in the end, only usage that actually
has adverse effects.  We must try and stay within the confines of
the dictionary defintions of words, then go from there to construct
arguments that are sound and hopefully true.
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:17:26 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <13163@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <BxLBMr.MnK@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> # 
> # They are.  Alt.sex is, in fact, proof positive that heterosexuality is
> # a dangerous mental disorder, and that children should not be exposed
> # to this pernicious influence.

> If soc.motss were the only evidence of how screwed up homosexuals
> were, I would be prepared to discount it.  It's not the only
> evidence.

It's the only evidence you've posted so far.  Your other claims have been
ably refuted by many people on this network.  You keep going back, over and
over, to the same old whining, "reading soc.motss convinced me that ....",
because it's the only unanswerable argument you've come up with.  You have
posted *no* reliable psychological evidence that homosexuals are "screwed
up".  On the other hand, you've provided a great deal of circumstantial
evidence about your own mental state.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: A Strand of Bigotry
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:07:45 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <9211191903.AA05634@lynx.corp.frame.com>, jrd@frame.com (James Drew) writes:
> Clayton Crame (cramer@optilink.UUCP), sigh, writes:
# ## THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRACTICE BIGOTRY. 
# #
# #So why is there a right to practice sodomy?
# 
# Bigotry is a non-consensual activity, one person imposing their beliefs on
# another without permission.

How does it impose on another person's beliefs, if they take no
actions at all?

# The phrase that pays is "An it harm none."  Live by it.
# 
# Jim Drew                     | Alley, to see the dead guy dressed as a nun.

When homosexuals stop trying to run other people's lives with
antidiscrimination ordinances, I will take the idea seriously.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Fixated homophobes
Organization: JPL, Spaceborne Imaging Radar Software Group
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:25:49 GMT


Phil Ronzone writes:
|>In article <102607@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
|>    >By saying homosexuality has no victims, you are then
|>    >contradicting your own theory that homosexuals are the
|>    >victims of child molestation. And once again (is this EVER
|>    >going to sink in?) it is FIXATED MOLESTERS, not homosexuals,
|>    >who molest in disproportionate numbers.
|>
|>Close, but no cigar. Inventing two new sexual orientations may be
|>fine for your "stretching" attempt to claim that men that molest
|>young boys aren't homosexuals, but I see NO evidence that this
|>position is acceptable to anyone else.
|>

Once again....


1) A man who only has sex with women is a heterosexual.
2) A man who only has sex with a man is a homosexual.
3) A man who has sex with both men and women is bisexual.

4) A man who only has sex with children is a fixated molester or pedophile.
5) A man who has sex with women and also molests 
   children is a heterosexual and a child molester.
6) A man who has sex with men and also molests 
   children is a homosexual and a child molester.

A married man who also molests little boys is not a homosexual or a bisexual.
He is a heterosexual and a child molestor.  And there is no such thing as a 
homosexual-, heterosexual-, or bisexual- fixated pedophile.

--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
From: galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Enough is right...
Date: 21 Nov 92 09:33:08 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

The way I see it, there are two options:

Either rename this newsgroup ca.homosexuality and let those who actually 
want a discussion of ca.politics go elsewhere, or
 
Leave this newsgroup until the discussion reverts to something more 
closely related to its current title, ca.politics.

The back-and-forth hammering re homosexuality seems to have gotten this 
newsgroup WAY off the track, and grown boring besides. To read the 
postings of the last several weeks, if not months, there *are* no 
politics in California other than those surrounding issues of 
homosexuality.

So good-bye, ca.politics. If you ever get back on track, write.
G.


--
Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune         (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191                    (619) 293-2333 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106        galan@netlink.cts.com (Internet)
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:23:48 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <13167@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <1992Nov12.103515.8607@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> # It's funny, though.  They used to say that one of the things Jews did
> # was kidnap children and use them for their own nefarious purposes (to
> # make matzah, in that case).  See any similarities, Clayton?  Of course not.
> 
> No.  You see, I didn't think that homosexuals were so very different,
> until I started to research the subject -- and then discovered that
> they are indeed very different.

Not according to what you've posted.  You've never done any research on the
nature of homosexuality; nor any research on mental health and homosexuality.
You've done no research to justify the claim that "they are indeed different".
This was a conclusion reached by *you*, not by the three sources you con-
sulted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Defending Dahmer Wasn't Satire
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:10:14 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <13161@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <BxKuHK.HtG@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
>> ...with the ultimate goal of justifying discrimination and prejudice
>> against them.  I can only judge from the example I saw you post, and
>> that example could only be interpreted as support for Dahmer by
>> somebody who *wants* *badly* to find support for Dahmer in it.
> 
> Yet, even homosexuals in soc.motss interpreted those postings in
> that way.

So who ever claimed that you had a monopoly on stupidity?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:08:40 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <1992Nov16.174731.16439@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> In article <1992Nov15.203834.10109@udel.edu> carroll@balin.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov12.230416.16881@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>     >>Correct. The German State tried to protray the Jews as doing
>     >>such things as murdering children for religious rituals.
>     >>
>     >>That would be horrible and disgusting if true. But it of
>     >>course was not true.
>     >>
>     >>Homosexuals have sex with people of the same sex. Many people
>     >>find that disgusting and revolting. But, what homosexuals do
>     >>IS TRUE.
>     >>
>     >>Big difference.

No, I don't think so, actually.  You haven't posted any statistics that
support your position that people dislike homosexuals *solely* because
they have sex with other men.  In my conversations with people and in
the research I've done, I've found that people dislike homosexuals for
reasons that have little to do with the basic homosexual act itself.

For example, people may dislike homosexuals because they have been told
that:

1.  Homosexuals are more likely to molest children.
2.  Homosexuals are mentally ill.
3.  Homosexuals lead disfunctional lifestyles.
4.  Homosexuals want to recruit their children to homosexuality.
5.  Homosexuals (male) want to be women.
6.  Homosexuals are effeminate wimps who wear women's clothing.
7.  Homosexuals practice aberrant sado-masochistic behavior.

Now, when people realize that none of this is actually true, their dislike
of homosexuality almost invariably turns to complete neutrality.  Whether
these myths have been propagated maliciously or innocently doesn't change
the fact that many people, perhaps even most, dislike homosexuals for
invalid reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ca.politics:9775 soc.motss:48708 talk.politics.misc:61186
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Strand of Bigotry
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:27:05 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <19921119133236ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>, by ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble):
> In article <BxxBB3.HKt@fig.citib.com>, on 18 Nov 1992 17:59:26 GMT,
> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:

>>The laws I see getting passed these days that concern me
>>are the ones that define me as a second class citizen without
>>the same rights or protections as my heterosexual brother.
>>I guess sodomy laws are the invention of liberals?

> Nope. Liberals are more into inventing laws trying to limit what things
> you should be allowed to eat or what vitamins and food supplements you
> should be allowed to take.

And your .sig says that you are from a university library!
Well, wake up, and take a look around you.  The latest
round of legislation in this arena is supported by big
business.  It is true that liberals are concerned about
the citizenry unknowingly ingesting toxins.  I can fault
some of my fellow liberals for their attacks on booze
and alcohol which everybody already knows are poisonous.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992