HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:52:48 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Phil:
>Same things my parents did when I was 8 and hung around what was called then
>a "juvenile deliquent" -- forbid me to associate with him and ensure that the
>edict stood.

Brian:
>>As far as I'm concerned, you're still beating around the
>>bush.

>How? I am being pretty explicit here.

You're right. Your're comparing gay men with juvenile deliquents.

But none of us can figure out just why.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:3750 ca.politics:6006
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: help for california libraries! Dire need!
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:29:10 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul23.141037@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> In article <_5gmznr.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
# |# The libraries ARE owned by the "government" NOW knucklehead.
# |# 
# |# And the only censorship I am aware of is the Politically Correct kind.
# |# 
# Obviously you've never heard of the town of Island Trees NY.
# 
# To name one example of "right wing" censorship.
# 
# Later,
# George

Yes, and in a government library, at that.  It's certainly a great
argument for competition in library services.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: help for california libraries! Dire need!
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:29:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.014403.15431@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>What the right-wing nutters on this group can't stand about public
>libraries is that:
>
>1. They constitute a `government program' ...
>
>2. ... which works very well.

Speak for yourself. The Sunnyvale library in particular looks to me
like a baby sitter and teenage hangout. These rude children make too
much noise for the library to be useful for its intended purpose.

Then we can talk about book selection (most people I know head
for a book store when they need a book) and hours.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: help for california libraries! Dire need!
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: proberts@informix.com's message of 24 Jul 92 01:44:03 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1992Jul23.141037@wsl.dec.com> <1992Jul24.014403.15431@informix.com>
Distribution: ca
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 06:48:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.014403.15431@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

> What the right-wing nutters 

Nice "liberal" left-wing attitude?  You don't like
what people say so that makes them "nutters" to you?

> on this group can't stand about public
> libraries is that:

> 1. They constitute a `government program' ...

> 2. ... which works very well.

They work OK until a bunch of the good citizens
get together and decide to pull certain books off
the shelves because they don't like them.  Or until
they just start cutting the offending segments right
out of the books.  And before you start claiming
that these things can't happen in the land of the 
free, keep in mind that these very things can happen
and, in fact, have happened right in these United
States.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:27:13 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <63mm3_g.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <92094@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>So tell us Phil, why oh why do think homosexuality is
>>disgusting? Is it an act of faith to you, too? Do you want to
>>live in a segregated society all of your life?

>I never said homosexuality is disgusting.

Sure you did. It was last year, and regrettably I didn't archive it,
but your exact words in referring to homosexuality were "personally I
find it VERY disgusting" [emphasis mine]

And in the rest of the post to which I'm responding now, you didn't
answer the question "why do you think homosexuality is disgusting?"

Instead you make dastardly rhetorical comparisons to sheep-fucking.

But then again, you never directly answer the aforementioned question,
so I guess I shouldn't really be surprised.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:52:50 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Distribution: ba
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <18eZ03SJ4anh00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, James Preston writes:
>That is certainly a line of reasoning that could persuade me.  Did the
>original Roe vs. Wade decision mention the ninth Amendment at all?  I
>haven't been able to read the actual decision, but my understanding was
>that it hinged more on the fourteenth than on the ninth.

I haven't read it either, but it could well have not mentioned the 9th amendment. 

My position is that whether or not the original decision mentioned the 9th, after
20 years of this right, I'd say that the people of this country have retained the
right to legal abortion. The right to privacy was also crucial in the 1965 decision
of Griswold vs. Connecticut, which struck down laws barring married couples
from purchasing contraceptive devices. Likewise, I'd say that I have retained the
right to contraceptives specifically, and privacy generally, through the 9th 
amendment. 

JZ
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Against Our Will
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:45:27 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <92241@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <11448@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP
    >(Clayton Cramer) writes:
    >
    >>>Most child molesters are heterosexual men.
    >>>
    >>Of course. Heterosexual men outnumber homosexual men by a
    >>large percentage. However, females (for many reasons, both
    >>cultural and biological) are considerably less likely to
    >>respond to abuse
    >^^^^^^^^^^
    >>with violence.
    >>
    >You stooge! You have the nerve to call me a sexist for
    >pointing out that their are slight biological differences
    >between male and female brains, and therefore their approach
    >to problem solving, and now you say they are partly
    >biologically disposed to self-destruction as a response to
    >abuse.
    >
    >Hypocrite.

It is a biological fact that on the average, women as not as big
physically as men. This is a biological fact. People of both
sexes are less likely to respond violently to an agreesor that
is larger.

So?


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Xref: sparky ba.politics:3772 ca.politics:6029
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: help for california libraries! Dire need!
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:44:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.m3kmt3q.phil
Distribution: ca
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Jul24.014403.15431@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
    >What the right-wing nutters on this group can't stand about
    >public libraries is that:
    >
    >1. They constitute a `government program' ...
    >
    >2. ... which works very well.

Yeah, they used to say that about communism as well. Then the kittens opened
their eyes.

Ever compare say, Blockbuster Video with the San Jose library?

Geez, I can't even check the most useful books out of the library.

(Sorry, sir, those videos are reference only and you must view them here ...)


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:50:16 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA



	Rick. Buddy.

	RU-486 is on the way.
		
		Now what are you gonna do?
								
							       MPA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard)
Subject: California libraries/dire need
Followup-To: Other blubber
Summary: Social Darwinists Unite.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 22:29:40 GMT

The latest information I have shows that the net worth of the top
1% of the population in the U.S.A. is around $5.7 trillion.  The
834,000 households belonging to this group are certainly fortunate
as their net worth is greater than 90% of the U.S. households.
These miserable people, most of them working for wages and salaries,
have a combined net worth of only $4.8 trillion.
That's enough for them to buy their own 84 million libraries.  If they
didn't want a library, then maybe they could rent a video or watch
TV for free.  Rabbit ears are cheap.  And what the heck, they don't
read anyway.  Ben Franklin was full of it when he started this 
public library thing.  
Down with intelligence for those who can't afford it.
Ignorance is bliss anyway.
Leave the 1% alone--devil take the hindmost.
Fund the police, prisons, fire departments (if we can't find volunteers)
and the military.  Let charity take care of the rest.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: sharing the showers (was: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?)
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:59:11 GMT
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.

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>In article <1gmm8d_.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>>Ask instead, how many straight men would mind showering in a predominatly
>>homosexual shower room.
>
>Not many, other than you. The only ones who would be bothered by it would
>be the ones who think that "men should do the looking, not be looked at".
>"Men should make the moves, not be the receptacle of amatory advances".

I would feel uncomfortable being ogled. So would most people, whatever
their orientation or lack thereof.

-- richard

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

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:17:05 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

So what about the 500 miliseconds after the egg starts to split? What about
just before the egg splits but after the sperm penetrates? Is that life?

Menstruation = Death
Male Masturbation = Death

						
Take me away officer...
								   MPA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard)
Subject: California Libraries/dire need!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:53:46 GMT
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Say no more, I know what you mean ...
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:00:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <92252@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <g4mm2_k.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >In article <92099@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
# ##None of us has ever claimed that to be heterosexual is wrong,
# ##disgusting, etc.
# 
# #Neither Clayton or I have claimed this about homosexuality.
# 
# Not true. As I just recently refreshed our collective memory, you
# found it "very disgusting", and Clayton found it to be immoral
# in the eyes of his Church.

Actually, most churches I've attended have claimed homosexuality
was sinful.  I assumed it was something culturally specific to
the early church, because of the associations with pagan temple
prostitution in the Greco-Roman world.  I argued this point at
great length in Bible studies, that perhaps homosexuality in a
monogamous, permanent relationship, might not be sinful at all.

But soc.motss has persuaded me that I was wrong about this.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: help for california libraries! Dire need!
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: proberts@informix.com's message of 22 Jul 92 03:07:01 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
	<1992Jul19.081048.7791@adobe.com> <1992Jul22.030701.6889@informix.com>
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 01:18:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.030701.6889@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

> But there *is* a market for private libraries - you, and people like you.
> Not enough of you to be a viable market and encourage people to open
> private libraries? - too bad.

Gresham's law applies.  The market for private libraries is 
diluted by the existence of public libraries.  The same is
true for all philanthropic endeavors.  It's harder to get 
people to contribute to anything, much less something as 
profoundly useful as libraries, if the government is already
cutting back their available wealth and forcing them to 
contribute to all kinds of things of which they may or may
not approve.  That private libraries are not common in 
competition with the government ones is not surprising.

> Bet you'd be really impressed if I said that I'd like to see the national
> highway system closed down so that there was more of a market for railways,
> because I happen to like travelling by train.

Not very.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:52:31 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <j3kmvtq.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) tries
to explain why he doesn't want his daughter to associate at all with
gay men or lesbians:

>For the same reason I don't want a lot of people who engage/are in
>activities that are legal, moral, permissible -- because it is not want I
>want for her to be, see, or ACCEPT AS O.K.

What are you going to say when she asks you why you won't let her associate
with friends who are different? Are you going to punish her if she should
disagree with you?

As far as I'm concerned, you're still beating around the bush.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: Right to Choose to Kill (Was Re: Abortion
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:19:58 GMT

In article <l7geroINNr5k@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> brian@baja.Corp.Sun.COM writes:

>That hard-core pro-lifer was to be born on December 25, 1992, the
>mother chose an abortion, now all hope may be lost....

One can hope...


FWA
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:52:30 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <qgmmfq#.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Really? You really, really can't understand that I do not my children to
>be homosexual? You really can't understand that?

I can understand that.

Can you understand that you do not have a choice in the matter?


Two things:

1.  I was a homosexual, and was having homosexual feelings long before I
ever knew that there was such a thing as a homosexual.

2.  Even if I had never seen a homosexual before, I would still be a
homosexual.

3.  My parents desire for a heterosexual child had nothing to do with my
sexuality.


>Of course, you are still unable to face the fact that some people (if polls
>are to be believed, about 60% of "some" people) do not like homosexuals and
>homsexuality.

I think your "polls" are full of shit.  I look around on the net, and I see
you and claytoon ranting against homosexuals.  I periodically see a neo-nazi
like ronniejr ranting against homosexuals.  Everyone else seems to be willing
to live and let live.  You, claytoon and the other fools out there do not
even come close to 60%....


>But most of those are perfectly willing to live and let live, something
>that if the net is to be believed (to be a represenative sample of all
>homosexuals, which I doubt) homosexuals are not prepared to do.


Not prepared to do?  We are not the ones denying your right to exist...



FWA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:13:53 GMT

In article <athos-280792095036@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
>
>That's a pretty WIDE statement, and kinda silly to use as an umbrella to
>hide abortion under.  The true question here is whether or not the fetus is
>life.  If it is, we are obligated to protects its life (like we do when we
>arrest people for doing drugs while pregnant).

Uhh, excuse me - we only arrest WOMEN (not people) who do SOME DRUGS
while pregnant.  There is plenty of evidence that male abuse of
both alcohol and cocaine can cause damage to their sperm, and hence
damage to a fetus.  I have never heard of a man being arrested for
damage caused to a fetus based on his drug use.  Further, there is 
likewise plenty of evidence that use of tobacco during pregnancy
is damaging to the fetus (it lowers birth-weight increasing the risk
of other complications for one), yet I haven't ever heard of a 
woman being arrested for using tobacco during pregnancy.  Arresting
women for doing drugs during pregnancy has NOTHING to do with protecting
the fetus.

Guido
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:18:12 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

}In article <SLAGLE.92Jul24235405@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
}slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) wrote:
}> 
}> You misunderstand the Constitution then.  The right
}> in question is not NOT in there, that means the Feds 
}> cannot infringe upon that right.  The Constitution
}> doesn't spell out what you, as a citizen can and can't
}> do, it spells out what the government can't do to you.
}> The government can't interfere with your conduct unless
}> the Constitution says it can, not the other way around.

}Sure it does.  It says that people cannot infringe on the rights of others.
} Therefore, you do not have the right to infringe on the childs right to
}"Life."

Could you please cite exactly where the U.S. Constitution says that "people
cannot infringe on the rights of others"?  I cannot find anything to that
effect in my copy.  I see lots of stuff about the government or Congress
not being allowed to infringe on people's rights, but nothing about people
infringing on people.

--James Preston

Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: help for california libraries! Dire need!
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 25 Jul 1992 00:09:05 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<SLAGLE.92Jul22181842@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<1992Jul23.150122.10108@unocal.com>
	<SLAGLE.92Jul23121232@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<l716t1INN47o@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Distribution: ca
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 06:23:28 GMT

In article <l716t1INN47o@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:

> You've got to be careful not to generalize too much from the local
> area, and in particular from Palo Alto and Menlo Park.  I don't
> remember where I saw the factoid, but it was recent and in some local
> publication.  People in Silicon Valley exceed the national average for
> book reading by quite a lot, and people in Palo Alto and Menlo Park
> exceed the local average significantly.  Kepler's turns over its
> inventory something like twice as fast your the average bookstore.

Good point.  But even if you cut the demand in half to
apply it nationally, the point still holds.  There IS
a large demand for books, and there would still be a 
demand for book "rental" even if the government weren't
in the business.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Followup-To: ba.politics
In-reply-to: athos@apple.com's message of 17 Jul 92 18:36:56 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 06:54:08 GMT

In article <athos-170792113154@athos.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

> Fine, but abortion is not, contrary to whatever the Supreme Court says, a
> fundamental right set out in the constitution.  I have a copy right here in
> front of me, and it is simply not in there.  Period.

You misunderstand the Constitution then.  The right
in question is not NOT in there, that means the Feds 
cannot infringe upon that right.  The Constitution
doesn't spell out what you, as a citizen can and can't
do, it spells out what the government can't do to you.
The government can't interfere with your conduct unless
the Constitution says it can, not the other way around.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics