HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:07:22 GMT

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>In article <71739@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:

>>Why not just admit it's 2-4 percent, and get on with it?

>   Okay, so what if it *is* 2-4 percent?  It's still an observable
>behavior pattern arising naturally from within the human population.
>It is not inimical to either the individual or the population as a
>whole.

I'm not sold on the 2-4 percent figure, personally, but just for the
sake of argument, and for your reading pleasure:


Percentage 	France		United States		World
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
100%		56.595.000	259.383.000		5.423.000.000
10%		 5.660.000	 25.938.000		  542.000.000
4%		 2.264.000	 10.375.000		  217.000.000
2%		 1.132.000	  5.188.000		  108.000.000

2-4% is still a helluvalot of people!

Granted, I haven't been following this thread very closely, and I'm not
technically gay -- I'm bi with a *definite* preference for women --
but unless I'm mistaken, the information provided has been of doubtful
statistical validity.  (Anyway, havent more recent shrinks demonstrated
beyond reasonable doubt that Masters & Johnson were just idiots?)

I'm willing to bet that more than a few lesbigay folk in France are
closeted enough to have lied in the polling process.  Also, several
lesbigay folk might not be "caught" by the question refered to in
Clayton's comment.  There *are* chaste queer- and bi-folk out there
friends.  At least until recently, I was evidence of that fact.

(Hmmm.... Now maybe I ought to re-think my .sig quote....)

And on a lighter note, didn't some French official comment that
France has mostly "real men," but most of the men in the U.K.
and the U.S. were gay?  ;)


>   Regardless of how many people are homosexual, that doesn't give you
>or Clayton sufficient impetus to rant 'n rave at us just because you
>feel, without rationale, that we're 'icky.'

>            Elf !!!

Amen and hallelujah brother, and pass the turnip greens!

--
Michael D. Adams       (aka StarOwl)	| Of all sexual aberrations, chastity
StarOwl@uiuc.edu       (NeXT mail OK)	| is the strangest. -- Anatole France
anon.46@pax.tpa.com.au (anonymously)	|------------------------------------
an692@anon.penet.fi    (anonymously)	| NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv	     
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: barlow@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Rebel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:07:46 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

Just a question here....is this 4% statistic based on if you have had sex with
some of the same gender? Or is it based on how you identify yourself? There
are a lot of people who know their sexual orientation but are still virgins
I would imagine....not to mention likely a ton of people who consider
themselves bisexual and have only had sex with one gender (be that same sex or
opposite sex). I think what this survey is recording is NOT sexual orientation
but sexual behavior.... A lot of young men have had same sex sex but are not
gay or bisexual. I always question these studies anyway considering sexual 
orientation has become such a taboo subject, I think only really "out" people
would answer truthfully....so perhaps 10% really are gay and only 4% will
admit to it....or perhaps 10% are gay and only 4% are out of the closet. :-)


Jen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal,soc.motss
From: roy@panix.com (Roy Radow)
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:09:07 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Dec13.165937.8310@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Jim.Shirreffs writes:
>	.
>	.
>| NAMBLA does not provide referrals or assistance for people
>| seeking sexual contacts, nor do we engage in activities that
>| violate the law.  We unequivocally condemn all coersive acts,
>| sexual or otherwise.


>I think it is the name of the organization,"North American Man/Boy
>Love Association" that gets you into trouble. As a concervative het
>it certainly -sounds- suspicious to me. If the second paragraph is true 
>(and I have no reason to believe it's not). Then you might want to
>think about changing the name. Thanks for the info.

The name of our organization grew out of a historical situation 
in 1978 which involved the persecution of men and boys involved 
in concensual relationships. 

Our membership today, however, involves persons people of all
genders, ages and sexual orientations. So in effect one should 
not take the name of our organization quite so literally.

As far as the legality of our organization and it's activities:
we have been investigated by the FBI, US Postal Service, various
police departments, and even a Special Investigative Committee
of the US Senate and all of them concur that we do not engage
in any illegal activities.

Yours in Liberation,

Roy





-- 
Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample
Bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage
to: NAMBLA Info,  Dept.RR,  PO Box 174,  Midtown Station,  NYC NY  10018.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: From each, to each
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:22:48 GMT

dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>I accuse you of no ill will, but have observed that no free market ever truly
>>exists (union existance and big business control of government are examples of
>>non-free market mechanisms).  In addition, all the written 'proofs' of free 
>>market economy being good for all have never been convincing to me, from Adam
>>Smith on down.  I have also not seemn any empirical data that supports any 
>>conclusion other than the rich get richer, the poor get poverty.
>>
>A true socialist state cannot exist as well.  Anything close to it must
>collapse upon itself.  A simple Nash Equilibrium (see earlier post) explains
>how and why.
Perhaps.  Nash Equilibrium alone does not truth make, but I agree that true
socialism is a bit unrealistic.  (More than a bit, really).

>It is also true that a free market economy is not good for all.  It is good
>only for those who are willing to work in it.  Freeloaders do not exist to
>drag down the economy, unless they are allowed to exist by private charities
>(and they often are and generally have been throughout history by free market
>style and other similar economic systems).
I think free market is bad for a Hell of a lot more people than just the 
freeloaders.  There have been millions of good, hard-working people who have
been crapped on by America's not-even-free market.  Rich people have a head 
start, poor people have a handicap, and whatever racial and religious group
happens to be the 'in' crowd also has a foot in the door.

>Jenkins.  Absorb some empirical data showing the classic demise of a purely
>socialist society.
Again, you seem to imply I subscribe to socialism as a practical system.  I 
am simply curious what kind of discussion I can raise about it, with the hopes
of learning a bit about our world today (based on my responses).

   
______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: Jim.Shirreffs
Subject: Re: I've just been repremanded by net.big.b   
Organization: JJ Software
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:39:08 GMT

>>      It has come to my attention that a number of complaints have
>>been posted and mailed to Northeastern relative the the content of some
>>recent postings to the internet from your account. While neither DAC or
>>the University have any intention of restricting free speech, there are
>>standards for reasonable conduct. Obscenities and name calling reflect
>>badly on this University especially in a world wide forum. In the
>>future, please refrain from using such offensive language; it
>>contributes nothing to any kind of discussion.
>>Thank you.
>>XXXXXXXXXXXX
>>A net official
>------------------End of letter-------------------------
>
>Doesn't this constitute a subtle form of censorship? I've always

|   No, this is a way of keeping mail interesting and free of garbage that no
|   one is impressed with , nor wants to read.

Not so fast, this one (censorship) is not going to be easy. The problem
is, who gets to define "garbage". I've had some of my best posts described
as "garbage" by others.  Isn't the "kill file" suppose to shelter you from
someone who views you simply can not tolerate? Why resort to "Big Brother"?
Vengeance is my guess. "I'll fix you, you @$#%^&$#@".


jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:00:42 GMT

In article <13657@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#The French survey didn't used identification as homosexual, but
#sexual acts with another member of the same sex.  

False. The French study (which I read carefully, as you apparently did
not) used "intercourse". I don't consider oral sex to be intercourse,
and I'm sure many other people don't.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64724 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10392 alt.rush-limbaugh:11852 alt.politics.bush:14696
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!)
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:38:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
: In article <1992Dec10.021802.13612@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: >	Let's see from 1960 to 1992:
: 
: >1960-64 JFK/LBJ
: >1964-68 LBJ
: >1968-76 Nixon/Ford
: >1976-80 Jimmy Carter
: >1980-88 Ronald Reagan
: >1988-92 George Bush
: 
: >	If you think that JFK, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter are all "loony
: >left-wingers", then I've got the deed to the Golden Gate Bridge to
: >sell to you. But I've seen even Nixon called a "liberal", so I guess
: >the majority of those Presidents are flaming left-wingers.
: 
: Do you honestly believe that JFK and LBJ would be considered Democrats 
: today?  I seem to remember JFK saying something like "Ask not what 
: your country can do for you..."  That sounds just a little to the 
: right of modern Republicans.  LBJ was a hawk without compare (IMO), 
: and yes, Jimmy Carter was a loony left-winger.  Or perhaps just loony.
: 
: Ted                   

You're kidding, aren't you?  You should really get out more, Ted.
*I'm* a loony left winger.  Jimmy was what we call a moderate. 
Remember who was the last president to submit a balanced budget?
Remember who began the arms build up?
How old were you when JC was president, anyway?

Bill   
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64137 alt.rush-limbaugh:11560
From: carroll@bifur.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:11:18 GMT

In article <13643@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <Bz9M8D.Ex1@queernet.org>, max@queernet.org (Max J. Rochlin) writes:
>> In article <13596@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >No, a homosexual is anyone who has sexual contact with members of
>> >his/her own sex.  No requirement for exclusivity.
>> 
>> Sounds pretty simplistic.  Does this mean that if you (a male) were sexually
>> molested once as a child by your father, then you're a homosexual?
>> 
>No.  Rape victims had no choice, and neither do molestation victims.
>Though I expect lots of homosexuals to argue about the latter.
>

Clayton, your definition says *nothing* about choice. It simply says
"A homosexual is anyone who has sexual contact with members of
his/her own sex." A victim of homosexual rape *does* have contact with
a member of his/her own sex.

If you can't bother to read what we write, you could at least bother
to read what you write!

	<MC>

-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"I prize the cloudy, tearing sky,
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| for the thoughts that flap and fly.
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || For staying in and reading by.
|| carroll@udel.edu             || For sitting under" -Karen Peris
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "Kervokian" Horne")
Subject:      Re: Muerte De America
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 20:30:16 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA11153; Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:46:03 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA05470; Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:46:01 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 0866; Tue, 15 Dec 92 20:48:24 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 1389; Tue, 15 Dec 92 20:48:23 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's bigoted remarks at the convention...
Keywords: hate
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:34:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <liqeotINNdai@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>|> Hey, Ken, how come you support the Democrats, since by your apparant
>|> standards, they accept the support of Lyndon LaRouche?

>Because the D party has disavowed LaRouche, and the R party has said
>that Robertson and Buchannon represent the party.

Yeah, but Ken was going on and on (and on and on and on) about David
Duke, who the Republican Party has gone to at least as great an extreme
to disavow as the Democrats have done to LaRouche.  Did the D's go so
far as to endorse the Republican opponent of LaRouchies in Illinois?
Or did they just advise Democrats to not vote?  The Republican Party
officially endorsed Duke's Democrat opponent in Louisiana.

Duke is a very different case than Robertson and Buchanan.  At worst,
Rev. Robertson and Pat Buchanan are the Republicans' conservative
equivalents of the Democrats' Rev. Jackson and Ron Dellums.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Summary:  Who needs God? We can build a tower to heaven.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  "We have the technology."  - St. Hera of the Incarnate Mind
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:25:00 GMT

In article <17DEC199215301538@zeus.tamu.edu>, 
srf6200@zeus.tamu.edu (Steven Rush Fennell) writes...

>In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com>, 
>judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes...

>> 	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>>	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>>	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>>	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
>> 
>>		Judy
>> 
> 
>Well, we can all sit here on Earth and stagnate I guess.  I would say that 
>without some edge of society, or frontier, we will begin to wallow in our own 
>filth (unless we turn to zero pop. growth).  How much more is there to learn 
>on this planet?  Do we abandon technology and turn inwards as a species?  I 
>prefer to stay with the cutting edge...even if it means paying a few dollars 
>more in taxes.  And BTW, the space program consumes about 1% of the federal 
>budget - it was around 4% I believe in the '60s.  Not exactly what I would 
>call a huge amount of money relatively speaking, compared to welfare or 
>defense. 
> 
>The space shuttle costs a little under 1 billion dollars per mission, and it 
>takes up about half of NASA's budget.  NASA is already investigating the next 
>generation launch vehicle, which should hopefully cost less per mission that 
>the shuttle (or there's really no justification).  This is necessary in any 
>event because the shuttle's are nearing their projected mission design life 
>maximum.

Imagine what a billion dollars would do toward the development of the
"personal digital assistant" or "brain research" or "ascii encoding 
written texts" or any other frontier....

Now imagine that every dollar paid in taxes is a dollar which your 
family loses from the bank or investment, which could have been used
to put the children through college, or pay for retirement, or as a
buffer against misfortune, (and used by the bank for lending to local
enterpise, employing people in the private sector, who also come together
to support charities, churches, and collective efforts which each values).

And finally imagine, that each tax dollar is going to crooks and 
power mongers, mostly intent on the same type of abuse in which a 
drug-pusher ensnares their ``clientele.''

-= "Trust me, you'll love it, this stuff is a rocket-ship to paradise" =-

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal,soc.motss
From: roy@panix.com (Roy Radow)
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:49:54 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Dec13.001848.830@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Jim.Shirreffs writes:
es

>I am having a hard time following this thread, could someone explain to 
>me what NAMBLA stands for, also who is Roy Radow and just what do the 
>gay youth support groups do? 

The following is from one of my earlier postings to the net.

Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: NAMBLA 'R' US
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 12:41:26 EDT

Hello,
 
My name is Roy and I've been an active member in NAMBLA for
almost fourteen years.   A friend has shown me the ongoing
discussions concerning NAMBLA and I've been impressed by their
quality.
 
The North American Man/Boy Love Association is a civil rights/
political organization.  We support men and boys in CONSENSUAL
relationships with one another and help educate society about
the true nature of such relationships.

We were founded in Boston in 1978 and currently have more than
1000 members worldwide. 

NAMBLA activities include speaking to university & community groups,
public forums with guest speakers, leafleting, media appearances,
support of political prisoners, and publication of a Bulletin
(10 times a year), Journal (periodically), leaflets and books.
We also have a publications list of over 100 titles of periodicals
and books (fiction and non-fiction) which are available through 
NAMBLA.
 
Although NAMBLA members hold diverse political views, as a 
group we take a progressive stance on the rights of the
individual, and youth liberation and empowerment.

NAMBLA does not provide referrals or assistance for people
seeking sexual contacts, nor do we engage in activities that
violate the law.  We unequivocally condemn all coersive acts,
sexual or otherwise.

If you are interested in receiving a sample copy of our Bulletin,
information regarding membership or our publications list please
feel free to write to the address below.


>Well as long as I am here; There was a post suggesting that gays are to hets
>as canaries are to coal mines. Obviously this person was VERY upset
>over the AIDS epidemic. I syspathize with him. I do not agree with
>the tone of the responce he got from c++. I'm not going to join the
>"Flame war" but show a little compassion, it's almost Christmas!

>jim shirreffs

Merry Christmas Jim,


Yours in Liberation,

Roy










-- 
Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample
Bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage
to: NAMBLA Info,  Dept.RR,  PO Box 174,  Midtown Station,  NYC NY  10018.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64136 alt.rush-limbaugh:11558
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Summary: Clarence Thomas didn't discredit himself.
Date: 14 Dec 92 07:22:31 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Dec2.203836.27157@Princeton.EDU>
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>BTW, Clarence Thomas discredited himself.  "I have never discussed Roe v. 
>Wade."

That's not exactly what he said, if I remember correctly.  I believe he
said (and meant) that he never discussed the legal merits of Roe v.
Wade.  I don't know why you find that hard to believe.  It is very
seldom that I hear anyone discuss the legal merits of Roe v. Wade,
rather most people take a position based on their opinion of abortion
and talk about that.  The propriety of abortion is (or should be)
irrelevant to the legal merits of the decision.  Not enough people
understand that.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64688 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10360 alt.rush-limbaugh:11826 alt.politics.bush:14675
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 19:07:33 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: usa, world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Nosy) writes:
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> 
|> <   LBJ's hawkishness is also not a liberal or conservative issue.  I hadn't
|> <   noticed that all wars were started and fought by Republicans.  
|> 
|> 	Oh, really? Let's look at the record:
|> 
|> 	DEMOCRAT President Wilson ran for re-election in 1916
|> 	on the platform, "He Kept Us Out Of War"; subsequently,	
|> 	the U.S. entered WWI.
|> 
|> 	DEMOCRAT President F.D. Roosevelt did everything possible
|> 	to get us involved in WWII.
|> 
|> 	DEMOCRAT President Truman declared that Korea was not
|> 	"in the US sphere of interest", then sent US troops
|> 	there after the North Korean invasion. 
|> 
|> 	DEMOCRAT President Johnson campaigned for President
|> 	in 1964 on the platform, "I will never send American
|> 	boys to fight on the Asian mainland". Almost immediately
|> 	after taking the oath of office, he dispatched thousands
|> 	of troops to South Viet Nam (located on the Asian mainland).
|> 	
I thought that was what I said.

|> <Actually,
|> <   keeping our hands out of other people's business use to be a conservative
|> <   postion.  It probably still is.
|> 
|> 	And Big Bill Clinton will endorse this?
|> 	Somehow, I don't think so....

Certainly as applies to abortion rights.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64155 tx.politics:7962