HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:41:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.121602.4218@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.215229.8129@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>    >Second, even if I accept that the story is true, what this
>    >story indicates is NOT that homosexuals shouldn't be in the
>    >Navy, but that the commanding officer on that ship should
>    >have been relieved of duty. He was allowing his men to be
>    >assualted by other men under his command. Clearly a gross
>    >failure of leadership. What if instead of straight men it had
>    >been black sailors being assaulted, or jewish sailors ? Would
>    >that be a reason to exclude whites or gentiles from the Navy
>    >?
>
>The issue is NOT about assaults. It is about the right to control the sexual
>context one is placed in. We do NOT have enlisted men and women sleeping
>in common bunk rooms and showering in the same showers. Even though the
>men are NOT going to go crazy and start raping the women the minute they
>see them naked.

I have to disagree - the issue IS about assaults.  In the story you quoted,
the man in question didn't feel threatened until someone made an unwelcome
physical advance toward him in the middle of the night.  The fact that men
and women don't shower together is simply a matter of societal convention.
I have lived in dorms where men and women DID share bathrooms and showers.
Despite what you claim, it wasn't a "sexual context".

The fear that these men underwent clearly was a fear of being assaulted,
not of being placed in an unwanted "sexual context".

Guido






Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: David;'s challenge
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 02:22:09 GMT

guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes: >
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >>

>>And this at a time when other Republicans like Packwood are getting bashed?
>>
>>Note that Wacthler is well know for his very "correct" views on womens issues
>>and has had strong Demovratic political support.
>
>Note that Mr. Packwood ALSO has very "correct" views wrt women.
>He is one of the most liberal Republican members of the Senate, and has
>been very supportive of women's issues.  So what's your point ?

Phil doesn't have a point.  He likes to call people names, change
the subject, make inflammatory accusations, and rage if anyone
calls him on his violation of every rule used in debate.

Phil, I'm STILL waiting for you to support your claim that
r.h.f. became PC after I started moderating it.  This is
the sixth request.  Going to keep ignoring it?


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: brad@optilink.COM (Brad Yearwood)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: dangerous group (was: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ)
Date: 3 Jan 93 02:32:37 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Dec31.035228.19643@netcom.com>, altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) writes:
> In article <13750@optilink.COM> brad@optilink.COM (Brad Yearwood) writes:
> ... Do you really want
> >your kids growing up with a 12 minute attention span?
> 
> I rarely watch anything on cable that has commercials.  Do you know what
> you're talking about, or are you just interested in showing us how cool
> you can be, making generalizations and high-falootin'?
> 
> John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
> ===============================================================
> There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
> My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.

Ahhh.  That's the problem.  An impedance mismatch between a latte drinker
and someone who likes it brewed quite a bit darker.

What I was doing, perhaps ineffectively, was to raise the question of whether
the status quo of television product is so compelling that one might not
consider simply saying No to, expensive, incompetent, or disagreeably packaged
delivery services.

Brad Yearwood   brad@optilink.com   {uunet, pyramid}!optilink!brad
Petaluma, CA
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 23 Dec 92 11:14:46 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Dec23.081619.9096@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
    >Premises not proven, therefore question cannot be properly
    >asked. You're still ignoring the original question, which is
    >why aren't you demanding that all churches be closed since
    >they're the biggest source of child molestors.
    >
    >We're waiting.

How interesting. How fascist. The Freedom Of Association gives us all the
ability to interact with others as we see fit. Of course, this right is
greatly mangled, but then, being a slave in no way diminishes your rights.

Clayton may elect to to choose negative or postivetly or neutrally with
regards to homosexuals as care providers for day care centers.

That is HIS right, if it is his day care center, or his right of
patronage if it is his children.

Only a Politically Correct Fascist Savage would seek to use force to close
churches.

I do not seek force of any type to use against, say, NAMBLA. They have a right
to exist. And I have a right to try and get everybody possible to not deal
with them in any way form or fashion.


    >
    >-- Maddi Hausmann madhaus@netcom.com Humorist, Satirist, Tech
    >Writer. Take your pick.

How about fascist clown?

-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: RE: GAYS IN THE MILITARY
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:15:00 GMT
Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591

-> Newsgroups: ba.politics
-> From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
-> Subject: Re: GAYS IN THE MILITARY
-> Message-ID: <1992Dec28.114537.1613@netcom.com>
-> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:45:37 GMT
->
-> In article <3846.58.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp> neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil
-> Black)  w  >One of the frequently used arguments against homosexuals
-> in
->   >the military is that "those people will try to have sex with
->   >others." Well, you rarely (if ever) hear of homosexuals doing
->   >such acts. And there are thousands upon thousands of
->   >homosexuals in the military now (and there always has been).
->
-> Really? I haven't heard ANY of the military arguments use this. The
-> consistent rationale has been that it would be bad for morale. I
-> don't think the miltary has ever claimed that two homosexuals having
-> sex is a detriment.


I've heard your rationale also, but the majority of the arguments I've
heard (via KGO radio, Rush, etc.) involve the arguement I put forth
above.  Of course, the morale-lowering stance is ridiculous also, for
the same reasons I already stated.  There have-been, currently-are,
always-will-be homosexuals in the military, and to this date, morale
seems to be as high as it's ever been.

If you don't believe that the showering thing isn't used as an
arguement, check out alt.clinton.  It's full of 'em.
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Date: 29 Dec 92 07:07:11 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <1992Dec28.115310.1717@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>To quote Eddie Murphy -- "You are a REAL Dick".

>Dick.

>I believe Gennifer Flowers.

I think Phil needs to get a subscription to some magazines other than just
Penthouse.
									MPA
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7856 ca.politics:10469
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:57:28 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1gvsreINNiv7@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, by stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)):
> In article <1992Dec19.120605.3981@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>>Thre or four "cases" in a week of car owners blowing away attempted
>>car jackers would most likely make it not very common.

> Yes materialism to the ultimate.  Just blow em away jack, that it make
> stop.  Oh course, let's look at punishment by death, that has sure
> cut down on murders, hasn't it?? :->

A poor analogy.  Most murderers know their victims to be
unarmed, most car jackers have no such knowledge.  Most
murders are crimes of passion, rarely for financial gain.

My Un-PC statement of the day is:  Gee whiz, if we just
blew away all of these carjackers, think of all of the
money that we would save the criminal justice system,
the insurance companies, etc...
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: What DO they teach in kindergarten nowadays?
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:27:18 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>I can't believe how stupid you are in public.

>And, BTW, one documented source for what I believe is better than zero.

Phil, it's clear that you can look things up and cite them.  What is
not clear is whether you can assemble or understand the facts that you
find.  You've certainly demonstrated that you don't understand
statistics, for example.  Sure, you can look up two or three
statistical facts, but then you assemble them in nonsensical ways.

And no, I didn't learn statistics in Kindergarten.  Perhaps you did,
and perhaps that is your problem.

David Chase
Sun
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:30:52 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Dec28.113059.1409@netcom.com>, by phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone):
> In article <44026@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:

#> [Story about a gay man's military career ending prematurely...]

#>Now perhaps someone can explain why the military should be
#>allowed to keep such practices in place.
 
> Of course, what if Comrade spy had happened upon this fact? What a lovely
> pressure point for blackmail, eh? 18 years in, 2 to go, just a few satellite
> pictures please ...

Phil makes an excellent point here.  If there were no discrimination
against gays in the military, then the potential for this sort of
blackmail would go by the wayside.  Why is it that the chiefs
continue to argue that gays should be barred from military service
because they are vulnerable to blackmail when we all know that the
reason for this is because the fact that such activity is banned?
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:15:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.172215.2424@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
    >You realize of course, that is probably the strongest
    >possible argument for abolishing the ban on gays in the
    >military ? We already have enough real security risks without
    >creating them for our adversaries. If there were no ban on
    >gays in the military, this guy would tell "Comrade spy" to
    >take a flying leap.

Sure is. That's why, when a CIA employee has an affair and it is discovered
by the CIA, both parties AND their spouses have to meet in one office and
the truth be said. They don't care if you have the affair -- they just don't
want it know.

On the other hand, the KGB teaches that homosexuals are much more vulnerable
targets for espionage that hetereosexuals. The KGB teaches that homosexuals
have much more trouble enaging in emotionally secure relationships, and are
(hence) much more vulnerable to their handler providing the (apparent)
secure emotional attachment.

The KGB is often stupid in areas, but they have a pretty good track record
in understanding people and motivations.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: David;'s challenge
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:05:01 GMT

In article <ljhfcmINN5bv@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
    >Phil, it's clear that you can look things up and cite them.
    >What is not clear is whether you can assemble or understand
    >the facts that you find. You've certainly demonstrated that
    >you don't understand statistics, for example. Sure, you can
    >look up two or three statistical facts, but then you assemble
    >them in nonsensical ways.

O.K. David, this should be real easy for you then.

Consider my response to the bozo that ignorantly claimed that acid rain is
killing the forests. In the US, and in Western Europe, the parts that have
studies, it's not.

Now, what's the nonsense in that? I've made my assertions, and I've told you
what I've used to back up these assertions.

Now, I haven't seen ANYBODY (hint hint) fess up to their errors.

    In article <1992Dec9.205804.5687@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
    >>>Is acid rain killing the forests?
    >>>
    >>>Yes or no??????
    >>>
    >Yes.

Wonder why?


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:30:48 GMT

In article <92357.48577.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
    >Or how about a more similar parallel--"separate but equal."
    >Remember that? Colored-only restrooms? "Go to the back of the
    >bus, nigger?" I don't really think it was a high point in our
    >societal development, do you? Perhaps the gay rights lobbies
    >need their own version of Rosa Parks.
    >
    >And how is "Go to the back of the bus, nigger" much different
    >than "Get the hell out of the Army, you faggot?"

So therefore, you disapprove of seperate but equal facilities (bunk rooms,
showers and such) for women. They just be racist artifacts.

You are so right -- it must be SO humilating for all those women in the
Armed Force to not be able to shower, shit, and sleep (in the same bunk room)
with the men. It must be agonizing for them.

As soon as you point me to surveys proving that this is how the women in
the armed forces feel, I will of course admit to being wrong ....




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7928 ca.politics:10496
From: manley@optilink.COM (Terry Manley)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 27 Dec 92 19:30:37 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <1992Dec22.220137.4445@octel.com> keithp@octel.com (Keith Perrin) writes:
>In article <13704@optilink.COM> manley@optilink.COM (Terry Manley) writes:

>>Just think if we "blew away" anyone convicted of committing
>>three felonies.  You get three chances.  Then you die.

>>What do you think?

>>Would that have an effect on crime rates?

>Well, yes it would, so whats your point.

I dunno, which way do you think it would change
crime rates and why?

--
dave
manley@optilink.com
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Subject: Colorado "special rights" for gays
Summary: ignore a question and it might go away
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:53:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.214821.2250@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>And I think that's why Coloradans passed the no special rights for homosexuals
>law. They were tired, as I am, of seeing this and that group get new legal
>coercive clubs with which to coerce other people.

Brian asked you to name which special rights these are (i.e. rights
that are above what non-homosexuals have), but my netnews software
must have dropped those lines from your article.  Apologies, but
could you repeat your answer?

jb
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Date: 29 Dec 92 00:56:46 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <13729@optilink.COM>, walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
> From article <1992Dec28.113059.1409@netcom.com>, by phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone):
> > In article <44026@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
> 
> #> [Story about a gay man's military career ending prematurely...]
# ##Now perhaps someone can explain why the military should be
# ##allowed to keep such practices in place.
#  
# # Of course, what if Comrade spy had happened upon this fact? What a lovely
# # pressure point for blackmail, eh? 18 years in, 2 to go, just a few satellite
# # pictures please ...
# 
# Phil makes an excellent point here.  If there were no discrimination
# against gays in the military, then the potential for this sort of
# blackmail would go by the wayside.  Why is it that the chiefs

Not quite.  A person might still be subject to blackmail because
of fear of family or friends finding out.

# continue to argue that gays should be barred from military service
# because they are vulnerable to blackmail when we all know that the
# reason for this is because the fact that such activity is banned?
# -- 
# Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh

James Bamford's _The Puzzle Palace_ (a history of the National
Security Agency) describes what NSA did when one of its civilian
employees who was gay sought promotion.  They required him, as a
condition of remaining employed by NSA, to write letters to his
family, friends, and neighbors, informing them that he was gay.
This made him essentially unblackmailable for his sexual preferences.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: dangerous group (was: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:52:28 GMT

In article <13750@optilink.COM> brad@optilink.COM (Brad Yearwood) writes:
>TV: is it actually worth paying for?  All the local cable company does is
>to deliver, however extravagantly, a bunch of mind-rot which partitions
>experience into 12-minutes-between-commercials chunks.  Do you really want
>your kids growing up with a 12 minute attention span?
>

I rarely watch anything on cable that has commercials.  Do you know what
you're talking about, or are you just interested in showing us how cool
you can be, making generalizations and high-falootin'?

>Petaluma, CA


-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Duh, he don't need no facts, he'sa Politically Correct, duh ...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:56:58 GMT

In article <1ha42lINNpl1@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
    >I am not interested in political analysis of a scientific
    >problem. Read the following if you will.

You should be. The NAPAP report has upset a great many Politically Correct
people -- when science meets the road, and people refuse to accept it
because it conflicts with their previously conceived notions, you've got
a real problem.

In this case, a waste of $160 billion.

    >Just for Fun, here's an abstract from the AGU meeting next
    >week
    >
    >Acidification Rates in Forested Catchments in Central Europe

NAPAP covers the United States only. Obviously high enough concentrations
of many things can kill a forest. And obviously, you can't say that you
were wrong.

But what you post is not surprising at all, the non-materialistic, anti-
capitalistics socialist countries behind the Iron Curtain has the most
abysmal and horrifying record on the environment. Interesting contrast
to the West, eh? For example, the Black Forest (in Germany) is showing
signs of problems -- and part of what NAPAP helped do for the Germans was
to track the injurious agent to ozone.

    >So the point is, politics can do what they want, and you can
    >worry over that, but the science is not in yet, to how and
    >why acid rain effects the environment completely, and also,
    >it has been shown that sulfric acid may not have as important
    >role as thought, but that nitric acid may be more important
    >(car emmisions).

Hmm, you don't understand chemistry either. Nitric acid is not a very large
component of car emissions (it takes a lot of energy to bend those little
nitorgen bonds) , nor does it last last long as a freee agent. And it is
normally a positive factor for plant growth, as it basically becomes
fertilizer.




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7900 ca.politics:10488
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 23 Dec 1992 07:17:34 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec23.063331.15606@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <105536@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>    >
>    >Since when is discourse "force"? Gee, silly me, I thought it
>    >was persuasion.
>
>Sorry, that was a sucker line. Then you do not support AB101, or any
>other law, or part of a law, that would force a landlord to rent to
>you, even if you were a homosexual and he didn't want to rent to
>homosexuals?
>
>Yes or no?
>

Here is a classic exmaple of changing one's position in mid-stream.
Make yourself clear Phil when you want to make a point.  Don't state
something then turn around and say "sorry that was a sucker line".
It is phony at best.

Maybe we should take the discussion more along the lines of why
does a landlord (awful term) need to say that gays, blacks, mexicans,
or jews can't live in my property.  Keep one thing in mind, when I 
rent something it is mine within the parameters of the rental agreement
and lease.  I am the one who pays the mortgage in the end, not the
landlord.

I will state that if a landlord cannot make a rational argument or
even a good emotional argument as to why he/she won't rent to
a particular person or persons, then they need to be exposed and
shown for what they are.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:39:53 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec28.110740.862@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>YES, you DO support AB101-type laws?
>             - or -
>NO, you do NOT support AB101-type laws.

No, I don't. But with some ethical reservations.

Morally and practically, these laws don't work. They've done virtually
nothing to combat racism---why should they work for heterosexism?

We have to remedy the situation by coming out completely---then people
will see that ones sexual orientation really only has the importance of
choosing different brands of dental floss.

Brian