HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver)
Subject: Re: Bisexual libertariansn ear
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 18:07:24 GMT

 mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd) writes:

>It used to be said that if you're not a socialist at 21, you have no
>heart.  I liked it when that was true.  Now it seems that one has to get
>into libertarianism instead.

The other half of the first statement was "..and if you're not a conservative
by 50, you have no brains". I like libertarianism, which seems to be the mad
wing of the right as much as I like the anarchic mad left. We meet in the
recurving of extremes, which to my mind is better than fence-sitting.

Tanaqui, seized by metaphors.

>Mike, who has no faith in human nature to base libertarian beliefs on.

Oh, they're not too bad, despite my being speciesist at poor Colin last
weekend: he'd just had a bath and claimed to feel human again.
 
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: nina@Turing.ORG (Nina Karp)
Subject: Re: a tiny bit more out
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:01:27 GMT

It's strange -- sometimes I feel guilty for not wearing lots of triangle-y
buttons, for not being more political about my bi-ness.  I'm a very private
person, though, and telling the world who I sleep with feels as odd as
advertising what color undies I'm wearing.  It's my business.

Then again, I'm new to all of this; I suppose it might come with practice. :)

Mostly,
Nina.
From: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Finally Doing It ... Coming Out
Date: 6 Nov 1992 10:17:07 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


I talked with my mom for the first time in a month yesterday.

We had drifted apart as I gained a social life in the bay area and frankly
didn't want to talk with my parents because I didn't want to explain what
kind of friends I had.  I have a feeling that "Why, my friends are a bunch
of queers, or queer-positive people, who like to beat each other" would not
go well ... 

I told her last night that I was taking this semester off from school, then
I told my dad the same thing this morning.  Their reactions were pretty
similar ... "Well, does that make you happy? Good ... "

Frankly, being closeted to my parents is hurting our relationship, because I
feel that I need to hide from them ... hide myself, hide my activities, hide
my friends.  And I'm tired of it.  It's hurting me, because I want to talk
with them, and it's hurting them because they worry about me.

They love me.  They'll probably worry, they'll probably have questions.  But
I think they can deal with it.  So I decided last night to tell my parents
about being bi during thanksgiving vacation ... I may end up also telling
them about being a pervert (if the marks from my arms and back don't fade by
then, I may not have a choice :) ).

Their reactions to me dropping out of school for a semester/year lead me to
believe that they will be happy knowing I'm happy.  I may just be overly
optimistic ... but *shrug* Got to give it a try.

So ... now, the question is, how does one do this thing?
I can see two main avenues:
A) Let it drop in during a casual conversation
   ("Oh, and so I met him, and he's _so_ cute ...")
B) Sit them down for a talk
   ("Mom, dad, sit down please....")

Any suggestions?

I have this vague premonition coming out to my parents may precipitate my
first "please hug me" post ... But a mammal's got to do what a mammal's got
to do ...

God, I'm scared.  I hope I don't lose my guts by the time thanksgiving comes
around the corner ...

-roy


-- 
Roy S. Rapoport          rsr@soda.berkeley.edu             rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu
"Letters from you make me feel good."  -Laura Creighton
                          if (silence) { death() ; }
DISCLAIMER:  "I meant every word of it, but I doubt anyone else did."
From: thom@crayfish.ucsd.edu (Thom Cleland)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: No one ever sends me any hugs
Date: 8 Nov 1992 00:14:41 GMT
Organization: Tenuous at best
NNTP-Posting-Host: crayfish.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Oct31.150457.19455@cs.cornell.edu> borah@cs.cornell.edu (Vicki Borah) writes:
>In article <s882916.720420377@otto> s882916@otto (Vikki POLLARD) writes:
>>
>>"No one ever sends me any hugs" Vikki whimpered, with a sulky little pout, "
>>  
>>    
>>love Vikki
>
>*hug* *snug*
>Big warm friendlies from your not-quite-namesake here on soc.bi....
>--Vicki
>
>ps I was just going to send that 'I need a hug' message myself, so
>feel free to hug back....


great rollicking bear hugs to you both!  and you know that the hugging
continues even when you're not on the net, so think about that if you're
ever feeling down again...  glad you're posting!

 love Thom!


-- 
Thom Cleland     \ /^^/  >Neural systems/network physiology< >Amigaphile<  
(619) 453-7516    \OO/  >Aoinagi Shito-ryu == bend, and the wind passes <
tcleland@ucsd.edu  ++  >B3 f cdv g++ k+(+) m s+ r+ p growl+ purr++ zzz- <
"Wild magic is graven in every rock, every tree, in every blade of grass"
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: I am not a white male. (was: PC)
Date: 12 Nov 92 12:09:22
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Nov12.191656.23992@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu's message of Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:16:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.191656.23992@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov9102614@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.e
>du (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov9.165221.2518@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs
>.ohio-state.edu (S. Conley) writes:
>>> I am not a white male as far as any of you are concerned.  The details of
>>> my person are irrelevent to the Net.
>>
>>Do you mean to say that your ideas have absolutely nothing to do with
>>the sort of person you are?  

>I mean that the validity of my ideas has nothing to do with the sort of
>person I am.

I agree.  However, the sort of person you are can nonetheless influence
what ideas you form.

>If I make a statement, you can't dispute it on the basis
>of my personal characteristics.

Indeed.  However, you can discuss how your personal characteristics have
influenced your ideas.

>Take a course in logic

I've had several.  Enough to be able to determine that Mike was not
making an ad hominem attack.

>(do they still
>teach logic at Berkeley?)

Beats me.  I graduated a little over five years ago, from a different
university.  I'm taking a philosophy course now from the UCB Extension;
I can tell you that they are not currently offering a logic class, but
that does not say anything about what UCB does.

>and you'll find, if I am not mistaken, that
>that is called an "ad hominem" argument and is _not_ valid.

I know that an ad hominem argument is not valid.  I also know that one
was not *used*.  In logic terms, Mike was pointing out that you were
operating from the premise that the world works the same way for
everyone as it does for "white males."  Both of us have disputed this
premise (I did so in the article you are responding to here), but you
have not responded to that as yet.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons)
Subject: Slightly gloating postscript to the US election...
Reply-To: orc@amber.uchicago.edu
Organization: Department of Catastrophes
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:25:22 GMT

  Today I was wading through the last five days worth of the local
conservative rag - the Chicago Tribune - and came upon a little
article from a few days back that discussed the queer vote. 
Someone did a survey of 10000 or so queerfolk right after the
election, and discovered that of this sample, 94% of them voted,
and of this 94%, approximately 90% voted for Clinton.

  Now, taking the 10% figure as gospel, lesse; of 280 million US
citizens, that makes 28 million queerfolk.  If you guess that 19
million of us are voting age, that makes about 17 million Clinton
votes.  If we'd broken along the regular percentages, Clinton would
only have gotten about 8 million of those votes, and thus lost the
election.

  I gloat, and blow e-kisses at those who tried to demonise the gay
community.  I'm sure the camps would have been lovely, but not today!

                ____
  david parsons \bi/ who's never been a particularly good sport
                 \/
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Organization: Eris's Restaurant
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:39:54 GMT

In article <Bx7Jqz.AH0@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>In article <Bx7EpM.Iuz@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>>Look, this is going to get rapidly boring for most of the soc.biers, so
>>if you want to talk this through, shall we take it to email?
>
>No, it's easier to just cross you off my mental list of people
>worth getting to know better, and forget about it.  Kay into astrology,
>sheesh, who'd have believed it.

Kay is not "into astrology", FYI.  He just has perfectly rational and
positivist views on why the Babylonians, excellent astronomers and
so forth, may have used apparent celestial motions as "clocks" for
cyclic social trends.

But, as you say, it's easier to say "Oh, it mustn't be true" than to
consider something rationally.  Consider yourself crossed off Kay's list
of rational people.

				Kay
-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Subject: bi bi baby
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:48:27 GMT


Does anybody remember the Bay City Rollers? (Is anybody willing to
admit it?:-) If so, you may remember one of their big hits was "Bye bye
baby". The lyrics are as follows:

----cut here----
If you hate me after what I say
Can't put it off any longer
Just gotta tell her anyway

Chorus:
	Bye bye baby. Baby, bye bye			Bye, baby. Baby bye bye
	Bye bye baby. Don't make me cry			Bye, baby. Baby bye bye

You're the one girl in town I'd marry
Girl, I'd marry you now if I were free
How good it could be for me

I could love you but why begin it
When there ain't any future in it
She's got me but I'm not free

Chorus:

Wish I never have known you better
Wish I knew you before I met her
Gee, how good it could be for me

I should have told you thath I can't linger
There's a wedding ring on my finger
She's got me but I'm not free

Chorus:

							Bye, baby. Baby bye bye
							Bye, baby. Baby bye bye
	Baby. bye bye.					Bye, baby. Baby bye bye
	Baby. bye bye.					Bye, baby. Baby bye bye
	(to fade...)
----cut here----

Inspired by the parody of "Wild Thing" (Bi Thing), I have produced the
following variation called "Bi Bi Baby".

----cut here----
Bi Bi Baby	(parody of "Bye Bye Baby" by th Bay City Rollers)
Copyright Raymond Lynch 1992


If you hate me after what I say
Can't put it off any longer
Just gotta tell her anyway

Chorus:
	I'm bi bi baby. Baby, I'm bi			Bi, baby. Baby I'm bi
	I'm bi bi baby. Won't leave you for a guy	Bi, baby. Baby I'm bi

You're one of five people in town I'd marry
But the law doesn't allow polygamy
How good it could be---John, Jack, Mary, you and me

I could pretend to be straight or move to Berlin
But why bother when we could all just live in sin
Just John, Jack, Mary, you and me

Chorus:

Wish I'd known you were into leather
You could tie me up with a tether
Gee, how good it could be---John, Jack, Mary, you and me

I'll tell you now that I want to linger
I've got freedom rings on my fingers
For John, Jack, Mary, you and me

Chorus:

							Bi, baby. Baby I'm bi
							Bi, baby. Baby I'm bi
	Baby. I'm bi.					Bi, baby. Baby I'm bi
	Baby. I'm bi.					Bi, baby. Baby I'm bi
	(to fade...)
----cut here----

What I *really* want to see are videos produced of "Bi Thing" and "Bi
Bi Baby" in which the peformers dress up as parodies of the original
bands.

Are there any other songs which might benefit from a gentle reworking of
the lyrics? I think "I'm a Believer" by the Monkees has potential. How
about:

	I thought S&M would hurt a little
	But it seemed the more I got hurt the more pleasure I got
	My master was out to get me				Na na na nahhh
	Tied me to the ceiling					Na na na nahhh
	And when I was released... I fell on a nail

	Then I screamed in pain
	Now I'm a masochist
	...

Watch out, Spinal Tap :-)


Ciaran.
-- 
---- Ciaran McHale (cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie)
\bi/ Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
 \/  Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-6772204
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: iw@tosser.Rational.COM (The_Devine_Dolly)
Subject: Re: This has probably already been asked...
Organization: Rational
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:15:58 GMT

sa121@cl.cam.ac.uk (S. Arrowsmith) writes:

>In article <dbarber.721164647@crash.cts.com> dbarber@crash.cts.com (David C. Barber) writes:
>>Why is the lack of acceptance from the gays as bad as the lack of
>>acceptance from the hets?
>>
>there is the unjustified (but not neccessarily untrue) transformation of
>"lack of acceptance" to "oppression."  But the point remains that it feels
>uncomfortable to see someone suffering in the same way refusing to accept
>that you are in the same situation.

Why "unjustifed" ? 

There is more to it than just feeling uncomfortable because people don't
accept you.  Parts of the egay community actively discrminate against bi's.
When I see a lesbian group that looks interesting, I often don't even
bother to get involved because it is not worth the pain of the rejection,
when they realise that I actually admit to being bisexual, as opposed 
to being yet another lesbian that sleeps with men on the side.  

Iseult.
From: winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: This has probably already been asked...
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:27:49 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: geek.teng.ppd.ti.com

In article <1992Nov12.173647.7282@cs.tcd.ie>, mreape@cs.tcd.ie (Mike Reape) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov11.131236.10704@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
|> >In article <dbarber.721164647@crash.cts.com>
|> >dbarber@crash.cts.com (David C. Barber) writes:
|> >>Why is the lack of acceptance from the gays as bad as the lack of
|> >>acceptance from the hets?
|> >
|> >As an analogy: hurt often hurts more if it comes from a friend or
|> >family member rather than from a stranger.
|> >
|> >So, as a bisexual person, I can expect to get shit from straight people.
|> >To me, the straight people are "strangers" in the analogy. When a GL
|> >person (who are "family") gives me shit, it hurts much more than
|> >*comparable* [1] shit from a straight person.
|> 
|> In my experience I always get equal amounts of hassle from gays and
|> straights (per capita so to speak).  I never see anything but evidence
|> that gays and straights don't feel threatened by bisexuals in roughly
|> equal amounts (again considering the numbers).  I think that's the key
|> to understanding why gays can reject bis (we're a threat) and why I
|> see gay intolerance just as unacceptable and infuriating as straight
|> intolerance.  I've always reacted more with anger than hurt and the
|> point is that I would get just as angry at a gay man say for giving me
|> shit as a straight person.  They both just feel like alien communities
|> to me (says someone who lives in an almost totally straight world.
|> Take all of the above with a grain of salt.)
|> 
|> -Mike

My turn.

I have only experienced shit from the gay community.  Usually, it is along the
lines of "Oh girl! >>>I _HATE_ that!<<< Quit lying and admit that you're a fag
like the rest of us.  Why do you want to pretend to like fucking women,
anyway..." or something distressingly similar to that.  BTW,  I *really* hate it
when gays get too liberal with passing out the "girl" shit.  (if you hadn't
noticed.)  Back on the subject,  the reason I am getting in on this is that I
identify very much with what Mike just said about "alien communities."  I can't
put my finger on exactly *how* the straight world feels alien, but it has
something to do with having to keep a low profile on proclivities. (sp?)

*friendly tweak*
js

.sig = /dev/null
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:05:26 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>Hell, man, you believe in Australia,
>don't you?  And what's your evidence?  Hearsay and acceptance of
>authority.  Now, I'll grant you that it's remarkably *convenient*
>to believe in Australia; there's a large body of people who assert
>that they've been there, have friends or family there, and so forth;
>there are maps, photographs, artifacts, all purporting to be from
>Australia.  But that's not proof.

   Goodness me, come back to soc.bi after a moderate absence forced by
exams and then a system crash that cut me off from the Net, and what do 
I see???

   One of the most interesting effects of my impending US trip (only 49
days away now 8->) will be rather compelling proof that there is indeed
land on the other side of the ocean...


>(Joe: the use of "Australia" in the preceding paragraph was for
>rhetorical use only.  I'm sure you exist, you little pattern of
>phosphor on my screen, you...)

   Oh no, I completely deny that one...nope, and what's this "Australia"
you keep raving about??? 8-P


   BTW - the aforementioned system crash has meant that any email sent me
in the last few days quite probably didn't get through... 

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
From: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Altruism (was: two men)
Date: 7 Nov 92 19:07:59 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:

>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>  Well, I believe that it is *possible* to do
>>>something which is good for someone else but not for you,
>
>>You just said "it is impossible to do anything to improve the world without
>>benefitting themselves by doing so". Now you say it is possible. You seem
>>confused.
>
>Not at all.  I would have thought this was easy to understand.  For
>example, I could insure my life in favor of you and then kill myself.
>You would benefit, but it wouldn't be too good for me, eh?

Exactly - but it would improve life for me. So it is _possible_ to improve
the world without benefitting yourself. You said it was _impossible_.
Unless I'm being totally stupid (quite possible, I admit) you're
contradicting yourself, and that's _not_ easy to understand.


/jon
(if damaged, return to sender)
   ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley \  /_   Could be an ever opening flower...  //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \/ /  It's the beginning of               // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/__a new love inside________________///////////  //
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: fenthe@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: wups!
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:56:31 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <1dpi1tINNips@cuda.add.itg.ti.com>, winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js) writes:
> It occurs to me that I did not de-muffin properly...
> 
> "This is my first (ahem, second) post.  What is a muffin?"
> 
> pls don't answer - I know.  And I am not anymore.

 Well, hi, and welcome to soc.bi!

 **hugs, snuggles, and other such goodies**
-- 
Daniel Mitchell = Fenthe Marten = fenthe@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu =
m91djm@ecs.ox.ac.uk = dmitchell@cix.compulink.co.uk = bi furry juggler
Snailmail: 18, High St // Earls Colne // Essex CO6 2PA // ENGLAND
From: tdober@llnl.gov (TDO)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: tackling the bible
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:44:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: toberkam.tdober-091192104218
Followup-To: soc.bi
Organization: llnl

In article <1dkofaINN1c4@plts.uucp>, tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli) wrote:

[...]

> Ok, ok!  It never mentions homosexuality being BAD.

As someone else pointed out, I think Paul does.

[...]

> Well, if you read the passage carefully, the two diciples lived
> together.  Back then, if you lived together, you were married.  This
> begs the questions:
> 
>     1 -- Was one of the diciples a female?
>    (Women can't be Catholic priests because none of the diciples were women)
>     2 -- Was this a same-sex couple?
>    (we know how the Catholic Church feels about homosexuals)

I'm pretty sure that there was at least one pair of brothers amongst the
disciples; mightn't they have lived together if neither was married?
Elsewhere it's shown that siblings can live together; look at Lazarus and
his sisters Mary and Martha...


> Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.uucp (home) -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work)


TDO
--
#include "StdDisclaimer.h"

Pain, like time, is going to come on regardless. Question is, what glorious
moments can you win from life in addition to the pain? -- Lois McMaster
Bujold, _Barrayar_
From: lecl@quads.uchicago.edu (elizabeth e. leclair)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Slightly gloating postscript to the US election...
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:59:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Nov9.155943.2717
Reply-To: lecl@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov9.002522.6039@midway.uchicago.edu> orc@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>  Today I was wading through the last five days worth of the local
>conservative rag - the Chicago Tribune - and came upon a little
>article from a few days back that discussed the queer vote. 
>Someone did a survey of 10000 or so queerfolk right after the
>election, and discovered that of this sample, 94% of them voted,
>and of this 94%, approximately 90% voted for Clinton.
>

    ...which puts me in the mind of a phone conversation I had with my 
  (straight) sister last night.  She was asking me about the queer vote;
  she lives in Vermont, and the estimates in their area were that 71% of
  "family" members who voted, voted for Clinton.  To which she said,

   "I mean, who were the 27% that DIDN'T vote for Clinton??  Were they
    stuck on Perot or what?"

   Tough question, eh?

   -Beth L., still not over the delicious schock of victory      


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Elizabeth E. LeClair  (lecl@midway.uchicago.edu)~~~~~~~~~~~~~
           Committee on Evolutionary Biology, University of Chicago
"Sex is two wavy lines and the United States of America is a trapezoid." L.M.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: soc.bi