Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 10:17:02 -0400
From:         gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject:      GayNet Digest Volume 5 Issue 636

In this issue:
                     Looking for a list maintainer
                               Rich Gays
                              Alan Turing
                     Alan Turing/Breaking the Code
                         OLTL (supposed truth)
                           finding a balance
                         republican convention?
                       Advertising/Alocohol/Cigs

Please send messages for the entire list to gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU,
requests to be added or deleted to gaynet-request@ATHENA.MIT.EDU, and
personal replies directly to the other person, not the entire list.
Postings to GayNet are public communications.  If you must keep your
privacy, send your messages to gaynet-anonymous@ATHENA.MIT.EDU.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 23:06:00 -0400
From: Mark Rosenstein <mar@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Looking for a list maintainer

Folks, I'm looking for someone who can take over management of the
GayNet list.  It needs to be someone who is savvy about how networks
and email work and is at a site well connected to the Internet and
Bitnet.  If anyone is willing, please contact me.
					-Mark

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:39:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Rich Gays

 hvosti@nike.calpoly.edu (Hugh Vosti) writes

>I don't understand why this campaign of "gays are rich
>and don't need special rights" is working.  Are they
>using reverse psychology or what?  I thought the
>traditional conservative line was that making a lot
>of money and contributing to the economy was a good
>thing.  And sometimes even a reward for practicing
>Christian principles.  Do they want us to believe
>that gays only make their living by being evil and
>conniving?

First, I would suggest don't use words like traditional conservative or
liberal.    The policies advocated by groups that takes these label vary
enough to make the concepts near meaningless.  I prefer the terms Left
and Right in discussing government with two party politics or two party
politics dressed as up as multiparty politics as in France.

The Right is and has been a uneasy coalition of the religious and
business.  The National Association of Manufacturers cares very little
about gay rights, except they would rather not have to provide benefits
to the partners of gay people.  The thin line between profit maximizing
and exploitation is being crossed here, so they probably won't be too
strident.  They worry about image.

The religious elements of the Republican coalition rarely embrace Adam
Smith, the great prophet of economics.  Why should they when they have
Jesus?  Thus, there really is no contradiction when they  attack  gay
people in America or Jews in Europe for being wealthy.  If the
homophobic Wall Street Journal started attacking gay people and alleging
that they are wealthy then they would be major hypocrites.  However, we
can be sure that the Wall Street Journal will find another avenue of
attack.

The religious Right seems to resent anyone having an easy or pleasent
time in their life.  When they attack women who desire abortions, their
two code words are convience and responsibility.  "A woman wants an
abortion for her convience."  She has a responsibility to her child."
Thus, if the infant is not her fault, she is raped, she needn't accept
the responsibility, (and murder is no longer murder).  When the
spiritual ancestors of the religious right attacked dancing and card
playing, I sure the attacks sounded much the same.  Dancing and card
playing are not responsible activities.

Perhaps the best way to think of the religious right is as the perfect
Nietschean masses.  Nietzche claimed that resentment was the primary
motivator of the values of the masses.  More entertainly, Mencken
claimed that puritanism was the haunting fear that someone somewhere was
having fun.  I would guess that the religious right masses are easily
lead to resent the wealthy, because their infertile imagination
conflates money with fun.  Hence, gay people are evil because they don't
have children and can spend more money on their personal wants.  It is
only a short step to the "fact" that gay men are wealthy.  (My use of
gender is deliberate in the last sentence.  I think lesbians still don't
exist in their minds.)

Michael Loomis

------------------------------

From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com
Date: 18 AUG 92 03:25
Subject: Re: Alan Turing

info-25@info.umd.edu writes:

>has anyone seen/heard about "breaking the code"? it's a play alan turing, the
>guy who cracked the german u-boat code and is considered the father of
>computers. he was also a homosexual who was forced to undergo experimental
>hormonal treatments, and later committed suicide. is the play any good?
>is it playing anywhere besides new york? do they have plans to travel?

This play was a big hit in London many years ago, and also a surprise smash on
Broadway (maybe ten years ago?).  I've seen several productions, surprisingly
enough mostly in affluent, conservative areas (Orange County, CA, for example).

The play is good -- it presents Alan as a brilliant and iconoclastic person
who is able to solve intractable problems through original approaches, and who
refuses to play by the rules of British society (do what you want in college,
then get married and blend in).  This was tolerated by a wartime England that
needed him in the effort to break the German Enigma code, but after the war it
was too much.  I won't summarize the entire plot here, but the play does cover
the effect of a childhood loss on his passion for Artifical Intelligence.

I also recommend the book "Alan Turing: The Enigma of Intelligence" by Andrew
Hodges (my edition in the Counterpoint line by Unwin Paperbacks) 1983.

Besides his founding of AI, and the creation of the Turing Test for AI (which
I regularly see bastardized into a sham so that some program, such as Eliza,
written to prove that keyword recognition is *not* AI, can pass), he also
devised the concept of a Turing (or state) machine, which is one of the most
useful fundamental concepts in computer science.  It was this which formed the
basis for his seminal work in cryptography and the breaking of the Enigma code.

He also independently solved the _Entscheidungsproblem_, the decidability
problem in mathematics.  Church solved the problem first, but Turing didn't
know this.  Essentially, he showed that it was not possible to devise a method
which could, in principle, be applied to any assertion and produce a correct
decision as to whether the assertion was true.  (This is from an attempt by
Hilbert in 1900 to show that mathematics was complete, consistent, and
decidable.  Goedel showed that mathematics could not be both complete and
consistent.  With proof that it was also not decidable we have left the realm
of the clockwork universe and entered one where chaos and randomness lurk at
the heart).

Turing liked to use the decidability issue in arguing against the State's
condemnation of matters motss.  ("Gross indecency" was a serious criminal
charge then).  There is of a quote of his I can't remember exactly, but it
is something like: In mathematics, the most certain of human endeavors, it
is not possible to know for sure if an assertion is true; how than can people
claim to know what is correct in human behavor?

  =====================================================================
  = sua cuique voluptas              (everyone has his own pleasures) =
  = Randy Gellens            randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com =
  = >>>>>>> If mail bounces, forward to rgellens@mcimail.com <<<<<<<< =
  = Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself =

                          Randomly selected tag:

Ours is a world where people don't know what they want and are willing
to go through hell to get it.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 09:21:28 EDT
From: farach@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Martin Farach)
Subject: Alan Turing/Breaking the Code

Owen Plowman writes:
|I saw this play in January 1990 in Toronto.  It was very good.  I
|recommend it.  Much of the play deals with Alan Turing's relationship
|with his work and his wife, as far as I recall.  His sexuality is
|brought out in the course of the drama as well.
|
|In addition to the play, the book "Alan Turing, the enigma" by Andrew
|Hodges is excellent.  It's published by Simon and Schuster and sells
|in soft-cover for about U.S. $12.00.

I also recommend the book.  But I'd just like to note, Alan Turing
was never married.  There is nothing about a wife in the play or in
the book.

Martin Farach

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 09:44:36 EDT
From: mickey@math.duke.edu (Mickey McDonald)
Subject: OLTL (supposed truth)

Supposedly the man playing Billy's dad on OLTL (i.e. the extremely homophobic
dad who is completely outraged about and unaccepting of his sons homosexuality)
is in fact gay.  Pretty good acting job then, I must say.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 92 10:07:39 EST
From: Larry Goldsmith <LGOLDSMI@PENNSAS.UPENN.EDU>
Subject: finding a balance

In response to the note from Kev about finding a balance:

First, don't feel bad about posting your problem to the list. It's a lot more
serious, and relevant, an issue than a lot of what gets discussed here (not
that I object to discussing things that aren't serious or relevant). It's an
issue that should be of interest to people, because it's a classic and
difficult problem that nearly everyone has been through who is committed to
radical social change. I don't have an answer, but I think it's important to
keep several things in mind. First, you don't have to do everything yourself.
In fact, you can't, and you shouldn't. Social change is not brought about by
individuals; it's brought about by movements. You have to do your best and
your utmost (and chances are, it will never seem like you're doing enough),
but you also have to rely on others to do their part. (Part of your job, of
course, might be to encourage others to do so.)

Second, because you can't do everything, you need to pick one or two or a few
issues that matter to you the most, where you can direct most of your
energies. This may seem selfish, but it should also mean that you'll be
working on the issues you care about, are interested in, and have a good
understanding of. Your work will be most effective, and you'll stick with it,
even when you're close to despair, because it's important to you. (This is
advice about priorities, not an argument for doing "single issue" work; it's
important, as well as most effective for your own cause, constantly to make
connections between your own work and other struggles.)

The issues you work on, and the time you are able to devote to them, may vary
over time, and factors in your personal life may have something to do with
this, and you might feel like you're being selfish, or that it's just
impossible to reconcile your desire for social change with your desire for a
personal life. This is another of those classic dilemmas that revolutionaries
and activists have struggled with for a long time. It helps to know that
others have been through it, and personally I have found a lot of reassurance
and inspiration on this count, and also on the first two, in the writings of
Rosa Luxemburg and Simone DeBeauvoir. You might want to take a look at
Elzbieta Ettinger's biography of Luxemburg, and also at Luxemburg's letters;
Luxemburg was a remarkable political figure, one whose views on nationalism
are especially pertinent these days, and she reflected long and hard and
movingly on her own struggle with these issues. The same is true of Simone
DeBeauvoir; take a look at her autobiography, especially _The Prime of Life_,
which is one of the four volumes, all of which are excellent. Also read her
novel _The Mandarins_, a lot of which is based loosely on her life; it is
absolutely brilliant, and something every political activist should read, and
read often. Although neither of these authors speaks directly to "gay
activism," personally I've found much in their writings that resonates with my
own experience as a radical gay man.

Larry Goldsmith:

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 10:13:33 EDT
From: Catherine Moroney <moroney@oldkat.physics.utoronto.ca>
Subject: republican convention?

Anybody out there watching the republication convention?  What's the general
tenor of the entire convention, what old lines are they trotting out this time?
And most important, are they engaged (please!) in digging their own grave?
Any interesting tidbits to share.

I'd love to watch it myself, but have decided that graduating might be a
good idea.

Also, Gabriel, is your story being mailed out, or what's the status?
Not to push a point, but I would be interested in reading it.

CM Moroney

------------------------------

Date:        Tue, 18 Aug 92 10:14:53 EDT
From: "AAKL000@CATCC.bitnet  Kevin S. Lowery Catonsville"
 <AAKL%CATCC.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject: Advertising/Alocohol/Cigs

> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:40:06 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "David M. Pahnos" <dp0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
> Subject: Re: PHILLIP MORRIS/ABSOLUT VODKA
>
> >Now, drinking is different.  Actually, a little alcohol in the system
> >every once in a while is good for the digestive/nervous system.  It is
> >when it is taken to excess constantly that it is bad for one's health.
> >Personally I don't object to alcohol advertisements as much as cig
> >advertisements.  Now, I guess you could say that consumption of liquor
> >does eventually cause cirhosis of the liver, but I believe that is
> >only when it is taken to excess for a long period of time.
>
> >Again, I am not interested in receiving flames on this one.
>
> ANYTHING taken to excess is bad for you.  SO what is wrong with a
> moderate intake of cigarette smoke? Did you know that automobile
> emissions are more poisonous (and in greater amounts) than a whole
> carton of cigarettes?  How many evironmentalists do you know who own
> cars?
> What about the case of alcoholism and drug abuse?  Did you know that the
> gay community has a 40% higher drug and alcohol abuse rate than the
> strayt community?  That alcohol is the main reason gay men will not
> insist on safe sex (judgement is impaired), which is when most cases of
> seroconversion occur with men who normally practice safe sex piously?
> Would knowing the above THEN change your mind?
> Trust me, I'm not flaming you, (nor do I flame anyone else when I
> respond by the way, contrary to popular belief).  I both smoke and
> drink, so its no skin off my back.  I'm just challenging your
> assumptions.
>
>
> michael j pastor iii
> guest on davids account

MJP III
Thank you for telling me that you smoke.  That sort of solves it all.
I am sorry.  I just cannot understand why you would continue to do
something to your body that you know has been studied extensively and
even the surgeon general posts a warning.  It must be pretty lethal
if it has that warning on it.  You don't see it on everything.  I
know that it is a habit for you and for so many other people in the
community.  I am sorry to see people get involved with that.  But I do
think that, being involved in psychology as I am, that it is a definite
possibility that there is something that you feel you have to punish
yourself for and maybe smoking is the way you do that.  Maybe alcohol
consumption, too!  I don't know.  I don't like playing psychiatrist,
but I have seen many people with broken lives/childhoods that act out
this scenario.  I think that a lot of people in the community have
problems with chemical dependency/abuse as you have pointed out --
moreso than the non-lesbigay community.

But as far as the little bit of smoke/little bit of alcohol theory,
I cannot ascribe to it.  I have some alcohol with diner sometimes and
to relax if I had a hectic day, but never very much or never liquor.
And Lord knows I have had enough problems this year to drown myself
in it several times, but I have chosen not to because it doesn't solve
anything.

As far as the smoking thing, I run and exercise daily and would
consider it a detriment more than anything.

Now, as far as the advertising is concerned, which is why I
started this posting, I just cannot see because of the detriments to
one's health (whether you believe it is or not!) that it is good to
advertise such products to a community which is known to have a higher
rate of drug/alcohol/nicotene dependency.  Some people who have no
conscience would see it a marketing, some would see it as advertising,
some would see it as a negative factor in the community.

As I stated before, I know that these companies devote thousands of
dollars to AIDS research and the community in various ways.  Just
think that it is sad that they purvey their hazardous wares and then
offer money to fix the problem(s).  Sad.

------------------------------

End of GayNet Digest
********************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU