HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Marky Mark and Calvin Klein (was Re: Scott Masden)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 21:26:48 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <74296@apple.apple.COM> <1992Nov15.040728.10571@spdcc.com>
  <69575@cup.portal.com> <thaaang.721931083@cwis>

John Dorrance writes:
>How often do people other than George flame other people for talking
>about aesthetics?

Where did I do this?  What I *DID* do was to express MY opinion
of "Marky Mark" as others were doing.

>Like Melinda said, it's more like 'Oh no, all that Furr crap again'.

I'm not the only Ursine Person who's gotten those kind of
Ursinophobic comments.

>And it's because of crap like this. You simply can't talk about
>what you find attractive without telling people that they should be
>ashamed of themselves for liking anything other than your ideal. It's 
>sickening, and I really wish you would accept the fact that some
>people have different tastes than you do and just shut the fuck up
>and let people think the way they want to.

I'd like to see some quotes from my postings to support this
stream of unmitigated bullshit.  When those who are fond of 
what the media purveys as the "way to look" talk about it, that's
what is "expected." When someone like myself, or several others
talk about what *WE* like that happens to be different from this,
we get the line that we're trying to "force" our tastes on
others -- as if that were possible, and as if WE weren't being
inundated by the "mainstream" images.

Sound familiar?

>>to *ME*, the face (most preferably with a beard or other
>>significant facial hair, if it's a male) is the first thing I
>>notice, and probably the most important factor in physical
>>attraction for me.
>
>But to hear you talk, if he wasn't positively matted with fur he
>might as well look like the elephant man, and you'd never be able
>to love him. Sad.

Frankly, you don't know enough about me to make any statements
about what I find attractive, particularly about what might
involve my falling in love with someone.  This is nothing more
than a particularly crude verbal swipe.
 
() I will give up my beard when they shave it from my cold,
() dead face!
()      -- Peter Thomas (From the "Razor's Anonymous" Handbook)
-----
[> George D. Madison | NBCS: B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv | Just say NO to razors! <]
[> It's a BEAR thing -- you wouldn't understand. <|> furr@cup.portal.com <]
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general
From: vanm@col.hp.com (Van Martin)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:31:05 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> When the gay community in Chicago started stamping money
> in the early 1980s, an attorney looked into the legality
> of it.  As long as the serial number and denomination
> remain unobscured, it's legal.

  Is this some sort of "force everyone to take me seriously"
  tactic that the militant (verrrrrry militant) homosexuals
  wanted to take with the national blood supply in the 80's
  to force $$$ for AIDS research?  No, I didn't think so.

  I fail to see the point.  I've spent money with "for a 
  good time call ...." on it, so why should a little thing
  like "GAY $$$" make any difference?  Is it possible that
  when a powerful lobby group doesn't get its way, it will
  continue to force its agenda on everyone until they get
  their way?  Ahhh, the American way!

>            Hate is not a family value.  Boycott Colorado

  Boycott is not a family value.  Hate Colorado?
  Colorado is not a family value.  Boycott Hate?

  By the way, do you hate chickenpox, cholera, brussell sprouts
  or soap operas?  Do you hate intolerance (read "differing
  opinion")?  Perhaps it is the subject of hate that is not
  a family value.

  "Hate what is evil" and according to my understanding of the Bible
  (there it is - flame on!!!)  homosexuality is evil (NOTE:  NOT THE
  HOMOSEXUAL).  "I will not condone what God seeks to redeem."  Dr.
  Robert Oerter.  It only serves to confuse people to legalize bad
  ideas.

  Also, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools
  despise wisdom and instruction."  Prov.  1:7

  So, in my family, there are areas where fear and hate ARE family
  values.

  Donning asbestos for the certain deluge of contrary "opinion" (can
  you say "boiling oil?").

Van "not homo-phobic, just not homo-conformist" Martin		
vanm@col.hp.com

All ideas expressed here are my own, 
though you ought to consider that I am right

"All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes,
     But the LORD weighs the spirit"  
Prov. 16:2
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Can anyone tell me about this TV show?
Date: 21 Nov 92 07:42:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Nov21.074217.3074
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <20NOV92.17154582@enh.nist.gov> aberson@enh.nist.gov writes:
>>"The number of people in America who use electric shavers is X.  (the
>>control group). The number of people in America with cancer who use
>>electric shavers is Y. Y is much greater than X, implying that the two
>>are correlated."

>Am I missing something?  Y seems to be a subset of X, if I am reading
>correctly, so Y cannot be greater than X.

Ooops, I'm sorry, I misstated it. I meant to say:

"The percentage of people ... is X. The percentage of people with
cancer ... is Y. Y is much greater than X."

(to the other person who pointed this out, only for some obnoxious
reason chose to make it into a flame, I say "phblllllt!")

>>Nelson, who can't stand electric razors.
>Agreed.  I never thought I'd prefer a regular blade, but I started
>using one a few weeks ago.  Maybe now I won't get cancer?

Let's hope not!

I still haven't shaved, about two weeks now. I look really pathetic.
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/     What in this room is alive and what doesn't have life?
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: TORCH SONG (was Re: Effeminacy/Butchitude (was Re: discrimination at CMU))
Date: 20 Nov 1992 00:15:56 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <BxzuMz.KED@queernet.org> 
rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.022458.25965@netcom.com>, 
> jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:

Btw, bon voyage Jack!  Did you enjoy the hat show
while you were waiting to board your plane?

> > The first production I saw, at Theatre Rhinoceros in San Francisco, was one
> > of the first productions anywhere - I don't believe the last two acts had
> > even been written yet.
>
> Then it wasn't TORCH SONG TRILOGY.  It was THE INTERNATIONAL STUD.  TST was
> originally three separate one-acts; they were reworked for the three-acter
> called TORCH SONG TRILOGY.

Yes, that's true.  I remember coaching a friend on his
makeup and mannerisms (!!!) for a scene he did from 
"The International Stud".  (Yes, he was in a college 
acting program.  No, they didn't mind effeminacy when
effiminacy was called for in a scene.)

> Incredibly bad theater idea #267 was implemented by Boston's Triangle Theater
> some time in the mid-1980's, when they decided to put on, under the name 
> TORCH SONG TRILOGY, not the edited play but the three original one-acts.
>
> Wake me when you're done, Arnold...

Oh dear.

Arne (who's never actually *heard* "wake me when you're done, Arne",
but who's had people fall asleep on him)



Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: rjones@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rex A. Jones (I'm single and gay...want a date?))
Subject: Re: Clinton outing?????
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 18:06:44 GMT

larry@bradley.bradley.edu (L. D. Stratton) writes:


>   I certainly missed something somewhere!  Gaynet Digest volumn - well
>   let's just say the 4th one today -- had the briefest little ole post
>   titled "Clinton outing" and just said "what's the point of doing this"

>   Would someone inform poor lill old me what the hell is going on?

I only hope that it has something to do with George Stephanopolous sigh...

Cute, smart, sexy, and in power.... ;)  just what I've always dreamed of in a
man!
From: bgc@research.otc.com.au (Brenden Cooper)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists and the clitoris
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:24:57 GMT
Organization: R&D, OTC Australia

In article <1992Nov13.173845.10165@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> psp@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (P.S. Powledge) writes:
>
>I'm glad they're not that loony in Australia. But in the U.S., they're
>both loony and, unfortunately, powerful.
>
While we have our fair share of loonies here, thankfully they
aren't as powerful as yours seem to be.  It appears to me
that Australians generally can't be bothered taking anything
very seriously.  This of course has both good and bad
effects.  The following is an example of what I consider a
good effect:

Earlier this year I found myself in a suburban shopping mall
(I have a good excuse, I was getting my sewing machine
repaired).  Two women in uniform were collecting for the
salvation army outside the "Radio Rentals" store and as I
glanced into the shop, there, displayed on over 20 television
screens, was a close up of a clitoris attached to a living,
breathing woman.  I was hysterical.  This was on a weeknight
on a show called "Sex" being shown by a commercial station
nationally.  It's the first real clitoris to have been shown
on Australian television, and while there was some public
outcry there were no calls for boycotts.  Maybe I'm just
misinformed but I can't really see this happening in the
U.S.

>PS: Do Australians *really* say things like "dingo's kidneys"?
No.

-- 
Brenden Cooper      ACSnet:  bgc@otc.otca.oz
|||| OTC ||           UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz!bgc
                     Snail:  GPO Box 7000, Sydney 2001, Australia
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: discrimination at CMU
Followup-To: soc.motss
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<CORWIN+.92Nov11120016@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>
	<mattm-111192104825@mcmelmon.apple.com>
	<1992Nov12.171921.126594@watson.ibm.com>
	<mattm-121192114153@mcmelmon.apple.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:21:39 GMT

In article <mattm-121192114153@mcmelmon.apple.com> mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:

   In article <1992Nov12.171921.126594@watson.ibm.com>, nomad@watson.ibm.com
   (Lee `nomaD` Damon) wrote:

   > One student, yes, I can see this happening. I can't buy it when there are
   > 18 (or 16, different reports) students involved. We are talking actions
   > taken against a class of people, not a single instance.

   I have to admit, 18 is a large number.  This thread has oscillated
   between one specific case (someone named Eric?) and a class action.
   What is the overall size of the drama department at CMU?  What's the
   regular turn over?

40-50 students are admitted, 15-20 graduate.

Scott
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Jim Wood beefcake omitted accidentally
Date: 17 Nov 1992 14:02:04 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1992Nov16.204445.29269@spdcc.com> 
dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> Hi, Jim.  I realized yesterday that in my last batch of
> scannings, I omitted your "beefcake" shot on the beach.

Beefcake?

> Sorry!  It's now there as /pub/motss.pix/j/jim_wood2.JPEG

Oh my, oh my, oh my.

Arne
From: spencer@der.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Date: 22 Nov 92 08:01:39 GMT
Reply-To: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Live Organ Transplants

NOTE: alt.politics.homosexuality and co.politics REMOVED from
Newsgroups: line.

In article <gVwLuB5w165w@lily.arts.com>, palepink@lily.arts.com (Suzii Abe) writes:
>
> In article <1992Nov16.154610.652@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo
> >Not really. I used to work as a technician fixing very expensive medical
> >equipment. One important point was that your image should be well accepted 
> >by the client because sales were based, in a lot of cases, on references fro
> >previous clients. 
> >If some of our clients would have had a problem with Gays, the company
> >would certainly have not send a Gay person to do the job at that particular
> >place.
>
>This is where Miss Manners' dicta regarding the separation of social and
>business life come in.
>
>A technician who visits a client to fix expensive medical equipment 
>has no need to discuss anything except medical equipment with that
>customer.
>
>A business which has equipment in need of repair has no time to 
>distract a visiting technician with discussions of social life, and
>no legal right to discuss sexual life with anybody paid to be there.

This is sort of what I've been trying to say in that other thread on
"relevance."  There are examples of situations where one's sexuality is
a best a peripheral detail, IMO.

Please do not interpret this as suggesting that people should stay in
the closet.  See the other thread if you like.

-----
sss/PU'94 Dept of CS (spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu)/JvNCnet (spencer@jvnc.net)
"There comes a time in the history of every project when it becomes
necessary to shoot the engineers and start production."
From: mdrayton@sr.hp.com (Mike Drayton)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Cheese-Louise
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:17:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1.1 PL5

Rod Williams (rjwill6@PacBell.COM) wrote:
> > mdrayton@sr.hp.com (Mike Drayton) writes:

> >I think it's Emmentaler, and it's the original, after which "Swiss
> >cheese" was modeled...
> 
> In much the same way, and with equal success, as
> International Foods Coffee-Flavored Drink Substitutes were
> modeled after coffee...<ptooi>

Aw, c'mon, Rod!  Celebrate the moments of your life!

--
Mike Drayton      mdrayton@sr.hp.com       Hewlett-Packard Co.
                                           Santa Rosa, California
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: pmele@ldgo.columbia.edu (phil mele)
Subject: Re: New Catholic Catechism
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:04:48 GMT

In article <1eb4csINN3cn@alice.cs.purdue.edu>, berninge@cs.purdue.edu (James Berninger) writes:
> 
> From today's paper (and the AP):
> "Traditional teachings describe homosexual acts as 'intrinsically
> dissolute, contrary to natural law' and instruct homosexuals to
> practice chastity.
> 
> "But, in appeal to tolerance, the new catechism adds that since most
> hmosexuals do not willingly choose their lifestyle, they 'must be
> welcomed with respect, compassion, and delicacy,' and 'One must avoid
> all unjust discrimination against them."

the ny times had a bit more, and more important i think, is that we
once again may have a translation problem.  the article i read said
that the released version, the 'original' is in french.  an
itialian version is due out 8 dec and the english version in the
spring.  if the american faction of the church, headed by our good
buddy cardinal o'connor, has anything to do with the translation,
they can easily put a more conservative tone to it.  (i refer to
translations of the bible where very obscure meanings of words
were chosen over the more more common usage.)
what the ny times adds to the above:
	In denouncing all sexual realtions except those
	between husband and wife, however, the catechism
	does hint at new understanding of homosexuality.
	It says that, while homosexuality is "against
	natural law," a "not negligible" number of men
	and women present fundamental homosexual
	tendencies.
	"They do not choose their homosexual condition,"
	it goes on.  "For most of them, it is an ordeal."

i find it surprising that the church has accepted that homosexuality is
not a choice and that there are a considerable number of us.

-- 

Phil Mele  (pmele@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu)
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University
Palisades, N Y  10964
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Cheese-Louise
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:34:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Nov21.233426.17200
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

Mr. Coren writes:
>...oh. Well are we talking about your 21st (upcoming) or the year of
>your birth? Gets different results, y'know.

Argh, I hate leap years. The upcoming year, not the year of my birth.

ObMotss - what could be more queer than randomly adding an extra day
into your year? The chronological decorating coup of the millenium.
BTW, was Charles Fort gay? He invented a great calendar..
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/  Homosexuals were invented for an episode of Barney Miller
Xref: sparky soc.motss:48926 alt.politics.homosexuality:7541 co.politics:2320 co.general:1982 talk.politics.misc:61388 co.politics.amend2.discuss:123 boulder.general:1121
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general
From: rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, Ca.
	<1992Nov20.000552.21257@col.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:05:17 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.

In article <1992Nov20.000552.21257@col.hp.com> vanm@col.hp.com (Van Martin) writes:

    Contrary to the reporter's coverage of this campaign and issue, there
   is another (majority) opinion in Colorado that homosexual behavior
   doth not a specially-protected group make.

Why does heterosexual behavior a specially-protected group make?

The Colorado initiative set aside special rights for heterosexuals, by
specifically denying those rights ONLY for people of other
sexualities.  Being against special rights, I should think you would
oppose this.

No gay group I know of has EVER proposed legislation that did not
include heterosexuals.

Quite a little double-standard there.

--

  - Ronald Hayden

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
   | Documentation Manager, Oracle Toolkit Group                    |
   | Co-chair of Oracle Lambda, Oracle's Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual group |
   | Writer, magician, and various other things                     |
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: GLAAD: Star Trek TNG Spinoff
Date: 21 Nov 92 01:53:02 PST

Matthew dahling,

In article <mattm-131192184215@mcmelmon.apple.com>, on 14 Nov 92 02:49:48 GMT,
mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:

>
>In article <19921113155251ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>,
>ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) wrote:
>
>>    Now to the important question.  Will there be the introduction of any
>>    gay/lesbian characters or story lines?  It has been quite some time
>>    (Mar. '92) since "The Next Generation" touched on homosexual
>>    inclusiveness.  And, unfortunately, that inclusion was out of step
>>    with Sci-Fi and '90s reality.  Several years ago all inquiries about
>>    inclusion in "The Next Generation"were met with a "No."  But what
>>    about "Deep Space Nine," Paramount?  Inquiring minds would like to
>>    know.  Any info to: GLAAD/LA (213) 463-3632; FAX (213) 463-4923.
>>    Comments to: Rick Berman and Michael Piller, Executive Producers,
>>    Paramount Domestic TV, 5555 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood 90038.
>
>
>I want Wil Wheaton.  I want Jason Priestley.  I want Wil Wheaton and
>Jason Priestley alone, naked, in a holodeck - lost amidst the fading
>echoes of dying stars.  An abandoned space station would be perfect.
>Even more perfect than having Keanu Reeves strapped down in some
>gloomy castle lost amidst the peaks of Transylvania (but it would
>be close).
>
Write and tell those producers about your unrequited lust for these
lovelies! Who knows?

        =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             No not one man, no not ten men,
Library Information Systems  Nor a hundred can assuage me.
University Research Library  I will have you!
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - Steven Sondheim
Xref: sparky soc.motss:47655 alt.politics.homosexuality:7235 co.politics:2036
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:57:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Nov15.175739.1451
Organization: insert anything here

mudge@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (MUDGE BRIAN WAYNE) writes:
>>aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

	[a really lame excuse - but what's new?]

>> So, the solution is: Keep the Gay until you both are out of bussiness?

>  How do they know your employee is gay?  I think, as an employer, that you
>should have the right to implement a reasonable dress code on your
>employees.  So, if the problem is a SILENCE=DEATH T', or other possibly
>offensive, definitely political accessories, merely implement a policy
>which prevents people from voicing political views while on the job in
>your store.  Most stores have such policies anyway, to prevent their 
>employees from driving off customers who are easily offended.

	Oh, puhleese.

	Let's assume that the guy is just "out".

	By your assertion then, only closeted GBLO*-folks should
be protected.

	Way to be, Wayne.

BBC
From: tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Military info needed
Date: 15 Nov 1992 22:28:46 -0500
Organization: P.L.T.S., North Plainfield, NJ, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: plts.uucp

In article <RHAYDEN.92Nov14160009@hqsun2.oracle.com> rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden) writes:

>Clinton has said, multiple times in the past few days: "The decision
>has been made."

I just hope that he doesn't do it in a way that it will come back to
haunt him.  It looks like he's going to hold up to his promises and
maybe we'll want him for a second term too.

Obviously the glbo* communities are for unbannign g/l/b's, his real job
is to sell it to EVERYONE ELSE before the executive order gets released.

I hope NGLTF and HRCF are filling him with suggestions like:

1) have the committee "discover" how much money is spent on
witchhunts.
("discover" is in quotes because such studies have already been done,
they could just republish them.)

2) have the committee "discover" that some witchhunts have kicked out
people with many, many awards.
(again, "discover" means tell the het-world something we already know.)

(everyone is going to hate this last suggestion)

3) have the committee "discover" that the Military's rule is based on
something the APA has retracted and have the executive order stress
that "dress codes will still be strictly enforced".
(yeah, it's something we'd laugh about, but the common perception still
has most of us men wearing dresses and women wearing, well, Army
boots!  It's sort of the "only Nixon can go to China" rule)

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.uucp (home) -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work)
"Higgy higgy forward, higgy forward, higgy forward, higgy shake.  Yeeaaah!"
Newsgroups: soc.motss,rec.pets.cats