HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: Arguing against sodomy is shooting yourself in the foot...
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 16:30:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.144312.24464@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto  
Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.065438.11406@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> >>Any comment [about Judith Reisman's "Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud"]?
> >
> >Why do I suspect this book is politically motivated...

It is. Of course, writing from the home of the Kinsey Institute,
you may want to watch out for _my_ motivations as well ;)

> That is why I asked if someone read it.
> I saw it in the bookstore, where I took a look at it.
> I found weird that she uses as a source of information Pat Buchanan's 
> articles.

Yes, the one where he claims homosexuality is "...a one-in-fifty
aberration." It's part of an appendix in the book that attacks 
Project 10, an outreach effort for GLB teens.

> Also, she makes some observations about marriage which are 
> quite conservative. Also, it does not look as a scientific work in
> terms of the kind of quotations it has. It looks more like journalism.
> However, I thought that being a Dr. she might have had some reserach 
> on this field. But someone just told me that her Dr. degree has nothing 
> to do with meidicine, psychology, sexuality or any related field.

Her doctorate is in an educational administration field (I would
have more respect if it were in journalism, let alone sexuality!). 
But she has used those letters to somehow give the air of authority 
to her attacks on sexual topics before (like her earlier book "Soft 
Porn Plays Hard Ball"), and I suspect she will again.
 

> 
>                              |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
>                |\/\/\/|      |    Alberto A. Pinkas (aka AAP)     |
>                |      |      |      insultos y comentarios        |  
>                |      |      |     a aap@wam.umd.edu              |
>                | (o)(o)      |  recomendaciones para medicos      |
>                C      _)     |       a ap31@umail.und.edu         |
>                 | ,___|   <==|____________________________________|
>                 |   / 
>                /____\            " Don't have a cow man. "
>               / _____\             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Unless, of course, you _want_ to be cited in the bestiality
section of the Institute's Library.... 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
From: roy@panix.com (Roy Radow)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Supporting people in a homophobic high school
Date: 20 Jul 92 23:59:37 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

Although I know must of these groups by reputation only
you might consider contacting:

Hetrick-Martin Institute
208 W 13th Street
New York, NY 10014
(212) 633 8920

This group is responsible for the Harvey Milk School in NYC
and used to do outreach to educators and schools in the area.

National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
1934 14th Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 332 6483

They have funds and national "connections" and might be a
good resource.

Gay Teachers Caucus of the National Education Assoc.
32 Bridge Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
(201) 489 2458

NYC Gay & Lesbian Switchboard (212) 777 1800

They can provide leads to other groups who might be able
to provide assistance.

There are also a myriad of other student, parents and 
friends of lesbian & gays (P-FLAG), university and
other such groups in your area. You might call telephone
information and ask for the number of a local gay hotline.

Best of luck. I admire your courage, integrity and idealism.

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.
From: buckmr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Lesban Marriage Announcement Controversy
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:48:48 GMT



Copyright 1992 by UPI
Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroup
clari.group.gays.  For more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or
phone 1-800-USE-NETS.


	AUSTIN, Texas (UPI) -- A newspaper's decision to sell a lesbian couple
space for a photograph and story about their union has thrust both the
women and the newspaper into the center of a controversy.
	Sara Strandtman and Karen Umminger decided more than a year ago to
formalize their relationship with a ceremony, which was held last
weekend at the First Unitarian Church in Austin and attended by about 90
people.
	The Austin American-Statesman's decision to carry a paid notice of
the ceremony in its Sunday editions produced a barrage of calls to the
newspaper supporting and condemning the action.
	``Well I'd say we've received quite a few calls but they are probably
more in favor than in opposition,'' publisher Roger Kintzel said
Wednesday. He estimated that about 60 of the 100 calls supported
publication of the notice.
	Kintzel said he personally made the decision to accept the ad because
the newspaper established a policy about 18 months ago not to
discriminate in advertising on the basis of sexual orientation.
	Christian radio talk show host Jack Chambers called a news conference
Tuesday to denounce the notice, and other stations in the city say they
have been jammed with calls about the marriage.
	``It is an insult to the momentus, happy occasion of the other
married couples whose accounts of their weddings are portrayed on this
page,'' said Chambers. ``The purity of these pages has been marred by
the stain of immorality.''
	Chambers said the root of his criticism is that Texas law forbids
homosexual relationships and allows only people of the opposite sex to
be joined in marriage. But a state district judge has overturned the law
that makes same-sex relationships illegal, a ruling that has been upheld
on appeal and before the Texas Supreme Court.
	Officials of Austin radio station KLBJ said about 70 percent of the
calls it received Tuesday were opposed to the lesbian marriage and
unhappy that the American-Statesman treated the union the same as a
marriage between people of the opposite sex.
	When the newspaper carried a notice of the couple's engagement
several weeks ago without a picture, no complaints were made.
	Stradtman and Umminger are honeymooning in New Mexico and Colorado,
but in an interview before they left, both seemed surprised by the
reaction to their union and the newspaper's decision to carry the
announcement.
-- 
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"In 1988 1800 homosexuals were dischaged from the military. The cost to train
them was $23 000 000. 35% of those discharged were women. Women make up only 
5% of the military. " -- MTV's _Buzz_.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Interesting REasoning Pattern....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 10:55:01 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
] dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes...
] DH> dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters) writes:
] DH> In article <92182.092025AOEXY@ASUACAD.BITNET> AOEXY@ASUACAD.BITNET writes:
] 
] DH> >> DRIEUX is a sick dog homo.  There is only one cure for this. And it's che
] DH> >> too. A single 22 slug in the right temple is quite effective!
] 
] DH> > I love this: the mentality of the pro-"life" movement at work.
] 
] DH> I think it's more likely that the poster is pro-choice, since it's
] DH> obvious that s/he embraces the repulsive notion that human life
] DH> can be killed arbitrarily.
] 
] Bravo, Doug!  Touche'!  (Is there a better net.standard way of writing
] "e"-accent aigu without having to say "e'"?... Guess not).
] 

I think that will here has shown clarity of vision in
supporting DearOldDoug's premise that Killing a ProChoicer,
by ProCoicers is a reasonable assumption....


It would also be interesting if AOEXY@ASUACAD.BITNET 
would clarify what his stand on the abortion issue IS...


ciao
drieux



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: jackies@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jackie Sheddy)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 06:11:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Preface to Bible-Bashing of Gays
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality

In alt.politics.homosexuality, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

> 
>In article <1992Jul18.230501.20066@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com
>(Steve Dyer) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Jul18.213345.13663@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
>>fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
> 
>>>It is this concept which you mock which enables this world to hold onto
>>>the compassion, love for one another, and forgiveness that it has left.
> 
>>Boy, those words don't even stick in your throat as you type them.
>>Amazing.
> 
>Yeah, sure is.  This jerk's about as compassionate as a
>hangnail, and not much cleverer, either.  Is there a bozo
>convention going on in Colorado, or what?

	No, Jess, not all of us are bigots  like  Andy.  I like to think
	that most of us are reasonable  human beings.  But then, I guess
	we HAVE to take into  consideration  that he IS a (cough, cough)
	CATHOLIC.  (Not all  Catholics  are bigoted  assholes  BTW, just
	some of them.)

> 
>>-- 
>>Steve Dyer
>>dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
> 
> 
>-- 
>Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
>Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
>NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
>Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888


Jackie
jackies@hpfcso.fc.hp.com
Hate is NOT a Family Value!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: Arguing against sodomy is shooting yourself in the foot...
Keywords: I'm sorry, so sorry....
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 21:19:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.163053.8049@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 
I open my big mouth and write:

> In article <1992Jul20.144312.24464@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto  
> Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
> > In article <1992Jul20.065438.11406@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> > >>Any comment [about Judith Reisman's "Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud"]?

> > However, I thought that being a Dr. she might have had some reserach 
> > on this field. But someone just told me that her Dr. degree has 
> > nothing to do with meidicine, psychology, sexuality or any related 
> >field.
> 
> Her doctorate is in an educational administration field (I would
> have more respect if it were in journalism, let alone sexuality!).

I need to apologize for an error there: Judith Reisman's Ph.D. is
in Speech Communication. But the criticism that she has no academic  
experience with the things Adolfo mentioned still holds. Also, oddly  
enough, she has no bachelor's degree.
 
I have an article which appeared in Sci.psychology a few months 
back called "Debunking the Kinsey Debunkers." It would take too 
much bandwidth to repeat here, but I can mail it to anyone 
interested in what Dr. Reisman and her partners in conservative 
crime are up to with her book.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Myth of the Spendthrift Democrat
Date: 21 Jul 92 03:27:04 GMT
Organization: Surely you jest

kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:

> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) about the luxury tax on boats:
> 
> >This is a total crock.  The downturn in sales is a result of the
> >recession, not the tax.  The tax is just being blamed by the pleasure
> >boat industry so that they can get rid of it.  BTW I believe it only
> >applies to boats over $100,000.
> 
> Uh, Paul, right and wrong.
> 
> 1. It does apply to boats over $100k.
> 
> 2. If you have $100k to spend on a boat, you don't really give a shit about
>    what the economy is doing. Rich people rarely do.

On the cnotrary, a rich person is much more likely to be concerned about 
the state of the economy than a poor person - who has little, if anything 
to lose.
 
Try explaining why the luxury tax is such a great idea to all the 
unemployed boat workers down in the Hatteras area. 

--
55: It's not a good idea - it's just the law.
The country needs them more than ever: Bill 'n' Opus in '92!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: meeks@clew.osf.org (W. Scott Meeks)
Subject: Iowa Political Stock Market numbers
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Distribution: alt
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:03:30


             PRESIDENTIAL              |           3-WAY VOTE SHARE
   Security   Bid $    Ask $   Last $  | Candidate       Bid %   Ask %   Last%
-  Two Party Race, popular vote %      |
|  R.BU       0.503    0.519    0.505  | Bush            0.466   0.498   0.465
|  D.CL       0.483    0.501    0.504  | (R.BU x D&R)
| 3 Candidate Race, popular vote %     |
|  PERO       0.040    0.060    0.030  | Clinton         0.447   0.480   0.464
-  D&R        0.926    0.959    0.921  | (D.CL x D&R)
                                       |
                                       | Perot           0.040   0.060   0.030
                                       | (PERO)


        PRESIDENTIAL PLURALITY         |
   Security   Bid $    Ask $   Last $  |
-  ------ Winner Take All -------      |
|  P.BU       0.521    0.570    0.520  |
|  P.CL       0.455    0.467    0.455  |
-  P.PE       0.002    0.003    0.002  |

       PRESIDENTIAL DERIVATIVES        |         SECURITY DESCRIPTIONS
   Security   Bid $    Ask $   Last $  | Description
-  B54u       0.215    0.273    0.215  | Bush 2 party vote 54% or more
|  B54d       0.742    0.799    0.736  | Bush 2 party vote less than 54%
|                                      |
|  B50u       0.545    0.575    0.532  | Bush 2 party vote 50% or more
|  B50d       0.417    0.518    0.444  | Bush 2 party vote less than 50%
|                                      |
|  B46u       0.832    0.855    0.858  | Bush 2 party vote 46% or more
|  B46d       0.147    0.164    0.165  | Bush 2 party vote less than 46%
|                                      |
| DERIVATIVE MARKET dividends are      |
| based only on two-party vote.        |

--
W. Scott Meeks           | We must live with the fact, true throughout recorded
Open Software Foundation | history, that our artifacts are sometimes flawed and
meeks@osf.org            | cause us to die in novel and unexpected ways, and we
(617) 621-7229           | can only do our human best to minimize the problems.
Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:54:03 GMT

In article <l6rb2mINN623@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.180447.21375@udel.edu>, lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:

>|> You have to remember that everything is relative. When Marshall and Brennan
>|> were on the court, they were the liberals and Blackmun and Stevens were the
>|> moderates. Now that the court is packed with conservatives the moderates
>|> look like liberals, and the moderate conservatives (like O'Connor and Souter)
>|> look like moderates. And they ARE, relative to this Court. What I think is
>|> interesting is Kennedy. He used to vote almost always with Rehnquist and 
>|> Scalia, but now, as the Court becomes more conservative, he becomes more
>|> moderate. You have to give O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy credit; at least
>|> they have respect for the past decisions of the Court, and feel that they
>|> shouldn't be overturned strictly because the ideology of the Court has 
>|> changed.
>
>That's a stupid reason for respecting them. I'd respect them if I knew that
>they voted to uphold past decisions because they BELIEVED in them. I get the
>impression that they are swung more by the public reaction to their verdicts
>than any belief in the sanctity of precedent, and that greatly lowers the
>respect that I had for them, especially Souter. On the other hand, Brennan,
>Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens and Scalia all are worthy of respect in my book
>because they wri(o)te opinions based on what they believe(d) the Constitution's
>intent was, rather than respect for precedents or public opinion. I am no
>lawyer (thank God for small mercies), but I think that no precedent that
>a Justice feels is wrong should be upheld strictly because it is a precedent.

One of the reasons that Thurgood Marshall retired was because many of the
past decisions were starting to be overturned, for no reason other than
an ideological change in the Court. Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor respected
Brennan and Marshall, and respect their opinions. They believe that if the
Supreme Court is to have any credibility, it shouldn't go around reversing
itself without a damn good reason. They don't think that a change in the
ideological makeup of the Court is a good enough reason. This is what I
respect them for.

>Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu
>
>If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
>********************************************************************************

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Date: 22 Jul 1992 17:52:27 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Jul22.165847.18870@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>, cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
|> In article <3494@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
|> >In article <1992Jul22.002517.17869@cs.tulane.edu> tcws@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Bill Sirinek) writes:
|> >>
|> >>He obviously doesnt understand that the leader we have now isnt going to do
|> >>us any good, we need change, we need Bill Clinton.
|> >
|> >Change huh?  Let's see Democrats have controled Congress for the last 40 years,
|> >we've had Kennedy, Johnson and Carter in the same time and your definition of 
|> >change is Bill Clinton.
|> 
|> This is inaccurate.  Congress consists of the House and Senate.  The
|> Democrats only gained control of the Senate recently ... maybe Reagan's

Make that RE-gained control. The GOP had Senate control for 6 years, between
1980 and 1986. They got hammered by the Democrats in 1986 for trying to
cut back on entitlement costs, which I am sure, taught them to stay
clear of the issue, putting a muzzle on the one attempt at some
kind of fiscal responsibility.

|> second term?  If Congress is split, you can't exactly say that Dems had
|> control.  In fact you could make a good case for the opposite.

Read above. Bush has never even had a working majority of Republicans +
conservative Democrats to pass some of his legislation, like Reagan had
for some of his first term. Congress controlled by the President? Hah!!

|> 
|> Of course, if you have a short memory, or limited experience, I guess
|> you might think that the Democrats were in control.  Oh, and how many
|> times have they overridden the Presidential veto?

That only means that Bush has managed to prevent some bills from passing.
It says nothing about the ability of the President to get some of HIS
bills passed (or even reported out of committee to the House-floor). Bush
doesn't necessarily need a Republican House for his bills to pass. A larger
proportion of GOP members + some Conservative Democrats from the Southern
states will do the trick.

Try and count the number of Republican-introduced bills that are still
languishing in Committee or have been killed by the Dem. leadership.




-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Questions
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:24:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.015039.358@leland.Stanford.EDU>
jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul) writes:
 
>                                                HC chose a career
>and looks down on women who raise a family full time (the "bake
>cookies" remark).  That's my problem with HC.
>
>--
>| James W. Brown                | Grad school is like drugs--   |
>| Chemistry Grad Student        | it's for those who can't      |
>|                               | handle the real world.        |
 
Hillary Clinton said that she would not want to "bake cookies and give
teas".  Where in that remark do you see an implication that she "looks
down" on full-time homemakers?
 
The remarks were made in the context of the controversy over possible
conflicts of interest relating to her work for the Rose Law Firm.
Given that she is a Yale Law School graduate, working at a law firm is
the only job she could really take.  Her alternative would be to stay
at home and be a good little political wife.  Given her level of
intelligence and ambition, she would probably have ended up like Kitty
Dukakis.
 
Making a choice with ones life, and defending that choice against
unwarranted attack, does not equal "looking down" on people who have
made an alternate choice.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections