HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: latarra@camelot.bradley.edu (Lisa Ehren)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Choices ( was: Re: accidently out )
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:46:22 GMT
Organization: Bradley University

<lots of stuff not relevant to what I want to say deleted>

In <DHC=Y3@engin.umich.edu> rowe@engin.umich.edu (Steven Rowe) writes:
>Sure, they could have said, "Dear, we saw your GLBO
>calendar, and we support you in whatever lifestyle you've chosen
>for yourself."  
>p.s.  I am aware that my use of the phrase "...lifestyle you have
>chosen...", which indicates a choice (rather than an innate orientation)
>may offend some of the LGB community.  Please understand that I meant
>no offense.

Okay, I might get flamed for this, but if I was afraid to post because of
flamers, I wouldn't have demuffined, now would I?  :)

Anyway...I don't know if being bisexual or homosexual or heterosexual, or
whatever else you want to call your sexuality, is a choice.
I don't know if I, or the rest of the world, will ever know for sure.

But, I do think that you were right to say "lifestyle you have chosen",
because I believe she <generalized to everyone> did choose that lifestyle.
She could have denied herself and her sexuality, she could have been
extremely closet about it and kept the calendar in her closet...afterall,
if it's in her living room SOMEONE is going to see it eventually, she could
have admitted to being bisexual but done nothing about it for the rest of
her life.

I know that for some people, they dont' think that this is a choice, or it
wasn't one for them, that they had to come out to save their sanity or
because they were sick of lying...but I still say that when and to whom you
come out to, and thus how you act around them, is still at least partly
your choice.  

Comments?  thoughts?  Flames?  Hugs <whimper whimper, beg beg>?
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Bisexual libertariansn ear
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:13:54 GMT

In article <1dhl1kINNmt3@network.ucsd.edu> thom@crayfish.ucsd.edu 
(Thom Cleland) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.231754.8252@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
 (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>Interesting that Steve Conley pointed out that a lot of bisexuals are
>>libertarians. I am one myself--I've got the card and everything! Could
>>this be a trend?
>
>Don't know about the trend.  What I have noticed  (not a scientific sampling)
>is that some of the 'new libertarians' choose their affiliation more or less
>solely to protest taxation, and have little time to spare to defend the
>"freedom of the unpopular".  I know professed libertarians who support the
>gag rule, increased police powers, federal review of the arts  (as opposed
>to simply cutting all arts funding), and delight in mocking liberation
>movements to a degree which would bestir the black heart of Pat Buchanan
>(one such 'libertarian' even sent money to his presidential campaign)..

First, keep in mind the Lyndon LaRouche is a Democrat.  Political parties
do not have control over what their individual members do or support.  I
am sorry that some "libertarians" support things like that, but it's just
a vocal minority and they have no influence in actual Party action.

Your criticism is understandable.  What's really happening is that a
lot of paleoconservatives are trying to ride on Libertarian coattails.  I
think they figure they'll get more of an audience that way.  We try to rid
ourselves of them but it's not easy.  The people who control the platform
and actually work in campaigns are, for the most part, very good people
(hey, I'm one of 'em so I ought ta know!).

There are a lot of young Libertarians (as opposed to 'new' Libertarians, who
are typically converted Republicans) such as myself who are working very
hard against the drug war, against sodomy laws, and other stupid statist
bullshit.  And to us, rights are rights, and there's no such thing as
"more important rights" that we have to fight harder for.  In Columbus,
Ohio, we ran a whole state legislature campaign based on the "freedom of
the unpopular", while an openly gay Republican in an adjoining district
was attacked by his Democratic opponent purely on the basis of his 
sexuality.

Steve
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Really blatant flirtation               
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:29:05 GMT

A 45% purity score? 53%? Feh! I spit on you all! I currently stand at
96% (but would love any chance to lower that).

I suppose we could start with lots of e-hugs! (ooh... kinky!!!)

I'll start:    H       H  U      U   GGGGG
               H       H  U      U  G     G
               H       H  U      U  G
               HHHHHHHHH  U      U  G   GGG
               H       H  U      U  G     G
               H       H  U      U  G     G
               H       H   UUUUUU    GGGGG

Howzat?

David A. "ware Party" Tepper
--
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Olaf's address
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:06:19 GMT

In article <ARM200-921108012337-62AD40A4*@MHS> /G=Owen/S=Smith/O=SJ-Research/ADMD=INTERSPAN/C=GB/@mhs-relay.ac.uk writes:
>Olaf Seibert,
>Vossendyk 123,    (the y should have a diarhesis over it)
>653U TK Nymegen,  (same goes for this y too)
>Netherlands

It's a funny one that - historically I think it *was* a Y, but modern Dutch
clearly perceive it as an IJ ligature.  If your charset supports it, a
y-diaeresis is a very close approximation that will impress the Dutch
that you've tried, but if you don't, or you're writing by hand, just
use 'ij'...

>It's a dead weird feeling posting to a group you can't read!

With a bit of effort I *could* arrange a news->email gateway for you, and
maybe one or two others in a similar position.  As long as you understood
that postings might be delayed by up to a day, and that turning the feed off
may take a few days.  (It's on someone else's machine that I don't
have easy access to)

Hmmm... I'd better mail you this as well as posting it! :-)

G
--
From: fenthe@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: .sig
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:44:45 -0500
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <1992Nov10.210901.24110@aber.ac.uk>, ahb0@aber.ac.uk (Anna He Baik) writes: 
> Awwww......Hugs & swsus mawr from a fellow muffin then!

 Hi! Welcome to soc.bi!

 (swsus mawr? <sfx: blinks confusedly> )

 **hugs, snuggles, and suchlike**
-- 
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: winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Time (Was: Family Values (long))
Date: 12 Nov 1992 19:13:50 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: geek.teng.ppd.ti.com

In article <BxKoLp.AK2@news.udel.edu>, seamus@ravel.udel.edu (James G Dilmore) writes:
|> In article <BxKCr1.Ay8@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
|> >
|> >Come on over, and I'll help you get it down to my mid-teens percentage...
|> >
|> >				Kay
|> >-- 
|> Omigod.  That is almost unbelievable.  Not to pry but how many questions
|> were on that particular test?  I have stooped to the 30's on the 100 question,
|> 44 on the 400, but mid teens?!?  Again not to pry, but did anything include
|> animals? :>
|> 
|> Awfully tempting to come visit though, quite a boat ride.
|> 
|> Jim, (44%, even though I am a "virgin" to both sexes:)

*That* deserves a full-throttle grope!
No pushing!  Take your places in line calmly, now...


*naughty grin*
js
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Altruism (was: two men)
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:23:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.201112.28501@midway.uchicago.edu> orc@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>   It would be very difficult to apply that logic to the case of a
>soldier throwing herself on a grenade to save her mates.  If one
>has to fence a definition of altruism around with "except for"
>clauses, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Absolutely not.  That's standard biological mechanisms at work.
Preservation of the genes/close family.  The fact that 'her mates'
aren't blood relations just shows how good armies are at manipulating
people into making their oppo's a family-substitute.

If you don't like the dawkins approach, look at it this way: her
satisfaction and endorphin rush when she realised she could save
those others was so high it counteracted the value to her of
continuing her life.  Especially if she considered her life to
have a negative value thereafter because of expected guilt from
letting her friends die, or a zero value because otherwise the
grenade would have killed *all* of them.

There's no need to look for spiritual explanations of perfectly
rational acts.

G
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: markw@meaddata.com (Mark Wasson)
Subject: Re: bisexual opinion by my friend
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:12:05 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Nov10.014818.676@ab.wvnet.edu>, onda@ab.wvnet.edu writes:

|> 	he states [on behalf of a friend] that:
|> 
|> 	all you guys who are bisexual are freaks because how can you find 
|> 	other men attractive but women on the other hand are beautiful and
|> should find other women beautiful so it is cool that women have sex with 
|> 	each other.
|> 
This reminded me of a line from a movie (Weird Science, I think, with
Anthony Michael Hall as a horny teenage boy who builds girl with
chemistry set, or something like that).  Anyway, his (equally horny
male) pal was into breasts bigtime, and said that he wished that he
was a girl because then he could stand in front of the mirror and
stare at his breasts all day.

Both the poster['s friend] and the movie character seem to be missing
something.

Mark
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:36:02 GMT

In article <BxCM9o.I6A@ibmpcug.co.uk> 15028@nwnexus. writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.233741.15028@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg>) writes:
>>   Howzabout an obnoxious anarcho-capitialist bisexual sadomasochist
>>polyamorist who's actually a killer Tarot card reader?  Yes, I admit
>>it, I'm really good with the Thoth and (preferred) Palladini decks...

>Jeez, after the way you've been laying into New Agers, that's crass
>hypocrisy.  Tell me, do you actually believe in even any small way
>whatsoever that you're getting any information out of reading Tarot
>cards that you couldn't get just by talking to the person, or do
>you just do it as a joke?

   I'm good at it because I was once a very serious occultist.  I can
still argue Regardie with the best of 'em.  But, applying objective
reasoning to the process ("This isn't doing me any good,") I dropped
out.

   As for Tarot cards, what happened with _those_ was _really_
peculiar.  I took a class in psychotherapy, and one of the things we
studied was Rorscharch Testing, commonly known as Ink-Blot testing.
That process, along with Story-Telling Testing, made me realize
something: the cards weren't telling me anything I didn't already know.
That is, tossing down a Celtic Cross or a Crowley X or a Munroe's
Square wasn't prediciting the future, it was merely forcing me to take
whatever the problem was, break it down into _N_ bits, and then to
attempt to make logical associations between each bit and the card in
that bit.  And as anyone who's done brainstorming will tell you, it
doesn't matter how _stupid_ the association or analogy is, the human
brain is quite good at filtering out the good ones and eventually
drawing its conclusions.

   Doing Tarot for other people is the same way, except you develop a
facility for being a good interviewer, drawing them out by getting them
to reveal what _they_ already beleive or hope for in their futures, and
then feeding it back them.

   The only difference between Tarot cards and Rorscharch cards is the
paradigms and pragmas built around them.  I could never get away with
using Rorscharch cards in public, although I _do_ know a therapist
friend who uses Tarot cards in session...

            Elf !!!  (rational romantic mystic cynical idealist)
-- 
      __        | The post you have just read is real, but it could
      \/        | have been avoided.  Inbreeding is everyone's
Elf Sternberg   | problem.  Contact your local Mormon church and 
elf@halcyon.com | be sure you aren't marrying a close relative.
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: kraig@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kraig Count)
Subject: Re: wups!
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:24:35 GMT

In article <1duul2INNt0f@cuda.add.itg.ti.com> winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js) writes:
>My un-official tally of married-types (including Sarah) is 5.
>
>in no probable order:
>Peggy
>Sue
>Brad
>...
>me
>
>Any corrections, anybody?  "..." may fill in if s/he wishes.
>
>This tally is kinda fun!
>*blow-kisses*
>js

Well you should probebly include me as being married also.
Luckily, my wife is very understanding about my being Bi.
:)

Although, I suspect that I was the '...'.

later,

Kraig
From: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Homophobic trash
Date: 11 Nov 1992 01:37:35 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov10.014818.676@ab.wvnet.edu> onda@ab.wvnet.edu writes:
->
->	all you guys who are bisexual are freaks because how can you find 
->	other men attractive but women on the other hand are beautiful and
->should find other women beautiful so it is cool that women have sex with 
->	each other.

But you see, there's a minor problem with your logic.

Either you can find men attractive or you cannot.  Clearly, whether or not a
person is attractive has something to do with _that person_ rather than what
you are.

Truth is made of one of two cases: Either men are attractive, or they're
not.  

If men are not attractive, which is what you would seem to suggest, then all
women should probably be lesbians, because they wouldn't find any men
attractive.  This is not, thankfully, the case.

If men are attractive, which is what _I_ would suggest (with the obvious
exception of you), then that would make the fact that quite a few women are
bi or straight much more easily comprehensible.  Of course, in this case,
one could understand also why men are sometimes attracted to other men.

Seems pretty simple to me.  Which part of the logic didn't you get?

Granted, I agree ... it's cool that women have sex with each other.  I would
never try or even think of making them stop it.  I just don't particularly
think that's relevant to the conversation, or relevant to whether or not
bisexual men are freaks.

-roy


-- 
Roy S. Rapoport          rsr@soda.berkeley.edu             rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu
"Letters from you make me feel good."  -Laura Creighton
"Why do you guys all have to have penises?" -anon
DISCLAIMER:  "I meant every word of it, but I doubt anyone else did."
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons)
Subject: Re: Altruism (was: two men)
Reply-To: orc@amber.uchicago.edu
Organization: Department of Catastrophes
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:11:12 GMT

In article <BxEG4J.3tx@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
|In article <1992Nov8.082616.14207@midway.uchicago.edu> orc@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
|> [commentary about resisting the Vietnam war deleted]
|The gain?  Look how damn smug you are!

   Graham, darling, I'd be smug even if I'd done *nothing* about
it.  I'm certainly smug that the Republicans lost the lastest US
election, and all I did to help that action out was to vote
Democratic this last tuesday.


|You're sure you did the right
|thing.  Your 'pleasure centre' in your brain has been stimulated by
|this knowledge countless times.  *that's* what I meant by the value
|of the act being rated higher than the concrete consequences.

   No, dear, the concrete consequences are that the USA got out of
Vietnam.


|Now if you had, for instance, supported OR9 because you knew the majority
|of people in Oregon wanted it, but afterwards felt like a shit for
|having done it - *that* would be altruistic.

   I'll point out, again, that this definition is simple, logical,
and absolutely *wrong.


|Altruism is mainly self-deception about motives coupled with enlightened
|self-interest.  There's nothing wrong with it but admit to yourself that
|your motives are purely selfish even if the results *are* for the
|betterment of society.

   It would be very difficult to apply that logic to the case of a
soldier throwing herself on a grenade to save her mates.  If one
has to fence a definition of altruism around with "except for"
clauses, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

                ____
  david parsons \bi/ e-slut  *plonk*
                 \/
From: thom@crayfish.ucsd.edu (Thom Cleland)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Bisexual libertariansn ear
Date: 8 Nov 1992 00:05:45 GMT
Organization: Tenuous at best
NNTP-Posting-Host: crayfish.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Nov7.193047.19343@leland.Stanford.EDU> mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd) writes:
>
>It's my belief that there are more libertarians on the net than in the
>population at large.
>
Good point.  I agree.

>: I'm too sexy for meiosis.
>And I'm too sexy for mitosis.  So sexy it hurts (due to all the cells
>getting backlogged in the G2 rest state).
>
why let yourself get backlogged in G2?  Polyploidy can be fun.

I suppose it's inevitable that we give plants their proper due as
sexual role models.  I mean, really... autosexual, androgynous, 
polygamous, distance-is-no-object, they quest through hundreds of
square miles of tropical forest for their true mate, waving their
gonads in prominent public display... you name it,
if Pat Robertson hates it, plants do it.  

>hugs regardless
And from me!

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

there's good humans, but if they want power, they mustn't have it   ;^)

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" 
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: rowe@engin.umich.edu (Steven Rowe)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 12:42:04 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <Bx8o98.9E@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>I have this problem with the bi network generally; most of the people
>around are into some form of mysticism and the ones remaining are
>obnoxious anarcho-capitalists like Graham. [...]

I don't think you have to limit the "most people are into some form of
mysticism" statement to the bi network.  If you have a quick glance
around, you'll find that true materialists are the exception, not the
rule.  A lot of people I know *think* they're materialists, dealing
only with things they can perceive, but I have to smile every time one
of them says "thank God" or has a look at their horoscope in the paper
or avoids walking under a ladder, etc.  Mysticism is an integral part
of every society that I know of, and to expect people to not have any
behaviours based on it is ridiculous.  Does that mean they're "into"
it?
Anyway, my point is this: please don't single out the bi network.

>I'd sooner a pagan astrologer over an anarcho-capitalist any day, though.
You'd sooner do WHAT to a pagan astrologer who is over an anarcho-capitalist?
As an anarcho-capitalist-pagan-Thothreading-triskadecaphobe, I feel I
have a right to know if I'd be on top or underneath (and by this I don't
wish to imply any dominance issues at all  :-> ).

I'm sorry that mysticism bothers you so, Paul.  I offer you e-hugs if
you want 'em.  And e-licks, e-nibbles, e-pounces, and e-discourse.

The same offer goes to the rest of you.  Cheers!
 

Oh, and not all anarcho-capitalists are obnoxious.

-- 
Steve Rowe: B0 f- w- c g+ k+ s- e+ r-
     These folks who don't believe in evolution
are the ones who look the most like they could use some.
                                   -Frank Allison
From: bethand@castle.ed.ac.uk (Bethan Davies)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: two men (was: two women)
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:15:00 GMT
Followup-To: soc.bi
Distribution: soc.bi
Organization: rentastroke

In article <1d7k03INNjl2@agate.berkeley.edu> rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov2135433@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>->
[B
>
>Yes, I agree with you ... I got no direct physical pleasure out of rubbing
>this person's feet/back (or anyone's back, really) ... but the reactions,
>the sounds of appreciation, the pleasure of making someone moan (without
>having to worry about safe sex :) )), the feel of my hands pressed against
>the leather jacket, or the silk blouse, or the skin ....
>

Me, I'm just a backrub fetishist. Or face, hair, or anything else thats
handy. I _love_ giving other people bodyrubs, just the closeness, the
sensation of the other person's body. I mean, I hope _they_ enjoy it
too :), but I definitely get much pleasure just from that physical
contact....

Mind you, I'd not complain if someone was to offer to give _me_ a
backrub :). I find the giving/receiving equally beneficial....


<snuggles>


Bethan
From: terryh@terminus.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Terry Heatlie - Sun UK - Tech Support )
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: wups!
Date: 13 Nov 1992 11:39:22 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Federal, Milpitas, CA.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: terry.heatlie@uk.sun.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: terminus.uk.sun.com

In article <1duul2INNt0f@cuda.add.itg.ti.com>, winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js) writes:
|> In article <1dulefINNsbs@transfer.stratus.com>, pfieland@citron.sw.stratus.com (Peggy Fieland) writes:
|> |> In article <1dpi1tINNips@cuda.add.itg.ti.com> winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js) writes:
|> |> >Q:  how many of soc.biers are married?  just curious.
|> |> >
|> |> >js
|> |> 
|> |> I'm married, too.
|> |> 
|> |> Peggy
|> 
|> 
|> My un-official tally of married-types (including Sarah) is 5.
|> 
|> in no probable order:
|> Peggy
|> Sue
|> Brad
|> ...
|> me
|> 
|> Any corrections, anybody?  "..." may fill in if s/he wishes.
|> 
|> 
|> This tally is kinda fun!
|> 
|> *blow-kisses*
|> js

Add me!

*blow-j^C 

oops...



Regards,
Terry Heatlie.

Disclaimer:  all my own work (except this disclaimer, which I nicked).
*** Nobody knows I'm an anarcho-pacifist vegan bisexual ***
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Sandra Bernhart
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:34:33 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: geek.teng.ppd.ti.com

In article <1992Nov12.005139.19864@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, hansene@goose.cps.msu.edu (E.J.H.) writes:
|> Hey!
|> Did anyone see the story about Sandra Bernhart on NBC tuesday
|> night? I had to take a phone call so I missed part of it.
|> Did she come out or what? She talked a bit about her
|> relationship with Madonna, but from what I saw she was
|> pretty ambiguous about her orientation.
|> Anyway, everybody send me e-stuff 'cuz I like it.
|> oop.
|> 
|> Ted.

Hey, I didn't know about this...

Would someone post it so everyone can read it?

Sandra + Madonna?  Nah.... 

js