HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dh0a@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DONALD L. HARDY)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Patrick Stewart & "Space Age"
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:57:16 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>>>> Where is Patrick Stewart from, and whence his manner of speaking?
>>I thought he was a French fellow, raised in the wine country.
>>Does this mean that in the future we have succeeded and finally eliminated
>>French as a language!?!?!?
>YOU (american people, as represented by Hollywood) succeeded and eliminated
>French as a language (in Star Trek:TNG) in the same way as you eliminated
>queer people, if we are to believe this same source  :-)

AND, according to Counsellor Troi (Sorry if that is misspelled), we have also
eliminated poverty and crime.

Talk about fantasy.
-- 

******************************************************************************

Donald L. Hardy                                    Office of Physical Planning
Project Planner                                    Lehigh University
dh0a@lehigh.edu                                    (215) 758 5110
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: A Strand of Bigotry
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:42:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Nov13.175017.12469@oracle.us.oracle.com> dgilly@us.oracle.com (Daniel Gilly) writes:

(posting for Edgar Lawrence II)

| For far too long, people on this group having been taking
| this Gary Strand character more seriously than he deserves.
| He has repeatedly claimed that he has the right to practice
| bigotry.  He calls it "discrimination," but it should be
| obvious to everyone that he is a particularly vicous bigot
| who uses half-baked Libertarian rhetoric to rationalize his
| bigotry. 

Sorry, but it is not clear to me.

I do not believe that Mr. Strand has ever stated that bigotry is ethically
appropriate.  He has stated that it should be legal.  There is a major
difference.

| THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRACTICE BIGOTRY. 

I do not use the concept of "rights", so I would agree with you.  Mr. Strand
has articulated, in numerous posts, a concept of "rights" in which there
*is* a right to practice bigotry.  Do you think that there is a "right"
to not be affected by bigotry?  Does a bigot have a comparable right to
not be affected by Jews/blacks/gays/whatever?

| That self-evident truth should not need to be stated,

Self-evident always strikes me as a codeword for "I don't have any good
arguements".

|  but it 
| seems that circumstances require that it be stated. Strand's
| non-existent "freedom of dissociation" is precisely the same
| rationalization that racists and their apologists used to
| justify practicing racism.  

No.  Racists come up with all sorts of reasons why racism is "good".
"Freedom of association" is an arguement for why discrimination should
be legally acceptable.  There is a distinct difference.

|  In one of his more loathsome
| postings he claimed "Yelling 'faggot' at someone shouldn't
| land me in jail, nor should refusing to hire a gay for a job
| I have." How much more proof of his malice is needed?

Should yelling 'faggot' get someone put in jail?  Should not hiring a
gay for a job get someone put in jail?

| Yelling "faggot" might not be grounds for being thrown in
| jail, but it IS a "fighting word." By all rights, yelling
| "faggot" at someone should, if possible, result in immediate
| physical retaliation. 

The concepts of "fighting words" and "mutual combat" are deeply rooted in
common law.  I whole-heartedly approve of punching anyone yelling
'faggot'.  In many areas (where the cops aren't *too* biased), one would
not even face legal problems.

| Edgar J. Lawrence II

Fritz

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: coren@speed.osf.org (Robert Coren)
Subject: Re: Can anyone tell me about this TV show?
Keywords: Are You Being Served?
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:09:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.013714.8532@spdcc.com>, rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
> 	Now what I'm waiting for is someone to make a good plaid hair
> color...

...it could take quite a while combing it in a way that preserved the
desired effect...
Xref: sparky soc.motss:47807 alt.politics.homosexuality:7278 co.politics:2074 co.general:1780 talk.politics.misc:60387 co.politics.amend2.discuss:39 boulder.general:1039
From: pack@acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general
Subject: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:29:34 GMT
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry

In article <1992Nov15.235608.22978@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>...[regarding boycott of Colorado]
>
>Whether you like it or not, the actions of your neighbors reflect upon
>you. If your neighbors do dumb things (like pass unconstitutional
>laws) then you suffer. That's life.

But *my* neighbors didn't pass Amendment #2.  In fact, it was soundly
defeated by Boulder, Aspen, and metro Denver.  All three areas have local
laws (now, lamentably, at risk of being overturned) protecting gays from
discrimination.  So, funded largely by out-of-state groups, and voted on
by people out of our community, an amendment passes that affects the entire
state.  So (for example) buy Boulder Beer, buy Denver Beer, Buy Aspen beer.
Boycott Colorado beer from other towns.


-- 
Dan Packman     NCAR                             INTERNET: pack@ncar.UCAR.EDU
(303) 497-1427  P.O. Box 3000
                Boulder, CO  80307-3000        NSI/DECNET: 9583::PACK
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: Too Much News
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:51:28 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <1992Nov19.095439.13445@ads.com> henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
>this from a lot which just discovered, after bizillions of years, that
>tax fraud is "a sin."

...unless, of course, it is the fraud that keeps them from paying property
taxes on their holdings...
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
From: Minotaur@cup.portal.com (A Frank Swilling)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Saturday Night Live
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 11:44:52 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Tracey McCartney sees red, or maybe pink:

>Well, I just don't know. I can't decide whether to be offended at
>Saturday Night Live's sketch about gays in the military, which featured
>all the male cast members behaving in your stereotypically, well, gay
>male way; did any of you men find it offensive, or was it cute 'n'
>campy? There were, of course, no dykes, so if you tell me you didn't
>mind, I'll put my poison pen letter to SNL in the trash. If you did
>mind, I hope you're writing one of your own.

I had much the same feeling.  At first I thought they were going for
the cheap laughs, but then the scrolling copy/voice-over at the end
saved it.  I decided then that their hearts were in the right place,
even if their heads were up their butts  vis a vis queer behavior
and mannerisms.

>BTW, lisping gay males seem to be kind of a thread on SNL these days.
>Just last week, Dana Carvey and Michael Keaton did a sketch called
>"Outweek," a television show in which they outed Prince Charles and
>Wilford Brimley for being gay, outed 70's sitcom star Bonnie Franklin
>for being a "lousy lay," etc.

>Tracey

I think it's just a case of a bunch of dumb straight boys learning
everything they know about queer boys from watching "Men On..." on
In Living Color.

Frank
Minotaur@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: pmele@ldgo.columbia.edu (phil mele)
Subject: convention rejects colorado
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:48:31 GMT

fyi
--------------------------

The Coalition of Labor Union Women has notified Colorado Gov. Roy Romer
it is moving its 1993 convention -- and the approximately 1,000 to
1,500 participants -- from Denver because of the state's anti-gay
discrimination referendum.
``Not only does the integrity and principles of CLUW demand that we
take this action, we could not in good conscience contribute as much
revenue as our convention generates to a state that has rejected what
we consider are basic human rights,'' said the union's president, Joyce
Miller, in a letter to Romer.
Miller said the union is opposed to policies that discriminate on the
basis of race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation.
She said the convention usually draws between 1,000 and 1,500
participants and generates as much as $3 million in revenue.

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

-- 

Phil Mele  (pmele@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu)
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University
Palisades, N Y  10964
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: lsg001@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Graham Wilson)
Subject: Re: Bears and Lookism (was: Marky Mark)
Organization: Legal Department - Coventry University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:23:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.233802.6861@psych.toronto.edu> paul@psych.toronto.edu (Paul Hastings) writes:
>In article <BxxFB0.91H@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.213558.4677@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca> aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>
>...which you follow with...
>
>>6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
>
>Yum so far, child.
>Brian dear, set up your fab system and lets delve into the pix.  
>Let's see if Kay lives up to the trailers.
>
>>Kay Dekker
>
>Deck 'er?  Why, we haven't even been formally introduced.


** Oh the joys of Cov uni ! (B-)


   

-- 
         *********************************************************
         *      Graham Wilson      *  lsg001@cck.coventry.ac.uk  *
         *     LL.B.  Law  III     *     Coventry  University    *
         *********************************************************
Xref: sparky soc.motss:47963 alt.politics.homosexuality:7308 co.politics:2121 co.general:1805 talk.politics.misc:60526 co.politics.amend2.discuss:51 boulder.general:1052
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:44:32 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov16.221059.27524@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>Steve Gombosi writes:
>#Well, since a lot of the funding for the Amendment 2 effort came from Virginia's
>#own Pat Robertson and his merry band of homophobic fanatics, why don't you boycott 
>#Virginia as well?
>
>Because Pat Robertson is a private citizen, so boycotting the state
>does not make sense. 

As are the people who will be harmed by your boycott. I venture to say that
agricultural communities like Limon and Montrose will not notice your boycott
in the least. Aspen, on the other hand, will probably be hurt quite
severely. This is a shame, since Aspen was the *first* community in the 
state to pass an ordinance forbidding discrimination on the basis of 
orientation and voted overwhelmingly against 2. You might have some effect
on Denver, which also passed an antidiscrimination ordinance and which
also voted overwhelmingly against 2. Since these cities have actually
filed suit to have the amendment overturned (along with Boulder), and have
committed municipal funds to the effort, all you'll really succeed in
doing is depleting the resources which could be devoted to fighting the
Amendment. That's *stupid*. The *best* hope for overturning this thing in the
near term is the legal challenge being mounted by Aspen, Boulder, Denver,
and the ACLU - if you'd like to do something that has a measurable effect
you might try contributing to *that*, rather than giving CFV a whole
new source of propaganda. You have a choice, Greg - you can succumb to the 
urge to strike out at everyone in the state, regardless of his/her 
stand on Amendment 2, or you can do something constructive to remedy the 
situation. The former may be satisfying in the short-term, but it won't
accomplish a damned thing. The latter doesn't pack the emotional wallop,
but it might do some good.

Pick one.

Steve
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mdrayton@sr.hp.com (Mike Drayton)
Subject: Re: Guilt and Self-indulgence (was Re: What Gay Sex)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:37:53 GMT

John Fisher (jf@threel.co.uk) wrote:
> 
> I guess I'm quite a Puritan after all...
> 

Well then git on over here with the rest o' us!
 
Mike Drayton      mdrayton@sr.hp.com       Hewlett-Packard Co.
                                           Santa Rosa, California
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon)
Subject: Re: Sucking on Keanu Reeves
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:15:33 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: soc.motss

In article <Bxx8wr.Hsp@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>, kfj@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Kirk
Johanning) wrote:
> 
> In <74375@apple.apple.COM> richard@Apple.COM (a flying squirrel) writes:
 
> >You could always ask Matthew about that surly waiter we had.  He was neither cute nor personable.  
> 
> Ok, Matthew, what about that surly waiter you had??

He was French.

*X*
From: markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: "Gay-Bashing"
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:25:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.46136
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR

In article <BxyCuE.AB@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:
>	I really don't think there SHOULD be specific laws against
>"gay-bashing," nor any of the other "hate-crimes" type laws which are
>popping up relative to other categories victims (race, sex, religion,
>etc.).
>[...]  This seems like a fundemental abridgement of rights to free
>expression of belief, or even to simply BELIEVE a belief.  

Excuse me.  I know that further on you say things like "assault is
assault", but the above statement makes me believe that you feel that gay
bashing is a protected form of expression.  How can the existence of hate
crime statutes be an abridgement of the rights to free expression of
belief?

Hate crimes exist because they have unique qualities.  Racial intimidation
does actually take other forms than physical assault.  There are also
other factors involved in bashing.  Having separate laws allows for a
legal recognition that there are components to the activity beyond or
exclusive from simple assault.  Did you know that there are several
categories of assault?  I suppose you would like them all collapsed to the
same group?  No more "simple assault", "assault and battery", "assault
with intent to perform bodily harm", or "assault with intent to perform
gross bodily harm", etc. if you have your way?  After all, those laws just
categorize things and we always have the police report, right?  Shouldn't
we recategorize murder as "assault"?  After all, murder is just "assault
with really nasty consequences", right?

You obviously missed the bus to Utopia and should have transferred at the
last stop.

According to a relative who is the chief of detectives in a small
mid-western town, it is macho to be charged with assault, it is tramatic
to be charged with a hate crime.  Having hate crime statutes can be viewed
as a deterrent - a sad but true commentary on our society and the thin
line of decency protecting much of its citizens.

I suggest a good class or book in social justice as a starting point
for understanding the need for recognizing specialty crimes against
humanity - of which hate crimes are an example.  Your claim that these
crimes are "just assault" is an attempt to diminish the special
circumstances of the crime and diminish the victims as well.  


--mark
--
Mark Morrissey           One Hatred to rule them all.  One Hatred to find them.
markm@cse.ogi.edu        One Hatred to bring them all and in the darkness bind
                         them.  In the land of Bigotry where the Shadows lie.

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: michaelh@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Mike Hennahane)
Subject: Re: Queers in military in other countries???
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:59:43 GMT

cf379@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (J. Alan) writes:

>Does anyone know about rules and regs on queers in military
>in other countries?  I'm pretty sure there are a lot of them
>out there that do not explicitly ban gays/lesbians.

i know a guy that was an officer in the military in the Netherlands.
he said it was no big whoop (being gay in the navy, i mean).

--mike
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Homos at Depth
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:07:24 GMT


In article <BxyAF7.A18@queernet.org>, max@queernet.org (Max J. Rochlin) writes:
|> In article <BxvnE3.EKE@fig.citib.com> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:

|> >
|> >And it's beautiful and gives you this amazing feeling
|> >of being very far away.  I don't know why I put it 
|> >off for so long.
|> 
|> It's also fun having control over the x, y, and z axis!

On one dive there was a pretty strong current, so
on our way back to the boat we were doing our 
impression of the opening credits for Lost In Space.

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
From: mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Sucking on Keanu Reeves
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:45:29 GMT
Followup-To: soc.motss
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <BxtrpC.DBr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>, kfj@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Kirk
Johanning) wrote:

> TEASE!!

You should see me in person...
 
> You know, I thought that we could have used a good story here but I
> guess you just do not want to share this obviously highly interesting
> saga with the rest of us.

Well, it's decidedly heterosexual...  And you've never seen The
Muffin - so I shall need the support of witnesses in asserting he
is *very* *edible*!  (The Squirrel would perhaps be most credible).
And I think in the retelling I may be accused of misogyn (yet
again...).  Anyway, the gist of the story is that he was complaining
about his surfer-boy life in San Diego.  Why, he was walking back
from the beach one day and some guy came up to him and asked:  can
I blow you?  I mean, the shock of it all (the Muffin tells me he
said no...).  And then he was complaining about a girlfriend who
tied him down, abused him for an hour - then left left the house
for *four* hours.  Upon her return, she had a *guest* (female).
And *they* abused him yet some more.

Now, I must say that during all this I was getting *very* bothered,
as the Muffin is perhaps even *more* childishly yummy than Jason
Priestley (he even has sideburns).  And he has very deep brown,
puppy dog eyes.  And he wears his jeans in that low, straight-boy
slut manner (and he is *hung*, baby dolls!).  And I *love* it
when he makes lattes, because then he has to turn his *butt* my
way...  (I'm a butt-man, myself...  The face can be so-so, the
bod can be so-so - but a good butt!  Ohhhhh la la...)

I'm feeling phleklempt (sic - but I like my way better (big surprise,
whot?)).

*X*
Xref: sparky soc.motss:47808 alt.politics.homosexuality:7279 co.politics:2076
From: freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:22:28 GMT
Organization: University of Utah - Physics Department

In article <1992Nov16.172518.24370@colorado.edu>, juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola) writes:
|> > To some people (me for
|> >one) a right is that which is yours by your nature as a human being.  It is
|> >not subject to negotiation, and can only be *recognized*, not *defined* by
|> >what the law says.
|> 
|> Ah, yes, yet another lunatic Randroid.  What they, and you, seem never to
|> realized is that an abstract right which is "yours by nature" but unrecognized
|> by society/government/the legal system/&c is essentially useless.  Even the
|> heralded "right to think" (of which Randroids are so fond) doesn't exist if
|> there are packs of armed thugs wandering around dosing people forcibly with
|> mind-altering drugs.  I submit that there is no "right" you can name which
|> cannot be repeatedly violated by gangs of thugs with enough resources behind
|> them.
|> 
|> 	- kitten

So what are you saying?  That rights do not exist because they can be violated?
That we should not be concerned when rights are violated?  That anything you can
DO to a human and get a way with is acceptable? 
   Yes, unrecognized rights are (for practical purposes) not rights.  That doesn't
mean they shouldn't be recognized.
From: kathy.lessa@execnet.com (kathy lessa)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: lesbian visibility on
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:00:57 GMT
Reply-To: "kathy lessa" <kathy.lessa@execnet.com>
Distribution: soc
Organization: Executive Networks Information

T3>Does anyone else's radar go nuts whenever cute li'l Sara Gilbert
T3>(Darlene) walks in? Just wondering...

I think your radar would have to be totally malfunctioning not to
bleep in Sara Gilbert's direction!  Actually, I read on an online
service that someone had seen her in "Girl Bar", but you can take
that for what it's worth... third-hand information from someone
through e-mail.

I thought the Roseanne episode was excellent, and I'm looking forward
to seeing the storyline continue.
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #89 z Hate is not a family value.  Boycott Colorado!
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: AH.PBL@forsythe.stanford.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Babs calls fro Colorado Boycott
Date: 20 Nov 1992 17:31:32 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov20.141056.2575@lclark.edu>,
snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>Oregonian, Friday, Nov. 20, 1992
>
>Singer-actress-director Barbra Streisand urged fellow entertainers
>to boycott Colorado because of a new anti-homosexual rights
>amendment to the state's constitution.
>
>"There are plenty of us who love the mountains and rivers
>of that truly beautiful state, but we must now say clearly that
>the moral climate there is no longer acceptable, and if we're
>asked to, we must refuse to play where they discriminate," she
>said this week at a gala AIDS benefit in Los Angeles....

  She's like buttah.
From: msp@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (Michael S. Pettersen)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Food for thought, was : Bear Crap
Date: 22 Nov 92 16:09:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: ohstpy.14757.2b0f6a7f

In article <74560@apple.apple.COM>, richard@Apple.COM (a flying squirrel) writes:
> Dave Kerlick writes:
> 
>>>GDM:
>>>I realize we're probably not going to do away with the prejudice
>>>against "overweight" any time soon; but there is no reason
> 
>>To put it in another light, how would tall people feel if they were
>>referred to in the media and by others as "overheight?"
> 
> Your analogy does not wash, m'dear.  The common perception, right or
> wrong, is that people can control their weight through exercise and
> diet.  With vertical stature, one gets what one's genes dictate.  No
> amount of "Richard Simmons' Deal-A-Meal" would shorten (or lengthen)
> people.  Only a bandsaw could do that.

Choice or no choice, discrimination on the basis of height also exists.
It's well known, I think, that the taller candidate for president is more
likely to win; it may not be as widely known that there is a correlation 
between height and wages (tall=$$$).

--
Mike Pettersen
msp@physique.ens.fr
Perfect love casteth out fear.
Xref: sparky soc.motss:48724 alt.politics.homosexuality:7487