HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Subject: Re: Private antidiscrimination policies in CO
Organization: (getting there)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 15:22:59 GMT


smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) answers
solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay):
  >> By which you mean *you've* never been fired (or beaten) for being
  >> gay, so you have trouble imagining that anyone else has.
  >> Or am I misjudging you?
 >By which I mean that I've never worked at a place where I, or 
 >anyone I know, or heard of, got fired for being gay.  (I do 
 >know that it happens in some places, I dont think it is 
 >prevalent like some are making it sound)  I've never seen 
 >anyone beaten for being gay, although i've occasionally 
 >seen it in the news.  I don;t think gay-bashing is a majority 
 >sport, that is what I'm saying.  

This is a perfectly serious question:
How "prevalent" does it have to be before it's worth making a fuss
about?  

I think it's more than prevalent enough already, myself.  (I hope
that comes as no surprise to anyone here.)  But I am really
interested in knowing the point at which Walter would think that the
case has been made.  I'd also like to know whether he thinks of this
as the sort of thing that needs to be established "beyond a reasonable
doubt" or whether "a preponderance of the evidence" will do.  (In
case anyone wonders, I think that the "reasonable doubt" standard
has been met.)



-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.

Xref: sparky soc.motss:53395 soc.bi:17143
From: wolfe@wolves.Durham.NC.US (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi
Subject: Don't put down Wolves! (was: NOTICE - Details of the MOW)
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:40:16 GMT
Organization: Red Wolfe @ The Wolves Den
X-Md4-Signature: d46b5adaf1cd82d20c55e75fea463233

In <27167@sybase.sybase.com> black@lester.sybase.com (Chris Black) writes:
>
>So we should throw them to the wolves, right?

	I appreciate what is being said, but do we have to keep
promoting unkind stereotypes?

	Ahem.

	:-)
                `-_-'
                  U           Have you hugged your wolf today?
				(borrowed from peter da silva)
-- 
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den, Durham NC	[This site is NOT affiliated  ]
wolfe@wolves.durham.nc.us			[with Duke University! Idiots!]
UUCP: ...!duke!wolves!wolfe      <Standard Disclaimers apply>
    Above All, we celebrate!  --Celebrate the Circle, Statement of Purpose.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Cramer is our problem too.
From: elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:34:40 GMT
Reply-To: elle@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1992Dec31.022454.13331@netcom.com> 
 solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
>(e.g. "Is it all right to be gay?" "Do gays molest children?" "Do
>gays cause the Bubonic Plague by eating Christian babies?" ...)
>talk.politics.homosexuality was created for these discussions ...
 ^^^^

ALT.politics.homosexuality, Andrew.  You're gonna have all those poor
folks who don't get alt.* scratching their heads over what happened to
your nonexistent t.p.h.

--                    __
Ellen Keyne Seebacher \/             elle@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: cgraham@convex.com (Chip Graham)
Subject: Re: long-term relationships...success stories, please...
Keywords: relationships long-term lengthy
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:13:51 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

I can only reply to my own story, which is now going on 6 years. It is a lot
of work, but that is not a negative thing. It takes a lot of understanding,
and honesty.  We agreed from the beginning that there would be times when
we would need free space, both emotionally and sexually. And honoring that
has not always been easy. It seems we seldom are in the same place on those
issues! However, it works and we're still together. We do have a couple of
role models which have really helped us along the one. One couple has been
together for over 12 years and the other couple is celebrating their 35th
Christmas! That's amazing!


-- 
Chip Graham      cgraham@convex.com         +1 214 497 4642
Convex Computer Corporation                  ------- __o   
3000 Waterview Parkway                      ------ _`\<,_ 
Box 833851, Richardson,Tx,75083            ------ (*)/ (*)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: spencer@der.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Private antidiscrimination policies in CO (was Re: Attention...)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Live Organ Transplants
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 08:52:09 GMT

In article <1hv70lINN69f@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman) writes:
>> 
>> In a civil case of breech of contract, you'd have to prove that NO OTHER
>> reasons were used in the firing. The company could get out of it simply by
>> stating that you weren't living up to job expectations.
>> 
>> Even though you know it was for sexual orientation.
>> 
>> Bites, huh?
>> David
>
>I don't think that would work, unless your job evaluations showed you 
>really *were* a bad employee.  And WHY would a company fire a good 
>employee *just* because he is gay?  

This sounds a lot like my somewhat naive/sheltered friend.  When CO #2
was passed, we were discussing it in e-mail with two other mutual
friends, and when I pointed out that hetereosexuals could still, for
example, bring suit for reasons of orientation-based discrimination, he
said (direct quote) "Give me a BREAK!  Why would heterosexuals claim
discrimination based on sexual orientation??  That's reaching for
straws."

"Why" is not an issue.  "They simply CAN" is.

-----
sss/PU'94 Dept of CS (spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu)/JvNCnet (spencer@jvnc.net)
"The pit of despair!  Don't even think about <hack!  cough!  arrrrhem!>
Don't even think about trying to escape."

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams)
Subject: Re: URGENT: European Commission Appointment
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, California
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:44:14 GMT

> buckmr@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>> kellyc@ul.ie writes:

>>From Ireland this morning come the news that Mr Padraig Flynn is to 
>>be nominated as the next EC commissioner from Ireland.
>
>>Since early 1992 he has been Minister for Justice. His department is the one 
>>which is responsible for dealing with the decriminalistion of homosexuality 
>>in Ireland. Since he was appointed Minister in that Department, the 
>>Government's stance on reforming these laws has changed from one of `it is
>>being dealt with and will be presented in due course' to a stance declaring 
>>`it is bottom of the agenda', and `it will not be dealt with in the 
>>foreseeable future'.
>
>>It needs to be done NOW. The appointments will be formally made before 
>>Christmas.
>
>So, anyone know if the "Irish Jesse Helms" was made EC Commissioner for
>Social Affiars or not?

Yes -- it was announced last week (:-()
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san ramon, ca -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: EE statements (was: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado)
Date: 31 Dec 1992 00:11:16 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
> My own employer, though exemplary in many ways, professes not
> to discriminate on the basis of marital status, yet
> compensates married employees more than unmarried employees,
> by offering significant company benefits to the partners of
> married employees, but few to the partners of unmarried ones.

If I'm following you right, you mean a married person can have 
his spouse/dependants on his insurance, but a single person 
can't have his roommate/unmarried SO on it?  Any other bennies 
that the married people get better?  ie, can you explain in 
more detail the discrepencies? 

> And this doesn't even address lower payment of single
> employees.  

When I was single, I didn't have a problem with married 
people at my same level getting paid more; I figured they 
needed it, as they had more responsibilities to take care 
of.  I don't know that this is really an EE issue. 

> Pacific Telesis Group also says it won't
> discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but gives
> corporate contributions to the Boy Scouts of America, who do.

Yeah, I have a neighbor who tore up and threw away his Levi's 
because Levi's contributes to the Boy Scouts....seems pretty 
silly to me.  It's like he only notices the bad about the 
Boy Scouts, and that totally obliterates the good.  Again, 
I don't see contributing to a group that makes a positive 
contribution to society is anti-EE; its just not fanatical. 

> It says it doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex, race or
> disability, yet a preponderance of the company's officers and
> senior managers are able-bodied, heterosexual, white males,
> while a majority of its workforce are either female or members
> of racial minorities.

A common problem, one that seems to be slowly getting better. 
This also illustrates why companies are more and more concerned 
with having correct quotas...

> I think you'll find that AA/EEO/Diversity policies are usually
> a statement of a company's goals and aspirations (some of them
> mandated by law), rather than a reliable indicator of actual
> practices or conditions.

True.  

Walter

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Re: soc.motss.*
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:17:55 GMT

Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison) writes:

>Thaaang writes:
>>soc.lesbigay.black.velvet
>>soc.lesbigay.gold.lame'
>>soc.lesbigay.rust.gabardine
>>soc.lesbigay.faded.denim
>>soc.lesbigay.jade.silk
>>soc.lesbigay.fuschia.spandex
>>soc.lesbigay.leopard.mesh
>>
>>For starters, anyway...

>Indeed.  At least "soc.lesbigay.faded.denim" is a good idea.

>Now then, how about:

>soc.lesbigay.plaid.flannel
>soc.lesbigay.black.leather
>soc.lesbigay.charcoal.latex
>soc.lesbigay.grubby.union-suit
>soc.lesbigay.chrome.studs

Lovely! (Who was it that suggested s.l.grungy.jeans.with.10w40.splotches
in email?)

>Tch, John.  Such a stereotypically exclusionary list you wrote.

Well jeez. I was using International Male, gimmie a break...

Oh yeah, some more:

s.l.pink.chiffon
s.l.multicolored.hankies
s.l.crunchy.granola
s.l.hair.spray
s.l.yellow.stains
s.l.cotton.boxers
s.l.white.briefs
s.l.fishnet.stockings
s.l.pink.dildoes

and on and on and on...

--
thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu * John Dorrance * Disco Diva y Flamenco Chico

      You're like one of those... 'Cabbage Patch' creatures...
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: endora@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Ken McCamish)
Subject: Re: Miracle cure for homophobic states
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:44:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.062841.27295@ads.com> henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
>dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) wrote: 
>->In article <1992Dec30.175709.13321@bsu-ucs>, d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman)
>->|> Big Brother is queer,
>->
>->Well, that explains why he is watching me...
>
>he was *cruising* you, silly!
  
 
I like what an ex of mine had on his stationery:

 Big Brother is watching you, 
 And his shoes don't match his purse!



               /\   
-Ken McCamish /__\, and only he.
               
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Blame not thyself; Cry     |    "Yes, we're all | "Whew! That was a
witch!  - Samantha Stevens  | different! "       |  little heart-stopper
                            |"I'm not"  "Shh!"   | for Auntie Elmira!" -
                            |-Monty Python       | - Elmira Duff of TTA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joe@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: MORE TV HELL Re: *** SPOILERS *** from rec.arts.startrek.info
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:00:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec23.200046.17080
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Dec23.174724.3032@craycos.com> mush@craycos.com (Randy Murrish) writes:
>
>
>Spoilers about the next ST:TNG episode "Chain of Command Pt. 2"
>follow press N now to go to the next article.
>
>
>
>from the synopsis of "Chain of Command Pt. 2" (I am not making this up):
>
>...
>
>> Picard is manhandled by the arriving guards and resists.  "Wasted
>> energy, Captain..." says Madred, now approaching Picard with a very
>> sharp knife.  "Are you in good health?"  Picard protests that torture
>> is forbidden by the code regarding prisoners of war, but Madred
>> relentlessly carves off Picard's clothing.  "From this point on, you
>> will enjoy no privilege of rank, no privileges of person.  From now
>> on, I will refer to you only as ... *human*.  You have no other
>> identity."  Picard, stripped naked, is shackled at both hands and feet
>> and left to sleep while stretched vertically like a side of beef.
>

Then he's thrown into the parallel universe holding tank with other TV
critters. A 7' WOOKIE berthed with an unmasked DARTH VADER (who, as we
all suspected, looks remarkably like a cross between BRIAN BLESSED and
LORNE GREENE) and unable to tell where the CRISP BLACK FUR of one ends
and the other's begins, he snuggles in to keep warm. GENTLE BEN is
crying on the other side of the room, alone, when GRIZZLY ADAMS
materializes out of thin air with his friend MR EDWARDS and they
tumble, naked, cocks flying, right on top of BEN and find out what a
BEAR HUG is all about. Half the room swings open and the GUARDIANS OF
THE WITCHES CASTLE FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ come tumbling in, still
chanting YO HEE OH, huge stark naked cossacks with beards down to
their navels. A fine POPPER AEROSOL mist starts coming out of the
ventilators, a la MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, with a nude PETER LUPUS popping
out of one vent, and in excitement, the 3000 GROWN MEN AND ONE BEAR
start into it, and then the FUR REALLY STARTS FLYING.
(I can't keep it up).
-- 
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Posting Styles
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:55:24 GMT


In article <1992Dec20.220439.15069@panix.com>, mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes:

|> And then there are the folks who wait until they know it's safe, and
|> then talk about the other posters.  This article will have expired
|> at Greg's site long before he gets back.  Hah.

No such luck, Cobra Woman.  Prepare to pay.

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: an3360@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Motss pix
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: soc.motss
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 11:35:00 GMT

Apologies; in my previous posting I meant to type "ex-roadies for the Grateful
Dead" but maybe what I did type wasn't that wide of the mark!    :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
From: scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: long-term relationships...success stories, please...
Date: 27 Dec 92 18:57:21 GMT
Organization: BASIS International, Ltd., Albuquerque NM USA

In article <1992Dec27.155552.20863@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>bcapps@agora.rain.com (Brent Capps) writes:
>>It's been my observation that there are four 'crisis periods' in a 
>>relationship. T
>>Between 3 months and 1.5 years you will learn 
>>whether leaving the cap off the toothpaste is grounds for divorce.  
>>Finally, sometime between 7 and 10 years you will resign yourself
>>to hearing the following question every evening for the rest of your 
>>life: "I dunno, what do YOU want to do for dinner?"
>
>	I think for us these two are reversed... we actually have
>a script for this...
>
>	Person 1: What do you want for dinner?
>	Person 2: I dunno, what do yOU want for dinner?
>	Person 1: (Realizing that this is an infinite loop)
>			White Castle Burgers it is!
>
>	That usually prompts Person 2 to think of SOMETHING in
>short order... :-)

My SO and I have the dinner problem solved.  We each have different
appetites and generally prepare our own meals.  However, neither
of us are ambitious in the kitchen so we don't get in each other's
way.  Should one of us make something "special" (like pasta) we both 
eat it.  In the warmer months I barbeque most evenings.  My SO 
usually wants what ever I barbeque up but might be in the mood for
something else so I always ask if he wants any before I begin.

It works well for us.  I wonder how many couples do it like this.

-- 
Scott Amspoker                       |    
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM |  Too bad ignorance isn't really
                                     |  bliss.  Then it could be outlawed.
scott@bbx.basis.com                  |
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden)
Subject: Re: EE statements (was: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, Ca.
	<1hthe3INNa5s@hp-col.col.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 23:54:37 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 <1hthe3INNa5s@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

   snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
   > My insurance premium is higher because I have to pay heterosexuals 
   > to have children.  So are the tax payers.

   Would you feel better if people stopped having children?  Or if 
   insurance didn't cover dependants?   Or if there was legislation 
   that required a certain level of financial wealth before someone 
   can have kids?  ie; what are you offering as a better way, or 
   are you just pissing in the wind?  

The children of our lovers aren't covered, Walter.  The point is that
not only are we not given access to equal benefits/pay, but we have to
pay more for our insurance because of the people who do get those
benefits.

Is this fair?

   Would you feel better if companies ignored the needs of their 
   employees families?  Do you think this would make the overall 
   situation better? 

They ARE ignoring their employee's families, Walter.  My partner is
uninsured.

   Welfare, eh?  Sure.  Ultimately, companies will do what they think is 
   best for them.  Companies think paying married people more money, since 
   they have more responsibilities, is good business; you evidently have 
   a problem with that?  Would you like to be able to dictate that 
   companies can't do that?  Sounds like plain old sour grapes...

You mean like when they paid women less because it was moral to pay a
man more, since a man has to take care of a family and a woman
doesn't?  You mean that the unmarried gay person I know who is taking
care of his uncle should be paid less because that doesn't count as
"family"?  You mean that single people have fewer people to be
financially responsible for?  Is that true in today's world?

Especially when 10% of the population isn't allowed to get married?

It's a load of crap that married couple have more responsibilites.  A
load of crap right out of the 50s.
--

  - 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: buckmr@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Top GLB Fiction (actually Delany)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 06:20:00 GMT

dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:

>In article <1992Dec22.124058.3613@nic.csu.net> hsu@walnut.sfsu.edu writes:
>>Steve Dyer:
>>> 
>>> I think that almost all current SF/fantasy writing is simply TV for
>>> the semi-literate, and Delany's work in this genre hasn't made me
>>> change my mind.
>>
>>Well which of Delany's books have you read, Steve? Do tell.

>_The Motion of Light in Water_, which is really wonderful.  He really
>should write a follow on to his autobiography.  The man _can_ write; I
>just don't find the fiction he writes very interesting.  I found both
>"Stars in My Pocket..." and "Dhalgren" to be impenetrable and unrewarding.
>Boring.
Eeeek! I'm actually going to agree with Steve on something. I, too, find 
most of Delany's novels to be unrewarding. [I've read, "Stars In My Pocket...",
""Nova", one of the Neveryon novels]. However, I found a collection of his
short stories that were actually compelling. I forget the title, it included
"Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-Precious Stones", which despite being a
munificent title, was really quite odd. The other stories were much more
interesting.


>I didn't mean to say that Delany's attempts are semi-literate, or that
>reading and liking his stuff isn't proof that you have some reading facility.
>It's that his efforts in the genre don't redeem the field in general for me.

>-- 
>Steve Dyer
>dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``D.C. in 93!''
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
 92 of the 400 richest Americans *inherited* their wealth. Source: _Details_.
Newsgroups: soc.motss