HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: A Short History ofDiscrimination in the Military
Date: 12 Sep 92 10:14:12 GMT
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco

In article <1992Sep10.003315.10514@panix.com> ro@panix.com (r l reid) writes:
>In article <34794@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
>>When Clinton lifts the ban on Gays and Lesbians in the military, as
>>promised, or whoever in 1995 or so ... lets us not forget to fight that
>>those who got dishonorable discharges because they were Gay or Lesbian
>>get reassigned honorable discharges.
>
>
>Oh sure.  And George will have no new taxes.
>
>
>-- 
>		r l reid	ro@panix.com


What is exciting for me is to discover that the military has several
rather serious plans for making sure that gays can fight, and that
women can fight.  Clinton has said, point blank, that he will
lift the ban on gay men.  So he's a politician.  So maybe he
lied.  So maybe it will take a few more years of pushing and 
shoving.  But the military is getting contingency plans to deal
with this ``terrible problem''.

When we win, let us not forget those who lost before.

Laura


-- 
	C unions never strike; they only work to rule.

Laura Creighton 
toad@toad.com
hoptoad!laura
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Re: Publicity
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:17:05 GMT

Minotaur@cup.portal.com (Frank - Swilling) writes:

>Matthew Melmon sez (among other things):

>>Aaachhh!  <stomp> <click> ZEIG! <*snap*>

>Hey, did you get Pat Buchanan's permission to repost his Republican
>Convention speech?

Liar. Pat Buchanan is physically incapable of snapping.

--
John Dorrance  * Don't fuck with Ms. Congeniality *  thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu

	Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders
	     what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NEWSWEEK POLL: Plurality of Americans support GAY RIGHTS
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:41:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Sep10.144120.27773
Organization: insert anything here

In article <12194@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Most Americans support Equal Rights for homosexuals, myself included.
>We don't support homosexuals getting special protection, which is what
>the homosexual community is so anxious to have the government
>grant them.  There's a big difference.

	Everyone I've asked this of can never give an answer to
this question.

	Define "special rights".  Give examples of "special rights".
Show how the lack of these rights constitutes equality within our
present society and legal system.

	What Cr*m*r really means is: protect heterosexual privilege.

	Actually I think "no special rights" is a great idea.
This of course is also extendable to "no special rights for
heterosexuals", so in effect equal rights for all.  I suppose
though if the homosexual community started using this tactic,
Claytoon, Lon Mabon, Jesse Helms, Lou Sheldon, etc would all
be up in arms about how "they" were trying to deprive "normal people"
of their "rights".

	You can't have it both ways.

BBC
From: mattm@Apple.COM (Matthew Melmon)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Publicity
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:13:35 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:

>Listen, Melmon, why don't you give it a rest?  You've got everyone's
>attention already.  Relax.  Grow into your net.persona instead of
>trying so hard.  Quite frankly, I could do without the "Nazi war-
>crimnal" wisecracks, and the fact that you're a Reaganista *is* 
>awfully hard to overlook, but it's clear you've got some brains and 
>perhaps even some taste.  If you keep going like this you're going
>to alienate *everyone*, and then you'll just be ignored.  Is that 
>what you want?


While I would not go so far as to claim there is some sinister cabal
out there dictating an acceptable 'Party Line' - this newsgroup *is*
basically one big, inbred family.  Everything is so convenient.  There
are all these *evil* people out there bent on the destruction of 
the homosexual community, and the only thing stopping them are the
True Faggots of soc.motss.  True Faggots suffer where no one asked them
to, then turn around and expect applause from those of us who have
somehow managed to peacefully co-exist with the Establishment.  Even
become comfortable.  Hob-nob with the corporate elite.  Etc.  If the
applause from our sector is not loud enough, we, the False Faggots, 
are repressed, self-hating 'homophobes' (a really stupid word - just
what the fuck are the homophobes afraid of in the first place?).
True Faggots are learned in the proud histories of our community,
know from whence the *snap*, what the flags all mean, and various
sundry things I *don't* know, so can't very well write down.  True
Faggots react with shock and horror at the thought of someone *not*
finding red lipstick, high heel pumps, sparkles in hair, curvey,
floppy walks, screams of delight at the opening of a door, etc.
*attractive*  Again, such a person is *obviously* a self-hating,
internalized homophobe, and probably a raging bigot to boot.

Perhaps it has not occured to you that alienating the True Faggot
community does not weigh too heavily upon my soul.  Besides, I'm
doing you a favor.  You need nasty villains to point your fingers
at, lest you degenerate into a bickering, in-fighting mass of
confusion.  Or even worse, a giant support group, patting each other
on the back, oohing and ahhhing over every little post till the
cows come home.  The True Faggots have been remarkably unified these
past weeks.  You should be thanking Mr. Sarver and me.

And so, TTFN. 

*moi*

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: balistik@big-brother.nevada.edu (Shawn Hicks)
Subject: Re: NEWSWEEK POLL: Plurality of Americans support GAY RIGHTS
Organization: Not yet, but we're working on it...
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 18:13:46 GMT

In article <30@bbx.basis.com>, scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:
>In article <15191@borg.cs.unc.edu> harris@degas.cs.unc.edu (Trey Harris) writes:
>>This has happened SO MANY times on television: the fundie 'phobe says
>>that we want 'special rights.'  The pro-gay person asks what 'special
>>rights' entail.  The host cuts in with "We'll get back to that right
>>after these messages."  And, of course, they never do.
>
>Even if someday we discover that we *do* have special rights, heterosexuals
>can always enjoy those same rights by pretending to be homosexual.  So
>nobody is really being denied anything.

Wrong. Why should I, or a heterosexual, have to play "pretend"
to get anything?  Surely a right that requires you to *be* queer, or
*play* queer, to benefit is a Special Right: it requires queerness.

What I'm being denied is the right to be myself, whatever that means,
and still qualify for all my rights. After all, the fight for equal
rights isn't so that I can use each one, it's so that I can have
equal options to use each one.  I may never want to get married,
but I can never be "socially" equal to heterosexuals until I *can*
get married (to the spouse of my choice). 


People that have never "come out" can not understand the sense of
sheer liberation that comes with it.  Don't ask me to go back into
the closet: my self esteem has grown to large to ever fit in that
small prison again. 


Shawn
 
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: johne@or.credence.com (John Ewing)
Subject: Re: NEWSWEEK POLL: Plurality of Americans support GAY RIGHTS
Organization: Credence Systems Corp. Beaverton, OR
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:36:07 GMT

In article <9209060159.AA198478@sub.aix.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>Just seen on CNN: They are reporting that NEWSWEEK has a new poll with the
>following results:
>
>
>Should homosexuals have equal rights under the law?
>78% YES
>17% NO
>
>---
>RON BUCKMIRE
>Fundraising Committee for the Procurement of a mesh tank-top for LL Cool J
>11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735
>uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910

WRONG !!!

A "plurality" (whatever that is) of Americans support EQUAL RIGHTS for gays
under the law !!!                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^

John Ewing (johne@or.credence.com)
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Publicity
Date: 10 Sep 1992 14:42:32 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1992Sep10.194641.496@HQ.Ileaf.COM> 
jontom@HQ.Ileaf.COM (J.T. Kittredge) writes:
> In article <_1sn#vm.foucault@netcom.com> 
> foucault@netcom.com (Howard Arthur Faye) writes:

[Fascinating details ruthlessly deleted]

> >Motss relevance? Less Than Zero.
>
> But is it? I have a dim memory of reading "1876" by Gore Vidal, which
> is about this very incident. Samuel Tilden was a reform
> politician from New York, wasn't he? I recall several of Vidal's
> characters making innuendos based on Tilden's "long-time bachelorhood"
> and lack of the conventional family life so beloved by Americans.

Oh, a different Tilden.  I saw your summary ("Was Tilden 
on the bus") and assumed you meant the *other* Tilden, the
tennis player with a fondness for ball boys.

> How much is there that doesn't have Motss relevance. 

Zip.  Nada.  Gornisht.

> Would so many
> Motssketeers know so much about this election if Gore Vidal hadn't
> written a book about it?

Would I know so many fascinating details about this election
if so many Motssketeers hadn't written post after post about it?

Arne


Xref: sparky soc.motss:38757 talk.politics.misc:44737 ca.politics:7617
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:58:06 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep10.085725.19348@quantime.co.uk>, roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips) writes:
# [I'm breaking several of my rules here,
# by responding to Clayton Cramer at all,
# and by responding crosspostedly, but ...]
# 
# In article <12195@optilink.UUCP#,
# cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # This is exactly why I can't take homosexuals seriously.  I have
# # repeatedly made it clear that I want the government to leave
# # people alone unless they engage in force or fraud against others,
# # and you have this crazy idea that I would support some sort of
# # extermination scheme.
# 
# So, Clayton, you're saying that you can't take homosexuals seriously
# because you feel they persist in making untrue claims about you,
# despite your repeated rebuttals?
# Now, ever wondered why we don't take *you* seriously?

I don't have to make bizarre claims about homosexuals -- they
make the claims for me.

# # Not at all, and I would vigorously
# # oppose (by all means necessary) any such effort to exterminate
# # homosexuals.
# 
# Such as handing over what you think is damning evidence
# to those people who want to legislate us out of existence?

Oh?  Can you provide some examples?  I have yet to hear any of
the fundamentalists argue for extermination of homosexuals.

# # But the homosexual desire to be a victim is so strong, that it
# # becomes necessary to demonize everyone that doesn't pat homosexuals
# # on the head and say, "Keep it up."
# 
# Clayton, how come you know more about my desires than I do?

Because I'm not emotionally involved with you, unlike you.

# (And how come you know so much about victim complexes?)

Because victimology is a fundamental part of the nonsense that
runs this country now.

# Roger Phillips                            roger@quantime.co.uk

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: amz@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (Arnold M Zwicky)
Subject: Re: Hate mail
Followup-To: soc.motss
Summary: UIU!
Organization: earnestly practicing faggots?
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:38:44 GMT

in article <1992Sep9.193614.29594@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com
(kathy beatty) writes:

 >I blame this on you of the cabal! If Melinda hasn't yet been appointed a 
 >goddess, why not? If she has, why hasn't this been publicized? You...you...
 >
 >INTERNET USERS!!!

UIU...ohhh, kaaathy...we get sooooo HOT when you talk dirty to us like
that!!!

more, give us more, honey....please...

<meanwhile, back on earth, or wherever this is>  no one gets
*appointed*, they get *acclaimed*.  but you know she's already Motss
Harpy, which in cabaland is on the highest level of deity.  (ok, the
pantheon is a tad crowded.  what can i say, there's a lot of major
talent here.)

alex adams



Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Arresting Behavior
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:31:04 GMT

In article <Ieeagnq00Uh7E2K9AY@andrew.cmu.edu> ct1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christine W. Y. Tsang) writes:

}There just isn't nearly enough examples of gay-positive
}messages/illustrations in the media. I can't believe I missed the
}debut!!!!  Just so I don't miss it again, when is the program on?

It's on Wednesday nights around here, but don't get your hopes up.  I made
a point of watching the second show the following week.  No gay issues or
characters at all.  Oh well.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: A Conversation With Matthew
Date: 11 Sep 1992 13:55:22 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1992Sep11.150754.13582@osf.org> 
coren@osf.org (Robert Coren) writes:
| In article <1992Sep11.052257.7984@reed.edu>, 
| nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
| > 
| > Damn, can't I just say "I've got a woody" and leave it at that? Anyone
| > twig to that particular expression?
|
| Is this discussion going to branch out yet again? A hardwood be nice
| if I had a treesome to share it with, but for now I'll just have to
| pine fir yew. If you've got a "woody", I hope I maple on it; I'd as
| leaf stroke your chest, nuts, and ash, or kiss your tulips. I birch'll
| howl, or at least bark, when you reed this. It may not be
| pith-elegant, but... well, you can cedar rest coming, I'm sure.

Would you two just put a cork in it?

Arne

Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.censorship
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Orson Scott Card
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:55:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.191700.15095@Princeton.EDU> spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes:
>[In response to requests for the Orson Scott Card article]
>
>Didn't someone post a while back (a few months actually now that I think
>about it) that Mr. Card had specifically ordained that his article NOT
>be redistributed, on penalty of nasty legal action?  I seem to remember
>seeing something along these lines.

Do any lawyers out there know if speech can be supressed in this fashion?
Its certainly not libel unless OSC is claiming not to have written the
article. I see all sorts of articles quoted all the time, would it be
legal to paraphrase it and quote important statements?

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Anthony Perkins
Date: 12 Sep 1992 17:51:40 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu


I just heard that Anthony Perkins died of AIDS complications
today.  He was 60.  Damn.

Arne
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: sunglasses and hats
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:48:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Sep9.084820.16234
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Sep8.191037.16118@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>Obmotss-relevance (sorta): I've heard that the act of sneezing is, 
>physiologically speaking, similar to an orgasm. 

Maybe this is urban legend material, but isn't there a medicinal drug
that people take that makes people have orgasms when they yawn?

(my first memory is "Rogaine", which if I am to believe my first two
Psych lectures means that "Rogaine" is probably correct. I'm pretty
sure I can rule it out, though :-)

Nelson, late at night and not wanting to sleep just yet.
-- 
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                   There is absolutely no other possibility
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: *Welcome* to Cabal Talk
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:18:07 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <72133@apple.Apple.COM> 
mattm@Apple.COM (Matthew Melmon) writes:
| adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
|
| >P.S. For the Yiddishless among you, Brent wrote nice things 
| >about me and *mean* (but true) things about Melmac, I wrote 
| >even meaner things about Mel (but of course I would; I called 
| >him a "tsutshepenish", which means an irritating hanger-on,
| >someone you wish would go away but who persists, in an obsessive, 
| >*unbelievably* irritating way, to hang around and make a nuisance 
| >of himself), and then I flirted a bit with Brent.

Yes, a tsutshepenish.

| As the original skit occured on Saturday Night Live - and you *most*
| *certainly* don't watch such a plebian show, it seems likely that
| you haven't got a clue what the whole thing was about in the first
| place.

Sweetheart, you've just made a big, big, big mistake by questioning
my omniscience.  *Of* *course* I know which skit you were talking
about -- that stupid skit with Madonna and Roseanne Arnold which
Barbra Streisand walked in on.  So what?  Because Saturday Night
Live's writers like to make up vaguely Yiddish sounding words I'm
supposed to sit back and listen to you repeat them?  What, pray
tell, is "phleklempt" supposed to mean?  

| you would be at a loss to point to some post of your own as being
| more charming.  Such an overwhelming shock it was to hear Mr. Anderson
| say he actually *liked* it (or perhaps, didn't *hate* it).  

Tsutshepenish.

Arne
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: Charlie Fulton <charlie@isis.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Record trivia
Organization: Ctr for Advanced Rsrch in Oppressive Binarisms
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
     <1992Sep11.162234.3021@news.acns.nwu.edu> <65678@cup.portal.com>
     <11SEP92.12502932@enh.nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:18:50 GMT

In article <y-vnnpg.jfh@netcom.com> Jack Hamilton, jfh@netcom.com writes:
>Marilyn vos Savant's column in last week's paper (could that possibly be
>her last name?)  had a question about how many groves are on the side of
a
>record.  I think her answer, which hasn't appeared yet, is going to be
'1'.
>What record is a counterexample?  Blank records don't count.

Counterexample:  The flip side of Psychic TV's 1982 single "Roman P."
consists of two distinct grooves: one of Charles Manson's "I am what you
made me" speech from his trial and the other of Jim Jones during the
suicide party at jonestown.  These grooves are interspersed and one
or the other track plays depending on where the stylus is set down.

Oh yeah, and "Spellbound" is the answer to someone elses kwiz
question.

There are other examples of two-groove records and cross-posting this
oh-so-gay thread to alt.music.alternative will get you lotsa answers.

charlie
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky)
Subject: Re: recollections of motss.con (was Re: What is virginity?)
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 21:46:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.121156.8265@panix.com> mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>I was sitting on the sand surrounded by a most delightful
>assortment of men, all wearing a lot less than I.  Some wore shirts
>only.

    I opted to keep most of my clothes on.  I finally took my shirt off
    so as to get a little tan.  Mara didn't catch me with my pants down!

    Shortly after Mara arrived one of the clothesless ones came up to
    me and said, "How can I introduce myself to Mara looking like
    this?  I'm so embarrassed."  Nonetheless, he finally did approach
    her and make introduction.

>I was especially impressed by the variety in shapes and sizes.

    I suspect I've seen all the shapes and sizes by now.

>And nervous as could be, because I was sure that I'd recollect
>genitals and not faces.

    I shouldn't comment here, but that remark brought back some
    reall old memories.

>I do remember a brief dislplay of naked backs, which I think was
>part of a furriness competition, but it was a ways away from me and
>I don't recall who competed. 

    Uhhhh, I was one of the participants.  As I recall, I came in
    second in the furry back competition behind the esteemed Steve 
    (Mr. Furry Back 1992) Dyer.

>(My personal favorite was uncomfortable
>because of the nudity and the sun; he kept looking for a shady place
>to take a hike and being disappointed not to find one.)

    Well that sure wasn't me.  Vouyer that I am, I was snapping away
    a mile a minute with my Minolta.  Walgreens developed all of them
    too though some of the prints came back with some sticky stuff on
    them.  I think they were the ones of Fred Huntington. :-)

>So that's my big "virginity lost" story from the con.  

    Wish I had a virginity lost tale to tell... <sigh>

>Whenever I go to a con-- or a dinner, for that matter-- I anticipate
>the first face-to-face encounter with someone from the net as a loss
>of virginity.

    There were several at the con I wouldn't have minded losing my
    virginity to.

--
============================================================================
| B4 f+ g++ d t w k+:    S4/7 b++ g l/- y+ z o x- a j+ v    Gerry Swetsky  |
|                vpnet - Public access Unix and Usenet                     |
| Home (708)833-8122       vpnet (708)833-8126      lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us |
============================================================================
From: markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re:  Publicity
Date: 6 Sep 92 05:23:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.42479
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR

In article <42478@ogicse.ogi.edu> markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey) writes:

>Yes, as a matter of fact, it is quite new, and as far as I know it is
>not a concept not in use in PRESIDENTIAL politics in this country.  The
               ^^^ remove this one

As Bush would say: "Said it.  Didn't mean it.  Superfluous word.  Changed
meaning.  Wrong meaning.  Cut the word.  Better meaning."

I won't even begin to address the spelling mistakes.  Consider it my attempt
to become the next vice president.

--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