HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: British spellings
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:02:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Sep1.070241.6928
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

>judgement

I don't have a British dictionary handy to me, so I might be
completely wrong, but isn't the accepted American spelling "judgment"
while the accepted British spelling is "judgement"?

The astute reader might have noticed that I use a weird mix of British
and American spellings. I've had people say it was sexy, and I've had
people say it was pretentious. I certainly don't have any right to
British spelling in general - I've lived in America all my life. Maybe
I am following the example of one of my favourite American authors, HP
Lovecraft.

I almost always write "colour" and "favour". I never write "minour",
which I thought was weird until someone pointed out to me that that is
always wrong, which sends me scurrying to try to figure out how I knew
to write "colour" but not "minour" - I've never thought of the
etymology before.

I'm not so good at the "ize/ise" distinction. My immediate thought is
to write "industrialize", although "industrialise" looks more proper
to me. Are all words that in American are written "-ize" written in
British "-ise"?
-- 
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                                            Love under will
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: buckmr@aix.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: AB 2601 passes Californian senate
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:25:57 GMT


Chuck Jones at UCLA posted this to Gaynet: 

                      AB 2601 Passes Calif. Senate
The following is the text of an article from this morning's (8/25/92) _Los
Angeles Times_.  I've lifted it without permission (sorry).

Senate OKs Bill to Ban Job Bias Against Homosexuals

The Senate has norrowly approved controversial legislation to ban job
discrimination against homosexuals similar to a bill vetoed last year by Gov.
Pete Wilson that sparked statewide demonstrations.
A 22-11 vote, one more then the 21 votes required for approval, sent the
measure (AB 2601) by Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Los Angeles) back to the
Assembly for expected concurrence in Senate amendments.  This would send it to
the governor for his signature or veto.
Last year's veto caused thoudands of gays and lesbians to protest in the
streets of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento, charging that Wilson had
bowed to political pressure from the far right wing of the Republican Party.
In his veto message, Wilson said he feared that the bill would lead to a flood
of lawsuits filed against small businesses and that there was sufficient legal
job protection for homosexuals.

 Chad Jones
 UCLA Department of Physiological Science
 cjones@kines.ucla.edu
 "Nunquam visi caseum in tantis modis diversis paratum"

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``Clinton-Gore 92!''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
"Straight White Male Privilege is like bad breath: no one notices they have it,
but if you point it out you're an asshole." -- G. Dauphin, _Village Voice_
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: pc@linus.mitre.org (Penny Chase)
Subject: Re: Texas
Organization: Research Computer Facility, The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA
	<1992Sep1.072645.9298@reed.edu>
	<1992Sep1.143819.26700@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:57:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.143819.26700@midway.uchicago.edu>
elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher) writes:

   The front of our long-sleeved T-shirt shows a
   cartoon assortment of Chicago and U of C character types, surrounding
   an armadillo; the back says simply "Who'd'a thunk it?"

Gee, is that a call-by-name or call-by-need thunk?  Ooops.  You mean
this *isn't* alt.computers.folklore (:-))

	Penny

--
UUCP:  { ... }!linus!pc 
INTERNET:  pc@mitre.org
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Redefining masculinity
Date: 24 Aug 92 22:04:48 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


(me)
>I view drag & leather as forms of sexual fantasy & escapism.
>It's a way to enhance sex, and there's nothing wrong with it.

/(elf)
/   Speak for yourself and your own, apparently limited experiences.
/While I have fuckbuddies, friends, and lovers, I earnestly doubt I
/could found a long-term relationship with someone who didn't appreciate
/my leather sexuality.


So it is a very important part of your sexual experience.  I don't
believe I ever denied that.  I don't personally share
it, but the people I know who *are* into leather tell me the 
same things (that you tell me, I mean).





(elf)
/   The classic argument (so let me shoot it down _right now_) is that
/we leatherfags _choose_ to roleplay for our increased pleasure.  Now,
/your average fundamentalist will argue that gay men _really can_ have
/sex with a woman, they just choose to have sex with a man because it
/leads to increased, momentary pleasure.

The analogy is a little too pat, though, Elf.  I suspect that you
could have sex without leather being involved; is that too presumptuous
a statement?  It probably would be more fun if leather were involved,
but I don't think a non-leather sex act would be lacking in pleasure for you
(esp. if you found the partner to be physically attractive).  

Do you disagree with what I have said so far?


(elf)
/   Both arguments are wrong.  Denying one right 

whoever said anyting about denial of rights?  


(elf)
/because it's not
/"identity" is flawed because you can't prove the other is "identity"
/either.  


[DISCLAIMER:  this is not baiting]
Elf, I have known people who were involved in the fantasy role-playing
games; Dungeons and Dragons or the SCA.  They tell me, quite straight-faced,
that the personas they take on at sci-fi conventions are their
real "identity".  

I cannot, technically, disprove their statement, at least not
with any rules of evidence that they will also agree to.  What should
I make of it, then?  Should I accept it, or reject it?


Some leatherfolk will tell you, quite honestly, that leather
is thicker than blood, that identity with leather is even more
important than they're identity as straights, lesbians, or homosexuals,
and that they're willing to form alliances among leatherfolk without
concern for sexual orientation.

Are there many people who feel this way?
From: benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: The liberal media
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:55:39 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <BtuzGt.H4I@scd.hp.com> mdrayton@sr.hp.com (Mike Drayton) writes:
>Other coverage of the Measure 9 struggle:  Terry Gross' "Fresh Air"
>featured 3 guests talking about the issue.  Fortunately, I only turned
>the radio on in time to hear the last, anti-9 speaker.  I didn't have
>to hear the others.  Anyone hear the entire program?
>
>Mike Drayton
>mdrayton@sr.hp.com

I did. Amazing. Disgusting... Gross was absolutely great at uncovering
the stupid prejudices of the Pro 9 guy, and he ended up having to
admit that he tought that homosexuality was a virus (or at least
something similar) Basically it was really extreme and scary drivel.

I am sure you could get a transcript from Fresh Air.. they give their
address on NPR every afternoon (in Boston WBUR, 90.9 fm).

Benjamin
From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Too straight looking to be gay??? (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:46:15 GMT
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco

In article <1992Aug31.213232.27039@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>
>(rjwill6)
>/and if
>/those guys had half a clue between them they'd realize that
>/those same clueless straights will hate them just as viciously
>/whether they're in three-piece gray flannel or a fucking tutu,
>/but thanks all the same...
>
>
>Not true.  Not by a long shot.
>
>I might believe this if it had ever happened to me.  Or to anyone
>that I know.  I don't mean to say that every single last straight person
>I have "come out" to was open-minded.  But I can count the negative
>reactions on two fingers.
>
>
>The less threatening you are, the less extreme the response from others.  
>I don't know why you struggle to avoid this rather elementary principle
>of human behavior.


I keep wondering why it is that you think that this is the ``threatening
Gay'' which invokes the not open-minded behaviour.  I may be understanding
you wrong, but I keep reading things which leads me to believe that you
think that the straights will accept you, just fine, as long as they don't
think that you are `weird' -- and that straights have a stereotype
of Gays as `weird' and that you think it is just dandy that they have
problems with the `weird' -- but you are not `weird', so they accept
you  -- and if the rest of us would all stop being `weird' we could
all nicely be accepted, end of problem.

I know that I am putting words and conclusions in your mouth, but
can you tell me whether this is an innacurate reading of what you
have said?  And if not, where it varies?

I believe that you lack a sense of history.  These days, coming out,
is, while still a traumatic process, *much easier*.  Most people you
will come out to have glimmered, from the popular media, that this
thing, called ``coming out'' happens.  20 years ago it was unknown.
10 years ago it was rarely known -- at least in the popular press.

Now, even the most evangelical of Christians knows what ``coming out''
is. 

This is progress.

Do you realy find it reasonable to love queers in a certain
sense but still decry those more flamboyant, or `weird' than you?
Are they really hurting anybody?  If they are not hurting you,
can you find justification  for condemning them?  If they are
hurting you, can you find any moral ground between wishing that they 
were not there and wishing that all Gaypeople were not there?

The world is full of people who do stupid, foolish, wasteful,
idiotic, things.  If you choose to group `weird' Gaypeople in that
list, then, we disagree, but so be it.  I let those whom I fathom
as idiotic and foolish waste on their merry way.  Why do you
follow different rules?  And what rules are they?

Most sincerely yours,
Laura

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

Laura Creighton 
toad@toad.com
hoptoad!laura
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: cc0001@medtronic.COM (Christopher Carriero)
Subject: Re: Too straight looking to be gay??? (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:43:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.183725.13703@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>
>
>>3.  Because the more feminine gays feel that if they have to go
>>    through life being immediately identified as gay and ostracized
>>    for it, then goddammit, so should everybody else
>
>(elf)
>/What gives you the right to tell people how to behave so that they can hide
>/from the straights?  Why should I even want to hide from the straights.  
>
>
>Not "hide"; just cease to stand out like a fucking snowball in a coal bin.
>

Sounds like internalized homophobia to me...

>
>It is not only important to have a good message, but the messenger must
>also be good.  If either the message or the messenger are foul, then 
>people tend to throw the whole thing out as a unit.  You can have the
>best message in the world, but if you haven't bathed for two weeks,
>have green paint on your face, and drool out of the corner of your
>mouth, what good does it do to have a great message?  I am not accusing
>you (elf) of being as offensive as this, but I use the illustration
>to make the point.
>

The point I would like to make is why do we have to abide by the social
morals set by the straight world.  People tend to look at one aspect of
a gay/lesbian persons life (the sex act).  What people need to do is stop
looking at the sex act (or the femininity of some gay men) and look what 
we have to offer to society and listen to our message.  I see a lot of
parallels in this discussion to racism.  Think about it.

>As I have repeatedly pointed out, I am not in favor of dictating policy
>to anyone.  Your insistence to the contrary is simply baiting; you are 
>looking for a fight where there is none.  Your motives are in question;
>examine them.
>
>

This statement is pure projection.  Think about it.


-- Chris



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Carriero		cc0001@medtronic.com
Medtronic Corp.		(612)574-6062
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: norris@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff Norris)
Subject: Re: What is virginity?
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:25:23 GMT

roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips) writes:
>harris@currituck.cs.unc.edu (Trey Harris) writes:
>> roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips) writes:
>> >Recently, I've heard more than one (ok, two, if you must know)
>> >gay (ok, I'm assuming they're not bisexual) man
>> >describe himself as a virgin.
>[...]
>I really hadn't appreciated
>the *depth* of virginity we're talking about here.)
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  (is this an oxymoron?)

>> >I *assume* that gay male virgins are talking about anal fucking...
>> ... I think I wouldn't be a virgin after having participated
>> on either side of oral sex or mutual masturbation as well...
>So it's genital contact which makes the difference?

Has anyone else wondered what role orgasms might play in determining if
you're a virgin or not?

>As a side issue,
>am I alone in considering (solo) masturbation "real" sex?

No.  But you would no longer be a "self-virgin".

>[...]
>But maybe you're saying that my assumption
>is the result of my own projection.
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Soooo, you *do* think orgasms matter!

>Thanks for responding.
>I think my bemusement arises from
>not having heard anyone use the word "virgin" non-metaphorically
>since I was about sixteen,
>and the fact that I'd forgotten how to *imagine*

How sad.  ...but then how *do* you reach orgasm when alone.

>a life where one hadn't yet had sex

oh.

>It's good to be brought in touch with others' life experience.

especially when loosing your virginity.  :-)


jeff - who's just a little stir-crazy, and trying to be playful for 
       entertainment.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca (Ken Dykes)
Subject: Re: "fuck"
Organization: Thinkage Ltd.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 09:32:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.194753.836@microsoft.com> georgere@microsoft.com (George V. Reilly) writes:
>richard@Apple.COM (a flying squirrel) writes:
>) I cannot remember the origin of this (it may have been my friend Gary), but
>) a funny and accurate (at least for me) observation was made: when swearing,
>) "shit" is used for mental pain, whereas "fuck" is used for physical pain.
>
>) Which leads me to wonder: if I accidentally severed my penis, would I utter

"oh no, not again..."

-- 
   - Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada    [43.47N 80.52W]
         postmaster@thinkage.on.ca  kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca  thinkage!kgdykes
         kgdykes@math.uwaterloo.ca  [129.97.128.1]      kgdykes@thinkage.com
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: rjones@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rex A. Jones)
Subject: Re: Gay Republicans
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 17:43:52 GMT

msp@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (Michael S. Pettersen) writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.153314.24649@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>> I find it absolutely astonishing that any gay, lesbian,
>> or bisexual person could even consider being a member of
>> the Republican Party.  The party has taken an unequivocal
>> stand against equal rights for all of us (and that 
>> includes His Royal Butchness, Boob Sarver).  Do any of
>> us really believe that we're not entitled to equal
>> treatment under the law?

>I can't figure this out either.  At best you might think that there are 
>some well-to-do queers who think that their own economic well-being will
>protect them more than equal rights for all; but I can't figure out 
>how they think that 12 years of Republican war-mongering has improved the 
>national economic situation.  

As one of the interviewees during the week said (he is a member of the Log
Cabin Club), Conservatism has a streak of Libertarianism built in it (thsi
is not the Conservatism of Buchannan and Robertson and the current REpublican
party, but more a Conservatism of a William Weld or a person like Goldwater).
If the Republicans meant what they say about individual freedoms, Conservatism
and the Republican party would be VERY gay friendly.  We all pretty much know
that they don't, and that's why it's hard to believe any Gay person would be
a Republican.

>All in all, I am glad that in two weeks I will be out of reach of the lies 
>and the doublethink.  
>-- 
>Mike Pettersen
>Ohio State Physics, msp@ohstpy.bitnet, msp@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
>Perfect love casteth out fear.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Too straight looking to be gay??? (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Date: 24 Aug 92 01:52:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.




Oh, and as for misogyny:  most of you need to check your sleeves.
You'll find your wearing your cause on it.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Too straight looking
Date: 01 Sep 92 03:03:51 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


(vanyel)
/And you'll have to do better to convince me that this isn't an attempt to
/control what people think.  I've seen nothing here to convince me that you
/aren't simply calling "prejudice" a dislike of mine with which you don't
/agree.


Amen.


If anderson had his way, you would have no personal preferences that
he disagreed with.  You would not be permitted to choose your associates,
your party friends, or your close companions based on anything except
his standards.  He even talks about "erasing the line" of distinction
and redrawing it where "it belongs".  What hubris.
From: bgonzal@math.rutgers.edu (Bil Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Mighty Real associations, was: musical finale
Date: 29 Aug 92 05:17:05 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1380@dosbears>, drp@dosbears.UUCP (David R. Preston) writes:
> In article <Aug.24.16.27.13.1992.14375@math.rutgers.edu> bgonzal@math.rutgers.edu (Bil Gonzalez) writes:
> >In article <l9icjmINN7lt@mizar.usc.edu>, adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
> >> > I dread what _The Mayor of Castro Street_ will do to his memory.]
> >> Who's playing Harvey Milk?  Michael Douglas?  <Shudder>
> >
> >The last thing I heard was that it would definitely be Robin Williams
> >- he's signed.  It will NOT be directed by Oliver Stone.
> 
> But it will be produced by Stone, right?

Yes, I think that is correct.  In an interview (that I wish I could
find) he said that after JFK, his directing the film would be too
controversial, but he's glad that his involvement has brought a lot of
attention to the film.  I also recall his insinuating that he has had
motss encounters in his past.
 
> >Rumors are
> >Penny Marshall or Jonathan Demme, neither of which would be my
> >immediate choice.
> 
> I thought they had decided on Gus van Sant, but were waiting for
> him to finish "Even Cowgirls get the Blues"?

I think that you may also be right on this account, although Stone
stated the above in the same interview.  I will search for it.


Bil Gonzalez
bgonzal@math.rutgers.edu
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: I'm ready for my closeup, Mr. Archiver
Date: 28 Aug 1992 00:36:21 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug28.031909.19416@menudo.uh.edu> 
elee74l@Rosie.UH.EDU writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.182800.1202@spdcc.com>, 
> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> >Two new head-shots of Arne Adolphson for the motss.pix archive:
> >arne_adolphson2.gif and arne_adolphson3.gif, to be found in the
> >usual place.
>
> What is the usual place?  

ursa-major.spdcc.com

/pub/motss.pix

A fan!

<Blush>

Arne


Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: jns@wam.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer)
Subject: Re: Public displays
Organization: Militant Homosexual Lobby, Gay Lifestyle, Inc.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:25:46 GMT


Jake Coughlin (jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com) 
curmudgeons:
 
> nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar):
> > Is this freedom?
> 
> well, it isn't kansas.

Oh no--the ugly specter of
kansas-threshing again.

Look, I was *born* in Kansas--I
*know* Kansas, and hon, you're 
no Toto.

--jns
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: coren@osf.org (Robert Coren)
Subject: Re: British spellings
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:03:49 GMT

In article <2aa4f041@ThreeL.co.uk>, jf@threel.co.uk (John Fisher) writes:
> On the other hand, Fowler(*) and the Oxford and Cambridge
> University Presses, for example, take the view that since
> this suffix always comes ultimately from "-izein" and is
> also pronounced with a /z/ sound, there's no reason spell
> them differently.  They therefore spell them *all* "-ize",
> with the following exceptions, which *don't* come from
> "-izein":
> 
>    advertise   advise  apprise  chastise   circumcise
>    comprise    compromise   demise   despise  devise
>    disfranchise  enfranchise  enterprise  excise  exercise
>    improvise  incise  premise  revise  supervise  surmise
>    surprise  televise

Not a single one of the above is ever spelled with a "z" in the US,
except by people who misspell them.

> Btw, Fowler recommends "connexion", "inflexion" etc,
> although most British people regard these as American
> spellings.  I use them, although 3L house style doesn't. 

Really? I don't think I've *ever* seen them ouside
late-19th-to-early-20th-century British writings.

Robert
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: buckmr@aix.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: move to canada, eh?
Distribution: soc
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:56:05 GMT

"paul bobbitt" <paul.bobbitt@canrem.com> writes:

>Just thought I'd mention that Canada's Human Rights Code was
>just declared unconstitutional by an Ontario Court of Appeals because
>it does not offer protection to people for reasons of sexual 
>orientation.  This means that they will probably rewrite the law to 
>allow for protection of homosexuals.  In fact, Ontario and three other provinces 
>already have legislation in place to protect Gays and Lesbians.
I was also wondering how this ruling will effect the new Constitution that
Canada is supposed to be getting soon. Is this Human Rights Code part of the
Constitution or is the constitution going to be re-written with explicit 
protections or what? I have heard that every time the Courts do something
Queer-positive the Government just stalls and stalls...

Also, is Quebec one of those provinces that has legislation protecting
Queers?

-- 
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
Barbara Bush: a chronologically gifted, differently interesting, domestic
incarceration surviving member of the mutant albino genetic-recessive global
minority.-- _QW_'s ``politically correct'' description of the First Lady.