HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:57:37 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <1992Aug17.194759.512@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:

>I'm sick of trickle down economics, S&L bailout, corporate tax breaks,
>Star Wars, "I've got mine", NIMBY, etc. We need to work to change 
>people's attitudes.

I'm sick of this stuff too, but I don't know about changing attitudes. I
don't think I have any more chance of changing Rick Eames' attitude
toward abortion than he has of changing mine. The same goes for the
Republicans that support Star Wars, conservative tax policy, trickle-down,
ad nauseum.

No, changing them is impossible. But allowing their warped world view to
affect my life and your life must not continue. A good start will be the
election of Bill Clinton. However, listen carefully to what the ultra-
conservatives say about this: "Yeah, sure, let's get Clinton elected;
then we can watch while the whole country goes down the tubes." See,
they actually want this to happen to further their agenda. They could
care less if dead and starving children are necessary to get people to buy
the conservative line.

These dinosaurs have had their 12 years and they've made a pretty big
mess. Of course, they're busy blaming the Congress (democrats) for
not implementing their policies. Maybe Congress told them to stuff it
because there was no sense of compromise.

I guess what I'm saying is this: The conservatives don't want to compromise,
and now the liberals aren't compromising either. So be it. No state budget,
again fine and dandy. But I will not pay for Star Wars, I will not let
the schools go belly up, I will not this, and I will not that.

The reign of terror has come to an end. If this means US civil war #2,
so be it.

								MPA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Oh, I love it, I love it, I love it!
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:59:40 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 <1992Aug13.003912.17901@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>>You are so far off the argument that I am not even remotely disturbed by your
>>twisted view. But please, get with the argument, comphrehension before
>>posting is, so, uh, civilized. Try it, you'll like it.

>You can say whatever you want, Phil, as long as you understand that your
>claiming that it's OK for you, gay-baiter, to call someone "faggot" and
>get away with claiming that it's OK because their friends do it, is not
>true. When it comes from you, it clearly isn't with a friendly intent.

So let me get this straigh.

A can say "XYZ" and it's OK because it is with friendly intent, but if
B says "XYZ" then he can be penalized because it is not with friendly
intent.  I'm kind of uncomfortable with this.  Rules are supposed to
be for everyone.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory,alt.individualism,sci.econ
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Why should Freedom of Association not apply to commerce?
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 06:21:00 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba

In article <1992Aug17.182125.6563@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >[deleted misc.legal from distribution]
    >
    >In article <xx6m1r+.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>In article <1992Aug13.195009.6774@clipper.ingr.com>
    >>ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >>>I am interested what kind of concept of "man" would allow the
    >>>philosophical isolation of the commercial and the personal
    >>>aspects of human life. If I had to guess, I would assume that
    >>>it would be some deterministic model. Rather than risk being
    >>>accused of setting up a net.strawman, I await the arrival of
    >>>the real foe...
    >>>
    >>Well, a real foe can not exist.
    >>
    >Try to appear objective, Phil, if just for the sake of your
    >own net.credibility.
    >
    >A real foe certainly can exist, because it is all a matter of...

Eh? Are we talking two different things? If a real foe CAN exist, then
we would have seen it by now, gievn the incredible variety of human
existence. Since we have not seen it, it is likely to not have
any possibility of coming into existence, any more than say, a brand
new human emotion.

What are you talking about (I assume we at an apples/oranges
point)?


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4679 alt.activism:15129 talk.politics.misc:40744
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Political Correctness (was Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective))
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:31:13 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug19.212852.26630@amhux2.amherst.edu> twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
    >In article <1992Aug15.221404.8652@oracle.us.oracle.com>
    >mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
    >>In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff
    >>Dauber) writes:
    >>>In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com>
    >>>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
    >>>
    >>>>2. As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among
    >>>>straight males is that the ugly ones are welcome to do
    >>>>whatever the heck they want, but the pretty ones are such a
    >>>>waste.
    >>>>
    >>>Sexist asshole.
    >>>
    >>I'm giving this a slightly wider dissemination because I
    >>think it's a beautiful example of poltical correctness.
    >>
    >What is "political correctness?"
    >
    >>Look at it. I state a fact that Dauber doesn't like. He
    >>responded with a personal attack. I said something that
    >>attacks his view of the world, therefore I am evil.
    >>
    >Did you not invoke personal attacks by saying that the only
    >purpose of a woman is to serve a man sexually? Where do you
    >get off spouting such idiocies, and then whining that people
    >don't like you?

You have a major comprehension problem. Find an English teacher
and read him/her the "2. As far ..." paragraph above and then ask them
if your last paragraph above is in any way accurate.

It ain't.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:39:22 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <3c0m03p.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> bigot
|>     one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and
|>     prejudices
|> 

My goodness Phool, you can't even use a dictionary objectively:

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
bigot n. A person who is intolerant, esp. in matters of religion, race or 
politics.

You, are, a bigot.  QED.

-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 01:00:25 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 <1992Aug14.232306.12149@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>Excuse me, but why is it homophobic to dislike gays?

>Homo' phobic : derived from Latin roots 'homo', meaning 'same', and
>		'phobos', meaning fear.

So should we call White racists who hate Blacks negrophobes?  Seems a
bit idiotic, no?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Re: Recall Gov. Pete Wilson
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 18:07:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: ca

ses@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Darlene Wiedman) writes:
>I just read an article in the San Jose Metro weekly.  Seems that this 
>delay in resolving the state budget crises may be a purposeful political
>effort on Wilson's part to gain support for Prop. 165

	There's an organization called Campaign for a Fair Share which is
organizing in opposition to Proposition 165.  I will send information about
this organization to anyone who is interested - I don't have it handy, so
please don't give up if you don't receive a response from me for a few 
days...

>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>+ Darlene Wiedman                  "If you're not part of the solution, +
>+ darlene@flash.ATC.Olivetti.COM      you're part of the problem."      +  
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  

-- 
=============================================================================
 John J. Ladasky II ("ii")				(ladasky@netcom.COM)

	"Great composers do not borrow - they steal."  - Igor Stravinsky

	(Actually, Picasso said it first, in reference to painting - but
		   Stravinsky has claimed it as his own! :^)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
	      Disclaimer : My employer?  Internet?  Yeah, right!
=============================================================================
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:57:07 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
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 <1992Aug17.191435.8632@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>>But you seem to view the world, and believe that other people see the
>>world, of human beings, as nothing but "fuck objects".

>Not true. Jeff Dauber was angry at the person who said this for precisely
>this reason. Remember ? They said this woman was a "waste", because she
>chose to cavort with women instead of men. 

Excuse me, but I did not say this.  A poster requested information on
straight men's attitudes towards lesbians and I informed him of the
dominant opinion.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:17:32 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
>>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
>>but the pretty ones are such a waste.
>
>Sexist asshole.


Why is this sexist or an "asshole" remark. It is a true remark to the best
of my knowledge.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Homophobics can't deal with the real world
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 22:10:36 GMT

In <1992Aug17.194759.512@ntmtv>, Patricia Jazanoski writes:

>>    40% of all schoolage children live in poverty.
>>                   (source: my latest Utne Reader)
                                        ~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah, Utne Reader.  Nothing like an unbiased source...

>>(A few lines deleted)

>>I'm sick of trickle down economics, S&L bailout, corporate tax breaks,
>>Star Wars, "I've got mine", NIMBY, etc. We need to work change
>>people's attitudes.

Getting ideological, are we?  I'm tired of those too, but I'm also tired of
having my tax money going to causes I disapprove of, welfare law which doesn't
encourage people to pick themselves up, and members of Congress whose power is
at their greatest when their constituents are at their most desperate.  That
sounds like a conflict of interest to me.

Come to think of it, I'm also sick of people twisting the Constitution and
starting all of these stupid and unconstitutional Federal giveaway programs.
By the time they take their share, there is little left to support the worthy
and efficient (read as "non-governmental") charities out there.

Most of all, I'm sick of self-righteous, guilt-ridden liberals who try to
*force* (yes, FORCE) other people to "change their attitudes."  Can you say
"mind control?"  Can you say "Orwellian?"

Get your other liberal buddies to pitch in to your favorite liberal charities.
In the meantime, I'll continue to donate to programs which encourage the
downtrodden to pick themselves up and become successful in society.  I will
support the "impoverished" school-age children (I would like to see an
unbiased source for that figure without any "spin" on it).  It's much cheaper
than the alternative--putting them on a welfare system which will continue to
pay them more for each child they have.  A welfare system which wouldn't let
a poor single mother save up a lousy $1000 to pay for college for her daughter.
Here was someone who is trying to *get out* of the system, but the system won't
let her.  Liberal programs rarely encourage personal growth and triumph over
current sad situations.

Your post was nothing but politicking.  Certainly you can't *love* everything
the Democrats stand for, do you?  Well, maybe you do.  You may have let them
force an "attitude change" on you.

Virtue is not virtuous when it isn't self-imposed, and I don't even HAVE a
backyard to keep you out of.  And I don't want the government to give me one.
I want to earn it, thank you.

>>Patti Jazanoski

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Taking Our Own Outing Initiatives: One Lesbian Perspective
Date: 15 Aug 92 05:50:06 GMT
	<zd5mm#+.phil@netcom.com> <1992Aug13.175337.28339@novell.com>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: cast@novell.com's message of 13 Aug 92 17:53:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.175337.28339@novell.com>, cast@novell.com (Neal Castagnoli) writes:

> Do you or don't you support the right of a parent to have
> sexual intercourse with their 8 year old child?  If you don't,
> then don't you believe in society's (police force or whatever)
> right to be coercive?

Well, Phil has taken his shot with this question, and 
I'm not satisfied with his response so I'll take a stab
at it myself.

The philosophical prohibition is not of all coercive acts,
rather it is against the initiation of coercion.  We are
permitted to defend ourselves, and the police, as agents of
the people, are permitted to take action against those that
initiate coercion.  The act of an adult to induce a child to
engage in some sort of sexual act is itself inherently
coercive because of the child's inability to understand the
nature of the act and the inability to protect his or her
self from the necessarily predatory nature of the act of the
adult.  By this reasoning, the state, representing the
people, has the authority to step in and protect the child
from such abuse, just as they would if the child were being
beaten or, in fact, if it were another adult being
assaulted.

Because of the asymmetry in power and understanding between
an adult and a child, some acts that would be and must be
permitted between consenting adults can still be treated as
coercive when an adult acts to engage in them with a child.
The child cannot be seen to have given informed consent for
such an act, therefore the people are justified in (re)acting 
to protect the child from the coercive act of the adult.

Does that answer the question for you?
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: query
Keywords: them weirdoz
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:39:47 GMT

In article <-6_nst-.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Roger, I must respectfully defer to your judgement on this one. Because  if
>anything, there is no more qualified expert on stupidity than you.
>
>Sorry you missed the humor (like most other things).

This is humor only if you consider "I know you are, but what am I?" humor.



FWA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:55:04 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 <op6ekrk@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.043017.18622@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>>>Excuse me, but why is it homophobic to dislike gays?

>>>You are homophobic if you decide that
>>>you do not like homosexuals as a group.

>>Maybe I'm not making myself clear.  Why the suffix 'phobic'?

>Oh god, not this stupid etymological argument again.  Just because the
>word "homophobic" has the suffix "phobic" does not imply a "fear".  
>We have this discussion a lot.

Not with me, you haven't.

"Homophobe" is a great example of Orwellian newspeak.  The word was
coined, and coined recently.  Why was that word chosen rather than
something like "orientist"?  Well, the "phobe" part sends a desired message.

>>PC rides again.  I state an unpleasant fact that Jeff doesn't like
>>(does anyone out there want to claim I'm wrong?  Jeff hasn't even
>>tried that.) and Jeff responds with a personal attack.

>PC-Bashing rides again.  You state and unpleasant opinion.  Not a supported
>position, but just a position which you feel is true.  Have any support 
>for your "fact"?  If not, it is not one.

Are you denying that the majority of straight men don't care about
ugly lesbians but think the pretty ones are a waste?  

If so, you don't hang out with many blue-collar types.

What does a real man do if he finds out his wife is having a lesbain
affair?
He asks if he can watch.

Never heard that one?  It's part of the culture.  I was talking with
the guy who owns the Choicemart where I buy my newspaper this morning.
He showed me the Herald which had a photo of two women necking at the
Republican Convention.  "That one's a dog, but she [the other one] is
pretty.  Too bad she's a dyke."  That's what he said.  I didn't even
suggest he look at the article.  He showed it to me.

>I responded with an attack and an explanation of why your statement was
>obnoxious.  In a classic "anti-pc" manner, you attack my words, not the
>content of what I said.

What you said was that I was a sexist asshole and that the opinion
described was obnoxious.  You never argued with my assertion - that
like it or not, it is the opinion held by the majority of American
males.




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: cast@novell.com (Neal Castagnoli)
Subject: Re: Taking Our Own Outing Initiatives: One Lesbian Perspective
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:41:34 GMT

In article <5y4m_ck.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>
>The titillating parts were the commentaries on the sexual practices of
>various tribes. Two in particular stick out -- the Apache practice of anal
>rape on the (defeated) enemy (now I know why the troopers always saved
>a bullet for themselves :-) ), and the truly wondrous practice of the
>Digger tribe of practicing anal intercourse with 8-9 year old girls of
>the tribe because "the vaginas were not yet big enough".
>
 ...
>
>Of course, in the "culture" (such that it is) of the Indian tribes, the
>practices were no doubt, considered normal and all the thing to do. After
>all, to paraphrase Clayton, I'm sure that such things were considered
>proper for that culture.
>
>Now I can suppose that if I were dropped via a time machine into
>that tribe as an infant, I would be raised accepting such "values" and
>practice them with the appropriate glee and/or reverence (or whatever).

So are these societal values then?

If they are, do you support the right of parents of children to engage 
in Digger tribe activity or not?

If you don't, then don't you support the right of society to impose itself
were it doesn't belong (i.e. you support society's right to be coercive)?

If you do, then don't you support the right to molest children?
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4695 ca.politics:6971 alt.activism:15159 talk.politics.misc:40872