HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Subject: Re: I HATE PERSONALS ( Was: Re: I HATE GAY MEN.)
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:18:55 GMT

jf@threel.co.uk (John Fisher) wrote: 
->
->4. American guys are blond and have perfect gym-crafted
->   bodies and beautiful teeth.  Their cocks are large
->   and circumcised.  They are as thick as shit, but talk
->   endlessly about nothing.  They are brilliant cock-
->   suckers but in other respects sexually and emotionally
->   uninteresting.

send some over ... as long as they can follow directions.

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Sarcasm
Summary: clarification
Date: 19 Aug 92 09:06:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Aug19.090631.11483
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

Well I've already blown it once this week, so I better make sure..

I was not serious when I called Steve a "fucking bigot". It was an
attempt at sarcasm, poking fun at various other threads going on on
motss right now.

I really can't get this bitchy queen thing right. How do I learn how
to do it? Do I want to learn how to do it?
-- 
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/   Delicious & Nutritious breakfast cereals shot from guns!
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: csb@world.std.com (Charles S Bedard)
Subject: Re: sexual attraction and paraphilias
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:07:33 GMT



I would agree that attraction is not rational but I disagree about
imutable (sp?).  The men I am attracted to at 37 are not the same
men I was attracted to at 20.

Charles
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Disproving homophobia
Date: 19 Aug 1992 00:19:09 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <-+!npta.jfh@netcom.com> 
jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:

Jack:
> >> >What's the equivalent proof that someone isn't homophobic?

Tim:
> >> What's the "proof" that someone is?

Arne, alluding to an earlier posting of Jack's:
> >If he refuses to kiss me on the mouth in a social setting.

Jack:
> I'll make an exception if I plan to go to bed with someone later.  But then
> it's not really social, I guess. 

Promise you won't keep me guessing.

Arne
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Too straight looking to be gay??? (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Date: 15 Aug 92 19:10:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Aug15.191024.12622
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <l8ohfjINN595@mizar.usc.edu> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:

>bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes, in one of 
>the most homophobic articles I've ever seen on soc.motss:

actually, I just thought it was one of the more pathetic articles I've
ever seen on soc.motss.

pa-thet-ic \pe-'thet-ik\ adj
1: having a capacity to move one to either compassionate
     or contemptuous pity
-- 
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                   There is absolutely no other possibility
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Rob Bernardo
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 06:24:25 GMT

I wish I'd never checked in to see what articles I've missed. It's
not fair. He was a nice guy, and I really liked him a lot from afar.

I want to have a good anecdote or 'remember when...' to talk about
to show how much I liked him, but it's kind of upsetting for me to
say that I can't. He's one of the people that are in the soc.motss
conglomerate; people that I know and love, though I can't give
specific reasons why. I guess there are a lot of people like that
around here; people whose contributions and friendships I value
greatly, but who I don't talk with much.

The Con brought a lot of things home for me; it showed me exactly
how much I cared for everyone and how much I really valued motss
as a home. And now someone whose name I always directly associate
with my home is gone. I don't want it to happen again, and I'd take
this opportunity to tell you all that I love you and... and that I
really, really love you, but to do so would be anticipating that
this is going to happen again, and that's something I'm just not
willing to do.

John, upset and not knowing how to deal with this, and hoping every-
one will still be around when he gets back. Please stay, everyone...

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

		I always thought of you as my brick wall
		   Built like an angel, six feet tall.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Lovegod)
Subject: Re: He calls this an introduction?!
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:19:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.042153.28616@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)  
writes:
} The same person who two days ago proposed that we all get to know each
} other a little better, friendly like, said:
} 
} >Arne, all I can say is that I hope you are not as miserable as you
} >seem to be.  No one deserves that much misery -- then again I have no
} >idea what you've done in your life.
} 
} "Lovegod", contempt is not a good starting point to make friends.

Maybe I would agree if that was my starting place.

Nelson, I think you've misconstrued my whole point.  I wasn't saying that I  
personally was being discriminated against in any way.

It's funny to note that I've gotten more response by not being as loving and  
gentile as you may think someone who calls himself "Lovegod" should be.  That's  
too tough.  I'm not going to love anyone to the point where they think they can  
just say any old thing to me and I'm not going to occasionally be a bitch in  
return.  It doesn't happen often, but when it does, I make it count.

Donald
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Gay Homophobia & Allan Williams
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 13:02:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.025800.15115@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Boob Sarver) writes:
>I am not a model for anyone.  

Read it, friends, and believe.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Subject: Re: Soi-disant thangs (was Re: New queer terminology)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:13:53 GMT
Organization: (getting there)

emcmanus@gr.osf.org (Eamonn McManus) writes:
 >Indeed, I think "pretendu" is better than "soi-disant" unless you have
 >a talking penis.

It seems to me that we had this discussion a year or so ago,
n'est-ce pas?

 >(At least I managed to get through the entire post without mentioning
 >that "virile" should be "viril".)
Too bad, because now I'll feel compelled to mention it myself.

-- 

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

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: spencer@stroke.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: assumed "oh" experience
Reply-To: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Live Organ Transplants
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:49:18 GMT

I haven't really outed to anyone yet (Hello to anyone I know that's
readnig this -- I guess I'm going for maximum exposure with miminal
effort, eh?  No place like USENET), so the friend in question of course
had no idea.

I saw the "oh" thread and thought he'd find it pretty funny (I think most
people would, regardless of orientation) so I mailed him about it and
said "Hey, I think you'll find the thread starting with article X to be
pretty hilarious" -- I personally have burst out laughing, after making
sure I wouldn't be disturbing anyone -- and he mailed me back saying
"soc.motss?  Not really my kind of newsgroup, Spence."

That was the only line of his e-mail, but I can just hear the "oh" about
2 seconds after hitting "Send."

Wow, I guess I'm officially de-muffined too (I think that took one month
exactly)

I guess I just killed three birds with one stone...

BTW, would the "ah-hah" experience be the reaction of someone who does
know me after reading the parenthetical remark in the first paragraph?

----------- The opinions expressed in this article are solely mine. -----------
<Insert lame attempt at disclaimer humor>
sss/PU'94 Dept of CS (spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu)/JvNCnet (spencer@jvnc.net)
Please be considerate, and don't talk during the show!  (SSSSSSHHH!)
Thank you for coming to Loews!  Sit back and relax -- enjoy the show!
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Redefining masculinity
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:36:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Aug14.233636.24357
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Aug14.172347.3647@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>This thread (and all the related threads) have been an exercise in
>feminine gays trying to redefine "masculine".  The idea is to stretch the
>definition wide enough to (somehow) include them as well.

>In the process, of course, they have to slam and tear the normal-acting, 
>masculine gays who need no such redefinition.  In order to create a new
>definition of "masculine", it is first necessary to destroy the old one,
>since the fem. gays can't live up to it.  

ARGH.

argh, argh, argh.

You didn't understand what I was saying, did you? I'd try to explain
again, but I'm really just too tired and I'm leaving in 2 hours to go
see some very nice books by Crispin Glover and then go to fag-land.

Understand that I have no jealousy of "normal-acting masculine gays".
-- 
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/     You can't have the revolution without good typesetting
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Redefining masculinity
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:44:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Aug18.004412.26144
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Aug17.181137.2755@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
(icky faggots don't get anywhere)

>Got news for you bud:  if we don't get at least some respect, the 
>rights will never come.  That's why it all boils down to what you
>want:  what is the most effective way to get from Point A to Point B?

You are right, of course - we have to pander to the conservative
family values set out there, because many of them hold the power. This
is not news. We've been trying for years.

But I only want to get to Point B if Point B is a useful place to be.
And the way you are arguing, it's not really that good for me.

I don't want "gay rights" if "gay rights" means that I have to act
straight. I'm *not* straight. I can't pass for straight. I don't want
to pass for straight.

In marginalizing our own people -- the drag queens, the "fem gays"
(meaningless term alert), the leather dykes, the gay people who want
to kiss in public -- we lose sight of what we are really fighting for.

We shouldn't have to comprise ourselves to get our rights. It's a
harder fight, fighting for what you truly believe, but it is the right
thing to fight for.


>As I said, this application doesn't permit attribution.  

[insert generic snide comment about Microsoft software]

>Other than to manually clip it in, that is.

well, that would certainly be a help for us. I can't even tell WHO you
are responding to - your "application" doesn't maintain the References:
header correctly, either.

As it is, it'd be easier if we just read After the Ball instead of
trying to follow your postings.
-- 
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                              Support modern family values!
From: asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Gay Homophobia (was Re: Too straight looking to be gay???) (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:27:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.asuccop.714349673
Organization: University of Washington

shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:

>  I'd say that self-hating homos
>who would sell out other gay and lesbian people at the
>drop of a dime is a pretty negative stereotype, wouldn't
>you? 

	well said, melinda.

	bob, could u explain for us again what's so terrible about being
	a woman?  i just can't seem to understand these posts about there
	being no difference b/w 'you [nelly fags] and a woman' or
	how you'd 'almost rather have a *real* woman', etc.

>-- 
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

	annemarie, who would rather have a femmy man *or* woman,
		   & likes butches as friends :)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: chloupek@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Redefining masculinity
Date: 18 Aug 92 10:35:56 EDT

In article <1992Aug14.172347.3647@microsoft.com>, bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
> / I have heard more biased statements from "masculine" men directed toward
> / those they perceive as effeminate or "queeny", then I have heard going the
> / other way.
> 
> 
> Oh, really? Look at what is going on in this thread on Usenet.
> 
> This thread (and all the related threads) have been an exercise in
> feminine gays trying to redefine "masculine".  The idea is to stretch the
> definition wide enough to (somehow) include them as well.
> 
> In the process, of course, they have to slam and tear the normal-acting, 
> masculine gays who need no such redefinition.  In order to create a new
> definition of "masculine", it is first necessary to destroy the old one,
> since the fem. gays can't live up to it.   
 
This is where you're wrong.  It is the "masc. gays" as you call them who have
to define themselves as masculine to avoid being lumped in with those horrible
"fem. gays".  After all it is *they* who are defining someone as *feminine* and
themselves as *masculine* by their comments. 

> /Any bias in the gay community seems to be in favor of the masculine 
> /stereotype.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> You say that more complaints are directed against queens, than the other
> way around.  I am afraid I fail to see what is wrong with this.  

You agree with me here, and disagree with me above, so I have no idea what your
belief is.  If you fail to see what is wrong with biased compaints of *any*
sort, you have serious problems.


 
> The ultimate question is:  what do you want to accomplish?  Do you want
> your short little hour on stage to strut like a drag queen, or do you want 
> to make progress towards gay acceptance?
> 
> People have a right to act however they want; I would not support any 
> measure (private or public) to restrict this.  However, the right to act how 
> you please doesn't carry with it an guarantee that you will be respected 
> for how you act.

But, if you are working for acceptance of your lifestyle, which you say is your
goal, aren't your arguments undercut when you espouse the same bigotry and hate
that *your* accusers do?  Just because a person's lifestyle/behavior is not
included in your definition of *normal*, that does not give you the right to
espouse hatred.  

Frank

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

Frank R. Chloupek 
CHLOUPEK@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu 
Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University
(Not just a Ohio State University) 

"Einstein on the Beach            |        Army of Lovers
 Science out of reach             |
 Atoms sing along                 |      "The Particle Song"
 To Einstein on the beach"        |

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: buckmr@vccsouth29.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:18:01 GMT

rizzoe@FASECON.ECON.NYU.EDU (Emily Rizzo) writes:

>In article <1992Aug20.183050.11740@lclark.edu> klotz@lclark.edu (Gretchen Klotz) writes:

>>And for Oregon?  I don't have it, and there have been several postings and
>>e-mail messages asking about my "OR:9 Supporter Sighting" thread.  (Sorry
>>for not being more clear in my post; it's been such a common topic on the
>>net and in conversation that I forget that there are people who don't know
>>anything about it.)  Nelson, Michael, anyone else?  Thanks!

ooops, sorry for the confusion folks. In the /pub/QRD/qrd/rights directory
on the QRD at nifty.andrew.cmu.edu there is a file containing the text of 
a pamphlet put out by the anti-CFV forces on Colrado [Equal Protections for
Colorado, or something like that... ]. The file is called CO-20questions.
Question 5 looks like...

5.      What does the proposed Colorado for Family Values amendment say?

It would amend Article 2 of the Colorado Constitution by the addition
of Section 30, which states: NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON
HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION. Neither the State of
Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its
agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation,
ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual
orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or
otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons
to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected
status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution
shall be in all respects self-executing.

Put simply, this amendment says that no town or other governmental
subdivision will ever be allowed to vote on the matter of
non-discrimination for gay and lesbian people. And if anybody voted on
it in the past, such vote is cancelled, voided, over-turned.
Nothing this negative against basic civil rights (jobs, housing,
public accommodations) has ever been tried in the United States.

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735.  ``D.C., April 25 1993''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
"We are gay, we are black. We are often asked to choose between one or the 
other and we cannot. We need to find the strength to be both."-Pomo Afro Homos
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Peter Pan (was Re: "Smut")
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:23:34 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug20.195317.8023@cis.ohio-state.edu> 
amz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Arnold M Zwicky) writes:
> [the words to "Smut" by tom lehrer  
[...]
> When correctly viewed,
> Ev'rything is lewd.
> <I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
> And the Wizard of Oz, *there's* a dirty old man!>

I don't know about the Wizard of Oz, but let's listen
in on Peter Pan's explanation to Wendy of how he came 
to be who he was:

   "It was because I heard father and mother," he 
   explained in a low voice, "talking about what I was
   to be when I became a man."  He was extraordinarily
   agitated now.

Yes, those conversations always made my skin crawl.

                  "I don't want ever to be a man," he
    said with passion.  "I want always to be a little boy
    and to have fun.  So I ran away to Kensington Gardens
    and lived a long time among the fairies."

Oh Roger!

    She gave him a look of the most intense admiration, and
    he thought it was because he had run away, but it was
    really because he knew fairies.  Wendy had lived such a
    home life that to know fairies struck her as quite
    delightful.

And so it is.  I wonder just how much Peter told her about
his escapades with the fairies in Kensington Gardens (Barrie
is slightly opaque here).

Arne
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Gay Homophobia (was Re: Too straight looking to be gay???) (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Date: 23 Aug 92 03:02:01 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



In article <1992Aug22.005224.24183@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>But Sargon the Butch is
>*quite* a lot dumber than your average pig.

But I'm still ahead of you, Anderson.  

By a mile.  

At least.

(shore)
/Well, he's dumber than a piece of rope, too, but allow 
/me to point out that pigs are slothful, greedy, and
/cannibalistic.  I can live with the analogy.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu


Well, so *there* you are.  Getting too cold under that rock, Melinda?

You're not worth the effort.

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: hsu@sp24.csrd.uiuc.edu (William Tsun-Yuk Hsu)
Subject: Re: New queer terminology (was Re: The media, again)
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 20:14:08 GMT

nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:

>But "Queer" is most definitely *not* "Gay". It's not just a different
>word for the concept, it's a new consciousness.

[Lots of good debate deleted]

I think we're running into the old problem: what I mean by "queer/gay"
is not what you mean by "queer/gay", so when somebody says "gay is blah 
blah" there'll be a lot of protests: "I'm gay, that's not me" etc.

While I've done my share of rabble-rousing, I see a lot of rhetoric
on this gay/queer thing that's perhaps unnecessarily divisive. (But
that's generally what happens with non-consensual label-sticking :-))

There are many flavors of "queer" too, some downright heterophobic.
Like some of Johnny Noxcema's pieces (one of his letters to the
Advocate goes on and on about "gay" vs. "queer"). 

So what do we mean and what do we call it? And who cares *that* much
anyway? :-)

Bill
From: asente@adobe.com (A Usenet Pal)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: What *IS* "Heaven", anyway?
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:58:35 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <63835@cup.portal.com> Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison) writes:
>
>A friend of mine in college told me that he feels that "heaven"
>is a place where you catch up on all the sin you missed on Earth.

No, heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

      -paul asente
	   asente@adobe.com   ...decwrl!adobe!asente   moo-bear@cs.stanford.edu

The next morning she was wakened in a novel fashion by Lady Celia in time
for elevenses.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: betsyp@apollo.hp.com (Betsy Perry)
Subject: Re: st. cole porter
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:24:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug6.123954.4761@cis.ohio-state.edu> amz@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (Arnold M Zwicky) writes:
>just in case you don't already know (about) these recordings,
>let me recommend ella fitzgerald's _the cole porter songbook_
>and (even better, i think) _the rodgers and hart songbook_.
>delicious stuff.  (hmm...i think i'll jettison _morning edition_
>and go back to ella...)

Thttttthpppp!  Ella (or her arranger) censored Porter something
fierce.  In "Too Darn Hot", "According to the Kinsey report/Every
average man you know" becomes "...the latest report", and "Prefers to
play his favorite sport/When the temperature is low" becomes "Prefers
his lovey-dovey to court".  (Why she can sing "Love For Sale" but not
mention Kinsey I leave to historians of the period.)   Furthermore,
she sings "I'm always true to you, DARling in my fashion", thus 
obliterating a neat internal rhyme and syncopation.

For Rodgers and Hart, I highly recommend Frederica von Stade's *My
Funny Valentine*; von Stade sings the songs absolutely straight,
to the original orchestrations, no operatic mannerisms. (Thanks to Jon
Conrad for turning me on to this one.)

Ella's *Songbook* may be great Ella, but it's so-so Porter.
                                                   
Hopelessly unjazzy,
-- 
Betsy Hanes Perry   (note P in userid)     betsyp@apollo.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Company
"It seems to us that the readers who want fiction to be like life are
considerably outnumbered by those who would like life to be like fiction."
Newsgroups: soc.motss