HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brent@syacus.acus.oz.au (Brent Davies)
Subject: Re: bear hunting
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:53:08 GMT

anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>In article <71087@apple.Apple.COM> richard@Apple.COM (a
>flying squirrel) writes:

>]George Dalton Madison:

>]>Only if you like being pounded and shredded into something
>]>that vaguely resembles strawberry jam.

>]Yummy!  Then it wouldn't be just my legs that are spreadable.  A toast
>]to George for preserving my ability to get myself into jams!  Hey, does
>]this make me a jelly queen?  Where are bears in the pectin order on motss?

>Under the parafin, most likely.

Preserve us--more jarring puns?  But I suppose I must *put up* with it, 
mason I, since I'm told I'm as wide-mouthed as anyone.  Berry true, that.

--Brent
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson)
Subject: Re: wearing symbols
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:40:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.172510.15048@cis.ohio-state.edu>, amz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Arnold M Zwicky) writes:
|> we all understand that our family symbols - pink triangles, lambdas,
|> rainbow flags - are effective in signaling to family and friends, but
|> often fail to communicate anything whatsoever to the rest of the
|> world, which tends to be incurious to start with and ignorant of what
|> these symbols mean anyway.  if your intention is to be a visible queer
|> for all the world, you're going to have be less subtle.  
|>

But if your intention is consiousness raising, wearing the symbols can be
a good thing.  I wear my Integrity pin (really classy looking enamel pin, 
about the size of a quarter, combines a pink triangle with a lambda and 
the episcopal church symbol) every day and get a lot of questions about
it, because it looks fairly innocuous.  I was suprised at the number of 
people who have asked about it, and a lot of the responses have been 
positive.  'only a few "oh's" or people who seemed offended.  
-- 



*************************************************      
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov)*       O .
*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
*Hampton, VA 23665-5225                         *             \\\  \\
*************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: richard@Apple.COM (a flying squirrel)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Masculine and Feminine, round 4.
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:09:16 GMT
Organization: Xiola Blue

Michael S. Pettersen:

>When I was little, I used to imagine "masculine" and "feminine" as a 
>circle, rather as the Libertarians pretend to do for right-wing and 
>left-wing, and think that the most masculine men would love men.  This 
>might be the sort of thing that Arnold referred to as hypermasculinity.  
>If I were constructing this image now, I might pick a helix, as they 
>sometimes do to depict musical pitch.  Those baritones down at the E below 
>middle C have so much in common with the altos up near the E above that 
>we even give them the same pitch name, but the octaves are quite distinct.

This gave me a great idea for a personals ad: "GWM, 33, wishes to form
communal household for atonal orgies.  Goal is to meet people on the 
sexuo-musical helix such that resulting orgasm sounds a C#m9b5".

Seriously: using octaves (and I would add overtones) as an analogy for
masculine/feminine is quite a fascinating idea.  Different hearts beat
on different strings...
-- 
a flying squirrel is: richard@apple.com  Apple Computer Inc.

i'm your girl            friend
i'm your squirrel        friend
i'm your round the world friend
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Subject: Re: Quilt
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:24:04 GMT
Organization: (getting there)

Sim asked:
   >> >Has there been any discussion of a soc.motss.quilt?
I said:
  >>Not that I've seen.  
jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu (Jeffrey C. Burka) writes:
 >Whatever happened to Jeff Shaevel and Kevin Vail's electronic quilt, which
 >I believe they proposed (and set up?) after Randi Pollard's death?

Ah.  I couldn't remember who it was that had suggested this.  I'll 
ask them, in case they don't see the postings.

But I had in mind a panel in fabric.

-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Freedom (was Re: Gay Homophobia)
Date: 22 Aug 92 00:47:21 GMT
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison


I excuse myself in advance, because I almost never do this.
But this article really merits it, I think.

In article <1992Aug21.204530.27807@watson.ibm.com>
jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:

What I see as the best answer yet to the Sargon Bigot
daemon.  He addresses the one group that is vulnerable to the
Sargon-style illness -- those stuck behind the closet door.
I won't quote the whole piece, though I want to, but rather
urge you to read it and take it to heart.

And my deepest gratitude to you, dear Jake.

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: JDOYLE@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (JAMES R DOYLE)
Subject: Where is the gay BBS list kept ?
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:17:43 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

	I am looking to find a copy of the Gay/Lesbian BBS listing for
the US and Canada. Where can you get the latest and greatest version by
FTP?

Thanks,

.... J.D.
From: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Subject: Re: Redefining masculinity
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:04:54 GMT

bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) wrote: 
->
->Actually, it matters quite a lot.  The dozen or so straight people who
->know I'm gay were surprised and quite hard to convince.  The uniform
->remarks I heard were:
->
->1.  "But you don't ACT gay."
->2.  "Are you sure?"
->3.  "If more gays acted like normal people, I don't think that society
->     would have such a problem with it".
->4.  "How come [feminine gay name] has to act like that?"

you make it sound like these are acceptable behaviors ... reasonable
questions for these people to have.  they're not.  

(i have to laugh .. "the dozen or so straight people who know I'm gay"
... overlooks the bazillion who figured you out and don't feel
compelled to say things so stupid)

->/	And respect has nothing to do with rights anyway.  
->
->Say what?

which part did you miss.  i understood this the first time.  

->/ I don't give a flying frog's ass if George Bush respects me.  
->
->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?

it sounds like your answer to this question is to kiss ass and create
a false image of gay and lesbian people.  sounds like a bad idea to
me.

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Barbara Bush is a piece of shit.
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:44:06 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <os4iieg@fido.asd.sgi.com> pauli@sgi.com (Paul Isaacs) writes:
>Barbara Bush sucks.  It was finalized for me last night.  No more
>making excuses for her.  She may have a grandmother face, but she
>stinks like the rest of 'em.

I'm afraid I have to agree with this one.  Barbara Bush is NOT behaving
in a manner suitable for an Ashley Hall Girl.  I initially voted for
George because of Barbara (hangs head in shame), and so I'm even more
disappointed in her.

El
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: August 23
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:14:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: macc.1992Aug23.141427.13378
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison


In article <23AUG92.03283985@enh.nist.gov> aberson@enh.nist.gov writes:

>It's 3:30 am Eastern time.  I'm sitting alone in a hot cramped office at
>the National Hurricane Center trying to get out my last forecast 
>before going home.  Not a post has come in during the last two hours
>to keep me company.  Where are all of you?  Sleeping (or should
>that be sleeping with..., hopefully), I guess.

I was up an hour later, starting the posting/letter-writing
day.  But this didn't arrive here very quickly.  Hope you and
all of yours make it through the storm safe and sound.  It
surely doesn't look good.  Get back to us as soon as you can
after, so we know you're OK.

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Redefining masculinity
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:23:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


/ 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.  



/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.  

Perhaps is because those individuals who propagate stereotypes make it
hard for the group as a whole to be accepted.  Of course, as soon as someone
says something like that, a thousand screaming voices go up "I should be
accepted for what I am, regardless of how I act".  People may believe
that, but life doesn't work that way.  Gay pride parades featuring faggots 
from hell wearing nothing but g-strings are pretty terrifying to the average
person. 

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.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: AS.ALH@forsythe.stanford.edu (andrew harker)
Subject: Re: queer brains?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:34:27 GMT

In article <l8mgv7INNe0q@nunki.usc.edu>,
silverma@nunki.usc.edu (David Silverman) writes:
>The way I see it, there is no proof that homosexuality is biological. There
>is way to prove which came first, the sexual orientation or the brain
>structure, from only one examination of each body. I don't think we know
>enough about the brain to say that it can't be changed by a persons actions.


Not to pick nits or anything, but for the edification of our
reading audience, could you let us know what education or training
has helped you make this observation?  I'm always interested in
the credentials someone has when making an "expert opinion."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
andrew harker                       "I've learned my lesson;
financial analyst                    I'm a better person.
government rate analysis             I'm filled up with high hopes
stanford university                  And fed up with soft souls.
(415) 723-8072                       Long in the tooth,
ANDREW.HARKER@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU  And short on wisdom ...
                                               - Trashcan Sinatras
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: robertl@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lodenkamper)
Subject: Re: New queer terminology (was Re: The media, again)
Organization: Stanford University
	<Bt3KHt.3sC@sti.com> <1992Aug16.225820.13089@reed.edu>
Date: 16 Aug 92 22:14:25

In article <1992Aug16.225820.13089@reed.edu> 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.

   Let's do a portrayal of extremes:

   To me, "Gay" means an apolitical white man in his middle thirties
   with a clone moustache. He wears nice jeans (with the crotch worn
   by sandpaper), goes to the bars to hang out with his friends and
   has exquisite taste in furniture.

   To me, "Queer" means a young androgynous person of any race in his
   or her early 20s. He wears slightly beaten jeans, bright white
   t-shirts that say "I'm a faggot", and a black leather jacket with
   black on orange stickers in Antique Olive Bold. She wears black
   denim pants, a dark loose shirt, and a black leather jacket with
   black on orange stickers in Antique Olive Bold. He or she goes to
   protests to hang out with his or her friends, doesn't own furniture
   but has great taste in music.

   That's the extreme personal stereotypes. 

And the prejudice, and the bias, and the narrow-mindedness.

   On to the real reasons why "queer" is different from "gay".

After such an auspicious start, I can hardly wait.

   gay is apolitical
   queer is radical

The drag queens at Stonewall were apolitical?  

   gay is exclusive to homosexual men
   queer is inclusive of women and gender/sex minorities

Oh really?  Nice to have that debate settled once and for all.

   gay is from a different era, the time of civil rights, Vietnam, women's
     lib, gay lib.
   queer is new, challenging. The time of AIDS, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms

So present day gay people are dinosaurs.  How nice of you to tell us
this. 

   gay is a lifestyle
   queer is a philosophy - we have our own literature, our own literary
     analysis, our own political understanding.

Fuck that noise.  "Lifestyle" indeed.  Nelson, you aren't some bible
thumping oxygen thief.  YOU KNOW BETTER!

So.  Idiocy in couplets.  They don't even rhyme.

You could have summarized - "Gay is everything I don't like about the
community, neatly written off as a bunch of apolitical old trolls who
hang out in bars" and "Queer is everything I like about myself and my
hip young friends."

Truly a disgusting set of self-serving redefinitions.

   I agree that "queer" is a fashion, but it's a fashion that reflects a
   new time.

Spare us.

   Is "queer" postmodern?

I could not possibly care less.  Your version of queer sounds like
nothing more interesting than callow young arrogance.

- Bob
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: foster@convex.com (Harry Foster)
Subject: Does History Repeat Itself?
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:38:53 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


Here's an interesting thought from the book: "The Destruction of the
European Jews" by Raul Hilber:

	The Nazi destruction process did not come out of a void; it
	was the culmination of a cyclic trend.  We have observed the trend
	in the three successive goals of anti-Jewish administrators.  The
	missionaries of Christianity had said in effect: you have no right 
	to live among us as Jews.  The secular rulers who followed had 
	proclaimed: you have no right to live among us.  The German Nazis 
	at last decreed: you have no right to live.

	These progressively more dramatic goals brought in their wakes a slow
	and steady growth of anti-Jewish action and anti-Jewish thinking.  The
	process began with the attempt to drive the Jews into Christianity.
	The development was continued in order to force the victims into
	exile.  It was finished when the Jews were driven to their deaths.
	The German Nazis, then, did not discard the past; they built upon it.
	They did not begin a development; they completed it.

Looking at this from a different angle:

(1) You have no right to live among us as gays:

	America is a Christian republic, not a democracy.
		-Howard Philips (1992 address to the National Affairs Briefing)

	There is a religious war occurring in this nation.
		-Pat Buchanan

(2) You have no right to live among us:

	Mr. Mabon [director of the conservative group sponsoring
        Oregon's Ballot Measures 9 initiative] said the measure was not
        to have a witch hunt but rather "To simply state that it is
        the government's position that homosexuality is abnormal
        and wrong."  He acknowledge that the measure would discriminate
        against gays, giving landlords the right to evict gay tenants,
        or employers the right to dismiss gays.
                -New York News Service article "Anti-gay measure on
                 ballot in Oregan"

(3) You have no right to live:

        Oh, but we're to progressive to let something like that happen again!
	Aren't we?

-Harry Foster (foster@convex.com)
From: Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Jeans
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 22:50:01 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug21.151439.19989@panix.com> <8-+n83p.jfh@netcom.com>

Jack Hamilton writes:
>I've never gotten the impression that George might embarrass easily.

Well, it can be done.... but one has to know where to look.

I will note that those I call "friends" do so only on
extraordinary occasions; this is not something one does lightly
to this particular Bear.
 
() If you cannot comfortably deal with someone of the same
() sex making a pass at you, get out.
()      -- "Queers Read This"
-----
[> George D. Madison | NBCS: B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv | Just say NO to razors! <]
[> It's a BEAR thing -- you wouldn't understand. <|> furr@cup.portal.com <]
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Subject: Re: august
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:01:22 GMT
Organization: (getting there)

In article <19AUG92.19323452@enh.nist.gov> aberson@enh.nist.gov asks,
after a lot for which I wish I had some adequate response:
 >Has there been any discussion of a soc.motss.quilt?


Not that I've seen.  I have, however, wondered whether we, as a
group, would like to make a panel for the Quilt in memory of the
members of our electronic family.

This need not affect anyone's plans to make any particular panels.

Reaction?
-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.
From: aberson@enh.nist.gov
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: RE: UNGAY GAY
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:00:03 GMT
Organization: NIST

In a previous article, pst@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Peter Stephen Thomas Iii) wrote:
>Hmmm, nice idea, but let's try for more accuracy!  Instead of averaging out,
>just get this HUGE graduated cylinder, fill it half way with water and dunk
>our test subject.  Make sure he's completely submerged for an accurate volume
>test.
> 
>Take the difference with between the two volumes (water with test subject and
>water without test subject) to find true volume.  This had best be done with
>the test subject wearing no clothes.  

This sound much like what we did at Rooster Rock on a grander scale
(30 or so motssers at a time) in the Columbia River.  Unfortunately 
we didn't have any measuring tape or other measuring devices, so we
just had to amuse ourselves with mangoes and each other.

Sim, wishing he were back at the con since he came home and developed a 
raging ear infection, and once that clCeared up, a raging case of the
stomach flu.  Bleah!

       Sim Aberson   Ft. Lauderdale, FL   aberson%3328.span@sdsc.edu
"It's always Beach Party Barbie, or Malibu Barbie....  That shit does not
prepare you for the true horror of a real woman's life.  Where is Single,
Abused, Trailer-Park Barbie?"             - Roseanne Arnold
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Too straight looking to be gay??? (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:27:01 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



Well, nobody asked me, but I'll stick my nose in this:

/ Why is it that gay people in general, look at masculine gay men
/ that don't fit the stereotype as guys who are not gay or not
/ being themselves?  

1.  Because many of the the more feminine types would rather be masculine, 
    but just can't seem to get the hang of it;

2.  Because to the feminine types, the masculine gay men are painful 
    reminders of personal shortcomings;

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

4.  Because the feminine types cannot comprehend how a man could be
    sincerely gay and sincerely masculine at the same time.  
    And, since the fem. types can't successfully conceptualize how that
    could happen, then "obviously" these masc. gay men must be faking it.
    It never occurs to them that simply because they can't conceptualize
    it, *doesn't* mean that it can't happen.



/ Is there a brochure or a guide on how to dress and/or act gay?  
/ Are there organizations where we have to join in to be a part of the 
/ gay community?  I've always wondered about these questions all these 
/ years since I seem to just don't fit in the gay community even though 
/ I *am*, in fact, 100% gay.

I know what you mean.  I actually didn't think I was gay for years, because
I had nothing in common with the feminine gays I met.  I concluded that 
either:

     a) I wasn't gay at all and had just talked myself into believing
        I was; or 
     b) there was more than one kind of gay.

I have met many gay men, handsome, masculine, and closeted--and they will
probably stay that way forever.  Why?  Because the once-a-year trip to a gay
function or gay bar reinforces their fears of being surrounded by nelly,
campy gays that are embarassing and fringe radicals.



/ I've been going to the bars since the early 80's, I'm comfortable
/ about my homosexual being, but I still feel as though I'm actually
/ not part of the "gay community".  Is it because I'm a cute, masculine,
/ Filipino guy that dress like a normal straight boy, as opposed to an
/ Asian-madame-butterfly-lookalike-bottom-queen that looks like he
/ just waltz out of Lord and Taylor's shopping store or something???

Gay, masculine men who are happy being that way are threatening to
feminine gays.  You threaten them.  It also disturbs feminine gays
that a masc. gay man can move 'with the straight crowd'; you have
betrayed the fem. gays by having close straight friends.

Don't worry about it.  The problem is not with you.  It is with them.