HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kimpl@ocf.berkeley.edu (Peter Kim)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: fictions and dreams
Date: 14 Apr 1992 21:11:33 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

i had a dream.

this really important and opinionated entity, named dolf bertram rosa,
presented its opinion of the nature of human existence.  rather
than go out into the world and learn firsthand, it remained with
in the cloistered walls of its home, and read the works of women
once thought to be paragons of truth.  through this most vicarious
method of experience it formulated its greatest and most profound
theorem:  people who prefer chocolate over vanilla are not bad,
but they most _certainly_ are not good enough to be considered
worthy entities.

unfortunately this entity, also known as dbr, was reputiated by
the chocolate lovers.  they sited firsthand evidence and the current
theories of human existence.  dbr's theorem was thoroughly examined
and found wanting by the chocolate lovers community.  even the
vanilla lovers agreed that the theorem's of the once revered masters 
that dbr cited were not valid.

when the noble soul of dolf bertram rosa was confronted but such
vehement resistance to its most lofty theorem.  it did the most
courageous act of its existence; it struct a tragic pose.  it compared
itself to the great thinker and observer, moonwatcherseesashadow.
it drew the comparison between the persecution mwsas suffer for his original
thoughts and firsthand observations and the persecution its received
for it reguritated theorem and secondhand observation.  the clarity
and power of this noble stance warmed the hearts of the chocolate lovers,
and they recanted their objections to its theorem.


***
this a dream.  any similarities to reality are purely sub conscious.


disclaimer: the above was purely a work of fiction.  any resemblences
to reality are purely coincidental.

peter kim, who was violent ill after reading a certain post
kimpl@soda.berkeley.edu
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:58:00 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <4ZHViB1w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>> QUEERS HAVE KIDS.
>
>Poor kids. :(
>
>> And there's nothing you can do about it.  Neener neener.
>
>Sure there is. Plant a flower for each hunted looking little
>child I see being drug around like a prize puppy dog by some
>swaggering snorting 'queer lady'.

Have you ever seen this?

I have seen many worse things from the heterosexual "community"
than your scenario here (which I have never seen from a homosexual
parent).


>To inflict that life on someone who has no choice is a crime
>against humanity.

To inflict a lot of things on a child who has no choice is crime
against humanity.  However, treating children poorly is still 
a heterosexually manned and operated enterprise.  Not because of
any inherent problem with heterosexuals, but just due to the fact
that a vast majority of parents are, in fact, heterosexual.

If you were really concerned with children, you would be worrying about
the big problems of poor education, child abuse, and so on... Not about
a lesbian couple having children.


Jeff
-FWA
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:1738 alt.flame:6231
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.flame
Subject: Re: If you have been folling the sendsys war, READ THIS POST!
Date: 4 Apr 92 14:57:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: amhux2.1992Apr4.145705.8360
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA

In article <q5wE1r3jb@rlf.org> knight@rlf.org (The Dark Knight) writes:

>In another Article: pierce@husc4.harvard.edu (Tim Pierce) babbles:
>
>>Or, for that matter, when his boyfriend breaks up with him.  It's that
>>sort of occurrence that makes me think that queer people are often
>>likely to be BETTER parents than heterosexuals.
>
>You really are confused aren't you?   Here you go with the queer is better
>tripe again.

I said that under some circumstances, queer parents would be able to
relate to their children better than straight ones.  Do you disagree?
Please elaborate, and drop this adolescent "that's not true, you can't
say that, whine whine whine" posturing.

>If you wish to debate this, I would be more than happy to
>newgroup us, and we can have a talk in alt.homosexual.parents, maybe it would
>be something productive. You don't know till you try.   Why don't you try to
>work things out with the people you so hate?

If you're so interested in rational conversation, why do you wear a
mask?

>>____ Tim Pierce                /
>>\  / pierce@husc.harvard.edu   /         See it and understand.
>> \/ (aka twpierce@amherst.edu) /
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Tim, do you really think that you see something that no one else does?

What I think is that you don't have the slightest idea what I'm
talking about.  If you'd like to ASK, on the other hand, I'd be more
than happy to tell you.

>You
>are no better than anyone else here.  Just try to act like normal folk, and
>be tolerant, and you won't have any problems.

You know, that strategy would work much better for you than for me.  I
AM normal tolerant folk until I am confronted with the sort of
childish tantrum you have been throwing world-wide.  Then I see no
reason to waste my patience on folk like you.

>But there was no other way to get people to listen.

You didn't try talking, did you?

Followups to alt.politics.homosexuality.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Well, I've never been to heaven / but
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  I've been to Oklahoma ..."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /    -- Three Dog Night
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Adream
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 09:12:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.035041.27689@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>In article <92106.193654QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> Tim Bieling <QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>

>Again and again the same thing. 
>I listen to what Gay people say,


Enough with these GREAT generalizations!  We gay people are not
one.  We are individules with seperate ideas and feelings.  How
would you like for me to say, "I listen to the Jewish people say,
and I disagree."?  How do I a mear humanbeing have the 
capability to know what every Jew in this world says?  

 and I disagree. I might be wrong. I never
>said that I have the truth in my hands. I give an opinion based in what I
>know. Period.
>
>
>>
>>In summary, Alberto, when you walk a mile in a gay person's shoes,
>>you come back and tell us how it went.  You're soo good at tossing
>>out "research", and this, and that, but you haven't experienced
>>what others are telling you - try that for a change.
>
>I guess that would be hard for me to try it. Anyway, to be is not the same
>as to know.

Awe, but again you countradict yourself.  You yelled at me a few weeks
ago because I professed to know what fascism was and you said I didn't
know because I hadn't lived in a fascist country, such as you have lived
in, ie Germany WWII.  But then you tell us, the ones who live now in 
a situation that we are trying to commuicate to you, that we don't know
what we are going through.  How can you make such a statement?  How 
can you countradict yourself so much?  What is your agenda?

If you lived in this country right now you would be able to see the startling
changes we have gone through in the last 12-15 years.  You too would
learn to fear the rightwing Christian movement in this country. But you
don't live here so you cannot conceive of what is happening in this country.
So either play by your own game rules or try and learn.  Because you know
nothing about being a Gay in this country.  


>Of 
course, I am not saying that I know.
>
>
>>
>>-Tim
>
>AAP


But you aren't discussing either.
From: monkey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (EGG NOGGIN)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Sodomy laws:which states?
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:59:13 GMT
Reply-To: monkey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (EGG NOGGIN)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: monkey@daisy.cc.utexas.edu


     I have this report to do for english class, and I was wondering which
states curretnly have sodomy laws?  If anyone can tell me where to find
this information, I would be eternally grateful.


                                     Thanksamillion.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:1872 alt.sex:13841 soc.motss:19672
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.motss
Subject: Re: New Phone Male System For Chicago Area Gay Guys
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:28:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.-mrj6g+.jfh

In article <s070eINNo4t@agate.berkeley.edu> mmt@Berkeley.EDU (Maxime Taksar) 
writes:
>
>It wasn't necessarily commercial...upon hitting my "Subject
>prev" button and looking over the item in question, I notice
>that it did say that the prices are to defray costs.  You
>wouldn't say that an advertisement for a public-access Unix
>system that charges to defray costs is commercial, would
>you?

Yes, I would.  I don't see any difference between pledge breaks on public
radio and advertisements on commercial radio either, except that the
advertisements are more interesting.

-- 

------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton         jfh@netcom.com
From: amitchell@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Human sexuality
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:21:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: mac.1992Apr13.102109.2428
Organization: Macalester College

In article <1992Apr10.030510.13312@cs.uow.edu.au>, g8801935@cs.uow.edu.au (The Jester) writes:
> sik@cs.uow.edu.au (The 24hr man) writes:
> 
> Ah yes, but, I like green peppers and like no-external-genetalians 
> (this is my best approximation at the moment since some XX's look like XY's and
> have changed their inny to an outy, but that's another thread). Maybe we
> can get a correlation with some more input. (3 is hardly a good sample)
> -- 

I agree. Anyone else out there like pizza?  How 'bout green peppers?

Allison
amitchell@macalstr.edu
amitchel@math.macalstr.edu

Macalester College does not necessarily agree with me.

Please forward any responses you want to be SURE I see to me, as well as
posting them, since the Director of Computing Services is threatening to remove
the entire alt.* heirarchy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Adream
From: jkusters@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (The Chrome Jester)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 19:11:08 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407

aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) divulges:
->
->I guess that this is a nice example of the kind of logic that some people
->use in this group. You give interesting and detail, not to mention the 
->long references you present, about each topic.
->However, let me point out that what I said above is man-like and woman-like
->in terms of dominant/dominated in the relationship.
->Usualy, society expects man to be the dominant and woman to be the dominated.
->Not that it always works that way (I know that in my case it does not
->work like that), however, society expects it to be like that. 
->Just take a look at TV commercials and programation. Always the female is
->serving the male and kids, and she must do it so that the man is satisfied.
->Would you, or anyone else, tell me that in homosexual relations both psrtners
->are at the same level in terms of the dominant role? And, which ever is your
->answer, does it apply to both?

One of the really neat things about being open and out is that we stop
caring what "society" expects and work to find solutions of our own.
That being the case, I've noticed that among the same-sex couples I
know, the issue of dominance/submission is not present.  Both partners
are equal.  Now, that may be true only in my neck of the woods (the
central coast of California).

Again, you seem to be hung up on what society expects.  Most gay
people I know have stopped caring what society expects.  If we cared
about what society expects, we'd all sublimate our NATURAL desires and
live a miserable life married in a heterosexual relationship that
would be as natural to us as a duck breating on the moon. (Note:  I'm
talking about same-sex-exclusive people here, since I have little to
no experience about bi-sexual people.  Enlighten me!)

Alberto, plese try to remember that just because society expects
something does not mean that people do it.

->My wife always tells me: A relationship (in our case male/female) is a 
->constant fighting for power. 

Eeek!  What a horrible way to live, if you ask me!  I'd rather share
the "power", relinquishing in cases where I have no experience or
knowledge, and assuming it when I know what to do.  I'd rather talk
about things like that with my partner.  A constant battle would only
lead to heart-burn for me...


JOhn.
-- 
/-John A Kusters, jr.----------------------------------------------------______
| jkusters@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu & phule@bbs.fubarsys.com              \    /
Silence keeps us all in darkness, we can't change things overnight!       \  /
But we can shed a little light, Be Political not Polite! -Romanovksy & Phillips
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: References
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:51:25 GMT

Adolpho, psychoanalysis is a completely unscientific mythology with an
ever-decreasing group of followers.  It is on the margins of modern
psychological thought, more important as a historical relic of the
roots of psychology than an active school of thought.  You would be
most hard-put to find anyone who takes it seriously anymore other than
burned-out lit-crit scholars (cf. Lacan, et. al), fellow psychoanalysts
or over-earnest and credulous students who have taken one psychology
course too many.  I assume you're in the latter group.


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Adream
From: jkusters@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (The Chrome Jester)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 07:14:13 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407

aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) divulges:
->
->I do not see why I am responsible for the flaming. 

Even though you do half of it...

->I do not want to prove anything not to convince anyone. I read the points
->presented here. I give an opinion. If anyone finds it interesting, it is OK
->with me. If nobody finds it isnteresting, it is also OK with me. I do not
->expect anyone to get convinced of what I am saying. I might be way wrong,
->or may be not. 

But, Alberto, you do not seem to want to be responsible for your own
opinions.  It's like someone saying that the Jewish people are
responsible for World War II, and then getting upset when people tell
him he's wrong.  You come onto newsgroups full of homosexuals and tell
us that our own experiences mean nothing (or very, very little), and
tell us that Freud knew all about us and our real problems.  And then
you get defensive when we tell you that our own experience says
different.  You said in another article that knowledge does not come
from experience.  If not, then tell me where knowledge comes from?

->I do not believe 100% on that evidence.

Then what do you believe in?

->(About shearing kids).

I'm sorry, but every time I read this, I have an image of children
being torn limb from limb.  I think the word you want is SHARING.

->I listen to what Gay people say, and I disagree. I might be wrong. I never
->said that I have the truth in my hands. I give an opinion based in what I
->know. Period.

I don't think you REALLY listen to what Gay people say.  I think you
read it through your own personal filters that say that gay people are
somehow inferior.  So far, though, all you have given in support of
this apparent belief is book learning.  You cite references from
psychoanalysis books, but do you have any ACTUAL experience to draw
from?  I think not.

And what I don't understand is how you can present us with an analogy
with Galileo and what are obviously charicatures of pro-gay posters,
and not think that you are comparing yourself to Galileo.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for the new nickname "Little JOhn".
Reminds me of running around the woods in some really smashing
costumes, with a band of merry men.  Sounds like fun to me :-)

(Little) JOhn.
-- 
/-John A Kusters, jr.----------------------------------------------------______
| jkusters@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu & phule@bbs.fubarsys.com              \    /
Silence keeps us all in darkness, we can't change things overnight!       \  /
But we can shed a little light, Be Political not Polite! -Romanovksy & Phillips
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:1937 alt.sex:13981
From: sik@cs.uow.edu.au (The 24hr man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Human sexuality
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:18:19 GMT
Organization: Sik-SW, Dept-Comp-Sci, Uni-Of-W'gong, NSW 2500, AUSTRALIA
Sik-Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about!

In Art. <1992Apr9.224735.3173@reed.edu>
    nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) wrote:

>In article <1992Apr8.091148.2393@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> amitchell@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes:
>>But I like both mushrooms AND men!!  My favorite topping, however, is green
>>peppers.....
>
>Pervert. Sick vile animal. Green peppers can't have natural children.

:-) :-) :-)
>-- 
>                __
>nelson@reed.edu \/                                            Love under will

Stein - sik@cs.uow.edu.au
'How much is the busfare for my rabbit?' - Robert Atkinson
'When thou walkest through the fire, thou shall not be burned.' -Isaiah 43:2
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.flame,news.admin,soc.motss,soc.bi
From: craig@cattnts (Craig Campbell)
Subject: Tracking Anything on the net.
Organization: AT&T / NCR Canada Ltd., Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:40:33 GMT

With resect to tracking fake postings on the net,
with co-operation from various sysadmins, you should (in theory) be
able to back track an article to the source machine by the time stamps
and communications logs for that article's file. Whoever's system has the
oldest version of the file in question, should be the original.

Is this too simple? Stupid?
-- 
Craig Campbell		|	These opinions are entirely the result of a 
Systems Engineer	|	small butterfly crashing into the far side
NCR Canada,		|	of the planet.  Chaos Rules.
an AT&T Company		|	I speak for no one, except, possibly, myself.
Xref: sparky alt.sex:14906 alt.politics.homosexuality:2298
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Regrets
Date: 16 Apr 1992 18:43:02 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <92106.211429HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> 
Herschel Browne <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
| In article <1992Apr15.051437.27390@spdcc.com>, 
| dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) says:
...
| >>Some of the comments in this thread have been supremely stupid.
| >>Such as, that Foucault was a literary theorist. Huh?
| >
| >The only person who brought up Foucault was AAP.
|
| AAP may have introduced Foucault, but there were comments by
| Arne (and maybe no one else, I don't recall) about him. And
| Arne certainly suggested that Foucault was a literary theorist,
| and a bad one.

I commented on Foucault only after you'd called him the most brilliant
thinker of the 20th century, or whatever it was you called him.  And
I didn't say that he was a literary theorist (although he *did* dabble
in literary theory in, e.g., "The Father's 'No'", "Fantasia of the 
Library", and "What Is an Author" ).  I said that he is of interest 
these days primarily to literary theorists and history of ideas people.
And, of course, to some hip and groovy on the fast track gay/lesbian 
cultural politics people.

|                            Perhaps *you*, Steve, have not engaged in
| wholesale disparagement of Freud and Foucault (who have *so* little
| to do with each other, it's almost strange putting their names
| together like that), dismissing the very idea that either of them
| has anything to say to serious people, but it has been done, and
| in this thread, and by the person I've referred to several times
| above.

I assume you're talking about me.  I made fun of AAP's reliance on
1950s-style Freudian psychoanalytic theory spiced up with a little
Lacan.  I first saw Foucault in this thread when you brought him
up.  (I wasn't paying much attention until a couple of days ago.)
Freud, in any case, is someone I absolutely would not disparage.
In fact, I would encourage people to read him and forget the
mountains of garbage that have accumulated around his works.

Arne
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Jeff Dauber's Flawed Arguments
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:45:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: fido.j7frn28
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <9204061351.AA03354@Compuserve.Com> 70750.2052@Compuserve.Com ("Ronnie Jr.") writes:
>The local militant "FWA", dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

Me, militant?  Not quite... Intellegent?  Absolutely.  Willing to face
reality?  Yes.




>OK, Jeff.  Here is a quiz to show you the BLATANT fallacy in your argument:
>
>Here are three people, tell me which should or should not be allowed
>to adopt a child:
>
>1)  32 yr. old female, Lawyer.
>2)  35 yr. old male, Engineer.
>3)  27 yr. old male, Doctor.
>
>You can't tell me, can you? 


Okay, give me all the characteristics which are germane to adoption, and
a reason why they are germane.  I will repeat my example.


>However, as soon as I tell you that the woman listed as #1 has been
>convicted twice on child molestation charges, you would develop an
>opinion, with no extra information.

True.  None of the cases I have given have any criminal histories.



>Is it?  Or do you say that she is not suitable to adopt because it is
>not a HEALTHY environment for the child?  Same goes for my argument
>against homos adopting children.

You have yet to give an argument for anything coward.  All you do is
post insults.


I dare you to give one coherent argument as to why homosexuals should
not have children.  It should be incredibly easy to poke holes in your
argument.


Oh, and coward.... What is your real name?  Afraid to use it?


>Well, Jeff, do you take your "hubby" to the Silicon Graphics Christmas
>Party or not? 

Yes.

Am I out to all of my co-workers?  Yes.

Am I out to all of my relatives?  Yes.

Am I embarassed/afraid of saying that I am a homosexual?  No.




Am I embarassed to use my real name on the net?  No, unlike you.



Jeff
-FWA
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:2044 alt.sex:14279