HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hopsonth@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu (Thomas H. Hopson)
Subject: Re: Tears in Terre Haute (was Re: Faggots)
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
	<1992Sep27.033643.13046@cs.rose-hulman.edu>
	<1992Sep28.131358.26379@macc.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:21:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.131358.26379@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>In article <1992Sep27.033643.13046@cs.rose-hulman.edu>
>serranrj@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Robert J Serrano) writes:

>>No, please stop.  You make me feel so left out, being as how
>>I'm in Terre Haute,

>Why, it *could* be worse -- you might be in Bedford, for
>example (my stepmother lives in Bedford, IN).

I'm not really sure.  I can't really think of a SINGLE thing that
would make living (out of school) in Terre Haute worthwhile.  There
must be something about the air that draws all the hicks in from
around Indiana and places them HERE, in Terre Haute.

>>where the only sexual activity comes about if you own either
>>a Harley or a Monster Truck,

...but the truck absolutely must have a gun rack, or the whole deal's
off.  A bumper sticker mentioning something about giving up your wife
and your dog before the truck helps too.

>>and I'm still below the drinking age, so I can't even _go
>>into_ the town's one [gay] bar.

>You could hang around outside at closing.

I'm not sure that there really exist that many places in Terre Haute
where I'd actually feel comfortable hanging out after dark, not only
because I'm gay, but because Rose-Hulman students are held in a
certain amount of contempt by the low-life one might find.

>Heh heh.  Future challenges await you!

>>Rob, who's sorry he hasn't been formally introduced to the
>>group, but just couldn't keep quite any longer.  Oh, well,
>>maybe some other time.

Tom, who's sorry he hasn't been formally introduced to Rob, OR to the
group, but who's sure that it will happen in time, anyway.





--
--
Thomas H. Hopson              Internet: (work) mgrthh@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu
VMS Manager / CS geek                   (play) hopsonth@cs.rose-hulman.edu
Rose-Hulman Institute                   (NeXT) mgrthh@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
   of Technology              BITNET:          mgrthh@rhit


Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: hopsonth@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu (Thomas H. Hopson)
Subject: Re: Terre Haute (Was Re: Faggots)
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
	<1992Sep27.033643.13046@cs.rose-hulman.edu>
	<1992Sep28.081408.2153@resonex.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:33:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.081408.2153@resonex.com> michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:

>Hey, I did my eight years in Terre Haute, including four at RHIT, so why
>should you get to be any different?  ;-)  And trust me, "R Place" (the
>lone gay bar) isn't *that* great.  Once I was of legal bar age, I
>preferred to go to the various bars in Indy, or Chester Street in
>Champaign/Urbana.  *Much* more enjoyable, and only 60 to 90 miles away.

As it turns out, Mike was me (in a work sense) about 8 years ago, so I
know what he's talking about.  I don't intend to spend an extra four
years here, though.  That would be just too much to take.

In email with Mike, he's mentioned the large proportion of Computing
Center managers (all students) who were gay.  (This is, of course, a
different concept than the large _proportions_ of Computing Center
managers who were gay.)  It was something like 75% at one time, though
I don't know the current value there.  Now  the real question is, what
does this say, if anything, about the RHIT student population in general?

I've done the commute to Indy, as I was living in Indy all summer
working as a summer intern for Eli Lilly.  I spent at least 2 hours in
Terre Haute every Saturday, and the drive back and forth got pretty
old, especially near the end of the summer when I was still living
there but working here every day....

>And you can always do like me:  graduate from Rose, work a bit in
>Terre Haute, and then move to the Silicon Valley, withing easy range
>of San Francisco.  I'd recommend skipping the "work a bit in TH" part,
>though...  ;-)

Can we replace the "work a bit in TH" with "work a bit in Indy"?  I
think that would be much more tolerable.
--
Thomas H. Hopson              Internet: (work) mgrthh@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu
VMS Manager / CS geek                   (play) hopsonth@cs.rose-hulman.edu
Rose-Hulman Institute                   (NeXT) mgrthh@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
   of Technology              BITNET:          mgrthh@rhit
From: amz@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (Arnold M Zwicky)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: demuffining
Summary: listen up, boy!
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:53:39 GMT
Followup-To: soc.motss
Organization: earnestly practicing faggots

in article <lchnpgINNsr4@spim.mti.sgi.com> dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com
(jeff dauber) writes, in response to persistent cries that he fuck
off:

 >Oh! If this is the way that I am going to be treated here, I guess I
 >will never post again.  I see why people never post to motss if this is
 >the treatment they get!!!!!

awww, these clueless boys, unsure of themselves and intolerant of
others, they crop up here again and again, making painful nuisances
of themselves.  i say: make 'em shape up, or hound 'em out!  No...More...
Whining!

  butch mcpod
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Madonna bashing
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 12:00:12 PDT
 <1992Sep23.140033.4484@macc.wisc.edu> <1992Sep24.045618.12302@reed.edu>
Distribution: world               
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
>
> In article <1992Sep23.140033.4484@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> >>I have seen this name before, but cannot remember the relevant babbage 
> >Get the Lovelace off your straw hat, dearie; ordinatorily,
> >you'll see better.
> 
> Ada posted this myself, but you beat me to the punch, card that you
> are. Your analytical ingenuity looms over mine.

Excuse me for interrupting, but I wanted to register a comment, at the
risc of opening the Gates further.

Well, maybe !.



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor <> Long Beach, California
[] mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us <or> mikebat@qdeck.com
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: foucault@netcom.com (Howard Arthur Faye)
Subject: Re: Butthole surfin
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:13:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.035638.29867@netcom.com> jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:
>In article <1aatmjINNdel@uwm.edu> bully@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Shad Aaron Merwin) writes:
>>How's about I shove a broomstick up you faggots' butts?  I wonder how
>>much corn I'll find on the end of it.
>
>Arnold's recent posting about how to cook duck reminded me of something
>from Brillat-Savarin's "The Physiology of Taste" (translation by the
>late M.F.K. Fisher):
>   
>   Few people know how to eat small feathered game; here is the best way,
>   as told to me confidentially by Canon Charcot, a born gourmand, and a
>   true gastronomer thirty years before the word was known:
>   
>   Take by the beak a fine fat little bird, salt him lightly, pull out his
>   gizzard, stuff him deftly into your mouth, bite him off sharply close to
>   your fingertips, and chew with vigor: there will flow from him enough
>   juice to fill your whole mouth, and you will enjoy a taste experience
>   unknown to the common herd.
>   
I have eaten these miniature thrushes in the Dordogne, and the plumage
is so fine and downy that dressing them is pointless. The heat in cooking
them causes the feathers to incinerate, leaving the carcass and the loosened
beak. By firmly holding the beak between thumb and forefinger, the entirety
of the thing can be eaten in a bite; very little effort is involved. The
bones are practically rendered because they are so insignificant, and
it would be a waste to quaff anything other than the cheapest vin
du pays as an accompaniment. Once finished, they are usually best
forgotten.



-- 
Howard Arthur Faye * Panglossian Acres * Box 7 * Littlerock, CA   93543
                         Fax: 805.944.5958

Don't "follow your bliss." If you "follow your bliss," you will either
collide with someone else's bliss or you will fall into a deep hole.

				-from 'The Anti-Campbell'
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: The Origins of Idioms for Homosexuals
Date: 1 Oct 1992 10:58:30 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1adoj4INN8e3@mizar.usc.edu> 
adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
> In article <m0maFGt-000133C@juts.ccc.amdahl.com> 
> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:
> > Here is what I've been
> > told as the origin of the slanderous term "Faggot."
>
> What is *slanderous* about the term "faggot"?  [...]

Oh dear.  I really didn't mean to come down so hard on you, Rich.
It's just that I think that the reality of homophobic persecution 
over the centuries is horrible enough that I'm really bothered
by some of the pop-nonsense I've seen.  I'm talking about the wild 
exaggerations (such as the completely unsupported claim made by 
some that the witchhunts were *specifically* anti-lesbian and that 
a total of 15 million women were burnt as witches) and distortions
and outright falsehoods.  What actually happened to the thousands of
homosexuals in the Nazi concentration camps is horrifying enough.
We don't need lurid martyrologies.

Arne

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one)
Subject: OCA==Scum sucking nazi shitheads
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:00:20 GMT

According to Clarinet Mabon is trying to blame "radical gay rights groups"
for the flyiers supporting the nazis in Salem Oregon.

All I can say is "what an asshole", he wants to have his cake and eat it to,
when there nazi supporters finally go to far and it blows up in the OCA's
face they go trying to blame someone else.

Lets hope those flyers lead right back to the OCA where they most likely
came from.
-- 
----          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!         ----
\  /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers        \  /
 \/   and bean eating ways. Accept the #4 into your heart! \/
     Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568
From: booter@Autodesk.COM (Elaine Richards)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Ah, Fashion.
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:17:13 GMT
Organization: The Autodesk Menagerie - Housecat Division

In article <BvIEyr.IHo@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.222124.15670@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>
>>  Oh. There's nothing to fashion at all? A person's desire to look
>>good can only be because of insecurity?
>
>No; however, what looks "good" will stink like rotten liver next week.
>That the standards of "looking good" are so ephemeral suggests that
>people's adherence to them *are* a result of insecurity.

Looking good and looking fashionable are not necessarily mutually
exclusive. Take out your set theory books, children, and look at the
Venn diagram for intersecting sets.

There are things that are fashionable that look good, like a nice navy
(you can't go wrong with navy) blazer (or a nice sailor, ahem), or a
well put together Little Black Dress. Big Red Pumps are frequently
fashionable and always look good.

Neon green anything is fashionable, but looks utterly, utterly dreadful - 
an assault on the eyes.

Looking good has some constants also. Look at those Japanese prints that
can make your pulse quicken at the sight of a woman's neck, or those
Greek statues with loose and flowing togas. Granted, wearing a toga
might alarm passers-by, but it looks great at private uh affairs.

So, don't be too harsh on the notion of fashion. We don't have bright
and colorful feathers, so we may as well enjoy our rags n' rocks.

ER
--

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I just couldn't take the green brain carpet, so I had to kill it."
					-R. Hep
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Alan Williams: Paradigms of Dissonance (was Re: Faggots) 
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:44:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


(anderson)
>You seem to think I'm flapping my lips in the service of my
>ego -- but Alan, I don't need that, don't need it at all.

Anderson, your posts are dripping with a need to reinforce your
ego.  I'm sorry; I have to call you on this one.  Your posts
have done nothing but beg for attention, and for recognition;
little pats on the back from the other folks on the net.




/(anderson)
/>The reason I keep going on about your mindset ...
/>... has nothing whatever to do with anyone being "right" or
/>"wrong."  Those terms are entirely inappropriate to the
/>circumstances here.

/(vanyel)
/I disagree, Jess.  I think the terms "right" and "wrong" have, in one way
/or another, made their way across the bandwidth at a reasobnably high rate
/of passage lately.  

No shit.  And Jessie has been a frequent user of the terms he is now
trying to distance himself from.  If he thought they were inappropriate,
then it is left to Jess to explain why he used them so much.



/(vanyel)
/I'm reminded of a remark you made in another thread
/regarding changing mine and Justin's thoughts.  The impression I received
/(and you posted the remark I'm thinking of) is one of attempting to steer
/Justin and me down the "correct" path of thought.
/That doesn't sound like a discussion; it sounds like thought control.

It is.  Open your mouth while Jess pours the correct opinions into you.




(anderson)
>I talk about "thinking about it more" because that's a key
>that would (if only you would try it) open a great many
>doors for you.  I use the phrase "cognitive dissonance" in
>its clinical sense: 

Alan, if it's any comfort to you, Anderson is misusing the term
"cognitive dissonance".  He no more understands it than he understands
any of the other free pop psychology that he dishes out.  

He is practicing a kind of sarcasm that involves insincere pity, and 
combines it with parlor psychology as the basis for insults.  Don't get 
your hopes up; it is not an attempt at discussion. it is merely flaming on 
a different level.  Do not confuse the two.




(anderson)
>but I
>think it makes little sense to dismiss it out of hand, as
>you routinely do.  As I say, if you're going to continue to
>do that, there isn't a thing I can do about it.  Reacting
>defensively, as you predictably do, is actually quite
>counterproductive.

Alan, here you have anderson attempting to sound reasonable (on the
surface), but actually trying to flame you in a manner which he
believes is cool, calm and oh, so clever. Another backdoor attempt to 
flame by hiding the barb in reasonable-sounding speech.  He thinks that 
he is scoring bitch points for being able to do it.

God.  There is no queen like an old queen.



(vanyel)
/The evidence suggests, to me at least, that you'd rather indulge in your
/pop psychology than listen to what I have to say--that my words are
/automatically discounted because they come from someone whom you don't
/believe thinks clearly enough. 

Bingo.
From: jns@elea.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: enough already.
Date: 2 Oct 92 08:04:44 GMT
Organization: Militant Homosexual Lobby, Gay Lifestyles, Inc.


Jess Anderson (anderson@macc.wisc.edu) wrote:
 
> rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
> 
> >          Heiajoho!  Grane!
> >          Gruess deinen Herren!
> >          Siegfried!  Siegfried!  Sieh!
> >          Selig gruesst dich dein Weib!
> 
> Don't be misled, however, into thinking Siegfried is married
> to the horse.  He isn't; he's married to dull-wittedness on
> a scale that even Wagner couldn't obscure, despite many
> hours of trying.
> 
> Trying what, you ask?  Just guess!

Obviously, Siegfried was a severe closet case.

Heldentwink.

Is it Anna Russell time again already?

--jns
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Not enough yet (was Re: enough already.)
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 12:53:52 GMT


In article <1992Oct1.201247.20643@netcom.com>
stephena@netcom.com (Stephen Arrants) writes:

>In article <1992Oct1.185012.5917@macc.wisc.edu>
>anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>>Thou makest me to lie down by still waters...

>Prone or supine? 

Well, my preference would be prone *and* supine, as befits
the fitting.

>>Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me...

>Um....would this have anything to do with the "'Harder
>Sir!'/'Take it, Boy!'" discussion of a few months back?

Yes!  Yes!

>>(That guy *really* gets around, ya know, but well,
>> like you said, blessed.)

>OK, speak -- who is this guy you've been seen frolicking
>with?

He who measures while pressed up against people.
Frolic *is* the word.

>>I just *love* inspirational texts, don't you?

>Indeed! and you can interpret them any way you want!  

Essential!

<> Anagram for Republican National Convention:
<> Puritanical ban on innocent love.
<> -- Mike Morton
-- 
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: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin)
Subject: Re: enough already.
Originator: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 12:43:52 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce):
>>woooo, i'm shaking so badly -- can't you hear the pots
>>and pans banging?
> 
> *Calphalon*?  Are you banging *Calphalon*?

are you kidding?  here in the sarver castle, we *only* use
cast iron.  it pumps up the muscles, puts some grit into
the food, and is wonderful for domestic violence -- we
wouldn't want to go soft...
-- 
Queer Without A Cause!
Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
From: harris@currituck.cs.unc.edu (Trey Harris)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: usenet.age
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:22:51 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <1992Sep26.024232.5423@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>	Of course others like John Dorrance fall into the 
>e-young, etc..

Where do I fall?  As (arguably) the chronologically youngest poster
here, this thread has some interest...

I received well over a thousand responses to my first post, and I
noticed that many many people remarked at how I "seemed" older than
I am.

Why is this?  I certainly don't _feel_ my own age.  Alternately, I
feel like a very small child (especially when I get flamed or simply
get negative mail) or I feel old and weary, as though I'm watching
the world through the eyes of Lazarus...

Trey Harris
--Stranger in a Strange Thread!
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Ah, Fashion.
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:05:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Oct2.140502.18776
Organization: insert anything here

cbe@unlinfo.unl.edu (cbe) writes:
>but with mate?

	Um, yeah, not that it really matters.  You're just adding
another externalized "test" (well, he might talk a great game but if he
can't land the bohunk of his dreams, he's a failure of course).

	But to answer your question, yes.

	And to reply to something else you said: yes what I originally
posted is 101% idealistic, and will never hit "ground truth reality"
but then few things ever do or will.  But it's sure easier being
happy with yourself than feeling you'd be better off if you were
someone else.

BBC
From: aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: What adjectives do you think best describe romantic jealousy?
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:11:54 GMT
Reply-To: aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca

In article <1992Oct5.233546.7342@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>  
baltman@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Brian Altman) writes:
> I am putting together a survey on romantic jealousy. I'd like to include  
a
> part where I'd have 10-20 adjectives that people commonly associate with
> romantic jealousy and their feelings. 

Boring.
Destructive.
Divisive.
Dumb.
Futile.
Immature.
Irrational.
Irritating.
Laughable.
Ridiculous.
Unnecessary.
Unwanted.
Useless.

And, for me, at least....

Nonexistent.
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Ah, Fashion.
Date: 3 Oct 92 14:56:17 GMT
Organization: insert anything here

michaelh@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Mike Hennahane) writes:
>rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:

>>	OK - there I think I can still agree with you.
>>And I think there what I have been calling fashion and what you
>>are calling fashion are different.  I'm thinking along with the
>>more short-lived trendy stuff  What you're describing is much
>>more long-lived, and in terms of "things that never go out of style"
>>I think one can easily make the argument that for some functions
>>you might want nicer clothes.

>the only question that i have about this relates to the "things that
>never go out of style" part. why are "conservative" or "timeless"
>clothes any less susceptible to fashion trends? wouldn't it just be a
>different set of people who are defining the trend? maybe it's just a
>group of people with less imagination or with a motivation to preserve
>the status quo? (this having nothing to say even about what clothes
>are "nicer" or about what the trends are in business [think "wacky
>ties" :-)]

	Well, I think a lot of it goes into the "why"...  I agree
that even the "timeless" stuff is not timeless (or else we'd
all have a bear/lion/mammoth/etc/ skin in the closet for the most
formal occasions), but the fact that the "trend" lasts much longer,
I dunno makes it easier to swallow?  I own a dark grey suit that
I bought not because I really wanted a suit (I never feel comfortable
in one) but because there would be occasions I would need to wear it.
For the most part, that suit will work in any formal occasion I would be 
expected to wear it (now this gets into another topic of "why do
clothes matter for certain occasions? --- and no way am I touching it!).
I'll have to replace it soon because I've been to Toscanini's one
too many times and we can't let it out anymore... but it will get me
thru my defense...

	So in one sense it's the same thing, and buying my suit "because
it will be expected of me" is not the same as buying one "because I
like it and want tot wear it", but no one is perfect.

	I suppose like most things it's a rationalization.  Sometimes
they're more convincing than others.  But in terms of the "thread as a whole":
(such as it is) there isn't the active ***PUSH*** for the longer trends
that there is for the really transient stuff.  IT's still there, but
it's more passive.  Maybe this is where for me it goes from OK
to hot button.

> i'm also resisting wisecracking about how animal skins were
>probably thought to be things that never go out of style once...).

	It's a great line.

BBC
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: enough already.
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:43:21 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep29.195421.4250@microsoft.com>, bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
> At the moment, I am actually quite busy with Ronzone and Cramer, who 
> are both treating me as their worst nightmare:  a gay with the arguments 
> to embarass and defeat them.  They are infinitely more fun than anderson,

Don't kid yourself.  Even the jerks that dominate soc.motss do a 
better job than you do, because they aren't trying to defend
private property rights while denying those of others.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.