HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: parade content (was: 60 Minutes stuff)
Organization: You know what they say about organists
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:49:51 GMT

This has no point but is just something that I'm pondering about.
We often hear people bring up issues of the clips they've seen on
TV of a pride parade and take that to be an example of what everyone in
that community must be like.

Now, let me think about what I saw at the last county fair parade.
	Uncle Sam on stilts--is that how everyone dresses?  
	People dressed up like bails of hay--what organization do
		they belong to?  
	Many clowns--well that could be a good generalization of the county.  
	A chorus line of sunflowers--who plays the "man"?
	A man dressed like a baby--I think I saw this on Geraldo.
	Kids on bikes dressed like butterflies--did their parents
		recuit them?  It's a shame that they're brought up
		in an household where they're taught this is normal.
		They'll be so humiliated when they show up to their
		jobs dressed like that in twenty years.
	Girl in skimpy gold bikini riding on a convertible--should
		she be on the police force in that uniform?

Macy's parade:
	Are there always huge inflated things floating above the
		streets?

Bowl parades (of which I don't know much of what they represent):
	Lots of interesting things that could be contrued as being
	the "norm".


As I said, this is pretty pointless but something to ponder next
time you're told, "But, I thought ALL of you dressed like characters
from the Wizard of Oz.  That's what it looked like on the news."

--- cjk
From: joelp@cs.man.ac.uk (Joel Parthemore || Pharos Project)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: civil rights a huge mistake? (was, harrassing 'phone calls)
Summary: complete failure to grok
Keywords: laws, coercion, civil rights
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:43:08 GMT


phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

 ....

 >However noble your end, you should consider that nice conclusions do NOT
 >justify coercive laws. How many people could be "saved" if we changed
 >the law to allow the police to use no knock, no search warrant searches
 >in say, suspected drug use cases?

What does this have to do with anything?  Do you seriously mean to
imply that there's no difference between a law against discrimination
in housing and one that abolishes search warrants?  *All* laws are
from some perspective ``coercive''.

 >Sure, the law would "save" a lot of people and/or catch a lot of
 >druggies, but you know, it is a bad law. And so are the "anti-
 >discrimination" laws, which of course, merely codify racial
 >presence into law.

Racism (``racial presence''?) exists.  Why should the laws
pretend that it doesn't?

This reminds me of someone at my high school reunion a few weeks ago,
who saw my T-shirt (``Pop Against Homophobia'') and asked me what I
was doing, wanting ``special'' rights.  ``That's what makes America
such a great country:  we're free here.  Free to associate with whom
we want to.  If I own a piece of property, I should get to decide
exactly what does or does not happen there.''

He went on to tell me that all of the civil rights legislation of the
'60s was a mistake.

I think I'm willing, even eager, to listen to a lot of different
viewpoints. But in this case, we really didn't seem to have much basis
for engaging in any discussion.

....

 >These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!
 >(But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Um, no thank you; my own will do nicely.  Oh, I'll have a look-see at
yours, but not if I have to pay for the privilege.... :- )

 >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
hecateae@cs.man.ac.uk (Joel P.)

One of the noble savages,

Joel,
         in no particular hurry to head off ``home''....

++++++++++
All things in all of time and space are inextricably connected with
one another.  Any divisions, classifications, or organizations
discovered in the universe are arbitrary.  The world is a complex,
continuous, single event.

Leonard Meyer
++++++++++
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: How Egalitarian are Homosexual Relationships?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:16:38 GMT

	There was someone in another newsgroup who made the claim that
even in homosexual relationships, there is essentially always a
dominant and a submissive partner. Is that the rule or the exception?
Are homosexual relationships generally egalitarian, in principle, if
not in practice?

	I think that this can be an interesting test of how
egalitarian a relationship can be, since two homosexual lovers can
conceivably be more evenly "matched" than two people of opposite sexes
can be.

	BTW, I read _The Book of Lavender Lists_, and the gay _faux
pas_ listed in "What to Do If You Want to Keep your Lover" (?) seemed
to presuppose egalitarian relationships.
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: twpierce: new address
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:45:23 GMT
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA

Still around, and barely keeping my head above water now that I appear
to have installed NNTP and C news correctly at last.  If anyone needs
to send me mail, send it to twpierce@unix.amherst.edu.  Any addresses
you have used for me in the past will still work, but this one will
probably be more reliable for a longer period of time.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi
From: h431@quads.uchicago.edu (heather e blair)
Subject: Re: sunglasses and hats
Reply-To: h431@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:37:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.035722.4325@wam.umd.edu> jns@wam.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer) writes:
>
>What about both?  I have a hard time doing without
>the sunglasses, and I certainly like hats as well.

I always wear a hat outdoors.  People love to tease me about it, but it's
certainly necessary with my pale skin.  Helps me see better in bright 
sunlight, too.

>--jns


-- 

- Heather Blair       h431@midway.uchicago.edu
From: joelp@cs.man.ac.uk (Joel Parthemore || Pharos Project)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: nambla bashing (was, harrassing 'phone calls)
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:03:37 GMT

(cross-posting references deleted)

Scott (pentangl@spdcc.com)(Scott Moir) writes about Clayton C's obsession
    with paedophilia:

....

>So why are you taking it out on us? I don't think anyone, regardless
>of gender or orientation, thinks that child abuse is good. There are
>some pedophiliacs out there on -both- sides....

>The only difference is that there happens to be an organization on the gay
>side. Not everyone likes it, but it is there regardless....

You seem to be equating paedophilia as a ``physical attraction to children''
with paedophilia as a ``desire to sexually abuse children''.  Perhaps there
isn't a difference, in practice; but as far as I know, NAMBLA claims to
support the former, not the latter.

I find Clayton's comments so ridiculous because in my albeit limited
experience, gayfolk are desperately anxious not to be labeled paedophilic or
have anything to do with anyone who is.  The mere mention of NAMBLA seems to
give most gayfolk hives.

I don't know much about NAMBLA, beyond some fire-and-brimstone type articles
that TIME magazine published a few years ago.  But somehow, I'd expect to find
the child abusers (or better, people abusers) as -- Sunday school teachers,
community leaders, ``family men'', upright folk -- rather than in an
organization that is openly paedophilic.

When I was 23 I was emotionally very deeply involved with someone who was 15,
turning 16.  It could have become sexual.  At the time I had a lot of hang-ups
because of his age; looking back, I really regret having had them.  Since
then, I've met and heard tell of many, apparently stable, gay couples with
much wider spans between the older and the younger.

Joel,
        knowing much of this has been hashed through many times before, and
        pissed off with Clayton for having taken his previous comments on the
        subject *completely* the wrong way

>Scott
From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: why do people post?
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:44:43 GMT
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco

-- 
	C unions never strike; they only work to rule.

Laura Creighton 
toad@toad.com
hoptoad!laura
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: lje@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (lisa.j.elser)
Subject: Re: NEWSWEEK POLL: Plurality of Americans support GAY RIGHTS
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:45:54 GMT

>In article <15243@borg.cs.unc.edu> harris@polk.cs.unc.edu (Trey Harris) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep11.170042.13737@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike
>>Best) writes:
>
>> Do we seriously consider that everyone must be married?
>
>No.  But we would consider it a travesty if a large segment of the
>(heterosexual) population was _denied_ the right to be married IF THEY
>WISH.  Why is it any different here?
>

The RC church refuses to marry people who are incapable of having 
children.  Every so often a story hits the papers about a couple who
are denied the right to marry in the Church because one of them is
paralyzed or known to be sterile, and great cry is made over the
inequity.  These couples can marry by law, but if they are devout
RC's, the legal marriage is not valid in their eyes without
the blessings of the Church.

The essay question for today is:

	How does this situation compare to the situations of same-sex
	couples in America?  Focus on the separation of Church and
	State in determining marriage criteria, and the utility
	of marriage in the absence of children.


Lisa Elser
Resident Pedant
UNIX System Labs
Summit, NJ
lje@usl.com
Newsgroups: soc.motss,ne.motss
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Subject: NYC motss dinner:  9/20 (was G&M'ers at UNIX EXPO in NYC)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:35:57 GMT
Distribution: ny
Organization: (getting there)

deziner@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.p.rotella) writes:
 >Hi! I will be in NYC from 9/20->9/25 attending UNIX Expo and
 >was wondering if there are any G&M folks that will be in that area around
 >then, that might be interested in meeting, having dinner, showing me NYC.

This is as good a place as any to mention that there will be a
ny.motss dinner on Sunday, 20 September.  

Details as to time and place will be forthcoming.  The timing, which
is set to coordinate with Howard Solomon's schedule (why?  because
he made a point of asking, that's why), has been floating around the
weekend some, but I think has now settled down to Sunday evening.

Figure 7pm, Sung Hai (the usual place), but stay tuned for updates,
revisions and so on.


-- 

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

Xref: sparky soc.motss:38787 talk.politics.misc:44775
From: harris@degas.cs.unc.edu (Trey Harris)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NEWSWEEK POLL: Plurality of Americans support GAY RIGHTS
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:27:52 GMT
Followup-To: soc.motss
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <1992Sep10.144120.27773@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>In article <12194@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>We don't support homosexuals getting special protection...

>	Everyone I've asked this of can never give an answer to
>this question.

>	Define "special rights".  Give examples of "special rights".
>Show how the lack of these rights constitutes equality within our
>present society and legal system.

YesyesyesyesyesyesyesYES!

This has happened SO MANY times on television: the fundie 'phobe says
that we want 'special rights.'  The pro-gay person asks what 'special
rights' entail.  The host cuts in with "We'll get back to that right
after these messages."  And, of course, they never do.

Just yesterday, one of our infamous "pit preachers" was orating on
"homosexual privilege."  The pit preachers stand in the center of the
main congregation point on campus here (called the Pit, a depressed
brick area) and preach (usually in a more political than religious
manner).

He started on about how we want special rights.  I shouted at him,
"What are 'special rights,' specifically?  Could you give me an
example?"  He looked flustered and answered, "Are you a homosexual?"
I said, "That's none of your business.  I asked you a question."  He
said, "If you're a homosexual, then you know good and well what your
political agenda is."  I questioned him further, but he ignored me and
moved on to the topic of "the unborn's rights versus radical
feminism."

Would somebody, ANYBODY, tell me what special rights we want?  I know
what I want.  I want to be able to love and be loved without anyone
harrassing me for it.  I want to be able to legitimize a long-term
relationship should I wish to do so.  I want to have the option of
adopting children.  I want the option of working for the government in
a position I am qualified for.

Now, really.  Is any of this unreasonable?

Trey Harris
--Stranger in a Strange Thread!
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Hate mail
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:23:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.031632.18747@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, psp@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (P.S. Powledge) writes:
> Gee, what happened to Melinda's position as spokesperson for the 
> 'alternative sex' community? 

Wasn't that 'differently gendered?'

>Job-hopping *again*, Melinda?!?

No, just keeping really, really (really really really) busy.
It's *so* important to stay active in your professional
community, and, well, as a professional homosexual it should
be obvious where my efforts ought to go.
  
> - Polly "Cabal Card or Bust" Powledge [still pondering the layers
>   of meaning in the phrase "academic bitch"]

You'll always be in the cabal 'o my heart.

Over the years there have been several phrases used here
that stick with me because I like them for one reason or
another.  One was the fortuitous typo 'haterosexual.'
'Big hairy woman with a penis' is another (I was pleased
to see it reappear recently in one of Jess' articles).
I suspect 'academic bitch' will linger with me, too.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Joan Kroc (was: Torch Song Trilogy)
Date: 12 Sep 92 05:54:45 GMT
Organization: -

In article <18r0nmINN2n1@mizar.usc.edu>, 
adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
> 
>> Among the sponsors [Of Torch Song Trilogy] were General Mills, 
>> Toyota, Procter & Gamble
>> (Ivory), Home Depot, Gillette, Meinecke, Boku (which I may be
>> misspelling), the New Jersey Lottery (!), and-- believe it or 
>> not-- MacDonald's.
> 
> You shouldn't be all that surprised about McDonald's.  Mrs. Kroc 
> (whose first name I can't ever remember), 

Joan (If recall correctly.)

> the person who *owns* 
> McDonald's, has tried to make up for the harm her husband did when 
> he gave money to rightwing causes by giving money to AIDS research
> among other good causes.

Yes, her huby is probably spinning in his grave.  She also sold off
his businesses that she didn't like.  Joan is also a San Diegan. 
She's one of the good things about San Diego and one of the richest
women in America...and republicans fear her.  Joan, Mayor Maureen
O'Conner (who led the S.D. pride parade this year), and Helen Cropley
(who owns the local papers) have been described as the power brokers
of San Diego.  You can bet they make the old boy network sweat.   

I'm not sure how much of MacDonald's policy Joan sets (or if she even
still owns Mac), but MacDonald's has always been a pretty progressive
employer.  They believe in getting involved in the communities where
their restaurants are located.  No MacDonald's where looted during the
L.A. riots.

Jim
From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: A Short History ofDiscrimination in the Military
Date: 5 Sep 92 07:30:20 GMT
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco

When Clinton lifts the ban on Gays and Lesbians in the military, as
promised, or whoever in 1995 or so ... lets us not forget to fight that
those who got dishonorable discharges because they were Gay or Lesbian
get reassigned honorable discharges.

Laura    

-- 
	C unions never strike; they only work to rule.

Laura Creighton 
toad@toad.com
hoptoad!laura
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: boobs
Date: 12 Sep 1992 12:39:15 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1992Sep12.183825.4890@panix.com> 
pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.014944.14298@auto-trol.com> 
> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
> >Okay, NY-NJ motssers - up until at least a few years ago (last time I 
> >was there) there was a "Dyke Lumber Co." off to the left as you entered
> >one of the tunnels from the Jersey side. Which tunnel, and is it still
> >there?
>
> Lincoln, and it's to the south [...]

In one of the dusty towns in the San Fernando Valley -- 
Tarzana, I think, but possibly Encino -- is the fabulous 
"BEA DYKE" swimwear emporium.  It's in a little shopping 
center on Ventura Blvd., and I used to wonder at the name 
every time I passed it.  Surely, I mused, the name is more
commonly spelled "Beah"?  Was this a disguised sapphic
recruitment center for Valley girls?  I would imagine the
shop is still there.

Arne
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: a small flame on rec.gardens
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:54:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Sep8.165446.5637
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

Breathtaking flame, honey. Marvelous

>arnold m. zwicky
>university professor of linguistics, ohio state university
>visiting professor of linguistics, stanford university
>president, linguistic society of america
>fellow, american academy of arts and sciences
>and very public faggot

And bitchy, too :-)
-- 
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                   Nothing is true; everything is permitted
From: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: accordion bashing
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:39:55 GMT
Reply-To: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Organization: Quantime Ltd, London (software for market research)

In article <1992Sep10.092945.1639@wam.umd.edu>,
jns@wam.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer, the musical one) bellows:
> here are the wind-machine pieces that come
> to mind:
> 	F. Grofe: Grand Canyon Suite
> 	C. Debussy: La Mer
> 	M. Ravel: Daphnis et Chloe
> 	R. Strauss: An Alpine Symphony
> 	R. Strauss: Don Quixote
> 	R. Vaughan Williams: Sinfonia Antartica
> I wouldn't be at all surprised if Brian had
> used it a time or two also--but we don't hear
> much of him *over* *here* [huh, Rog?].

I'll try to remember to ask the secretary of the Havergal Brian Society
when I see him for lunch on Tuesday.
-- 
Roger Phillips                            roger@quantime.co.uk
"*Poot, Marcel* (b Vilvoorde, 7 May 1901). Belgian composer."
-- Grove Concise Dictionary of Music (1988)
From: Minotaur@cup.portal.com (Frank - Swilling)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: What is Prejudice (was: Re: Tastes and Prejudice)
Date: Sat,  5 Sep 92 10:54:14 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <BtwqrD.Gt3@agora.rain.com> <1992Sep1.194909.3770@macc.wisc.edu>
  <188sueINNjda@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU>

Gary Byma sez some very interesting things, most of which I agree
with, but have deleted, so as to take issue with the one teeny tiny
thing with which I do *not* agree:

>In conclusion, I believe that soc.motss ought to be a forum for
>people to voice their opinions whether they are based on one
>experience or many. Should someone disagree, I would hope they
>would bear in mind that perhaps all that person needs is more
>information. Brow-beating, arguing, name-calling are not likely
                            ^^^^^^^

Argument is the life-blood of soc.motss.  If you're going to change
someone's mind here, it's either going to be through the transcendent
quality of your arguments, or the inescapable enlightenment which
illuminates the recounting of your own experiences.

>to achieve the objective of changing anyone's mind, only make
>them dig in for a long (and wordy) skirmish. In the short time
>that I have been reading the net, I have profitted the most
>from careful cogent reasoning and from people sharing their
>experiences. I have profitted least from the diatribes, the
>biliousness and name-calling.

Frank
Minotaur@cup.portal.com
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Orson Scott Card
Date: 9 Sep 92 04:55:43 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Sep8.174649.13536@fig.citib.com> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:

>That someone was me.  Card runs an area on America OnLine and
>I sent him mail asking him if I could make his article available.

>His response included:

>" That one is way out of bounds - it was written to a
>Mormon audience and should only be received in its context as part of an
>ongoing discussion in Sunstone Magazine.

	It's clear that not only is OSC a homophobe, but also a
world-class weenie. I don't see how his homophobic remarks can change
their meaning if presented to a non-Mormon audience.
From: ro@panix.com (r l reid)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: advice sought: handling on-street harassment
Keywords: gaybashing, fundamentalists, religious zealots, street-corner, college town
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:25:39 GMT
Organization: Playdoh's Republic

In article <1992Sep3.233105.18243@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>I'm curious how the street preachers would react to people handing out
>pythagorean tracts :-)
>
>-- 
>------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
> \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
>    

I must be really confused.

I work almost exclusivly with rational numbers in my music (most music
is based around the 12th root of 2)....

and yet I cook mostly with beans and grain.

Can I find salvation?  I tried yto stand Pato on his head.

-- 
		r l reid	ro@panix.com
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca (Ken Dykes)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: Thinkage Ltd.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:16:01 GMT

In article <2aab7a17@ThreeL.co.uk> jf@threel.co.uk (John Fisher) writes:
>
>In article <8255.1189@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>,
>lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
>
>> As I have stated in the past...Cramer, IMHO, is trying to foment
>> civil unrest...this should be evident by his postings.

>Oh, come on.  The fellow is just a screw-ball.  It isn't as
>if he were anyone important.

arent these similar to words uttered by a Lord Chamberlain about one
Adolph Hitler...

-- 
   - Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada    [43.47N 80.52W]
         kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca   postmaster@thinkage.com   thinkage!kgdykes
         harley-request@thinkage.on.ca             kgdykes@math.uwaterloo.ca
Xref: sparky soc.motss:38738 talk.politics.misc:44682