HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: More total blatant fluff
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:11:50
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mlloyd@ocf.berkeley.edu's message of 14 Dec 1992 08:48:42 GMT

In article <1ghhpaINNlpo@agate.berkeley.edu> mlloyd@ocf.berkeley.edu (M. Lloyd) writes:
>nsn@ee.mu.OZ.AU (Nick Nicholas) writes:
>>Muffy Barocky: It is *NOT* *TRUE* I was scandalised by your apparel in your 
>>.gif! NOT TRUUUUUE, I telle yow!

>gif?  gif?  What gif?

You've seen it, Mike - it's my Usenix face-saver.

>(OK, so I have a fair supply of photos of Muffy
>as it is, but this may be one I haven't seen - a situation which I could
>not allow to persist.)

Tons of new ones developed recently - particularly good are the black
mesh ones from before the rock-star incident and the getting-dressed-in-
the-white-lace ones from just before you came out here.

>From your twisted description of the apparel
>involved, it sounds like it could be that stretchy black thingy with
>clasps on one side, and that serves to remind me.  There *should* be a
>photo of me wearing that ... Muffy?  Did A ever produce that?

That's the dress - and it was me, not A, who took the picture.  We have
it now...I'm afraid it doesn't do the same for you as it does for me -
we're going to have to get you some more "parts"...*GRIN*.

>>--- and *I* was expecting
>>a well-ventilated evening gown, with strategically placed rips

>*laugh* Nick, you don't know Muffy!  She'd look astounding in an airy
>evening gown, but well, it just ain't her chic, y'know?  Not unless it
>was black, and *very* well-ventilated ...  What she calls "a dress" I
>generally call "a good provocation to heart-failure".

I couldn't believe it!  I bought two new party dresses the other day, at
a store where all the dresses were on sale, and they said they were
*lingerie* and therefore not on sale!  Still, I *do* have an "evening
gown" (non-airy) which is burgundy (actually, a little more purple than
that, but I forget the real name of the color), not black.  I don't have
nearly as much opportunity to wear it, though...the other stuff is so
much more festive!

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans)
Subject: Tori Amos!!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:58:02 GMT


I just heard my first Tori Amos song!  (Happy Phantom.)  Neat!
The funny thing is, just after everyone started talking about
her here (last month), I went into a record store (Christmas
shopping, or I'd never even have gone in), and saw a Tori Amos
poster plastered all over the back wall...  Now I'll just have
to rush out and buy something....


Piglet
From: mlloyd@ocf.berkeley.edu (M. Lloyd)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Introduction, or De-Muffining
Date: 19 Dec 1992 07:02:43 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons) writes:
>   I've heard that the railroads are quite nice in the UK, too.

See, how the mighty are fallen!  *LAUGH*  This little quip contains many
a volume.  It's amazing how good sex can tend to take over your life,
especially when it's more than just physics and physiology.  Apart from
work to pay the meagre bills, it's a long time since I last did
*anything* which was not primarily motivated by social interaction, as
opposed to self-amusement.  Methinks Orc and I are glorying in the
sunshine after emerging from quite similar tunnels here.

>                 ____
>   david parsons \bi/ "Besides, my favorite sex toy these days is
>                  \/   a plane ticket" -Suzie Bright

*laugh*, and a wave to M.A.

BTW, in all seriousness, does anyone out there have use for a one-way
flight from San Fran to New York in January?  It made my flight
*cheaper* to buy a return (by a large factor), so ...

hugs
Mike

-- 
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: smd@uunet.ca (Sean Doran)
Subject: Re: Human Rights Legislation in Canada
Organization: UUNET Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 08:27:26 GMT
Distribution: na

I wrote:

>for three reasons. 

>Firstly

>Secondly

Oops, my brain must be on low.  The third reason why the Bill will
have trouble getting through the Senate is that there is a (small)
number of Senators on both sides of the House that will not support
any measure which will in any way condone anything that would have
shocked the most prudish of Victorians.

Of course, a few of these Senators are old enough to have met Queen
Victoria.  Sadly, most of the younger Tories (the pro-GST ones) seem
similarly inclined, although they're liklier to vote with the
Government Whip as good lackeys always do.

	Sean.
From: mlloyd@ocf.berkeley.edu (M. Lloyd)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Feeling out of place
Date: 18 Dec 1992 06:29:28 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: earthquake.berkeley.edu

fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>
>Ultimately, the government is not (IMO) the guaranteer of my "rights" --
>I am.  And the surest (not sure, but surest) defense is strength, not
>weakness.

Well, thanks Fritz.  That's the neatest sum-up of the underpinning
axioms for libertarianism that I've seen in a while.

At least the second statement is perfectly true, perfectly self-centred,
and about as useful as a basis for a moral philosophy as Might Is Right.
A queer with a gun can slaughter hir immediate oppressors (watch The
Living End for a little thought on this front), but somehow I don't
think that it's enough of a societal response to make weapons freely
available.  The government, or any other naturally-forming human power
structure with a different name, can, will and should have a role in
settling (and, in a few lucky cases, preventing) disputes between its
citizens, not least because the majority of individuals *cannot* be
fully self-determining and fully self-defending in the majority of
situations they face.  Humans gang up; school playgrounds are ample
proof of that.  Equate government to a teacher, and the analogy seems
good: the analog of libertarianism prefers little or no supervision, in
the belief that kids left alone will self-organise in a fair and decent
way.  I don't believe they do, and I don't believe adults are any
better.  In the main, they're worse, because they get bigger clubs to
beat each other with.

Illegality is a fine concept: a natural extension of a natural group
dynamic of unacceptable behaviour.  I, for one, am all for making it
illegal to mistreat or abuse me on the basis of my queerness.  Be nasty
if I flame, or if I kill your dog, but because I'm queer?  No, not for
that.  And the enforcement comes from collective power, not from me
"re-educating" the phobes who jump me in the alley or the people who
won't let me into their neigbourhood.  That re-ed programme is to be
encouraged, but it doesn't do enough.  The collective power in our
society is government, and I want it to work for me.  You prefer to
emasculate or eradicate that government; I gotta say, I'd fear for the
well-being of all the non-"normal" people in the alternative that goes
with your stance.

I'm not anti-lib because I'm queer, but it sure helps.

Mike
-- 
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: nigel@kathunk.phaedrav.on.ca (Nigel M Burnett)
Subject: Re: Introduction, or De-Muffining
Organization: as little as possible
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:07:31 GMT

the Crisco Kid (idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk) wrote:
: >>Darren
: >>(6'3", dark short hair, green eyes, bisexual and horny as ....)
: >swoon.  Omy you aren't coming up The northeastern direction are you?
: >Green eyes? swoon again.
: 
: 6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....

and me 6'1.75", rather unkempt greying hair, hazel eyes, bisexual, and
horny as ... (the rest of youse guys!)  :-)}
					   ^<-- that's the beard

Doesn't anyone (other than the odd Ausie) want to visit Toronto?

eh?

Nigel
-- 
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of
a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.  His own
good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.   John Stuart Mill

Nigel Burnett: 78 Normandy Blvd, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4L 3K3, 416-690-1834
Send e-mail to nigel@kathunk.phaedrav.on.ca or try uunet.ca!kink!kathunk!nigel
From: seamus@ravel.udel.edu (James G Dilmore)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Roy's "consenting" slave
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:51:45 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <s882916.724315458@otto> s882916@otto (Vikki POLLARD) writes:
>
>You men just don't get it huh?

I know that lots of people have responded to this already but I have
been waiting for some time.

Whether or not you believe or support the slave situation I have no
problem.  I am really pissed off though when you go and make that 
sort of generalization about men.  I am sick of generalizations based on
sexual identity, on race, on sex, et. al. and I have been fighting against
them on campus.  I hate to see something this ugly come up on the net.
I think that you could have made a point in a different way without 
presenting it like that.  That is if there was a point at all.


-- 
Jim Dilmore - seamus@brahms.udel.edu    or    dilmore@che.udel.edu 
               SILENCE = DEATH      Safe sex doesn't mean no sex.          
Give me life, Give me pain,         It just means use your imagination. 
Give me myself again.  Tori Amos.            Billy Bragg
From: winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Introduction, or De-Muffining
Date: 12 Dec 1992 03:17:47 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: geek.teng.ppd.ti.com


|> 
|> Dammit. It was my out-coming that started this string. *sniff*
|> And no-one is coming to *snuffled gasp, sniff* see me.
Let me kiss it (a lot) and make it better and better...

|> 
|> Scott
|> 
|> 6'3", dark short hair, brown eyes, bisexual, and horny as ....
|>                        ^^^^^
Me too!
well, the brown part, anyway.


|> 
|> And is everyone so tall around here ?
I'm kinda short - 5'10", dark short hair, brown eyes, bisexual, and horny as...

I just gotta keep up and get *in* this party that's leaving me behind.

*sniffle*
*lonely grimmaces*
js
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: kay@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Kay Dekker)
Subject: Re: A question about Stephen M. Conley
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:57:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.035216.25352@thelema.uucp> STella@thelema.uucp (STella) writes:
>In article <Bz1wG5.6FL@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>>Sorry, I *still* don't believe in the existence of political parties
>>with any principles other than "We want to be in power".  Alice
>>Cooper was right.
>
>Well, if you'd watched Andre Marrou doing the talk shows, you'd

Maybe I should have; but I have no television, and I don't know whether
the shows would have been shown on UK television.

>understand that the Libs MUST have been going on principle rather than
>political expediency.  _I_ would do a better job on talk shows than he
>did (and frankly, have more fun doing so) -- if they'd been after
>power, I'd imagine they'd have used someone who could think on his
>feet.

Perhaps you should put yourself forward as party spokesperson?  I'd
rather like to see you whipping Jeremy Paxman into shape :)

>>God, I must be in a fuckin' bad mood, growling at STella.  Sigh.
>
>Oh, were you growling?  I thought you were _flirting_, trying to get
>me to grab the Heartwood (not as big, by far, as Size Matters, but the
>best whip I currently own) and fly to whatever part of the US is lucky
>enough to be on your itinerary.

I'm strongly tempted to extend my wanderings Californiwards (after all,
there is rather a large number of VR companies there).

>Grrr right back, dear, and if you do get to the Bay Area, you are
>encouraged to get in touch (email me if you don't have my phone
>number).

*swoon* OK, OK, I'm coming to California.  Nope, I don't have your phone
number - *flirt* did I ever tell you you have the *sexiest* voice on the
phone? (You phoned me to tell me what "cooties" were).

-- 
the Crisco Kid: nasty pinko faggot agnostic pervert punk.  idx009@uk.ac.cov.cck
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: More total blatant fluff
Summary: Or, in this case, blatant flirting
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:55:55 GMT
Organization: Department of Atomic Text Units

In article <1ghhpaINNlpo@agate.berkeley.edu> mlloyd@ocf.berkeley.edu (M. Lloyd) writes:
|  I'm much the same as ever, if rather
|tired, and with some rather neat big silver feathers hanging from my
|ears and a Two Nice Girls CD found in a local lesbian bookstore.

   A CD that managed to magically become a bottle of very nice
single malt within the last day or so, too. The feathers are quite
nice, too, if not quite as nice as the owner of said earrings.

| I
|also reserve a large soft spot (just over here) for those people who
|make interesting noises when I knead their backs into new shapes.

  "Why, whatever could he mean?" muses the Orc, who doesn't know
*anyone* who'd fit that description.

                ____
  david parsons \bi/ "That's *MR* Vanilla to you"
                 \/
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Attack of the Seperatists
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: BNR, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:57:49 GMT


Mike Lloyd wrote:
> bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes:
> >The politics of oppression is
> >not to segregate but to unify those who are oppressed and those who
> >support them.  Does it really matter if we're black, white, green,
> >straight, gay, bi, Jewish, Christian, Wiccan, if we're trying to fight
> >oppression, whether it be bi oppression, black oppression, gay oppression
> >or female oppression?
> 
> Yes, it does matter, but it's not the only thing that matters.  It's too
> simplistic to say that people fighting a perceived enemy become unified.
> On one level they do, but on the next the myriad (and sometimes stark)
> differences persist.  Any coalition must recognise this layering; to
> pretend homogeneity drops from the heavens just because of The Cause is
> to be blind to some important dynamics.

Maybe my point didn't come across very well... I don't doubt that there
is diversity in any coalition that fights oppression.  I don't think it
would be prudent to expect or desire a homogeneous force.  The problem
to me, when fighting oppression, is when you tell your supporters that
their input and influence is not as valid as those being oppressed.  To
do that, is to segregate the coalition... to "take out" your oppression
on those who would like to help.  Maybe it's a bit of a simplistic view...
but that's just me.

> A male counsellor and a female counsellor can say the same
> words, but it is foolish to assume that they wil be understood in the
> same way by a client: that gender dichotomy is one of the deepest-rooted
> of all our attitudes.

True, but it does depend on the client.  I tend to prefer female
counsellors over male counsellors, because they are not loaded down
with male objectives or baggage and therefore are more objective.

> The client *will* filter what is said through hir
> accumulated preconceptions of these stereotypes no matter how liberated
> sie is, or how well you demonstrate your credentials to speak for a
> group you're not in.

But each client is unique.  And their requirements are unique.  To tell
a bi that they need a bi counsellor is to segregate and stereotype others.

> Still, the fact remains that you are
> quantitavely and qualitatively distinct from the one who has experienced
> the oppresion.

True, but does that make my input any less valid.  IMHO, it only makes it
different... but that would be true for all those who belong to the 
oppressed group.  Your experience of bi oppression is different than mine,
a woman's experience of female oppression is different than mine... it
doesn't make it any less valid, just different.


Opinions of,

    __o     Brad Booth              | "If somebody feels really good
  _`\<,_    Bell-Northern Research  |  about who they are, they don't
 (*)/ (*)   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  feel threatened by what other
----------  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |  people are." - Dr. M. Rubenstein
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: nsn@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Nick Nicholas)
Subject: Re: Australians (was Re: accidently out)
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:40:18 GMT

eowyn@brahms.udel.edu (Zoe Antonia Velonis) writes:
>nsn@ee.mu.OZ.AU (Nick Nicholas) writes:
>>idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:

It's been a while since I've said this...

*I*'m in the middle! *I*'m in the middle! :)

>>(I become love slave for a day to the person who first
>>identifies the song and singer thereof)
>Please say I win!!!! Please!  

Ooh... I don't know if I should let you win, Zo"e; I should have disqualified
from the competition persons so deeply akin to me it HURTS! *swoon*...

Not that you're reading this, having just gone home for the holidays, but...
.., nah, best keep that to email :) :)

>Boy, Mahler *and* Suzanne Vega!  This must be fate, or something, Nick.

*sigh* And we shouldn't tempt Fate, dear one. This sounds *too* much like
hubris...

>h Zwh' sou

to Nikola'ki sou.
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: safarj@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Jonah Emanuel Safar)
Subject: Re: Introduction, or De-Muffining
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:45:20 GMT

mlloyd@ocf.berkeley.edu (M. Lloyd) writes:

>safarj@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Jonah Emanuel Safar) writes:
>>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>>safarj@jec311.its.rpi.edu (Jonah Emanuel Safar) writes:
>>>>Okay folks, here's an intersting question,
>>>>what is the perfect height?
>>
>>>   5'1", 5'2", 5'5", 5'6", 5'7" & 5'7", I'd say.
>>
>>Well then... lets just try to do some sample statistics here then...
>>Mean: 5' 4 2/3" Median: 5' 5 1/2" Mode: 5' 7"

>Note the mode, telling us sweet FA as usual.

>>S.D.: 6 2/3" (For small samples, remember, divide by n-1)
>                   ^^^^^
>Splutter?!  Remove that word this instant.  The only situation where
>division by n is appropriate is if you have sampled the whole
>population.  Now in Joe's case, I might have believed this had happened,
>or will soon :-) 

>>>>And take make matters even more strange, can
>>>>we come up with an equation relating your height to the perfect height of
>>>>your partner(s)....?
>>
>>>   I think my equation would have to be non-deterministic, given the range
>>>of the values above that it generates...
>>
>>Non-deterministic?  Never!  I'm sure we can come up with something...
>>Anyone? :)

>Spoken like an engineer... *grin*  "Gimme the points and I'll fit you a
>curve."  But then, everyone going back to Erasmus has been attributed
>with the most important of statistical quotes, "give me 8 parameters and
>I'll draw you an elephant, give me 9 and I'll make it wave its trunk."

Give me 10 and I'll construct a CAD drawing and a detailed analysis model
for structural defects....

>Naw, I'll applaud Joe for taking the non-det route. 
>   ** Be Stochastic - It's Good For You **

>hugs
>Mike, thinking of a joke about engineers and sheep

>PS the joke is neither obscene nor particularly anti-engineer; it just
>sounded good that way :-)

Gee.. the only one I can think of in the area is...
Troy, where men are men, the women are men, and the sheep are resigned to it.

>-- 
>Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
>      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
>          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
>               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--

-Points.
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
 If the President won't do it to his wife, he'll do it to his Country. -Unknown
________________________________________________________________________________
Jonah E. Safar             R.P.I., Troy, NY              EMail to:safarj@rpi.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:26:20 GMT
Organization: (barely maintaining a grip enough to *just* speak for me)

In article <HR3PVB5w165w@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca> panda@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Elizabeth Holden) writes:

>One of my problems with Libertarian talk is that they tend to use phrases 
>like "feeding himself and his family".

Hey, I'm a libertarian, and I don't *ever* use that phrase :-)
BTW, I noticed the second-person plural "they" in your observation.
Just as bi's aren't all "THEM", libbies aren't all "THEY." :-)


>   In other words, just about every 
>Libertarian thinker seems to have been mascuine, patriarchal, and 
>traditional in thinking.  (Ha!  Bet Libertarians aren't often accused of 
>being "too traditional"!)

That *is* a new one, to be sure.  Sigh.  There are a lot of
libertarian women around (my wife is one, as a matter of fact),
and some very brave Libertarian Party politicos - Nancy Lord,
recent VP candidate (USA); Toni Nathan, a co-founder of the Party.
A great deal of libertarian literature has been written by females
as well - and not just on so-called "womens issues."

Having defended the honor of women, I do agree that gender plays
a subtle role in literature (and propaganda too, come to think of it).
On the other hand, politically-correct (PC) speech is really tedious.
My daughters don't much care that a lot of their reading refers to
"he" and "him" - they have enough self-esteem to realize that
its just a lack of a good English language second-person-neutral
pronoun.

>> >is an idealistic vision we admit; but funny thing--the more we work
>
>No, it doesn't sound idealistic to me.  I don't like laws and governments 
>either but Libertarians always sound to me like Social Darwinists - a 
>point of view that terrifies me.  
>
>
>Hugs,
>Elizabeth

Release your fear :-)  There is no pain.  #include <favorite.mantra>
It is difficult to summarize a very detailed and highly interlocked
philosophy, certainly not in a 30 second sound bite.  While it is
true that libertarians would not coerce you to, say, help the poor,
(where "coercion is defined as "gimme your money or we throw you in jail"),
they might set an example and do it themselves - and support
private charities - and return to a non-nuclear family where the
children supported the Old Folks - and ..... all of which we
as a family do, as a matter of fact.

It may *also* be true that we as a continent, and perhaps as a
species, are not ready for a truly libertarian society.  You get
the government you deserve, and all that.  Which doesn't necessarily
speak well for the good ol' USA    ;-)


Regards,

Alan

-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWS Austin-AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} auntbea.austin.ibm.com!alan@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | alan@auntbea
Newsgroups: soc.bi