HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:08:20 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

( re: homophobia )

>Nope. A phobia is an unreasing, irrational fear. Dislike is dislike.
>
>I dislike broccoli. I have no phobia about it.
>
>I dislike "homosexual culture". I can and have been in the Castro district
>many times without the slightest a trace of fear. The guy that cuts my hair
>describes himself as a flaming faggot and I have not the slightest fear
>of him. And so on and so on.

Well, if your "dislike" is not an unreasoning "fear", then perhaps you care
to delineate what it is you "dislike" about this category of people, in a
rational fashion.

Assuming, of course, there is any rational reason to dislike a group just
because of personal practices that you know of only through hearsay, that
victimize no one ...

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: query
Keywords: them weirdoz
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:10:49 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug21.192547.15740@queernet.org> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
    >In article <-19mhck.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>Actually, Clayton and I are AI programs...
    >>
    >"Artificial Intelligence" requires intelligence. Looks like
    >good old natural stupidity to me.

Oh, well, I just couldn't resist this one.

Roger, I must respectfully defer to your judgement on this one. Because  if
anything, there is no more qualified expert on stupidity than you.

Sorry you missed the humor (like most other things).



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Oh, I love it, I love it, I love it!
Date: 13 Aug 92 07:34:48 GMT
	<vd4mk_j.phil@netcom.com> <1992Aug13.003912.17901@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: rchilder@us.oracle.com's message of 13 Aug 92 00:39:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.003912.17901@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:

> Try to stick to the point. Which is whether "faggot" is a suitable thing to
> call another human being you don't know well enough to judge their reaction
> to such epithets.

> I say it isn't. You say it is. Am I wrong ?

To be fair, that is not his claim.  The point seems to
be, although it getting harder to see it by the day, that
you have every right to make that distinction.  But so
does he have the right to make such distinctions as he
finds congenial, regardless of your objections to them
or your protestations of their irrationality.  And if
that means that he doesn't want to do business with
people that have freckles on their nose, that's his
business, not yours.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Subject: Homophobics can't deal with the real world
Originator: jazanopa@nmtvs264
Reply-To: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:47:59 GMT

You guys that are so hung up on sex are just too scared to deal with 
any real problems.  (homophobics, "pro-lifers against non-procreatvie sex", 
etc) 

    40% of all schoolage children live in poverty. 
                   (source: my latest Utne Reader)

We talk about saving the environment for our children, but what
about our economy and our society?   (or do people literally mean
they only care about their own children) We are the only Western
nation that doesn't offer access to health care. Men are more concerned
about controlling a woman's life/body than to offer any positive
solutions.

I'm sick of trickle down economics, S&L bailout, corporate tax breaks,
Star Wars, "I've got mine", NIMBY, etc. We need to work change 
people's attitudes.


Patti Jazanoski
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: Oh, I love it, I love it, I love it!
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:09:02 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>I am actually quite upset over your mis-statement of what I have said.

If you'd stopped prevaricating and discussed the issue, this would not
be a problem.

>For the last time, I pointed out the subjective nature of the difference
>between someone such as myself and a close friend of Dauber greeting
>Dauber with the salutation inclusive of the word faggot.

If you were as sensitive to others' distress as you are to your own, you'd
know that Jeff Dauber doesn't ever expect you to greet him, never mind
greet him as a friend, since he is, after all, gay ... and so the subject
is a moot point, important to you probably because it is a way to verbally
harrass Jeff Dauber, not because of any relevance to daily life.

>The whole point being that there is IS TREMENDOUS difference to Dauber,
>even if both myself and his close friend had the same objectives
>and friendliness in mind.

So ? Honor that difference and shut up.

>That the IMPORTANT difference is NOT how I menmat, nor how his friend m,eant
>it, but rather how JEFF (subjectively) viewed it.

Do tell !!

>Thus, when someone says "Gee, why doesn't the shopkeeper want to serve
>me, just because I'm xys", you can the point is not HOW friendly you
>are, or how good your money is, but on the SUBJECTIVE reaction of
>the shopkeeper.

Bias is bias. It is not an excuse for singling people out, unless that is
the sort of behavior one prefers to have applied to oneself, is it ?

>I.e., Jeff can only be judged by his own standards, and the judgement can
>only be done by Jeff.

Jeff has judged your comments inappropriate, irrelevant, and borderline
abusive, I suspect.

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:35:02 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <omk7jq4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, Jeff Dauber writes, among other things:

>>You are such a prime example of "white male" it boggles the mind.

This is one of the most racist, sexist comments I've ever seen on the net.
And yet, only when "typical (as defined by Jeff Dauber)" white males make the
comment are the accusations and labels ever attached to such garbage.

You are telling Clayton et al that stereotyping is wrong.  So why in the hell
are *you* stereotyping white males?

I *don't* have any dislike for homosexuality.  All I know about homosexuality
is that it's not for me.  If it's for you, more power to you.  I have my own
moral code, and it leans toward the conservative, traditional morality (dare
I say "white male" morality?).  However, that is how *I* choose to run my life.
I have *zero* desire to make others conform to my self-imposed moral values.
Just as "your mileage may vary," your own morality may vary as well.

And as far as I'm concerned, as long as you can respect my lifestyle choice
(even if you don't like it), I can respect your own choices.  You have every
right to live as you do, but you have no right to control how other people feel
about your lifestyle, other than to persuade them that their objections are
wrong or self-righteous.

But please...if you're going to blast Clayton's "stereotyping," then practice
what you preach.  Anything less is pure hypocrisy and it hurts your arguments.

And BTW, I'm not a "white male."  I'm an American Indian.  Why should that
matter, though?


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
***************************************************************************
The Federalist Papers:  Cliffs Notes for Constitutional study.  Use it.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 19 Aug 92 06:07:38 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer

In article <5043@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P.
Anderson) wrote:

> No, changing them is impossible. But allowing their warped world view to
> affect my life and your life must not continue. A good start will be the
> election of Bill Clinton. However, listen carefully to what the ultra-
> conservatives say about this: "Yeah, sure, let's get Clinton elected;
> then we can watch while the whole country goes down the tubes." See,
> they actually want this to happen to further their agenda. They could
> care less if dead and starving children are necessary to get people to buy
> the conservative line.

You mean like the congress did when it made the choice to screw over Bush
no matter what cost to the nation?

> These dinosaurs have had their 12 years and they've made a pretty big
> mess. Of course, they're busy blaming the Congress (democrats) for
> not implementing their policies. Maybe Congress told them to stuff it
> because there was no sense of compromise.

We'll never know, will we?  That's what is HOSED.  Congress made a decision
to halt any victory for Bush.  Foley said this himself by admitting that
the only legislation he would pass on to Bush was stuff he knew Bush would
veto.

Government at work, I suppose.
 
> I guess what I'm saying is this: The conservatives don't want to compromise,
> and now the liberals aren't compromising either. So be it. No state budget,
> again fine and dandy. But I will not pay for Star Wars, I will not let
> the schools go belly up, I will not this, and I will not that.

We've had compromise, and it failed.  Bush compromised in 1990 with a tax
increase, and congress f***ed him by not cutting spending as they promised.

Wilson also did the same thing, with the same results.  That's what you get
when a Republican starts acting like a Democrat.

But, sure, if Clinton wins I will be more than happy to jeer, point and
laugh if things get worse.  Then we can say again that once again we had a
government run entirely by Democrats, and we're in a bigger mess than ever.
 Of course, they (and probably you) will *still* blame it on Reagan and say
that it just takes long to repair his damages (like, sure).

When taxes go up and employers leave (like they have done here in
California) and suddenly people find themselves without jobs because of
huge military cuts, environmental wacko provisions and higher taxes, we'll
see who's crying and about what.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
I don't speak for Apple.  Really, I don't.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:21:29 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <=75mtmb.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
>>>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
>>>but the pretty ones are such a waste.
>>
>>Sexist asshole.
>
>
>Why is this sexist or an "asshole" remark. It is a true remark to the best
>of my knowledge.

Because he is treating women as objects.  They are not people, they are
just objects for him to fuck.

Is that simple enough for you?


FWA
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4595 alt.activism:14948 talk.politics.misc:40230
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Political Correctness (was Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective))
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:14:04 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
>>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
>>but the pretty ones are such a waste.

>Sexist asshole.

I'm giving this a slightly wider dissemination because I think it's a
beautiful example of poltical correctness.

Look at it.  I state a fact that Dauber doesn't like.  He responded
with a personal attack.  I said something that attacks his view of the
world, therefore I am evil.

There is also a clear distinction between this kind of political
correctness and just being a liberal.  A liberal response would have
been "Well, it's bad that straight men feel like that and hopefully
they will change over time."  The politically correct response, on the
other hand, is to ignore the argument and attack the arguer.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:19:16 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: ba.politics

In article <1992Aug13.184932.5632@clipper.ingr.com>, ald@clipper.ingr.com
(Al Date) wrote:
> 
> In article <athos-050892222610@kip2-21.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> 
> >
> >Today the arguement is "It's not a life" and "Yes it is a life with
> >Rights."  To me, the issue isn't "taking away the rights of women" but
> >rather "taking away the life of a fellow human."
> > 
> 
> How can you consider, for example, something without a brain to be fully human?

Because I know of people who do nothing but stare out windows all day in
old folks homes, their brains not quite as quick as they used to be.  These
people have rights, although they are not quite like you and I.  So, when
do we consider the brain to be fully formed and how do we base the handing
out of human rights to that thing?

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: OK Jeff, answer this one please
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 19:02:24 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <omkcv8k@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >It is considered bigotted to dislike an entire group of
    >people AS A GROUP. You are not homophobic if you dislike me.
    >You are not homophobic if you dislike the actions of Queer
    >Nation. You are not homophobic if you think dressing up in
    >drag is disgusting. You are homophobic if you decide that you
    >do not like homosexuals as a group.

So Jeff, do you retract this statement of yours as bigotted then?

"You are such a prime example of "white male" it boggles the mind." J. Dauber




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Oh, I love it, I love it, I love it!
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:18:10 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Distribution: ba
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Aug13.005940.18875@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

|> So let me get this straigh.
|> 
|> A can say "XYZ" and it's OK because it is with friendly intent, but if
|> B says "XYZ" then he can be penalized because it is not with friendly
|> intent.  I'm kind of uncomfortable with this.  Rules are supposed to
|> be for everyone.

Hypothetical:

You are walking down a street.  Two African American men are approaching
each other from opposite directions.  You are a white person.  The two persons
get near each other and say, "Yo, nigger, how you been?"  Would you
use the same greeting with either of them?

Later,
George

-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:01:33 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>>Excuse me, but why is it homophobic to dislike gays?

>>Homo' phobic : derived from Latin roots 'homo', meaning 'same', and
>>		'phobos', meaning fear.

>So should we call White racists who hate Blacks negrophobes?  Seems a
>bit idiotic, no?

Not at all. Quite a precise description of their condition, one scien-
-tifically respectable and stripped of the emotional overtones assoc-
-iated with the word 'racist'.

However, most people whom experience fear of black people experience fear
of oriental people, and experience fear of cultural differences in gener-
-al, such that the technical term is probably 'xenophobe'.

But this is getting away from our point, which is "why is it homophobic to
dislike gays ?", and the answer is, "because that's what the word means,
Michael."

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Political Correctness (was Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective))
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:24:52 GMT


In article <1992Aug19.194740.5488@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug18.152420.14853@fig.citib.com> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Aug15.221404.8652@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
|> >|> In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
|> >|> >In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
|> 
|> >|> >>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
|> >|> >>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
|> >|> >>but the pretty ones are such a waste.
|> 
|> >|> >Sexist asshole.
|> 
|> >|> I'm giving this a slightly wider dissemination because I think it's a
|> >|> beautiful example of poltical correctness.
|> 
|> >It's actually a beautiful example of a Usenet discussion, and of
|> >taking something out of context.  
|> 
|> You are lying.  I did  not take this out of context and I challenge
|> you to prove otherwise.

As I pointed out to you in E-mail, the fact that the first line 
in your included section starts with "2." indicates that you
left out *at least* the section that starts with "1."  
I also pointed out that almost all Usenet discussions 
have some history - the thread itself, previous encounters
of the participants, previous discussions.  To take one 
statement and one response and pretend that it means 
*anything* outside of its context shows both blistering 
stupidity and the assumption that others are equally stupid.

|> >|> Look at it.  I state a fact that Dauber doesn't like.  He responded
|> >|> with a personal attack.  I said something that attacks his view of the
|> >|> world, therefore I am evil.
|> 
|> >Maybe you *are* evil.
|> 
|> Define evil.

Wow.

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 17 Aug 92 00:13:28 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer

In article <1992Aug14.162851.26877@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve
Thomas) wrote:

> You're a very close minded person; far more so than anybody I've seen here
> on the net thus far...
> 

Okay, so I am closeminded.  I don't see how, but what the hell.  If
believing that a fetus is a life and has rights is "close minded" then
fine.  I also believe that by the same definition, abolishonists were
"close minded" as were people who felt that women had the right to vote as
are those who feel women should be able to go into combat and that gays
have a right to serve in the military.  I think I am good company here.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
I don't speak for Apple.  Really, I don't.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 06:34:43 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <ompg2gs@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >You apparantly do not know many lesbians. How about the
    >lesbian you love discussing here at SGI, you know the one. Is
    >she ugly in body or spirit? The answer is no. How about Jodie
    >Foster? No again.

No, Jeff, you are wrong in spirit. While it could be considered correct
to ASSUME (your word "apparently") that I do not know many lesbians,
in reality I do. The extent to which I associate on a frequent basis
with homosexuals, both male and female, would astound you. You should
know that m dislike of the homosexual "lifestyle" (or whatever we
need to call it) is based on close, factual, first hand exposure.


    >Yes, you are a bigot.
    >...
    >"If you don't like the way I'm living well Fuck You!" - NWA

bigot
    one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and
    prejudices

Nope, of the two of us, I'm not the bigot.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

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