HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thompsjm@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Jeremy M Thompson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Men Not Getting It
Date: 16 Nov 1992 04:09:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Distribution: world
Reply-To: thompsjm@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Jeremy M Thompson)
NNTP-Posting-Host: o231-06.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1992Nov15.160349.4486@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu  
(Jess Anderson) writes:
> How can one *not* see that all these oppressions are linked
> together in myriad ways?  How can anyone *not* see that
> these linked oppressions form an interlocking network of
> steel bonds penetrating all facets of our society?  How can
> anyone *not* see that our common "enemy" is this tendency to
> create and maintain power relationships that seek personal
> gain through causing others to lose?  How, really, can
> anyone not "get it?"

It seems to me that the only way people can't "get it" is if they refuse  
to "get it."  For some people, not "getting it" is the only way to succeed  
in society and in life.  They've been taught by whatever gave them their  
values that the key to success is staying on top and destroying whatever  
gets in their way.  They've been taught that everything proper has its  
place in society and that everything different is evil.  What they see as  
the "enemy" is probably the exact opposite of what you see as the "enemy."  

The problem that exists now is a problem that has always existed.   
Different people have different values, and in some circumstances, they  
simply can't be reconciled.  I know that I can't go a day in my life  
without saying something that will offend someone, not because of word  
choice, but because of values that I hold dear to my heart.  Someone who  
may violently disagree with me might begin an argument.  Likewise, I may  
start an argument with someone else.  In the end, I know nothing will be  
accomplished because no matter what might be said the same values that  
were held at the beginning will still be held at the end.

Values are one thing for which people will die.  They are driven into  
people's consciouses with such force that nothing could ever hope to  
change them.  You may conquer and force them into submission, but the  
values that gave a person their individuality will still exist.   In fact,  
the only thing that could hope to change a person's values is that person,  
and then it's only a variation on a theme.

The only reason they don't "get it" is because we don't "get it."  They  
don't share our values because they have their own set of values to rely  
upon.  There really is no way to make someone else to see anyone else's  
point of view.  If a person sees that their actions are violating their  
own values, they may change their actions.  They may realize that  
something just isn't right.  But then again, they may not.

--
Cottleston Cottleston Cottleston Pie.|Jeremy Thompson
A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly.|Rose-Hulman Institute
Ask me a riddle, and I reply,        |  of Technology
Cottleston Cottleston Cottleston Pie.|Terre Haute, Indiana
                        - Pooh       |thompsjm@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu
From: QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Homos at Depth
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:22:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92323.192240QAA
Organization: Penn State University

In article <BxvnE3.EKE@fig.citib.com>, glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) says:
>[...]
>What I don't understand is why there aren't more
>queers who dive.  It takes some skill and education,
>it's faux-butch (you get to strap a big knife to your
>calf) and there is lots of paraphenalia to buy - dive
>skins, wetsuits, masks, flippers, booties, and a whole
>array of dive computers to obsess over.
>[...]

For me it was the costs involved which made it impossible.  Two of my
brothers are divers (I think one of them is certified to instruct), but
when they told me what the basic investment in equipment was, the bottom
line was way beyond my means (on a piss poor Univ. salary).

On a similar note - I've always wondered why I've gotten looks of shock
when I tell people that I enjoy target shooting (handgun/rifle/shotgun).

-Tim
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon)
Subject: Re: Not Enough Sucking on Keanu
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:59:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: soc.motss

In article <pfritsch.721949536@skid.ps.uci.edu>, pfritsch@skid.ps.uci.edu
(Paul Fritschle) wrote:

> >We DID get a good glimpse of a very hard little male nipple, though... 
> 
> Whose? Whose?! Inquiring minds want to know...

Why, Keanu's, of course.  Members of a certain persuasion that roam
these here woods would not aprove, as a most baby-butt smooth nipple
it was.  But I assure you, it was quite hard.  In fact, I had a 
great deal of trouble recognizing it at first.  

Very close in shot.  Lots of smooth skin and then this funny,
cylindrical thing.  And then - recognition! (and an a erection...)

And there is a scene where on of the nymphos plants herself firmly
into Keanu's nether region - whereupon Keanu lifts himself from
the bed in a fit of sensual agony.

Oh!  Were only *that* done in extreme close-up!

*X*
From: Minotaur@cup.portal.com (A Frank Swilling)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boycott all of Color
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 19:47:56 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Nov15.235608.22978@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
  <1992Nov16.182934.20759@ncar.ucar.edu>
  <1992Nov18.184447.111980@zeus.calpoly.edu>
  <mattm-181192113943@mcmelmon.apple.com>
  <1992Nov19.003751.15111@gordian.com>
  <mattm-191192090714@mcmelmon.apple.com>

Matthew (What does the *X* stand for?) Melmon sez:

>In article <1992Nov19.003751.15111@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com
>(Michael A. Thomas) wrote:

>> > This boycott is *already* a flop.  Mr. Williams posted something
>> > which is far more likely to have an impact - and it is the
>> > exact *opposite* of what the TT's of soc.motss are calling for.

>>   I would say that the rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated.

>When the Arizona vote took place against MLK b-day, the opposition
>was ready the *immediately* with a boycott.  And it was not
>just black organizations who went in on it.  In the case of Louisianna,
>the 'opposition' was just about the entire country, and the threats
>were in place well before the vote even occured.  In the case of
>Colorado, it's very much a one group thing, and that group is divided.
>And it's been a couple of weeks since the vote.  And there is still
>no coherent 'Word from Above' on the status of this 'boycott.'

>It's dead, Jim.  Or at least metabolically challenged.

>*X*

Dammit, Bones, you're a doctor.  *Fix* it!

According to today's San Francisco Chronicle, the boycott is just
now starting to gain real momentum.  I don't have the article in
front of me, but apparently Barbra Streisand just gave a speech
at an AIDS benefit in L.A., wherein she said to other entertainers,
"If we're asked to, we must refuse to play where they discriminate."

She said this, and other things, in an attempt to persuade the
Hollywood crowd to stay away from Colorado, which happens to be
one of their favorite hangouts these days.

I'll consider the boycott *really* serious if Cher sells her house.

Frank
Minotaur@cup.portal.com
Xref: sparky soc.motss:48879 soc.bi:15458 alt.homosexual:360
From: turnert@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Thom F Turner )
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi,alt.homosexual
Subject: Re: Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Relatives?
Date: 23 Nov 92 12:39:29 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

i


Expires: 

Followup-To: 
Distribution: 

Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Keywords: 

In article <92328.053515U60145@uicvm.uic.edu> U60145@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>
>     I was wondering, how many of you have relatives that are also
>gay/lesbian/bi?  I myself am bisexual and have an aunt that is lesbian,
>and one of my good friends who is gay has a gay uncle.  I seem to meet
>alot of people with this same situation.  It just seems to me to bring
>the conclusion of genetic choice, not personal choice.
___________________________
I was just reading a study in "Science" (vol 255, Jan 03, 92, pg33) that discussed a study of twin and adoptive brothers.  it seems that if a twin brother
(identical) is gay, there is at least a 52% chance that the other
brother will be gay (22% for fraternal twins and 11% of adoptive brothers)
This shows to some extent that homosexuality may be genetic.  (Also   
interesting in this study was that the adoptive brothers were gay
11% of the time...very close to what Lesbians and Gays have been saying
for years (from Kinsley's study) that 10% of the populace is gay.)
 
Thom Turner
turnert@gas.uug.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: jarvis@psych.toronto.edu (Brian Jarvis)
Subject: Re: Visiting Memphis, TN
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:48:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.162641.23446@midway.uchicago.edu> elle@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.054714.5391@psych.toronto.edu> 
> jarvis@psych.toronto.edu (Brian Jarvis) writes:
>>Next Thursday, I'll be flying to Memphis for CLOG, the national clogging
>>convention.
>
>To be followed immediately, one wagers, by the national plumbing
>convention.  
>
>[Ellen ducks flying clogs...]

Double-step, double-step, double-step, rock-step,
**KICK** rock-step,
double-step, rock step.  B{)

> I passed your request for tips on to
>Cliff, a Memphian.

Thanks!

Brian
-- 

Brian A. Jarvis,          Rm. 4026, Sidney Smith Hall, Dept. of Psychology,
jarvis@psych.toronto.edu  University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
System Administrator      M5S 1A1  (416) 978-3948
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi
From: gtoal@nyx.cs.du.edu (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Oprah 11/19
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 04:30:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.191708.11165@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> dwells@lonestar.utsa.edu (Darren . Wells) writes:
>In article <KhG=Wj_@engin.umich.edu> rowe@engin.umich.edu (Steven Rowe) writes:
>>actively jumped, as far as I'm concerned.  But some snarks are boojums.
>                                                     ^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^
>
>Pardon me, sir, but are you speaking some new language here?  Or are you
>rewriting English by adding words of your own?
>
>Or am I just ignorant and behind the times . . .
>
>[I hope I am not about to be really embarrased]

Probably, but I'm ssure a gratuitous hug or three will cover your blushes.

G
[It's from a Hunter S Thompson book - The Great Snark Hunt ;-)]
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Re: Cheese-Louise
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:27:19 GMT

nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:

>Jess says:

>>As for dietary weirdness, I've not run into many people who drink
>>aloe vera gel regularly, which I do to the tune of about an ounce
>>daily (in OJ).

Jess! Darling! How *do* you keep your digestive tract so soft and
smooth?

>Mark, you silly - didn't you hear FJ!!? He can get good brie whenever
>he wants - it's Velveeta (TM) that he craves.

What really interests me about Velveeta (It's good when mixed into
macaroni) is how it feels when you cut a block of it. It's as if
it's filled with pent-up energy and only the red dye #3 is keeping
it from flying into hyperkenetics. Is it related to flubber? (I'll
have to confer further with Keri about this; she's decided that it's
caulking.)

>this sounds marvelous. Could we make it St. Patrick's day, though? By
>then I'll be able to legally go to those wine shops and
>microbreweries..

Make it late June, so's I can get in too. (and besides, who'd go
to a non-queer-specific bar on St. Patrick's Day? When faux-Irish
guys are barfing...)

--
John Dorrance        * Sexyfunky Motherfuckerdiva *   thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu

		I bet if you threw that ass into the air
			It'd turn into sunshine!
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Beards in heat
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:02:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Nov17.190207.15209
Organization: insert anything here
Equivalence-In-Motss-Postings: 1,540
Bear-Content: yes

dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey) writes:
>>It took years of cut and grow, cut and grow before I got my beard trained
>>to grow on demand.

>I suppose this is tongue-in-cheek.  Your hair follicles don't know they've
>been cut.  All you're doing by shaving is creating a "level playing field",
>and the years of effort are simply time to play your genes out.

>>The sad part is that I am such a little furnace
>>that I can't stand to wear it year round (not even in Butte, Montana
>>where "hot" is 85 degrees).

>I can't figure this one out.  Have you considered the Sinead look?
>Much cooler (most heat is lost thru the top of the head--trust me on
>this.)  I'm an original furnace but I don't find that a beard
>makes me feel hotter (well, THAT way.)  Is this a problem with sweat?

	I find that the beard keeps summer heat OFFF of my face
(since the follicles don't have nerve endings).  In terms of sweat
I've also found that I get more cases of "itchy-beard" in humid
places (say Boston as opposed to New Mexico)...

BBC
Newsgroups: soc.motss,pnw.motss
From: coren@speed.osf.org (Robert Coren)
Subject: Re: 1991 anti-gay measure ruled unconstitutional
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:57:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.134659.12749@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu
(Bil Snodgrass) quotes an article about the Concord, CA
anti-gay-rights ordinance being overturned, with mention of the
similar overturning of a 1988 Oregon law.

Both of these are mentioned as encouraging indicators for the case
against Colorado's Amendment 2.

This is very nice, and I'm very glad these two laws were overturned.
But I'm not sure I'd get too excited about the connection with
Colorado. I haven't seen enough details to be sure, but I would
suspect that these two cases found the laws in question to be in
conflict with their respective state constitutions. The Colorado
amendment is *part* of the state constitution. To overturn it, I
believe, would require finding it in conflict with the *Federal*
constitution, so it's not clear that we have any useful precedents
yet.
From: psp@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (P.S. Powledge)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Schedule Conflict
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:09:37 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ

In article <1992Nov23.120504.18585@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>I see on the soc.motss Secret Homosexual Conspiracy Mailing-list Calendar
>that my shift for posting pro child-molestation stuff to annoy Clayton
>Cramer is coming up.
>
>Due to an oversight on my part, I have a conflict then.  Thursday, I'm
>supposed to be cruising the local elementary school to find boys to
>convert, and Friday I'm supposed to be stuffing letters for the
>"Release Jeffrey Dahmer" effort, so I need to ask someone else
>to handle my shift here.  Gene?  Jess?

Damn, wish I could help -- but I'm all booked up with the "Straight
People Can Be Sexual Abuse Survivors, Too" hoax. And then after that,
me and my lesbian and bisexual women friends are scheduled for a 
thrill-kill spree. Sheesh, I can hardly fit this all in my Day Runner!

Hope you can find someone to fill your shift,



-- 
||| Polly Powledge				
||| Internet: p.s.powledge@att.com
||| Uucp:     att!hrmso!psp
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: timf@microsoft.com (Tim Fleehart)
Subject: Re:  OR Prop *8* overturned
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:11:56 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Nov14.224431.1120@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
>1. a general Bill of Rights first amendment ruling
>   (the right to express queerness)

U.S. consititution, correct?

This changes perspective on Mabon's statement:

>One thing from yesterday's article was Lonny Mabon saying that
>"because these laws are going to be unconstitutional, we have to amend
>the constitution". I don't know how easy it is to amend the Oregon
>constitution to actually change it, but I have a sinking feeling it's
>still just a simple majority. Bleah.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Subject: Re: Too Much News
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:54:39 GMT

rjwill6@pbsdts.sdcrc.pacbell.com (Rod Williams) wrote: 
->
->    -  The Catholic Church issued a catechism that urged gays
->       and lesbians to "remain chaste," that homosexual acts
->       are "grave depravations," "intrinsically disorderly"
->       and go against "Natural Law" (a curious concept,
->       apparently back in vogue, that seems to include
->       whatever the person invoking it wants it to).
 
this from men in ugly,  misshapen frocks.

this from a lot which just discovered, after bizillions of years, that
tax fraud is "a sin."

*yawn*

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
# "fight the real enemy."  -- sinead o'connor, and many others.
#     for information on the league for programming freedom, 
#                     write to lpf@uunet.uu.net
Xref: sparky soc.motss:48564 alt.politics.homosexuality:7435
From: tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: soc.motss.info (was Re: Gender Parity)
Date: 19 Nov 1992 23:28:03 -0500
Organization: P.L.T.S., North Plainfield, NJ, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: plts.uucp

In article <1992Nov16.053505.9497@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
>And Tom, you're quickly establishing yourself as a Usenet guru, what
>with your INN help sheet and all. I bet *you* could run the RFD/CFV
>just fine. We'd all love you for it.


I do not agree with the voting process (never have, never will) and
I refuse to run the vote.

However, if someone runs the vote and lists me as first moderator,
I will gladly take the role.  Hopefully, however, we can develop
it to the point where multiple people will be able to moderate
at the same time.

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.uucp (home) -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work)
"Higgy higgy forward, higgy higgy higgy higgy higgy shake!  Yeeaaah!"

1004211322700352222
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon)
Subject: Re: Rowley on Bigotry
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:54:28 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: soc.motss

In article <1992Nov18.131816.23926@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu
(Jess Anderson) wrote:
> 
> 
> In article <17931@autodesk.COM> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen
> Rowley) ...

> cross-posts *and* responds to Cl*yt*n, a double recipe for
> getting me to ignore his efforts.

Not that you'd actually do it.  Not you, Jezeboo.  You are
an old cat in a big sandbox - scratch and dump, sratch and
dump.  

*X*
From: wlp@calmasd.Prime.COM (Walt  Peterson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Queers in military in other countries???
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:36:19 GMT
Organization: Computervision Corporation, San Diego R&D

In article <1e9k7mINN23a@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu} cf379@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (J. Alan) writes:
}
}I'm fairly sure Canada lets queers into the military, and
}even did studies to see what happened -- answer: NOTHING.
} 
}Does anyone know about rules and regs on queers in military
}in other countries?  I'm pretty sure there are a lot of them
}out there that do not explicitly ban gays/lesbians.

Of all of the NATO nations, only the US and UK currently have an
absolute ban on out gays & lesbians serving in the military.


-- 
Walter L. Peterson                    |                 ______
Internet   : wlp@calmasd.Prime.COM    |       Silence   \    /   Action
CompuServe : 70441,3177               |          =       \  /      =
"Generic Disclaimer"                  |        Death      \/      Life
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan)
Subject: Re: How Many Homosexuals?
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:17:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.011226.24292@oracle.us.oracle.com> dgilly@us.oracle.com (Daniel Gilly) writes:
>
>As for Arthur T. Hu, he certainly loves to evaluate statistics,
>but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Or, in Arthur T.'s case, bad ones.

--John
-- 
John Flanagan                          ||"Pretty boys
johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu           || with the sunshine faces
U. of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astro.|| <mumble mumble>..."
2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822    ||   -- My Bloody Valentine
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics
From: ckincy@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 15:20:54 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

[Alberto Pinkas:]
>   Let's say that I have a store. Let's say that I have a Gay employee and that
>   the people on this town do not like Gays for some reason. Let's say that
>   I ahve nothing against Gays but that my bussiness is going straight into
>   collapse because these people do not buy from my store due to the Gay 
>   employee.
>   Should I be able to fire him and start making some money with my store, or
>   should I go into bankrupcy just because there is a law that says that I
>   should not discriminate against Gays, when it was not me but my customers?
>   So, the solution is: Keep the Gay until you both are out of bussiness?
[Ronald Hayden:]
>It seems to me that to fire the gay employee in this circumstance
>would be to say, "Hey, they're not after ME, so I'll just get rid of
>you, let business get better, and regain the privileges I enjoy as a
>member of society who is not discriminated against..."
>
>Which of course only exacerbates the problem.
>
>Seems to me the answer is to work against the problem.  This isn't
>easy.  But every person who chooses the easier path (fire the
>employee, disown the relative, reject the friend) sets the process of
>developing a fair society back another step.

Perhaps a better solution is to lay off everyone and move your business
to another location that wouldn't have residents who boycott your 
store because you happen to have an employee who is gay.  If enough
people did this, the economy in that region would begin to fail and
people would wonder why.

If you have problems with *this* method, please note it is similar
to a boycott of Colorado.  Why stay and fight when you can punish them
*more* by running away?

cpk
Xref: sparky soc.motss:48583 talk.politics.misc:61030 ca.politics:9737