HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:59:00 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <athos-290792155141@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

>You *do* have the choice not to get pregnant.  You may not like what you
>have to do to achieve it, but you do have that power.

	OK Rick, time to hit the blackboards.
	I wanna see you write a thousand times:

	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
		etc......
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion's view on life:
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:16:51 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <1992Jul30.080109.17499@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:

>So on the record, when do the pro-abortion people think human life begins?

When the mother says so.
				MPA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:11:22 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <92008@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <j3kmvtq.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) tries to explain why he doesn't want his daughter to
    >associate at all with gay men or lesbians:

No, this is not what I said, although close, it is quite different.
To rephrase, I want control over who and what my daughter associates with.

    >>For the same reason I don't want a lot of people who
    >>engage/are in activities that are legal, moral, permissible
    >>-- because it is not want I want for her to be, see, or
    >>ACCEPT AS O.K.
    >>
    >What are you going to say when she asks you why you won't let
    >her associate with friends who are different? Are you going
    >to punish her if she should disagree with you?

Same things my parents did when I was 8 and hung around what was called then
a "juvenile deliquent" -- forbid me to associate with him and ensure that the
edict stood.

    >As far as I'm concerned, you're still beating around the
    >bush.

How? I am being pretty explicit here.

-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

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

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:57:27 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <92253@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >>2. Both Clayton and myself (I don't know about the others)
    >>state repeatedly that we believe in live and let live, and
    >>that you have every right to your sexual preference. We ask
    >>for the same in return.
    >>
    >And we give it return. Problem is you believe "live and let
    >live, unless it's in my employment or landlordship". We
    >believe no such thing.


So in other words, you are saying "What's mine is mine, what's yours is
negotiable".

Live and let live UNLESS somebody else has something YOU want.

Why do you have the right to force employment against someone else's
desires? Or housing? Why do you have this right, yet the people you
want these things from have no right to not associate with you?


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

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

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:30:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.232504.7648@island.COM>, Guido Marx writes:
>Well, I belong to a health club which has men's and women's showers...
> Yet, surprisingly enough, I have yet to see any oggling or
>catcalls in the men's shower.  Are you seriously suggesting that if
>the military admitted un-closeted gays... 
>...that the military showers would suddenly be filled with
>oggling men ?  Why don't we see this in other areas where gays are
>freely admited ?

Because, silly, if you *knew* there were gays, you'd feel their eyes undressing
you in the shower, and you'd notice their subtle advances and you'd be
oppressed! As it is right now, you can pretend they don't exist, and thereby
destroy their psychic power over you. 

It's all so simple if you just think these things through rationally. 

JZ





Xref: sparky ba.politics:3718 ca.politics:5965
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: help for california libraries! Dire need!
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:12:39 GMT
	<SLAGLE.92Jul22181842@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<1992Jul23.150122.10108@unocal.com>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: stgprao@xing.unocal.com's message of Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:01:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.150122.10108@unocal.com>, stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini) writes:

> Might be a cross between a chain bookstore and chain
> videostore- rent a book for a dollar a week.  The shelves would
> probably stuffed with bestsellers and a few classics :-( It
> wouldn't be too hard for a video place to carry best sellers in
> this way.  All of the infra-structure is already there.  Why
> don't they?

Because they can't compete with "free" libraries, that's all.

> The market is pretty small.  I think the percentage of Americans who read
> one or more books a month is in the single digits.  I think the percentage
> who have visited a library in the past five years or read a book in the
> last year is still well under 50%.

Then why are all these individual and small chain bookstores
thriving all over the SF Bay Area?  Why are Kepplers, Printers
Ink, A Clean Well Lighted..., and so on packed with people 
every time I go into them?  The market is surely not as large
as for videos, so we don't need bookstores and libraries on
every other corner.  But the market is substantial, and there
is still a lot of money in book sales.  There would be for
rentals too, if the governments weren't distorting the market.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: pngai@adobe.com's message of Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:28:36 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1992Jul29.010808.14225@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<SLAGLE.92Jul29005513@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<1992Jul29.192836.9225@adobe.com>
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 06:58:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.192836.9225@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

> What if Michael were arguing for the right to life of a 2 year old?
> Would he be responsible for the doctor bills and upbringing also?

Nobody has a "right to life", whether they are two or forty two.
They have a right, in some sense, not to have their life
curtailed, however.  But if there were no one that wished to
support this hypothetical two year old child, and Michael were
arguing for its "right to life", then yes, he would need to
assume responsibility by so arguing if his arguments were to be
credible.  You cannot argue for some action without demonstrating
the means to that action.  He might argue that "the state" has
some responsibility in this matter, but he would be wrong.  The
state has no responsibility to keep you or anyone else alive.
The state is not a moral agent in any case.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: sharing the showers (was: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?)
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:36:23 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Jul29.195911.17229@oracle.us.oracle.com>
rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:

>I would feel uncomfortable being ogled. So would most people, whatever
>their orientation or lack thereof.

The solution, then, is to punish the extremes of such behavior as a breach
of sexual conduct. Not to banish all gay men and lesbians from the armed
services.

No one is actually proposing the condoning of sexual misconduct. Treat
cases individually, don't assume that all gay men will cause sexual misconduct.

With the recent hoopla about Navy fliers raping women, do you seriously think
anyone's going to propose getting rid of heterosexual men in the Navy?

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Help for California Libraries! Dire Need!
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:29:54 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <4496@bacon.IMSI.COM> jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
>The Chipmunk <asylvain@fritz.filenet.com> writes:
>
>	If you attend school, you pay tuition.
>
>Like the only person who benefits from someone attending school is
>the pupil?
>
>Sure, you'd save money at the state level.  You'd also guarantee
>that nearly everyone you interact with will be an idiot.
>
>/jordan

it's already happening ....
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Help for California Libraries! Dire Need!
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:46:51 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <4497@bacon.IMSI.COM> jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
    >Don't you think that truck *already* pay their fair share (in
    >fact, they probably pay more than their share for the usage
    >they get)? Your average tractor-trailer pays about $5k
    >annually in road use taxes and fees.

No actually, a truck in most states does about $20,000 of wear and
tear for about $4,700 in taxes.

Great trucking lobby.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: phil@netcom.com's message of Tue, 28 Jul 92 07:02:16 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1992Jul27.232504.7648@island.COM> <1gmm8d_.phil@netcom.com>
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 07:16:47 GMT

In article <1gmm8d_.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

> Ask instead, how many straight men would mind showering in
> a predominatly homosexual shower room. Of course nobody is going ho be raped
> or subjected to obvious overtures. But the sense of privacy will be
> invaded.

How would these hypothetical men know that they were
showering in a "predominatly homosexual" shower room.

(Do shower rooms really have gender, by the way?)
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:40:25 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul29002838@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
    >We might agree on this, but it is only because it is a
    >conventional expectation. But given the general lack of
    >privacy imposed by the military, I would seriously expect
    >that a policy of "coed" showers would, following the initial
    >storm of outrage, be fairly quickly accepted and ignored just
    >like most of the other impositions on individuality and
    >privacy that the military imposes already.
    >
    >New recruits would find it disconcerting and uncomfortable,
    >but would soon come to think of the situation as normal and
    >routine. The tendency of the men, and the women as well
    >perhaps, to "look and enjoy the show" is contingent on the
    >novelty of the spectacle. If it were a daily event, who would
    >find it so overwhelmingly titillating?
    >
    >Also, from the standpoint of efficiency and expedience, there
    >is no reason to duplicate the facilities or to enforce
    >segregated hours. So no, I won't fully agree that having a
    >single set of shower and toilet facilities is a bad idea. It
    >may not be a politically feasible idea, but I don't see how
    >it is bad in any moral or organizational sense. People would
    >just get used to it, like all the other crap they have to put
    >up with in the military.

Well, yes in a way. The post I made was too short and did imply that it
was sexual privacy in terms of showers etc.

A visit to a nude beach for the first time teaches most people that it
quickly (nudity) quickly becomes just another "background".

However, as experience has shown on Navy ships, 4,000+ 18-20 year olds
and 40+ women can be a terrible experience for the women.

Perhaps I need to express it as a privacy issue. And it does work
both ways. One of my brothers is a prison guard in Illinois. He
gets "loaned" to various prisons when there is a shortgage of guards,
and his worst assignment is to one of the womens prison.

He says the sexual innuendos, taunts, and passes are very irritating
and more annoying that the male prisons.

However, I doubt that women would accept coed showers. And as West Point
showed years back, there has to be STRICT and ENFORCED segrartion of
the sexes to prevent sexuall harrasment.

So would that imply four sets of latrines his and hers * het/hom ???


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

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

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Molesters vs Molestation (WAS Re: Against Our Will)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 19:14:28 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <92304@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >I found a California sex offenders survey by Frisbie and
    >Dondis (1965, "Recidivism Among Treated Sex Offenders") which
    >echoes this. Before they get to the issue of recidivism, they
    >present an overview of molestation:
    >
    >Their sample is 1509 adult male patients, of whom 68% had
    >been convicted of abuse of girls, 28% of abuse of boys, and
    >4% of abuse of both boys and girls. All were incarcerated for
    >treatment.
    >
    >Frisbie and Dondis treat homosexuality as a completely
    >different disorder
    >
    >...
    >
    >Frisbie and Dondis also find that boy-molesters have a
    >signficantly greater average number of victims than
    >girl-molesters. But they don't conclude that the boy
    >molesters are homosexuals.
    >
    >...
    >
    >And that molesters who self-identify as exclusively
    >homosexual make up a very small fraction (10 out of 403) of
    >all molesters.

Some interesting stuff. However, I don't think you can rely on
"self-identification". If someones mostly or exclusively molests
same-sex victims, then that person is homosexual by definition, no
matter what kind of denial they use.

And yes, I would expect Firbie and Dondis to be "nasty" about
homosexuals, it WAS 1965 after all.

I have order a data set "Dangerous Sex Offenders: Classifying,
Predicting, and Evaluating Outcomes of Clinical Treatment in Bridgewater
MA, 1982-1985", by Robert Prentky and Raymon Knight.

1,500 sex offender cases. From phone help from the archivists, the
data breaks down into homo/hetereo main classes, and then 8 subclasses
each. Of note is that the pre and post criminal activities and victim
counts are included. It is almost exactly a 2 to 1 hetero to homoseuxal
rate, which is inline with what Brian has quoted in his other sources,
but the homosexual victim rates are MUCH higher, going to as high
as 6.7 times the number victims for 8 years and less!

Considering that the high/low figures for homosexuals in the population
is 4%/1%, then homosexuals ARE child molestors at MUCH higher rates
than hetereosexuals. And we may even double that as lesbian victimizers
are about statistically zero.


However, it is a legitimate argument to like at the molestation of
the child as a primary sexual classification, with the sex of a child as
a secondary issue. But in ANY case, but the current accepted definitions
(molest a same-sex child, you are homosexual) homosexuals molest
children far above the general per capita rate.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Molesters vs Molestation (WAS Re: Against Our Will)
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:58:46 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <33pmk-h.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>It is almost exactly a 2 to 1 hetero to homoseuxal
>rate, which is inline with what Brian has quoted in his other sources,
>but the homosexual victim rates are MUCH higher, going to as high
>as 6.7 times the number victims for 8 years and less!
>
>Considering that the high/low figures for homosexuals in the population
>is 4%/1%, then homosexuals ARE child molestors at MUCH higher rates
>than hetereosexuals. And we may even double that as lesbian victimizers
>are about statistically zero.

I don't think my salient point is sinking in. I agree that men who molest
boys do so with significantly greater frequency than girl-molesters. All
studies seem to point to this. But the obvious conclusion is that since
the number of boy-molestation incidents are outnumbered 2 to 1 by girls,
and that many many more boys can be the victim of a single molester, that
there are substantially fewer boy-molesters out there than girl-molesters.
And then according to the study that Clayton cited, only 21% of the boy
molesters self-identify as homosexual. The numbers I work out give anywhere
between 2.5 and 4% of the _MOLESTERS_ are homosexual. This is in line with
general population demographics.

Of course, your final conclusion depends on what figures for homosexuality
in the general population you believe. For now, I think we should recognize
the problem of child molestation apart from the sexual identification of
the molesters.

>But in ANY case, but the current accepted definitions
>(molest a same-sex child, you are homosexual) homosexuals molest
>children far above the general per capita rate.

The definition you have just made is not accepted by the psychological,
psychiatric, or sociologist communities. See other studies which I
posted. Or you might want to write to Brian Evans. I don't ahave his
e-mail address handy, but I know he's been a frequent poster to alt.sex.
I think he's currently at the University of New Mexico.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:56:36 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <11451@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>By the way, what Western country in this century first allowed
>abortion on demand?  The Soviet Union, in 1920.  No wonder Anderson
>is so supportive of it.

	That man over there is tall and wearing a blue hat.

	Therefore all tall men wear blue hats.


		Sheesh.
								MPA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 01:07:34 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <nv3jq9k@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >And you don't find the republican party disgusting (at least
    >some of what they do?) How about professional wrestling? How
    >about all the teen flicks that come out of hollywood? How
    >about college students at spring break?
    >
    >Most human cultural and political activity is really
    >disgusting. We are no better than anyone else.

Well, I don't enageg in coercive politics, I don't watch professional
wrestling, nor teen flicks, and I don't go near towns that have
college students at spring breaks.

Now I personlly have no feelings either way about working with
homosexuals. If I owned a 7-11 I'd have no trouble selling to them.
If I owned a 7-11 in the Castro district I'd even cater to them. Smart
business sense.

But I want my Freedom Of Association.

It's like Freedom of the Press. Maybe you'd agree with everything on
the State controlled media, but you'd still want to have free media
as at least an option.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

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