HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:12:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.131434.15514@cs.ucla.edu> robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
    >>Close, but no cigar. Inventing two new sexual orientations
    >>may be fine for your "stretching" attempt to claim that men
    >>that molest young boys aren't homosexuals, but I see NO
    >>evidence that this position is acceptable to anyone else.
    >>
    >>The two new sexual orientations are men that molest small
    >>boys, which aren't homosexuals by your reasoning, and men
    >>that molest small girls, which aren't hetereosexuals by your
    >>reasoning (via extension).
    >>
    >>Clever.
    >>
    >>You know, 47% of all violent crimes are committed by black
    >>males. Using your logic, I can claim that blacks commit NO
    >>crimes -- those people with black skins commiting that 47%
    >>aren't blacks, but CRIMINALS!
    >>
    >>Sorry -- sexual orientation is defined by WHAT you are
    >>attracted to, not the AGE of what you are attracted to!
    >>Otherwise, some men aren't hetereosexuals, they are
    >>men-fixated-on-nubile-18-year-old-large- breasted-dumb-bimbos
    >>and so on.
    >>
    >You, like Clayton, do not understand the (subtle?)
    >distinction between between sex and rape. (Clayton discounts
    >anyone who attempts to point this out, as they are "clearly"
    >playing games with semantics.) I will concede that there are
    >those whom you would label as homosexual solely by virtue of
    >rape; there is also a separate category of homosexuals who
    >are so labeled solely by virtue of sex. Your sweeping
    >definition seeks to condemn both groups with the same label:
    >"homosexual". You ought to be more clear in your posts, and
    >perhaps even in your own mind. Yes, Phil, you are free to
    >hate as you see fit, rational or not, but if that hate is
    >misdirected or ill-conceived, then *you* are the greater
    >detriment to society, not the homosexuals you "dislike".

Aw hell, why not be blunt?

What on earth are you babbling about? I am arguing against the "concept"
of excluding homosexuals (males that have sex with males) from the
group of homosexuals on the basis of age of the partner.

The logical conclusion of this argument is that there are no homosexual
or hetereosexaul child molestors, by definition.

That is an absurd conclusion.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: caufenkamp@igc.apc.org (Craig Aufenkamp)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: RECALL WILSON
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:56:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1325600021:000:158
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!caufenkamp    Nov 16 17:56:00 1992


Hi folks,

If you're interested in the effor to recall Gov. Wilson call

Bite 'em  Back @ 1-408-279-5432

or in Marin try Jan @ 415-456-3655

__>_o
  > crane
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:14:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.131434.15514@cs.ucla.edu> robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
    >... Yes, Phil, you are free to hate as you see fit, rational
    >or not, but if that hate is misdirected or ill-conceived,
    >then *you* are the greater detriment to society, not the
    >homosexuals you "dislike".

Oh, and you can stop the NAZI tactic of dehumanizing your opponents (the
spurious labelling of hate). Your post is merely a mishmash of phrases
with no conceptual content  -- in no way worthy of even hate.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths (was  Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:48:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.001452.16468@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>Finite, but with rapidly increasing limits: Food production is, for
>>example, finite. But that limit also increases rapidly with technology
>>Overpopulation is only a problem if the population increases _faster_
>>that the rate of production.

>The problem is that it is, and it has been for quite a while. I read not
>to long ago that the world supply of grain is at its lowest levels in 
>several decades.

I'm not so sure of this: In the United States and (I think) most other
industrialized nations, the reverse it the case: Population is rising
more slowly than the ability to produce food. (Hopefully, this will
soon also be the case in Ukraine, which is as potentially productive
as the American great planes.) There is a strong tendency toward low
population growth after a nation industrializes.

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder

>P.S. Did you get that post on the New Deal?

Not yet... Which group did you post it to?

                                          FJC

Xref: sparky ba.politics:7264 ca.politics:9708 talk.politics.misc:60912
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:51:28 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <13249@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.205206.2119@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

>> If sushi eaters were being systematically denied jobs and housing
>> (much like blacks were in the 1950-60's) would you support or object
>> to laws preventing discrimination against sushi eaters?

>I would STRONGLY object to laws that prohibited discrimination
>against sushi eaters. [...] My rule is very simple: hands off. [...]
>If you want the freedom to have sex YOUR way, then you better be ready
>to let other adults have freedom to run their business THEIR way.

Clayton is totally right here.

It is unfortunate, however, that his reasons for avoiding gay people are
totally groundless.

But if he wants to deceive himself, that's his business.

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
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 13:14:34 GMT

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <102607@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>    >By saying homosexuality has no victims, you are then
>    >contradicting your own theory that homosexuals are the
>    >victims of child molestation. And once again (is this EVER
>    >going to sink in?) it is FIXATED MOLESTERS, not homosexuals,
>    >who molest in disproportionate numbers.

>Close, but no cigar. Inventing two new sexual orientations may be
>fine for your "stretching" attempt to claim that men that molest
>young boys aren't homosexuals, but I see NO evidence that this
>position is acceptable to anyone else.

>The two new sexual orientations are men that molest small boys,
>which aren't homosexuals by your reasoning, and men that molest small
>girls, which aren't hetereosexuals by your reasoning (via extension).

>Clever.

>You know, 47% of all violent crimes are committed by black males. Using
>your logic, I can claim that blacks commit NO crimes -- those people
>with black skins commiting that 47% aren't blacks, but CRIMINALS!

>Sorry -- sexual orientation is defined by WHAT you are attracted to,
>not the AGE of what you are attracted to! Otherwise, some men aren't
>hetereosexuals, they are men-fixated-on-nubile-18-year-old-large-
>breasted-dumb-bimbos and so on.

You, like Clayton, do not understand the (subtle?) distinction between
between sex and rape.  (Clayton discounts anyone who attempts to
point this out, as they are "clearly" playing games with semantics.)
I will concede that there are those whom you would label as homosexual
solely by virtue of rape; there is also a separate category of
homosexuals who are so labeled solely by virtue of sex.  Your sweeping
definition seeks to condemn both groups with the same label: "homosexual".
You ought to be more clear in your posts, and perhaps even in your own
mind.  Yes, Phil, you are free to hate as you see fit, rational or not,
but if that hate is misdirected or ill-conceived, then *you* are the
greater detriment to society, not the homosexuals you "dislike".

>-- 
>I believe Gennifer Flowers.

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

--
Rob
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7238 ca.politics:9661
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:28:15 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Nov18.163117.2440@udel.edu> carroll@dori.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
    >A consenting homosexual couple who choose to have sex with
    >one another don't do any harm to anyone. Why is it all right
    >for you and me to do whatever we want with our spouses in the
    >privacy of our homes without fear, but homosexuals have to
    >worry about losing their jobs, their homes, etc.

If you or I do something that other people consider disgusting or wrong,
then it is totally moral for another person to shun or avoid me or not
hire me etc.

For example, if I was a big-time big-game hunter as a hobby, would
PETA be wrong to not hire me for a computer job? After all, what harm
have I done to them? Yet, as they would find my hobby most upsetting,
it would be torture for them to be forced to hire me.

    >No I haven't. I simply claim that you have no right to
    >discriminate against a huge class of people because they are
    >different from you. You have _no_ basis for hating them, and
    >_no_ basis for discriminating against them. They do no harm
    >to you or to anyone else. All they want to do it live their
    >lives with the same freedoms that you have. You want to
    >deprive them of those freedoms.

I have EVERY right. As do you. And both you and I exercise it every day.
I discriminate against thieves, liars, incompetents, child molestors,
murderers, the lazy, ... and a lot more.

I want to deprive NO ONE of any freedoms. I want MY freedoms left
alone.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:12:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.201615.10549@udel.edu> carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
    >Strange. I have friends who were gay for years before I found
    >out. They're completely indistinguishable from anyone else.
    >If you met them, you'd never be able to tell that they were
    >gay.

Just normal everday people. So? They say that a lot about some mass murderers.

An example, good or bad, of "someone we know who is also X" is basically
useless, unless used to refute a strong assertion that ALL X are ....


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7282 ca.politics:9731 talk.politics.misc:61025
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:44:02 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1ebl4hINN4ep@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
> In article <13190@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <lg826qINNah8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
# ## Sushi-eaters eat RAW FISH.  Many people find that disgusting and
# ## revolting.  But, what sushi-eaters do IS TRUE.
# ## David Chase
# ## Sun
# #
# #Eating raw fish disgusts me also.  It also makes a little concerned
# #about the health aspects.  But so what, it's their life.
# #
# #If someone wanted to come into the schools and encourage the 
# #practice, or worse, traumatize the kids in a way that seemed 
# #likely to encourage the practice, I would be pretty upset.
# 
# Well it is already happening and not it the schools- sushi restuarants
# advertise on TV, magazines, newspapers, etc.  So how will you keep
# the childern safe from these sushi-nazis.

You probably can't.  But I sure won't let my tax money be used to
subsidize this sort of crap if I have any choice.  (Of course,
liberals HATE choice.)
 
# What about someone coming to the school to teach about anything.  There
# is a fine line here about encouraging the practice or worse traumatizing 
# kids-  don't schools encourage math, reading, writing, and don;t they
# in a subtle way traumatize the kids- detention, study hall assignment etc.

Anyone that can't tell the difference between sexual practices and
math, must have very strange homework assignments.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7161 talk.politics.misc:60407 alt.politics.elections:23929 co.politics:2081 alt.politics.clinton:17266 alt.politics.democrats.d:577
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:56:14 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Xxdate: Mon, 16 Nov 92 14:52:50 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

In article <1992Nov16.180259.18543@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> Frank Crary,
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU writes:
>No, I'm suggesting that several observed cases implies that a sizeable
>fraction of these people (15% +- 5%, out of personal experience in
>Berkeley) are not really that needy and do not have a reasonable claim
>to the charity they collect.

This means that 95% +- 5% need the benefits.  So what is your point?
I have already stated that the regressive programs (welfare)
need to be replaced
by progressive programs (workfare). Are you suggesting that
entitlement programs are not necessary in any form?

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7140 ca.politics:9587 talk.politics.misc:60310
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 16 Nov 1992 04:47:35 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

>In article <1992Nov12.230416.16881@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>Correct. The German State tried to protray the Jews as doing such things
>>as murdering children for religious rituals.
>>
>>That would be horrible and disgusting if true. But it of course was not true.
>>

Here is a bit of heresy from me ( all done to show context of above statement
not meant to offend anyone).  If we go back somewhat in time, Old Testament
Moses etc.  -  isn't it God that kills the first born childern during the
process to free the people of Israel?  Isn't this a bit on the harsh side?

So we can see where people might get ideas to form their falsehoods.

Today- biblical fanatics attempt to use bible passages in the condemnation
of the group of people known as homosexuals.  Who is generating what lies
now?

A then as now their are the Darwinist distortions who attempt to use a
scientific theory to establish their superiority or moral correctness.

>>Homosexuals have sex with people of the same sex. Many people find that
>>disgusting and revolting. But, what homosexuals do IS TRUE.
>>
>>Big difference.
>>
>>To hate/dislike/shun/whatever some group because of things they are supposed
>>to do but in reality don't, is one thing. To hate/dislike/shun/whatever a
>>group because of things they actually do is another case.
>

DoubleSpeak Beyond Belief- and you talk of intellectual dishonesty.

It is the very act of making a group to be hated by truths or falsehoods
that leads to processes like Hilter's Germany, they did not base everything
they said in lies. Tell enough truths and then sprinkle in the lies that
is the best way to sell something.

To make a comparision between the lie of Hitler's facist in connection
to Jews murdering childern and people having sex with the same sex is
erroneuos. The process is the same and the result is the same.  Whether
you lead people down a path via 'truth' or 'falsehoods' is still 
manipulation. One's truth is anothers greatest falsehood.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7194 talk.politics.misc:60569 alt.politics.elections:24029 co.politics:2141 alt.politics.clinton:17348 alt.politics.democrats.d:609
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:46:08 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Nov16.174133.15779@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>The image of a bathhouse, where men have anonymous sex with other men,
>often dozens per night, and sexual envelopes are pushed (fisting et al)
>is a disgusting image to most people. Unfortunately, it is true that
>these things happen.

I know that there are no baths in Boston. Nor in most moderate sized cities.
I would imagine they're few and far between, in big cities like New York,
Chicago, and Los Angeles...many having been closed down since their heyday
in the 1970's.

Just how common is it for a gay man to go to the baths these days? There
are conservatively 1 million gay men in this country and perhaps several
tens of gay baths. If every gay man were to go to one of these baths,
not only would they have to travel long distances, but each bathhouse would
have to have 50,000 to 100,000 different customers.

I'm told that there is typically room for no more than about 100 men in
a typical bathhouse. I would imagine that a good fraction of these are
regulars, and that an average bathhouse comes nowhere CLOSE to admitting
100,000 different men while they're open...probably by a factor of 100.

Which means only about 1% of gay men use bathhouses.

That doesn't seem very representative to me, Phil. Remember, during
the late seventies and early eighties, Masters Johnson and Kolodny
showed that in a sample of 200 non-mongamous homosexual men from the
Northeast cities, they had an average of 22 different partners per
year. If they were all going to bathhouses and having a dozen partners
per night, they'd use up their "quota" in 2 nights. There are 365 nights
in a year, so this implies (ROUGHLY) that 2/365, or about 0.5% of gay
men in Northeastern cities went to baths about 10 years ago. If instead
they had only one partner each time they went, instead of 12, then multiply
0.5% by 12 to get 6%.

I.E., not very representative behaviour at all. At least 94% of gay men
didn't do it, even in its heyday.

Phil, if you're going to dislike homosexuals because a small fraction of gay
men go to baths, then you might as well dislike men, since a small fraction
of men are child molesters.

Brian
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths (was  Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:29:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.211820.6977@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>There is no overpopulation problem. 
>>People are nowhere starving as a result of overpopulation. On the
>>contrary, increasing population is the key commerce and human
>>advancement, generally.

>I'm sure that all those countries in Africa will be glad to hear that.

Starvation in Africa is the result of civil war, poor agricultural
technology and drought. I don't think population is a major problem.

>>Arguments concerning the alleged population problem usually center
>>around the myth of finite resources.

>Until someone manages to actually generate "cold Fusion" then 
>everything in the world is finite.

Finite, but with rapidly increasing limits: Food production is, for
example, finite. But that limit also increases rapidly with technology
Overpopulation is only a problem if the population increases _faster_
that the rate of production.

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:09:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.205614.12258@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>No, I'm suggesting that several observed cases implies that a sizeable
>>fraction of these people (15% +- 5%, out of personal experience in
>>Berkeley) are not really that needy and do not have a reasonable claim
>>to the charity they collect.

>This means that 95% +- 5% need the benefits.  So what is your point?

I think you mean 85%... I'm saying (in agreement with your later
remarks) that charity to the poor should be carefully targeted
to those who are trying (to the best of their ability) to improve
their situation. I'd also say that government-run charity (e.g.
social programs) doesn't do a good job of this.

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder

Xref: sparky ba.politics:7232 talk.politics.misc:60746 alt.politics.elections:24092 co.politics:2179 ne.politics:3044 alt.politics.clinton:17411 alt.politics.democrats.d:627