HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Taking Our Own Outing Initiatives: One Lesbian Perspective
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:56:44 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1168@pb2esac.UUCP>, jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand) writes:
> In article <5y4m_ck.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
# #I guess I equate the "whining" of homosexuals in this regards as if I
# #were in an all Hindu country, and I was eating beef in public, building
# #slaughterhouses, holding "Eat Beef" pride marches, wearing
# #Ronald McDonald shirts, etc. and then whining that people don't
# #seem to accept me.
# #Well, grow up.
# 
# Some of us are not overly impressed by poor analogies, Phil.  Your
# argument is very black and white: if people have the audacity to
# visibly challenge the "accepted norms" of society they should expect
# whatever rejection comes their way.
# 
# *Sigh*, too bad we can't turn back the clock a hundred years or so
# and just tell black folks that hey, the cultural norm regarding
# black people in the U.S. is something they should just pipe down
# about.

Except that the cultural norms weren't enough -- the South had
to engage in the passage of laws to REQUIRE discrimination, since
social pressure alone wasn't reliably working; the disarming of blacks 
(so they wouldn't shoot back at the Klan); and the segregation of
the PUBLIC schools.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Ross Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:28:51 GMT

In article <athos-130892091248@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.175456.13133@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve
>Thomas) wrote:
>
>> You can accuse me of anything, but not this!  My arguments for pro-choice
>> were in fact, if you read them, quite different.  [Stuff deleted]
>
>I'm not accusing you of anything: I haven't read many of your postings, and
>thus have not seen your argument of "Natural Rights" as applied to the
>unborn/born.  I would like to see those and I do apply only 1 of the
>"Natural Rights" to the unborn, and that is "Life."  Liberty comes a bit
>later...
>

Well, as I said, "if you read them".  I guess you have not.  I won't repeat
them, either (i.e. I won't go into the erroneous nature of the above
statement).

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

||-------
Steve R. Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com

"You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator."
        - Lisa Simpson

Xref: sparky ba.politics:4620 talk.politics.theory:3706
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Taking Our Own Outing Initiatives: One Lesbian Perspective
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:33:50 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug13.175337.28339@novell.com> cast@novell.com (Neal Castagnoli) writes:
    >Do you or don't you support the right of a parent to have
    >sexual intercourse with their 8 year old child? If you don't,
    >then don't you believe in society's (police force or
    >whatever) right to be coercive?

[OOPS -- THIS WAS TRUNCATED]

Hmm, how about, since I support total religious freedom, do I support
7th-day Adventists from refusing bone marrow transplants for their children,
thus killing them?


No, I do not support the "right" of parents to harm their children in
any fashion.

But, I do not support the overly large and growing are of "harm"
as defined by the State, nor do I support the right of the State
to even define harm.


-- 
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 ...)
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: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:37:57 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.

gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:

>Who are you to measure another persons worth to the world?  There are whores
>who I'd rather save before the likes of you.

				....

>of marriage to a moronic self centered boor like yourself.

				....

>Kind of like your own conception?  Too bad your parents didn't consider
>that vasectomy sooner.


In all honesty, I'm not sure this contributes to the discussion, as much
as I respect your frustration, George ...

Yours for a calmer level of vitriolic exchange,		(-:

-- 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
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:18:07 GMT

In article <3c0m03p.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>bigot
>    one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and
>    prejudices
>
>Nope, of the two of us, I'm not the bigot.

I allow anyone to feel and whatever they want as an individual.  If I
see someone behaving like a bigot, a call them one.  (Note: key word in
this sentence is individual).


You judge everyone based on stereotypes which society perpetuates.  You
want everyone to fit your mold.  If they do not fit your mold, there is
something wrong with them.  People who do not share the "ronzone-think"
seem to be unacceptable in the eyes of the "ronzone-god" and must change.


I certainly hope that there are more people like me in the world than there
are like you.


FWA
 
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4693 talk.politics.misc:40848
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Keywords: spokespersons, alternative lifestyes, poor
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:36:19 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Aug20.172041.8222@pony.Ingres.COM> rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner) writes:
>Folks who stare at more than the inside of their own eyeballs might begin
>to see a pattern developing from these who are asserting themselves as
>spokespersons of of the 'alternative sex' community.

Snort.

>Looking at the evidence, it is quite obvious that these particular people
>quickly resort to juvenile wordplay when confronted with statements which
>they either don't like or can't refute.

You mean a statement like "Cl*yt*n is not a pig?"
I honestly don't know what to say to such an
absurd assertion.

>I have the pleasure of acquaintance with many, many people who practice
>alternative lifestyles,

You forgot the quotation marks, Roger.  What's that?  The dungeons-'n-dragons
community?  Unwashed computer hackers?

>and frankly, my dear(s), you are (a) poor representative(s).

God, what a horse's ass.

It is unfortunate that a large number of the people
>who read and/or participate in the discussion are going to come away with
>an impression created by you.

Listen, you prissy, sanctimonious, self-satisfied moron: any impression
Melinda makes is fine with me.  And aren't you being rather careless,
yourself?  By the way, what special-interest-group do you represent?
I want to make sure to tar the rest of them with my opinion of your
sentiments and your ability to express them.  Isn't that what we're
supposed to be doing here, Roger?

>don't like the cross post?  too bad.  i trust you'll make me famous.

Oh, you'll make a name for yourself alright if you keep posting
like this.  Fame as a "net dweeb" is an honor devalued in the past
few years due to inflation.


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:13:55 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: ba.politics

In article <1992Aug12.175456.13133@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve
Thomas) wrote:

> You can accuse me of anything, but not this!  My arguments for pro-choice
> were in fact, if you read them, quite different.  If it is any indication,
> I didn't see anybody here on the net rushing to agree with MY "angle of
> attack" (even _frightened_ Clayton...).
> 
> I've argued in favor of choice from the standpoint of Natural Rights, and
> thier non-applicability to the unborn, and the applicability to the born
> (in this context, pregnant women).

I'm not accusing you of anything: I haven't read many of your postings, and
thus have not seen your argument of "Natural Rights" as applied to the
unborn/born.  I would like to see those and I do apply only 1 of the
"Natural Rights" to the unborn, and that is "Life."  Liberty comes a bit
later...

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:01:26 GMT

In article <kx6mfr.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Very revealing Jeff. Very revealing. I looked at the remark, as indeed I would
>believe that most men that see sense in the remark, as a comment on the
>waste of a person with positive attributes into a lifestyle that is
>felt to be less than positive.

Bullshit.  The statement was not showing concern for someone who is in
a "lifestyle" they consider less than positive.  If that were the case, then
they would have included ugly lesbians.  However, the fact that they are only
concerned with the attractive ones makes it sound like he is looking for sex.


>But you seem to view the world, and believe that other people see the
>world, of human beings, as nothing but "fuck objects".

Only when they talk about human beings as objects.  The key word here is
"object".  That person was not speaking about a woman, he was speaking about
an attractive "object".



>There's more to life than the area just below the belt Jeff.

Tell that to all the women who have been raped.  Tell that to women who
get sexually harassed by every man who they see on the street.  Tell that
to the woman who is called "honey" by patronizing men.

You don't have a clue when it comes to understanding what it is like to be
treated like an object.


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



FWA
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Oh, I love it, I love it, I love it!
Date: 15 Aug 92 04:34:31 GMT
	<1992Aug14.213332.7288@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<1992Aug14.231647.11746@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 14 Aug 92 23:16:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.231647.11746@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:

> Are you suggesting that everyone should treat everyone exactly the same all
> the time ? Why, isn't that < ghasp > _socialist_ ??		(-:

No, just < ghasp > stupid.
--
----
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: Taking Our Own Outing Initiatives: One Lesbian Perspective
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 22:29:19 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug13.175337.28339@novell.com> cast@novell.com (Neal Castagnoli) writes:
    >Well, I am not sure what all of the rest of this deleted post
    >means. Could you answer the question (which I think is very
    >important to your belief in non-coersion).
    >
    >Do you or don't you support the right of a parent to have
    >sexual intercourse with their 8 year old child? If you don't,
    >then don't you believe in society's (police force or
    >whatever) right to be coercive?
    >
    >For the record, I am not trying to be inflammatory, and have
    >read your posts and considered your ideas with interest. This
    >seems to me to be one of the failings of non-coersion, but I
    >think you ought to be honest about your thoughts here so the
    >rest of us can better judge the benefits of non-coersive
    >societies alla Phil Ronzone.


Ooog, eek, ah. A difficult question indeed. I really don't want to answer
this because of the very controversial topic.

However, some things take guts. First of all, a parent already has
the right, in our society, to do far more damaging things to a child
than sexual molestation. A 7th-day adventist can refuse a bone
marrow transplant, which, if you need one, you need one or you are
going to die.

Although is has gone back and forth in the courts, currently, a woman
may still drink alcohol during a pregnancy and cause severe brain
deformities in the infant.

A parent may raise a child in bizarre or irrational or even dangerous
cults, causing major trauma to the child.

And the Hare Krishnas still raise their children on defficient diets.


The key question is, is the child harmed? If one believes some of
new age posters on the net, it is culturally dependent. The Egyptians
considered incest, a form of molestation, permissible. We still have
one State I believe that a 12 year old can get married in.

If the State permits far more serious harm to a child (death), then what
is our rational for being severe about a lesser form of trauma (non-death
sexual molestation)?


Let's answer it one step at a time.
.

-- 
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: cast@novell.com (Neal Castagnoli)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Taking Our Own Outing Initiatives: One Lesbian Perspective
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:53:37 GMT
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia

In article <zd5mm#+.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.234134.11466@novell.com> cast@novell.com (Neal Castagnoli) writes:
>    >So are these societal values then?
>    >
>    >If they are, do you support the right of parents of children
>    >to engage in Digger tribe activity or not?
>    >
>    >If you don't, then don't you support the right of society to
>    >impose itself were it doesn't belong (i.e. you support
>    >society's right to be coercive)?
>    >
>    >If you do, then don't you support the right to molest
>    >children?
>
>Very good. At least one person sees a few of my points.
>
>Society does not have values. There is no such volitional
>entity as a society -- hence it can't have values.
>
>And, it wouldn't be molestation, you Western Kulture Bigot you :-).

Well, I am not sure what all of the rest of this deleted post means.  Could
you answer the question (which I think is very important to your belief in
non-coersion).

Do you or don't you support the right of a parent to have sexual intercourse
with their 8 year old child?  If you don't, then don't you believe in 
society's (police force or whatever) right to be coercive?

For the record, I am not trying to be inflammatory, and have read your posts
and considered your ideas with interest.  This seems to me to be one of the
failings of non-coersion, but I think you ought to be honest about your
thoughts here so the rest of us can better judge the benefits of non-coersive
societies alla Phil Ronzone.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Punishment vs Restitution   was Pro-abortion's view on life
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:08:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.185253.7078@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
}In article <1992Aug16.042538.6698@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
}>And what of the rich criminal?  Since he can afford committing crimes, 
}>he'll have the freedom to commit so many other crimes.
}>
}
}Rich criminals would be especially loathe to see their assets
}go to their victims, I would think.

Hi Al.  There's a point you missed here in your defense of restitutional
justice: damages would be calculated from three factors: injury to the victim,
court costs, and a deterrent.  This last would be the average amount necessary
to deter crime over and above the other factors in the society.  This sort of
thing would tend to deter even the rich from committing offenses.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 06:44:56 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug19.190820.3343@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
    >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.
    >>
    >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 ...

Eh? Why? Dislike is dislike. We do what we like, we do not (or try not to)
do what we dislike.

I assume you are homosexual. As such, it would be not unreasonable to
also assume you like homosexual sex, and engage in it, and do not engage
in hetereosexual sex, as you do not like it.

Now tell me, why do you dislike hetereosexual sex? It victimizes no one
(at least no better/worse than homosexual sex).

Note that I have been very careful to talk about culture, yet you
persist in attempting to twist it into people and groups.

I do not like NAZIs, yet I do not dislike Germans who were older
than 13 in 1933.



-- 
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: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:07:10 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Aug14.221015.8775@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:
>
>>>1.  Why do you say "scares"?  This is one of the things I find most
>>>irritating about gay rights activists.  Blacks don't run arround
>>>calling people who don't like them "negrophobic".
>
>>We only call you homophobic when you take your dislike of gay rights
>>activists and apply them to all homosexuals.  Disliking activists is not
>>homophobic, I know lots of homosexuals who do not like activists.
>
>Excuse me, but why is it homophobic to dislike gays?


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.


>>>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.
>
>My, my aren't we impolite today.

No, I still think that you are a sexist asshole.

>What's your problem?  Are you claiming I'm wrong?

Your statement smacks of the "the only reason she is a lesbian is that she
has not met the right man".  However, more than that, since your concern
is only for "pretty" lesbians, you sound as if you consider women a place
to put your dick.  If you cared about women in a general sense, you would
have been concerned about the unattractive ones as well.  However, the only
part of you that is concerned with women is your dick.

That is why I still think you are a sexist asshole.



FWA
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Unbelievably bad Politically Correct(tm) spewage
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:59:32 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

I never read the sports page, but there was nothing else left of the
paper to read while I waiting, and I ran across this piece of, well,
trash. I didn't even realize the author was a black female until I
was in the middle of this post, which just goes to show you that
PC(tm) trash comes in all sexes and colors. But I'll bet $25 to anyone
that the author came from at least a 2-generation n middle-class or better
family. (Offer valid only once -- this is a probablity guess). No black
(or white or ...) blue-collar (or anyone who has had to work for
a living) would be so STUPID!

Anyway, the author, Annette John-Hall (how trendy) is talking how she
liked Larry Bird, even though she didn't want to like him -- because of
the city Larry Bird's team played in. Boston.

I quote "I didn't want to like Bird, because of the city he represented.
Clearly, Boston's sports teams are more interested in drafting and
promoting white players than black athletes. Celtics President Red
Auerbah always prides himself ON BEING THE FIRST COACH TO START FIVE
BLACK PLAYERS, BUT WHAT HE NEVER SAYS IS HE DID IT BECAUSE IT GAVE HIM
A WINNING EDGE." (emphasis mine)

Wow -- how HORRIBLE. A coach that starts players because that's what
will give him a winning edge. God, is that racist or what! Isn't there a
law against this? Call the ACLU, the NAACP, somebody.

We MUST stop this before it spreads! Why, the next thing you know, companies
may start hiring blacks because they are the best qualified for the job!!

They may even start ignoring skin color completely and hire only on merit!

And then where will shit heads like Annette John-Hall be, besides the
unemployment line?



-- 
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 ...)