HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pavlovic-milan@yale.edu (Milan Pavlovic)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.croatia
Subject: Re: Humanitarian aid for Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:23:50 GMT
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <92354.154054GALIC@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> H. Galic <GALIC@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>
>                APPEAL FOR HUMANITARIAN AID

>====================================================================
>
>"Save the Children of Croatia"  (SCC) is a non-profit fund organized
>and administered  by a group of  volunteers, physicians, businessmen
>and other  professionals.  The sole purpose  of the fund is  to help
>children who have  lost one or both  of their parents in  the war in
>Croatia.  The fund's address is:
>
>Save the Children of Croatia
>P.O. Box 3606
>Oak Brook, IL 60522-3606
>Phone: (708) 986 1129 and (708) 256 6297
>Fax: (708) 986 1015
>
>They ask you to sponsor a child for one year ($600.00).  If you have
>a preference on child's  sex or age, or wish to help  a child from a
>particular  area, please  indicate  so.  You  may  pledge a  monthly
>contribution ($50 for  each month) or send a  single yearly payment.
>Even if  you cannot  commit to  sponsor the child  for a  full year,
>consider contributing to the fund: SCC can combine your contribution
>with those of other partial sponsors.
>
>All sponsored children and their guardians will be required to write
>to their sponsors at least once a month, reporting about the child's
>progress, regularity of payments, and  how the money is being spent.
>
>Save the Children of Croatia fund is overseen by the Croatian church
>of St.  Jerome in Chicago,  Illinois.  All contributions are applied
>exclusively to  the cause,  and there  are no  administrative costs.
>Your  donation is  a  legitimate tax-deductible  expense.  For  more
>information, please phone to the Fund's office.
>
>====================================================================

  Once upon a time, not so long ago, there was a fellow netter who quite 
eloquently protested about this "Save the Children of Croatia fund". I believe
that was back in March.  His post started with something like "Woe be on the 
nation which asks for humanitarian aid but uses the money to buy weapons; 
shame be on the people who seek profit from war..."

  Alas, I don't quite have the eloquence of the fellow netter who composed 
that nice post some time ago in response to this very same "appeal for
humanitarian help".  Therefore, I just want to ask the Croats on this net:
how much longer do you guys plan to do this sort of thing - you beg for money
and help and then you use it to buy Leopard tanks, MIG planes, and other
nifty weaponry which some day, probably very soon, will be used to overrun
Krajina and butcher the Serbs there (read Damir Matanic's recent post about
that for details).

  Croats: SHAME ON YOU !

Milan Pavlovic
===============================================================================
		M A C E D O N I A  =  H E L L A S
===============================================================================
From: K2GT@UNB.CA (K2GT)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.croatia
Subject: Re: "newsgroup" in Croatian
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:43:41 GMT
Organization: The University of New Brunswick

In article <1gjtebINNbab@PASCAL.MATH.YALE.EDU> wickerhauser-victor@math.yale.edu (Victor Wickerhauser) writes:
>
>I vote for `vijestoskup' as the Croatian translation of `newsgroup'.
>It rhymes with `cestoglup', and the plural `vijestoskupe' rhymes with
>`bijesnodupe', which certainly connects the word with some suggestive
>descriptions of our former countrymen.
>               ^^^^^

What do you mean, *OUR* countrymen, Vic?
Thought *YOU* were an American...

>Cheers,
>Victor

--
G.B.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.croatia
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Croatian
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:30:05 GMT

In article <1gju3oINNbcn@PASCAL.MATH.YALE.EDU> wickerhauser-victor@math.yale.edu (Victor Wickerhauser) writes:
|
| [...]
| The Croatian language -- alive and well in St. Louis.

Finally, a reason to move to St. Louis!  ;-)

I came across an interesting factoid last year.  I read that until the
mid-19th century Latin was the official language of the Slovenian and 
Croatian courts (which I took to mean `royal' rather than `judicial,' 
but now that I think about it, I am unsure)...  


Best regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.croatia:157 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10170 soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna:899
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: soc.men FAQ
Date: 13 Dec 92 17:23:01 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <Bz5yy9.2wr@world.std.com> ematz@world.std.com (Ed Matz) writes:
>Yeah, often.   Every time I hear men talk about how oppressed women are.

	Well, women *are* oppressed.  Men are oppressed.  We're _all_
bozos on this bus...

	What really burns me up is watching some guy roll around and piss
himself trying to show how he really knows how evil and nasty men are...

									wr
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis )
Subject: Re: inequity in child support (was Re: I HAD NO CHOICE
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:42:03 GMT

In article <1ge2k7INNlr1@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Xref: news.cis.umn.edu soc.men:20988 alt.dads-rights:2959 alt.abortion.inequity:6002 alt.child-support:3947
>Path: news.cis.umn.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!peri
>From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
>Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
>Subject: inequity in child support (was Re: I HAD NO CHOICE
>Date: 13 Dec 1992 01:11:35 GMT
>Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
>Lines: 16
>Message-ID: <1ge2k7INNlr1@gap.caltech.edu>
>References: <1992Dec10.223329.28942@bmw.mayo.edu> <2195@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> <1992Dec11.144451.8946@bmw.mayo.edu> <1992Dec12.213650.27904@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
>noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>
>>Child support amounts are set based on the noncustodial
>>parents income or ability to make a set amount. 
>
>You clearly know a great deal about the inequities of the 
>child support system. What is your interpretation of how
>these inequities arose in our historically male-dominated
>court system?  
>

Since the "male dominated" system usually doesn't serve the male's interest, 
it should be asked whether the phrase is appropriate; then it should be 
asked why you do little but attempt to divert attention away from men's 
issues. You are obviously impressed with your own questions; if you can only 
detract from men's issues, why not post them on soc.feminism, or some other 
black hole?
---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: boe@cadsun2.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Reply-To: boe@cadsun2.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:10:14 GMT

One question might be in connection with your proposal, what about the
often large difference in income between the two parents.  In this case
the support they need would differ correspondingly.  How do you incorporate
that into your scheme?
Bob Boeninger
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Babba Blows Baffo Biology Basis of Being
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:55:22 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <2973@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>gossip amonst youselves and smoke 'em if ya got'm.

	Sounds t'me like they _have_ been smoking 'em...

Xref: sparky soc.men:21040 talk.rape:2892 alt.sex:39372 alt.sex.bondage:23921
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies / Artificial Wombs
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:27:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes..
MLP> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
MLP> >In article <1992Nov30.205233.17925@ll.mit.edu> x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick Laf
MLP> writes:
MLP> >>    There will be some degree of risk with this (or any) surgical
MLP> >>procedure.  Who will get to decide wether the risk is acceptable or not?
MLP> >>(Insert theme song from final jeopardy) Tick Tock Tick Tock Ding! Give up
MLP> >>The answer is the female.
MLP> >>the female involved may simply choose to say 'I don't except
MLP> >>the risks'.  Then what do you do?

MLP> >Please explain how the _heck_ you came to the conclusion that women will
MLP> >have control over the life or death of children in incubators?

MLP> I interpret what he said as: women will have control of the surgery
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MLP> by which the foetus is transferred from the woman's body to an
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MLP> incubator.  After all, it is the *woman's* body!
     ^^^^^^^^^

Ah, but should this control be present *if* the transferral operation is
*safer* than a regular termination operation?  Granted, if it *is* safer,
then I can imagine a lot of women opting for it, but I can also imagine a
lot of women in power situations, deliberately choosing the more dangerous
operation, *just* because she knew that he would have wanted the child...?

Is this fair?  Not to just to him, but for her, either?  Should she be
"allowed" to risk her life, just to spite a man?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * We've replaced the Dilithium Crystals with new Foldgers..
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:37:07 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1gtdiuINNbl1@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>
>>A solution that I suggested once was the following arbitration:
>>"if both parents are competent, let them both submit proposals for
>>custody and child's support.  The one who asks for the smaller 
>>amount will get the custody of the kids."
>
>It sounds like this proposal is more interested in giving rights to 
>the richer parent, than in doing what's best for the child.  How
>convenient for you that (on average) men are wealthier than women.

That's only true if you believe that wealth is the determining factor in how
well you can raise a child.

I would posit that it has nothing to do with it.

What Hillel has claimed is that the person who is >less greedy< (or less
vampiric) is the one who should get the kids.  Sounds reasonable to me;
monetary vampirism isn't a trait I would like to encourage in children.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:12:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Going Down the Mine
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.men

	
	Very interesting....

	I hear almost constantly how women have less "economic power"
	even though their abilities and desire to move into "male
	dominated professions" are supposedly "equal" to that of men's.

	Here we see a fair number of women that are getting their
	'big chance'.  And they don't seem to want it.

	Just wait until women have to register for the draft! (let alone
	getting drafted!)

	Life sure is funny....

	-Mike-
	        
Xref: sparky soc.men:21514 alt.flame:17165
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:47:33 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

In article <1992Dec20.093518.28250@netcom.com> oleg@netcom.com 
(Oleg Kiselev) writes:

>A large number of single women can't change the diapers and manage to
>keep a job that pays enough to support themselves and their children.

A woman knows that the father does not want to support a future
child, and she can't support it either.  She decides not to have
an abortion and not to give the newborn up to adoption.

It is a foolish thing to do, and the liberal solution for such a case
is to reward it.  (Either the state pays her, or the state forces the
father to pay her.)

Regardless of all the nice arguments, the bottom line belongs to 
Biology 101: a fool-proof environment grows up fools.

>If you consider this unfair and are unwilling to accept responsibility
>for your actions, vasectomy and celibacy are two best alternatives open
>to you.

Here you sound just like the anti-abortion guys who explain that 
women will have similar choices even if abortion were illegal...
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 18:34:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.144451.8946@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>In article <2195@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>|> 
>|> When it comes to child support, the more he MAKES, the more they TAKE.  Also, 
>|> child support is NOT tax deductible, nor does the 'non-custodial parent' get
>|> the tax deduction for the children.  It doesn't increase the mother's tax 
>|> burden by one cent.
>|> 
>
>If child support is a percentage, not a fixed amount, then it would seem
>that the less a man makes, the less he has to pay. Thus he is free to go
>back to school or otherwise reduce his income to 0 without any worries.
>
>Last time I looked, the 1040 (as well as applications for loans & credit
>applications) ask about other sources of income, on of which is child support
>payments. I also believe that you can take a deduction of a minor that does
>not reside with you if you contribute some given dollar amount towards that
>child's support. However, since I look at tax forms once a year, this is
>from a hazy memory and I am willing to accept that I may be off-base on
>this. Anyone know the actual IRS code on this?


	Probably only one of 10000 replies you'll get.

	1) CS doesn't change if you are "underemployed".  You are
	still obligated to the tune of what you *SHOULD* be making.

	2)  CP gets the deduction unless (she) signs an IRS form
	giving it to you.


	How naive of you to thing that *ANY* decision would
	go in favor of thhe (man) NCP.


-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Artificial Wombs
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:58:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
MLP> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

MLP> >If doctors refuse to perform a "current procedure" abortion, but will
MLP> >perform an incubator transplant (heh, we named the procedure already!)
MLP> >then the issue of what is legal is moot.

MLP> I find this terminology, with it's implication that the woman in
MLP> a mere "incubator", rather insulting.

Michal, it WOULD be offensive, IF he meant the term to be used in that fashion,
which is *not* the case.  He was only attempting to place a name on the
operation of removing a "foetus" and placing "it" into an incubator.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * What is meant to be will always find a way.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: How does infamous Morgan
X-To: PAUL CISZEK
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:52:00 GMT

pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes...
PC> A quote was being thrown around on alt.feminism some time back, and I
PC> believe that the source was Robin Morgan.  Anyway, it said something
PC> to the effect that she calls it rape whenever intercourse is not
PC> initiated by the woman out of genuine affection, or some such.  I would
PC> appreciate the correct wording and/or citation, if anyone out there
PC> has the time to send it.


Good question!  I remember replying to the person who quoted her, saying that
the quote was a little bit mislead, as it means that any man who initiates sex,
even when the woman agrees, is guilty of rape, which is much like something
that Andrea Dworkin might say.

In regards to what she said, I believe that she said that it's rape "unless the
woman initiates it", but this isn't the exact quote, though it is the basic
sentiment which was expressed.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Press any key to continue or any other key to quit
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:14:46 GMT
Organization: The Immoral Minority

In article <1go383INNodt@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
(Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Gee, Hillel, you must have missed the newspaper article I posted less
>than two weeks ago about a father who regained custody after 5 years
>of separation.

I ^P to it.  An interesting case.  The "social services" system works against
a man, and after a long fight (5 years!) he wins in the court.  No word about 
punishment for those "social services" people who abused their power, or any 
compensation for him.

Now I know what you mean when you say that men have an 
equality under the current laws...

>Dunno what the support settlement was, since it wasn't mentioned in
>the article.

What is you guess?  

>>Have you found any case like that?

>Scuse, please, but does my knowledge, or lack of knowledge, upon the
>personal situations (these are sealed files, you know) of other people
>make your case somehow?

You claim that the laws are fair.  Is this claim based on knowledge
or on a lack of knowledge?  If there is *no* case where a mother who
decided that she did not want a newborn was treated like fathers 
who don't want a newborn are *routinely* treated, then your claim of
"the laws are fair!" seems a little strange.

Anyway, when men say something like "the hiring laws are fair, why there
is affirmative action programs?" quite a few feminists jump against that.
Even when I point out cases like a senior vice president of IBM it shows
nothing for them, they want to see *large* numbers.

When the question is fairness for men then there is no need to point out
even a single case, a simple declaration of "the laws are fair" is enough.

>Adrienne Regard

Hillel                                           gazit@cs.duke.edu

"You know, and I know, that nobody is ever going to impose affirmative
action quotas on Arlington National Cemetery." --- Eric Pepke
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.culture.new-zealand,soc.motss
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Gays Assume the Posture for Clinton
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 19:54:25 GMT


In article <F81iVB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
|> It's quite obvious to anyone versed in politics that Clinton 
|> never intended to honor his campaign promise to allow homosexuals
|> in the military.

[.... offensive shit deleted ....]

Sounds like sour grapes to me.  Left behind and
unvalidated, idiots like this think that
the poor, weak homosexuals will be hurt by their
manly, sensible words.

Bwahahahahaha.  No such luck.  Get a clue.

We don't care what you think.  You are unimportant,
a tiny virtual zit on a great big reactonary ass that's
on it's way out the door.

Bye!


-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.legal,ba.singles,soc.singles,soc.women
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Organization: The Tickle Palace - Moonyvale, CA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 09:02:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.150754.5625@netcom.com> bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.063654.9388@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>>     Here is some more arguments for my point of view.
>
>GET A CLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>99% of the people on here think you're an ignorant jerk.

     So, what makes you think that you represent 99% of the readers of the
five newsgroups, soc.men, misc.legal, ba.singles, soc.singles and soc.women?
Did they elect you as their representative?  Will you back up your claim
with valid statistics or not?

     The only thing that I see from your responses in the thread is
grammar nit-picks, ad hom attacks and one response that invalidates the
way that I view sex with the way that you view sex.  Each opinion about
how we view sex is valid.  If you look below, then you will see your
responses.  I do not see one valid logical response against the
idea of a pre-sex contract.  When are you going to come up with one?

>Every time you post something you reinforce that opinion.

     From your viewpoint.

>Give everybody - and yourself - a break and GO AWAY!!

     I will not give you the satisfaction of scaring me off.

>Just give it up.

     I do not give up when I believe that I have a valid argument.

>Nobody is going to use a pre-sex contract.
>

     I did not ask people to use it.  I just wanted some feedback about
it which I got and am getting.  I am sincerely happy that I am getting
the good and bad feedback.  You see, I can learn from the bad feedback
which I am trying to do.  Look at the following exchange directly
below and you will see that 8 days ago I thought that legally I could
not use the contract.


++++

From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 04:24:09 GMT

In article <JULIE.92Dec8212258@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>
>  And if you're going to answer that she will have the opportunity
>to modify it, well, why draw up one ahead of time and talk about "presenting"
>it to her and not having sex with her if she doesn't sign it?

     There is no one to present it to at this time and I don't think that
I would because I believe that the contract is unenforceable.  If the
state would change the laws so that these type of contracts are 
enforceable, then she and I would negotiate the terms.

++++

From bob Mon Dec  7 22:26:08 PST 1992
Article: 92370 of soc.singles
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles,soc.men,soc.women