HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:48:06 GMT

In article <9L65wB3w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>warton@ssd.intel.com (Peter Warton) writes:
>
>> I think that this thread should not be crossposted to alt.sexual.abuse.recove
>> anymore.
>
>	You know, I just got some cranky Email along the same lines--
>someone on a.s.a.r asked me not to post such 'bull' on that newsgroup. I

Yes, as soon as I saw the "alt.sexual.abuse.recovery" cross-post, I *knew*
we were headed for trouble. Just read that group a little bit, and you'll
see what I mean. To be rather blunt about it, that's a newsgroup of the
delusional, by the delusional, for the delusional. It's for people who
have decided that, by golly, they HAVE been sexually abused, whether they
can remember it or not, and they clutch their teddy bears while screaming
in rage at the alleged perpetrator of the alleged crime that they may or
may not "remember". It's a group whose FAQ comes right out and says,
If you THINK you may have been sexually abused, then you WERE, and the
absolutely cruelest thing you can do to such a "survivor" is to question
his story.

And some people think this kind of thing leads to *recovery*!!!! Frankly,
it's one of the sorriest, sickest things I've seen in my life. These
people genuinely *do* have problems, but such problems can never be
solved by relying on a "therapist" who shares their delusions..



-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Xref: sparky soc.women:22381 alt.child-support:4277 talk.abortion:54735
From: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.child-support,talk.abortion
Subject: Counselling at the end of Marriage (WAS Re: What can we expect from President Hill
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:04:54 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation  Sunnyvale California


   sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
> ...  I've seen quite a few divorces that would have been
>averted by counseling.  ...
>How about an honest answer from all the divorced people out there, male
>and female.  How many of you asked (or were asked) to go to counciling
>with your former mate?  How many went?

I asked her to go to joint counselling, pleaded,
and finally begged.  (I *hated* begging).
We went to one session.
She said "No more." and moved out a month later,
four years ago last week.
---
Joel Hanes
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Muffy becomes anti-choice (was Re: just passing through...)
X-To: DANIEL B. HOLZMAN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:09:00 GMT

holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec18125621@remarque.berkeley.edu>,
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> No, you have not "chosen to not reproduce" when you have sex using birth
>> control.  You have simply chosen to take a "1/5/10/etc percent *chance*
>> of reproducing" (the actual percentage depends on the type of birth
>> control chosen and how well you use it).  If you gamble and lose, then
>> you have to deal with the consequences.
>>
>>>And if the birth control fails, then it's certainly
>>>a responsible decision to stick with your original choice.
>>
>> Exactly.  The choice of "taking a small chance of reproducing."

>Gee, Muffy, does this mean that you're anti-abortion?  I hear this argument
>VERBATIM out of people explaining to me why women should not be permitted to
>have abortions.  After all, they chose to take the chance on getting pregnant.
>They gambled and lost, now they have to deal with the consequences.


Hahahahaha!!  (not directed at you, but at the situation in general)
Oh, me oh my, I think that she was only talking about *men* there, Daniel.

However, I can't see her being too willing to admit that in public...  :-)

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

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * At the prompt, remove disk, spit on it, then retry.
From: chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J Savoie)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: The Susan B. Anthony Dollar (Was: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean?
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:04:55 GMT
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <1993Jan11.012237.13229@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>
>I've always wondered...
>
>Did they make the silver dollar the size of a quarter to save money - and
>then found it only fit for a woman's likeness?

/semi-flame on

Is your mind really so poisoned that it can find any kind of logic or worth
in this statement?  Dimes, nickels and pennies are all smaller than
quarters and have men's faces on them...  Does it mean anything?  No.

>
>  - Or -
>
>Did they decide to put a woman's likeness on a silver dollar and then size 
>it to reflect the equal status of women (i.e., not equal)?

Neither?  Ever thought of that possibility?

> Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

Charles

-- 

,.. .  . .  . ,.. . . ... ,.. ,..   =====================================
|   |--| |  | |   |<   |  |-  `-.   Charles Savoie  chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca
`'' '  ' `''' `'' ' ` ''' `'' '''   =====================================
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery.d,soc.singles,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: "Satanic Ritual Abuse"
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:49:56 GMT

kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
] The cover story on the new issue of _Ms._ magazine is 
]                  "Believe it!
]             Cult Ritual Abuse Exists
]                One Women's Story"
] 
] Inside is a 6-page first-hand account by "Elizabeth S. Rose" (a
] pseudonym). The article ends "If we want to stop ritual abuse, the
] first step is to believe these brutual crimes occur."
] 
] The lead story on ABC's "Primetime Live" was also on ritual abuse. It
] was much more skeptical. It pointed out that some psychotherapists
] were getting rich finding ritual abuse almost everywhere they look.
] The show also talked to four women who said their psychotherapists had
] exploited them by feeding them fantasies (while ignoring their
] truthful accounts of "ordinary" abuse.) Primetime Live also said that
] an FBI study (dated January 1992?) concluded that there was no
] evidence of even one ritual-abuse related murder. (Some of the
] psychotherapists claim that tens or even hundreds of thousands of
] ritual murders are involved.)


p1: has anyone done any leg work to check on the more
traditional fundamentalist/'religious right' ranting on this
issue, and whether some of it is mere 'propoganda.' Especially
given the recent disclosures in regards to child abuse in
the roman catholic church.

p2: the order of magnitudes suggest a 'Jonestown' a month
situation, and given the press coverage of that fiasco, it
would be hard to believe that anything like this would 
go uncovered that long.

p3: I did some time with a 'cult watch' group, and will confess
to a moderate level of 'angst' at the thought of anyone getting
tied up with any 'cult' group, regardless how good their God is
alledged to be. But again these groups did NOT get to the sizes
needed to support the sort of covert operation required. Even
Scientology has had problems concealing its efforts to assasinate
and intimidate journalists, and former members.

p4: I worry, as well, when we get off into potentially questionable
areas that are so laced with 'cultural icons' rather than substance.
I will concede that for a lot of us, we are working through a lot
of stuff that we hold in our head in clearly 'non sequitor' format,
that does motivate us to 'strange ends' - but.... does grabbing
the 'non sequitor title' and using it make it clealy "true" that
the event occurred, or is actionable.

p5: I worry when even a jadded secular society starts planning
witch hunts to protect us from the lack of having a decent
International Communist Conspiracy to wave around as a BugaBoo!


ciao
drieux



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 
Just because you are a homicidal maniac
doesn't mean you don't have a sense of humor.
		- Barry Sadler
Xref: sparky soc.women:22551 talk.abortion:55381
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:44:45 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <xn#3mqg@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

> [.....]      And I seem to recall
>quite a few cases in which the judge ruled that there was no abuse,
>and indeed granted the father custody based on that.

Yeah, like the famous Elizabeth Morgan/Eric Foertich case.  Then she
kidnapped the child and sent her of with the maternal grandparents to
live in New Zealand.  For this she was lionized by the press and made 
the sympathetic subject of a TV movie, while Foertich was vilified.

Not too long ago a woman named Faye Yeager, who runs an "underground railroad"
for women whose accusations of abuse are not held up in court, was put
on trial for kidnapping because she kept a child hidden from a mother who
had brought the child to her and then later admitted the charges she had made
against the ex-husband were false.  Although it was proven by videotape 
out-takes that Yaeger screamed at, bribed, and threatened children in order to
get them to say on-camera that their father had abused them sexually and/or
participated in "satanic rituals", Yeager was nevertheless found innocent and
was hugged by several tearful jurors after the trial.  Such a noble defender
of the innocent.

- db
 
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Subject: Re: A question about women driving
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:34:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL7]

Sharon O'Neil (oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu) wrote:
: This is the first year that I've had access to a car and so I learned 
: how to drive.  But it makes me SO FURIOUS sometimes that I had to wait
: this long.  I was financially dependent upon them as an undergrad and
: had no way to get the money to get a car on my own. 

  ever heard of working?

: My (hypothetical) child
: will learn how to drive as soon as s/he is old enough for a permit to learn.

  if you couldn't earn the money for a car, how are you going to pay for the
  incredible insurance cost of having a child drive?
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: pamaga@biobase.aau.dk (Paulo Magalhaes)
Subject: Re: Make friends
Organization: The Danish BioBase
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:50:05 GMT

In <1ilp2oINNcpo@violet.csv.warwick.ac.uk> csujr@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Gods) writes:

>Hello

>	I am a new comer here. I am appreciated if anyone here would like to make friend with me. If you are the one wanna to do so, please drop me a line or so by email or leave the message here.

>	My email address is : csujr@csv.warwick.ac.uk

>Gods

What kind of name is 'Gods' ?!?!

There, you've got a friend replying...
Xref: sparky soc.women:22159 soc.men:22176
From: dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk (Dave Parry)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re
Date: 5 Jan 93 09:28:40 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: The Mountains of Madness
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.011809.17271@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> >barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes...
> >>Don't expect sympathy or support from me for your failure to be a
> >>responsible adult. The sexual equality argument is bullshit. What you
> >>are really asking for is public financial support for certain men's lack
> >                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>of responsibility. Forget it. No way. They owe; they pay.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >If a woman doesn't want a child, and doesn't think that she can support
> >him/her herself, then she is under NO OBLIGATION to bring him/her into
> >this world, just as I recognise NO OBLIGATION to pay for a child whom
> >I have chosen during pregnancy, not to support, either.
> 
> 	What you feel is your own business. I'll tell you this: if a
> person refuses to help his own child, the flesh of his own flesh, when
> that child is too young to care for itself, is there really anything
> further he need do, any other line he must cross, to rate as a
> completely selfish bastard? Is there some demonstration of amoral
> selfishness which is stronger or more definite than this? Some more
> extreme rejection of the no-man-is-an-island idea? If there is I must be
> overlooking it.
> 
> >And don't be telling me about having to spend taxpayer's money
> 
> 	That _is_ an uncomfortable thought, one would hope. Kinda brings
> one to the bottom line - that you can't shirk a responsibility without
> thereby dumping it on someone else. Supporters of deadbeat dads find it
> easy to talk about the child's mother, since she bears equal
> responsibility for the situation, but quite _un_comfortable talking
> about the child, or the taxpayers who frequently end up supporting it.
> Pretty hard to dump the blame for what happened on them, I guess.
> 
> -  Nothing fails like success  -             Kenn Barry
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ELECTRIC AVENUE:                             barry@netcom.com
You've used the phrase "selfish bastard" in your arguement, would you
equally apply that to women who, despite the wishes of the father, go
ahead and have an abortion (health reasons excepted)? The father wants
to raise the child, the woman wants to get rid of it. Is she being
selfish?

I'd be interested to read your opinion.

Dave
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
From: joe@dogface.austin.tx.us (Joe Zitt)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: The Fortress of Ultimate Dorkiness
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 19:29:28 GMT

In article <C0Iors.Mp8@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>The lead story on ABC's "Primetime Live" was also on ritual abuse. It
>was much more skeptical. It pointed out that some psychotherapists
>were getting rich finding ritual abuse almost everywhere they look.
>The show also talked to four women who said their psychotherapists had
>exploited them by feeding them fantasies (while ignoring their
>truthful accounts of "ordinary" abuse.) Primetime Live also said that
>an FBI study (dated January 1992?) concluded that there was no
>evidence of even one ritual-abuse related murder. (Some of the
>psychotherapists claim that tens or even hundreds of thousands of
>ritual murders are involved.)
>
The front page of the latest New York Times Book Review also has an
article "Beware the Incest Survivor Machine", which casts doubts on the
subject and brings up a lot of the "false memory" talk.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From:  ()
Subject: Re: False allegations (Was Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?)
Followup-To: soc.women,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:37:05 GMT

This stuff makes me really disgusted. Women like that should be hacked to
pieces with a carving knife. After reading these posts, I really feel that
way. Fucking bitches. Now who's abusing who?
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 08:52:01 GMT

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>Lying under oath if proven is called perjury and is a
>felony.  News to you guys?

Not to mention, say, "Filing a False Police Report"

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    

             -rocker
Xref: sparky soc.women:22388 sci.skeptic:22228 alt.sexual.abuse.recovery:9118
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:33:39 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1993Jan8.203050.3791@den.mmc.com> stote@tomcat.den.mmc.com (M. Stote) writes:

>I felt pretty resigned after watching the show.  It just reinforced my opinion
>that this stuff is just so horrible that people don't want to believe it. 
>I'm glad I was present when Shelly went thru a guided imagery session dealing
>with her experiences.  I was really observant of how careful her therapist 
>was not to provide leading situations or ask leading questions.  

>--
>Fare well all,
>Mike Stoughton
>stote@den.mmc.com

  I don't know who "Shelly" is.  Was she totally unaware of the standard 
(and utterly implausible) Satanic Cult story before this session?

  The above question asked with no hostility or prejudice, really...
just skepticism.
-- 
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
  inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter
  the state of facts and evidence"     --      John Adams
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:33:55 GMT

In <1inm0nINNs4b@shelley.u.washington.edu> cloister@stein.u.washington.edu (cloister bell) writes:

>mjw@mailbox.eng.ufl.edu (Mike Wohlgemuth) writes:

>>I've seen people claim that between 50,000 and 2,000,000 ritual murders
>>take place every year in the U.S.  Now let's see:

>>50,000 murders / 365 days a year / 50 states = 2.74 ritual murders per
>>day in each state.

>why not?  from what i understand of satanic cults, they freqently breed
>children for this sort of thing.  the mothers can be kept in seclusion for the
>duration of the pregnancy, the authorities need never know the child was even
>born.  who's going to notice the disappearance of kids who no one knew ever
>existed anyway?  and given the size and level of organization of satanic cults
>(at least, what's reported anyway) 2.74/day doesn't seem like an overly high
>number to me.

Mothers have parents, friends, relatives. Do you suggest that you can
hide people for 6 months without arousing suspicion? 50 000+ times a year?
Without a single goof-up? Are these wizzards available to run our
economy?

And how can people _count_ something for which they can't find any
evidence? One often hears estimates of crimes (drug crimes e.g.) being
more widespread than convictions indicate. 10:1 maybe or 100:1, but
50 000 : 0, every year? No way.

(And drug criminals are smart and organized too.)

Werner



Xref: sparky soc.women:22446 sci.skeptic:22266
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Date: 10 Jan 93 03:16:31 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

warton@ssd.intel.com (Peter Warton) writes:

> I think that this thread should not be crossposted to alt.sexual.abuse.recove
> anymore.
> 
> Thanks,
> Peter

	You know, I just got some cranky Email along the same lines--
someone on a.s.a.r asked me not to post such 'bull' on that newsgroup. I
explained that, since I was replying to another message that had been
cross-posted, and since my Usenet node doesn't let me re-edit the message
headers, it was a bit presumptuous to blame me for this. (I also urged this
person to contact the False Memory Syndrome Foundation before claiming it
was 'bull.'

	But when I posted the text of an article I'd written on the subject,
I cross-posted it to the same newsgroup-- and got a similar message, full of
insults and invective (I think it began "Hey asshole," and went downhill
from there), demanding that I not sirculate such things on a.s.a.r. Granted,
this is only two people, out of how many who are actually on the newsgroup,
but when i do have a look over there, I'm doing so with these two letters in
mind. I wonder if the others on that newsgroup know what kind of a bad rep
they're getting?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org

"Do I BELIEVE in the Bible? Hell, man, I've even SEEN one!!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.penpals,soc.net-people,soc.couples,soc.singles
From: alyon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (arthur alexander lyon)
Subject: Lancey
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:56:05 GMT

I am looking for a woman. Her name is Lancey (my spelling may be
incorrect). That is all I know. This may seem odd, but I am very
serious.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Subject: Re: Breast Implant Info Needed
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:27:25 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL7]

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu (dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu) wrote:
: focusing on breast implants.
: 
: In Ohio, physicians, and other providers of professional services, are exempt 
: by statute from strict liabilty, unlike other people who sell items. (If the 
: jewler sold you a watch, strict liability woul apply if you were hurt by the
: watch. If the doctor sells you implants, and puts 'em in you, he or she is not
: held to strict liability.
: Please note, where the surgery and implants are to correct a situation caused
: by injury or disease, or LEGITIMATE birth defect (small cups don't count), I
: am arguing the law should remain the same.

The current society bases beauty on stick thin bodies with voluptuous chest
measurments.  If AA cups do not qualify as a birth defect, why would anything
else?  Why is replacing breasts after injury or disease so different from
getting them in the first place?  My chest measurment is 6" smaller than my
hips and my mother is one sided due to disease.  As it turns out, neither
one of us is considering implants but BOTH would be cosmetic in nature and
I fail to see why the laws should be different.  If implants are safe, then
let everyone try them.  If they are not, don't give them to anyone.
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: We Have Been Trying to WARN YOUN!!!!
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:32:59 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <1993Jan11.132034.16621@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Now Slowly But Surely they are Learning that even the
>FBI is in the Hands of SATAN!!!!!!

That's funny I thought it was in the hands of Donald
Sutherland.

				--Blair
				  "Oliver Stone's next picture
				   will be his vision of HELL."
Xref: sparky soc.rights.human:4735 soc.culture.caribbean:2010