HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joseph@joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (Joseph Nathan Hall)
Newsgroups: alt.beer
Subject: Re: Beer Survey
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 02:08:30 EDT
Organization: 5 Sigma Software
Reply-To: joseph@joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v5


In article <92268.194422IO20049@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> (alt.beer), IO20049@MAINE.MAINE.EDU writes:
) 
)      I am doing a survey for a rather unusual report in a class.  I
) would appreciate it if anyone who has a moment, would tell me
) what their favorite kind of domestic and foreign beer is, and whether
) they prefer it from a bottle, can, draft, mug, paper cup, etc..
) Any other beer preferences would be appreciated, such as what you
) believe to be the strongest beer, the weekest beer, biggest rip-off
) beer, or whatever else you may feel.

Favorite domestic beer: my homebrew.  Otherwise, what the heck, let's
say Grant's India Pale Ale.

Favorite imported beer: I've consumed a lot of Franziskaner hefe-weizen
and Timmermans Kriek lately.  That canned Draught Guinness isn't too
bad, either.

I prefer to drink from a nice clean prewetted glass, thank you.

Strongest beer that I've had: Samichlaus Dark.  Thomas Hardy's Ale
is a close 2nd.  I'd like to run into some ordinary Samichlaus or
EKU 28 ... anyone out there know where they can be found in this neck
of the woods?

Weakest: I avoid weak, but I have probably accidentally consumed Bud
Light once and mistaken it for slightly contaminated water.  Certainly
not in years.  They tell me Miller Light has an even lower flavor
profile, but I wouldn't know.

Biggest Rip-Off/Most Overrated: Heineken.  (But Heineken Dark is a
fine, interesting brew.)  Corona a close 2nd.

uunet!joebloe!joseph   (609) 273-8200 day   joseph%joebloe@uunet.uu.net
2102 Ryan's Run East        Rt 38 & 41             Maple Shade NJ 80852
-----My employer isn't paying for this, and my opinions are my own-----
From: Sean.Smith@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.beer
Subject: Re: Cincinnati Beer
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:51:41 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

One of the big regional brewers makes a reinheitsgebot ``Christian
Moerhleim'' (sp?) which I believe comes in two varieties.  

There's a blues bar called Cory's near the university campus that
has this brew on tap...

--Sean

sean.smith@cs.cmu.edu             	    school of computer science
carnegie mellon university  5000 forbes     pittsburgh, pa 15213 3891
Newsgroups: alt.beer
From: rwalters@nyx.cs.du.edu (Russell Walters)
Subject: re: Bud
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 16:25:30 GMT



Okay, I'm confused. What are all these Budweiser commments doing in the
*Beer* discussion area? :'.
From: djohnston@pbs.org
Newsgroups: alt.beer
Subject: Miller "Special Reserve"
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:01:48 EDT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

I'm curious to know if anyone has tried the new Miller "Special Reserve".
I bought a six the other day out of curiousity (and because it was on 
sale) and Surprise! Surprise! I was TOTALLY UNIMPRESSED  ;^}

The labeling claims "all Barley" which would seem to indicate a more
full-bodied or at least more flavorful beer than the standard BudMilloors.  
Wrong! It's light-bodied and fairly dry.  The only thing it has going 
for it is a nice bitterness... (How do they do that without any hop aroma?)

Anyone else tried this new product from Miller?  What did you think?

-- 
 * Dave Johnston, PBS  "Cheers!" *   *   *   *   *   *   djohnston@pbs.org   *
 | Disclaimer: "The right to be heard does not automatically include the     |  
 |              right to be taken seriously..." - Hubert H. Humphrey, 1965   |
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
Subject: Re: postmodern knowledge and beauty
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:08:43 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Oct2.114247.6021@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
writes:
>
>When I say "object" I am of course acting (linguistically) 
>to distance it from my self, the "I" of the sentences I'm
>making, and conceptually empty it of selfhood, of the
>ability to say "I."  That may be the origin of some of the
>problems we experience, but that corresponds to my present
>experience.   I do not think of, for example, a painting as
>possessing a consciousness similar to mine.  And I do not
>think of the "self" as another object; although its
>linguistic resemblance to one is interesting.
>

part of what i was vainly attempting to dig out in an earlier post
is that the 'beauty' acts to distance the subject from the object.
'beautiful' is primarily an adverb -- a second-degee quality.
'the beautiful' is an inclusive category; quite a variety of qualities
(sadness, ecstasy, vastness, intricacy, fatality) may be thus modified,
and it seems to me that the term 'beauty' is most often employed in this
manner.

the effect of this modification is precisely to objectify the quality
that is being modified.  the sadness, et al. is repositioned as the
telos; we are no longer examining the object, but examining the quality
that is induced by the object, and thus the primary object is removed
to a distance.

(the phrase 'beautiful people' i've heard used to indicate a certain
vapidity or superificiality.  the presence of 'beautiful' remarks
the absence of the primary quality; their beauty is empty.)

tentatively, i am impressed with the notion that 'beauty' is quite
the genteel revaluation.  in my experience it bears a coincidence with
a particularly romantic sense of breadth or expanse, a sense of
almost fatalistic inclusion.  i am intrigued by this sensation of
romanticism, and the possible relation between what i perceive to
be the tendency of 'the beautiful' to displace the object and the romantic
attack on Aristotelian/Cartesian rationalism.  i am reminded of
bly's rather crude assertion that (managed to dig this one up)
'the English Romantics, with the exception of Blake, remained
primarily in the realm of feeling.  They feel the ideas but don't
think them.'

>
>I'm more interested in the political implications of
>people's ideas about beauty than anything else.  I don't
>need Wittgenstein to tell me what's beautiful, but 
>Wittgenstein may help if someone's trying to use my 
>experience of beauty to manipulate me and others, as the 
>Athenians did in building the Parthenon.  

tell us about the Athenians and the Parthenon?

regards,
dave
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
From: rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney)
Subject: Re: Mere trifling
Followup-To: alt.postmodern
Summary: Think before you post
Keywords: postmodern ignorance
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:19:27 GMT

In article <j1moody-300992024452@lafmacconsultant.lafortune.lab.nd.edu> j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
>At times, it seems that the concept of Post-modernism is mere trifling--
>trifling with subjectivity, existence, and the nature of reality.
>

	I hesitate to sound like M. Zeleny, but could you please elaborate
your remarkably vague and nigh-unto meaningless assertions with some 
evidence and specifics?

>We need answers. We need a concept of right and wrong. 
>One wouldn't be able to function--from shopping for the right product to
>selecting the right channel to choosing a school or job.
>

	Why?  I, and many others I suspect, make such trivial choices
without "a concept of right and wrong" or "answers".  Squirrels, for example,
have no notion of justice that I can determine, yet they seem to "function"  
pretty darn well -- of course, at picking up nuts and eating them, granted.

>We humans are also in need of traditions like marriage, the funeral
>and even church (oh no, I said the "c" word)--
>where we can gather collectively, equally, and face together that Great
>Unknown
>that understands infinity, quantum physics, and the spirit.
>

	Church.  I said it too.  

	But why are we "in need of" these traditions?  I face the Great
Unknown as regularly as the rest of us, but I don't think that the unknown
"understands" jack shit.

>Why waste so much intellectual thought on generalizing and attacking every
>institution and tradition? 
>

	Why not?  If for no other reason than that many institutions and
traditions are arbitrary entities which inflict suffering on others, then
attacking sounds good to me.  Why support any tradition?  It seems the
burden of proof rests on your empty assertions.

>Why spend so much time cursing the dark and not lighting a candle?
>

	Do you know what you're attacking?  Why are you wasting your time
cursing the dark of your own ignorance?

>Go ahead and flame me, or if you prefer responding like an adult, I welcome
>feedback/reproach.

	I'm responding like an adult.  I don't know about you.

-----
Michael S. Rooney

Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
From: hasch@chem.queensu.ca (Hartmut Schmider)
Subject: Re: YOU PEOPLE ARE MORONS
Followup-To: alt.postmodern
Summary: Yes, let us learn. Starting now.
Keywords: history, philosophy, the meaning of life, deep things
Organization: Dept. of Chemistry, Queen's University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:21:17 GMT

In article <92276.133520DXZ102@psuvm.psu.edu> <DXZ102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

[edited slightly for the sake of clarity]   

>Now that I have  been reading for a few weeks, I have concluded that few 
>of you actually read like an asshole,  but many of you have
>sort of bored. I liked questions, at least to the Newsgroup's theme.
>   Now,  a literary movement in the early 60s continued until the present.  
>It was an extension of the early 20th c. which began to break a form of
>Fitzgerald. 
>A literary movement held that nothing could be done to Barth and Craine,  
>that is,  fiction dealt with the authors and their heroin experience in 
>a fashion that simulated other artists. After the minimalists had taken 
>the canvass, essentially they concluded nothing new.  Throughout the 80s 
>the neo-realists got the exceptionally photorealistic television medium, 
>the canvass went through. It essentially became more and more self-reflexive.  >Television about double-takes, spilled into shots.
>   Now my question to anyone who recognises this concept of the essence 
>of postmodernism: 
>Mediums of expression?; politics?; philosophy?; daily life in general?
>   I'm very interested because I feel that we're very interesting and 
>open-ended. If you agree,  take what I've asked seriously and lets 
>learn.

Ok, that sounds very interesting to me, but give me time to think.
Tell us more. Let it grow. I'd be grateful if you could run the early
20th century by me again. I also have a lot to learn, moron that I am.
I'm off to the library, talk to you later.

                                      Haschmi
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern,alt.slack,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
From: jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll)
Subject: Re: 10,000 QUESTION PURITY TEST--PLEASE READ !!!!!
Originator: jcarroll@ferris
Keywords: sex purity test 45% hi mom
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Distribution: world,peanutbrittle
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:59:57 CDT


In article <1992Oct2.002120.14539@newshost.unh.edu>, jss@oin.unh.edu (Spectre) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.071757.3340@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> notbiff@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Jake Davis Smith) writes:
> >PLEASE SEND ME THE 10,000 QUESTION PURITY TEST!!!!  IVE DONE ALL THE OTHERS !!!
> >
> 	10,000????  I don't think so.....there's 500, 1000, and a rumored 1500,
> no 10,000 (Not that I know of)

Perhaps he's referring to the Nintendo version
of Wilt Chamberlain's autobiography...
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Trashiness and Banality 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:41:57 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <1992Sep30.204947.15982@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
| In article <1992Sep29.204230.8094@panix.com> 
| gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| 
| >  [...]                      If Delacroix were to paint
| >the revolution again, instead of a bare-chested goddess
| 						 ^^^^^^^
| 						prostitute

Unto him that hath, shall be given.

| 
| >leading Parisians over the barricades, he'd have to paint a
| >fat balding guy with sunglasses waving a videocam while a
| >ragged bunch of women and children straggled behind.
| 
| We return you to the customary _jailissement_ of  trashiness and banality.

But from him that hath not, shall be taken away even
that which he hath.

| >-- 
| > )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
| >( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
| 
| cordially,
| mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
| "Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
| 

-- by the way, that's the medieval spelling, right?

-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
Subject: What is Postmodernism?  What is "What is Postmodernism"? What...
Keywords: history, philosophy, the meaning of life, deep things
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:44:34 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

blz1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Betsy L Zucker) writes:
| Perhaps literary criticism can afford to define postmodernism as
| simple self-reference; philosophy and social analysis can not.
| ....

I think we need someone to keep a postmodernism FAQ and post it
every time this question comes up, but I don't want to be a
bureaucrat so I'm not going to do it.

My understanding of the term is that it came into use because
there was a closure of the idea of Modernism by about 1955.  That
is, the elites who decide these things for commercial and 
political reasons agreed that the Modernist movement had come
to an end and that the entire period could now be rationalized
and put in the museum along with Delacroix and Titian and Phidias.
Since people went right on doing stuff, however, much of it very
much in the spirit of early Modernism, a new category was 
needed for the burgeoning ratbag.  Hence, "postmodernism."
Maybe this is too simple-minded, but I don't see any particular
theme in the postmodern; rather, there's absence of theme.

Some people think that postmodernism is the recovery and
continuance of the original ideas or feelings that gave rise
to Modernism -- a rejection of the closure.  They relate
many of the philosophical, mathematical, and scientific
ideas of the 20th century -- for example, relativity,
indeterminacy, chaos theory, recursion -- to broader cultural
concerns.  I suppose that would be a more thematic view.

Sorry to be so rational; I'm having a slow day.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
From: jchason@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Julie Chason)
Subject: Re: Mere trifling
Organization: UIUC Department of Psychology
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:10:18 GMT

j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:

>At times, it seems that the concept of Post-modernism is mere trifling--
>trifling with subjectivity, existence, and the nature of reality.

>We need answers. We need a concept of right and wrong. 
>One wouldn't be able to function--from shopping for the right product to
>selecting the right channel to choosing a school or job.

Sounds like you are trifling with existence.  Who provides these "answers"?
Why do I "need" them?  Why is life a series of choices between the venders
of products, entertainment, schooling, and employment?  I say "vender" 
because it sounds like you are more worried with us being informed consumers
--informed of the 'right' choice that Pepsi wants us to make.

>We humans are also in need of traditions like marriage, the funeral
>and even church (oh no, I said the "c" word)--
>where we can gather collectively, equally, and face together that Great
>Unknown
>that understands infinity, quantum physics, and the spirit.

Again, more trifling!  This time with 'reality'.  Why worry about the
"Great Unkown"  (sounds like Death to me) when there is plenty to 
worry about (and celebrate!) and already that comes from the
simple fact of being alive.


>Why waste so much intellectual thought on generalizing and attacking every
>institution and tradition? 

Aw, now don't take all the fun out of it!


>Why spend so much time cursing the dark and not lighting a candle?

I think the Enlightenment is part of the problem :).


>Go ahead and flame me, or if you prefer responding like an adult, I welcome
>feedback/reproach.

>Peace.
      b  Bread and Land.
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: YOU PEOPLE ARE MORONS
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:09:18 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <92276.133520DXZ102@psuvm.psu.edu> <DXZ102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
| Now that I have  your photoreceptors....I have been reading this group's stuff
| for a few weeks now,  and I have concluded that very few of you actually know
| what "postmodern" means.  Not to read like an asshole ...
|                                                   ... I still have much to
| learn.

One of the things you have to learn is good manners.  Calling
people "morons" is rude, and it's banal as well.  Maybe you
should look for a different newsgroup.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: ql00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Quan vi Luc)
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
Subject: Camille Paglia
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:07:03 GMT
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Just wondering if any one of you post-mods have read Camille Paglia's
new book and were willing to comment on it.

First Question:
Is she post-modern or just pop culture?
 -- Quan Vi Luc

"Yet at that moment in the sunrise, it was all so beautiful, everything,
from all directions, evenly, perfectly, balancing day with night, summer
months with winter.  The valley was enclosing this totality, like the
mind holding all thought together in a single moment.  The strength came
from here, from this feeling.  It had always been there.  He stood there
with the sun on his face, and he thought he might make it after all." --
L.M. Silko
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
Subject: Re: Trashiness and Banality (was: Re: Madonna (was: Re: Curriculum c
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:42:30 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

[ television ]
gf:
| > Not that I know anything about it.  I don't even own a
| > television set.  If I studied it, and knew things about it,
| > I'd probably be as befuddled as everyone else.

rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
| I got interested in it nearly 50 years ago because it _defines_
| our _reality_.  In England reality is still largely defined by
| Shakespeare.  In France, Maupassant.  In America it's Diane
| English and Stephen Bochco.

Prescient of you.  There wasn't a lot of television around 
in 1942.

I wonder about television defining our reality.  Some people 
seem to think it does, for instance rights groups who petition
networks to get more of their category of person into sitcoms
and cop shows -- in positive roles, that is.  But there were
a lot of single mothers around before Murphy Brown was thought
of, at least in the venues wherein I sojourned.  The tele-
vision, it seems, does not create a class, but it creates 
class-consciousness for a class.  In enables to members of the
class to see themselves as part of the class.

In other words, it creates not physical or phenomenal
reality, but political reality.  Considering that decisions
on what to program when are made by a small group of rather
unusual people: more male, more wealthy, more coastal, more
educated, more white, than those for whom they are creating
politics -- see Faludi's _Backlash_ -- we have a peculiar
situation where a potentially revolutionary class is being
given its consciousness and led by people almost totally
outside the class, with an entirely different (although not
necessarily opposed) agenda.  If Delacroix were to paint
the revolution again, instead of a bare-chested goddess
leading Parisians over the barricades, he'd have to paint a
fat balding guy with sunglasses waving a videocam while a
ragged bunch of women and children straggled behind.

And there'd be no barricades, just the parking lot of a
shopping mall, with a third of the stores out of business.

Up above, in the clouds, I'd have him put Dan Quayle and 
Murphy Brown, dancing the fandango with empty TV eyes.
There is nothing so empty as the eyes of those whose images
are published by TV.  It must drain out the soul in seconds,
just as the Stone Ages peoples of New Guinea fear.  But I
digress.  Maybe it is good to be empty.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
From: j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty)
Subject: Mere trifling
Followup-To: alt.postmodern
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:53:05 GMT

At times, it seems that the concept of Post-modernism is mere trifling--
trifling with subjectivity, existence, and the nature of reality.

We need answers. We need a concept of right and wrong. 
One wouldn't be able to function--from shopping for the right product to
selecting the right channel to choosing a school or job.

We humans are also in need of traditions like marriage, the funeral
and even church (oh no, I said the "c" word)--
where we can gather collectively, equally, and face together that Great
Unknown
that understands infinity, quantum physics, and the spirit.

Why waste so much intellectual thought on generalizing and attacking every
institution and tradition? 

Why spend so much time cursing the dark and not lighting a candle?

Go ahead and flame me, or if you prefer responding like an adult, I welcome
feedback/reproach.

Peace.
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: postmodern knowledge and beauty
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:26:32 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

I think you're right in your criticism of my facile
repetition of "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."  If
that were the case, I could willfully project beauty onto
anything in the universe, and the term would refer only to
that act, and would be meaningless otherwise.  Yet I know
from experience that some objects are beautiful to me and
others are not.

On the other hand, in spite of much philosophizing from the
Greeks, and probably before, to the present day, we can't
say for sure that beauty resides in objects or in forms.  
Each requires somebody to experience its beauty.  Or so I 
think.  I'm one of those who would say that, if everyone in 
the universe died and "The Mountains above Ste. Remy" were
gathering dust in an empty museum, it would no longer be
beautiful, in fact, it would no longer be a painting.
(Unless there were a god who remembered what it was to be
human.)

So about the most we can say about beauty is that it is a
relationship between an object, which seems to have some
kind of valence or activity in its form towards beauty, and
a receiver who has a corresponding valence, a lock for the
key or a key for the lock.  Beyond that, things get fairly
mystical, and we have to start talking about sublimation
and the like, or about parts of the True Being separated
at creation seeking one another, as the two sexes were
supposed by some Classical writers to be.

Politically, this formulation still frees both object and
person from the control of elites, because, until shown
otherwise, there can be indefinitely many, perhaps
infinitely many, such valences.  For an authority to be
set up to control The Beautiful, it would be necessary to
know all the valences and know that one knew them all.
Then, rules could be made up about them and taught in school
by the credentialed -- a manifest absurdity. 
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )