HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: A question about women driving
Date: 12 Jan 1993 16:17:32 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <rm-36v+@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
> 
> >Not to mention that her point is irrelevant to this thread.  Unless she can
> >come up with compelling statistics that female college undergrads are given
> >a raw deal car-wise compared to male undergrads.
> 
> Oh how cute, a net.cop.

Oh how cute, someone with deficient reading/logic skills.  Or do you
define anyone who criticises a posting as a net.cop?

> And how silly it was of nasty ol' Sharon to reply to an anecdote with an
> anecdote!  Why, anyone could see that the original poster was asking
> for comprehensive statistics on female driving, and not someone else's
> personal experience!
> 
> >[deleted]
> 

I can only conclude that your reading skills are as questionable as hers.
The point of the original posting was about women not driving due to men
who won't let them and why that might be.  Sharon responded with a totally
irrelevant anecdote about how she couldn't learn to drive because she didn't
have a car and couldn't afford one.  Hell, I didn't have a car until the
year after I graduated from college either, so what does that prove?
I suggest you go back to the Dick & Jane series until your skills are up
to par.

> 
>                   -rocker

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
From: starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 6 Jan 93 05:48:17 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1993Jan4.221801.19573@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:

>>> In article <24660@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

>I made no claim that my "pet theory" is absolute truth.
>I did not make an attempt to prove it in any deceptive manner.
>Learn to recognise the difference between stating your opinion as your 
>opinion, and stating your opinion as if it were fact, with lying
>statistics to back it up.
>
>The reasons I hold my opinions were not relevant to the
>disputing of the above arguement, so I saw no need to state them.
>Perhaps I should not have stated my opinions at all. This was, however,
>an error in style at worst, not deliberate misdeception,hypocrisy, or
>slandering of others.
>
>Robert Johnston

Whoa, Johnston.  When I posted I simply stated that I had clipped
the information from soc.feminism and it might be of interest.
I doubt the studies done on female headed families are bogus.
They surley are not the whole story but significant none  the less.

Deliberate misdecption?  hypocrisy?  slandering of others?  Hardly.
In may just be life is not the way you see it.   Perhaps these 
studies point out a truth that disagrees with you feminist dogma? 

starbuck 

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.penpals,soc.net-people,soc.couples,soc.singles
From: R.S.Chandran@lut.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Lancey
Reply-To: R.S.Chandran@lut.ac.uk (Sathish Chandran)
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 12:52:45 GMT

In article <C0GCxH.8vq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> alyon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (arthur alexander lyon) writes:
>I am looking for a woman.


Aren't we all?!
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
From: stote@tomcat.den.mmc.com (M. Stote)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:30:50 GMT

In article <1ij2bcINNl25@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) writes:
|> 
|> In article <C0Iors.Mp8@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|> >Primetime Live also said that
|> >an FBI study (dated January 1992?) concluded that there was no
|> >evidence of even one ritual-abuse related murder.
|> So!  Even the FBI is covering up for Satan!
|> -- 
|> haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
|> haynes@cats.bitnet

Personally I don't believe the FBI is covering anything up.  Someone on the
Prime Time Live made a brief comment that clicked - `many of the groups 
include morticians & doctors'.  I know this was true in Shelly's case.  with
this combination, disposing of bodies is quite easy.

My own opinion of the Prime Time piece is that they took what is a very 
legitimate problem in psycho-therapy right now - the satanic ritual abuse
bandwagon and some (maybe a large percentage maybe not) therapists using 
leading techniques to encourage their clients towards a specific diagnosis
- and used this as a reason to discount almost all claims of satanic cult
abuse.

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
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery.d,soc.singles,talk.religion.misc
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:26:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.200945.12681@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:

)A good example of how statistics can lie. I would say that the major 
)indicator here is poverty, not the absence of male role models.

It's not a really great study, I agree, but in fact the report that
behavior improved when a role model added was a 'control' and did address
the point of the study - the effect of role models.

What's missing most, IMO, is a control for the Hawthorne effect (any sort
of attention improves things) - sort of like the placebo effect.

If one is going to focus on 'fathers' as this study attempted to do, a fair
example of a control for the specific importance of a *male* role model on
behavior would be a female role model (IMO).

Controlling for income would be appropriate if one was attempting to 
try and determine cause and effects from correlation without an actual
experiment - always a risky proposition, but frequently done in spite of
it.  It's not so important if one is actually performing and experiment
to directly test cause and effect, though.
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Breast Implant Info Needed
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:36:57 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

HELP!

I am a third year law student working on a seminar paper involving
purely elective cosmetic surgery, specifically as it applies to
devices implanted within the human body, and how strict liability should be
applied to the physicians who perform such procedures.

Yes, this is 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.

While this may be a rational result for an experimental heart where someone
is going to die without it, I don't think the same protection should
be afforded people who are doing little more of a needed service than
yor local tatoo artist.

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.

However, what I need are hard citable statistics on breast implants, how many
such operations have been done, the reasons, the percentage of complications,
etc, etc...

PLEASE HELP!

If you have any information I might be able to use, please drop me a line.

Thanks,

Darrell M. Crosgrove
U. of Toledo College of Law

DCROSGR@UofT02.utoledo.edu


PS. My deadline is this Friday.

Xref: sparky soc.women:22288 soc.penpals:5121 soc.net-people:1586 soc.couples:4560 soc.singles:35631
From: graeme@fulcrum.co.uk (Graeme Hodgson)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.penpals,soc.net-people,soc.couples,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Lancey
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:36:50 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

In article <C0GCxH.8vq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> alyon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (arthur alexander lyon) writes:
>I am looking for a woman. Her name is Lancey (my spelling may be
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Aren't we all?


--
Hodj
Email to graeme@fulcrum.co.uk     |        <witty quote pending>
 - whenever the mood takes you.   |
Xref: sparky soc.women:22331 sci.skeptic:22172 alt.sexual.abuse.recovery:9100
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Date: 8 Jan 1993 05:10:04 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


In article <C0Iors.Mp8@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Primetime Live also said that
>an FBI study (dated January 1992?) concluded that there was no
>evidence of even one ritual-abuse related murder.
So!  Even the FBI is covering up for Satan!
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint!  But ya gotta know the territory!"
        Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"

Xref: sparky soc.women:22444 sci.skeptic:22260 alt.sexual.abuse.recovery:9140
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 9 Jan 1993 19:34 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1inm0nINNs4b@shelley.u.washington.edu>, cloister@stein.u.washington.edu (cloister bell) writes...
>mjw@mailbox.eng.ufl.edu (Mike Wohlgemuth) writes:
> 
>>kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 
>>>                                                  (Some of the
>>>psychotherapists claim that tens or even hundreds of thousands of
>>>ritual murders are involved.)
> 
>>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.
> 
>>I think not.
> 
>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.

How many women of child-bearing age are members of these cults?  How many
of them are pregnant at any one time?  How many children do each of them
have?  Answer these questions, and see if you still think that "2.74/day
doesn't seem like an overly high number to me."

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky soc.women:22117 alt.child-support:4096 talk.abortion:54090
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.child-support,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Date: 4 Jan 93 14:03:44 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1993Jan4.113900.24191@netcom.com>, harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
> [alt.sex removed from Newsgroups: line because someone complained...]
> 
> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
> 
>>In article <1993Jan3.030321.11921@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
> 
>>>Who made the rule that the spouse of an elected official must be a
>>>political wet noodle?  
> 
>>We as a nation did, when we adopted an electoral process that places only
>>the candidates themselves, and not their spouses, onto the ballot.
> 
> I still don't see how that requires an elected official's spouse to
> sit down and shut up.  Hillary has always been a political activist
> and she will continue to be one.  Now, of course, she has more media
> coverage.  However, Bill Clinton was elected with the public's full
> knowledge of who his wife is.  The same goes for Al and Tipper Gore.
> 
> Hillary Clinton's political "power" is about the same as that of a
> cabinet appointee, only that she doesn't require Congressional
> confirmation.  Even those who disagree with her political views must
> admit that she's more than qualified for a "real" cabinet seat.
> 
> Her position is not unique.  Every First Lady has had the opportunity
> to advise the President as she saw fit, whether or not she took
> advantage of it.
> 

I couldn't resist pointing out that a former First Lady used a Psychic as
an adviser.  I have absolutely no problem with Hillary in the White House,
at least *she* is intelligent.


Sue
From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 4 Jan 1993 15:24:48 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ansible.pubs.stratus.com

Vicky Hansen writes
>Rich Payne (payner@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Perhaps if women took responsibility for raising
>: their children as non-violent there would be less.
>I doubt if the majority of mass murderer's mothers deliberately raised their
>children to be violent.  I also question the fact that fathers seem to be
>out of this picture (especially since I suspect you are male).

Excellent comments.  Let's continue to blame the women, despite
the fact the vast majority of violence in all societies on this
planet is committed by men.  What a helpful thing to be doing!

We need to raise our daughters to be stronger, and our sons to
be more concerned about other people.

*  In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak *
*  because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I *
*  didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade *
* unionists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a trade unionist... *
*Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.*
*  Rev. Martin Niemoeller     [Why to March on Washington in April]  *
Xref: sparky soc.women:22427 sci.skeptic:22251 alt.sexual.abuse.recovery:9133
From: cloister@stein.u.washington.edu (cloister bell)
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Date: 9 Jan 93 23:10:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1inm0nINNs4b
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

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

>kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>>                                                  (Some of the
>>psychotherapists claim that tens or even hundreds of thousands of
>>ritual murders are involved.)

>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.

>I think not.

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.
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
|tactical nuclear sdi stealth nsafood signature.  | cloister@u.washington.edu |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
Xref: sparky soc.women:22229 soc.men:22247 alt.child-support:4166
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re
Date: 6 Jan 93 08:53:34 EST
Followup-To: soc.women,soc.men,alt.child-support
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <C0DzKr.Ix0@srgenprp.sr.hp.com>, sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
> aaron.l.hoffmeyer (noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com) wrote:
> : statistics from the US
> : Census Bureau show that 90.2% of all fathers with joint custody and
> : ample visitation with their children pay their child support on-time,
> : all the time. 
> : when children are denied visitation with a non-custodial parent (AKA as
> : Dad), child support compliance drops to a mere 44%.  Yet, over and
> : over, I keep seeing that people separate these two issues.  The
> : statistics are telling.  If you want full compliance of child support,
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : let fathers be involved with their children, let them see their
> : children, let them care for their children.  When that happens, child
> : support is paid.
> : is it a woman's "responsibility" to ensure that her children
> : maintain a relationship with their father after a divorce
> : Are any of them guilty of
> : shirking on this responsibility?  
> 
> I agree that the statistics are telling but maybe not what you are 
> implying.  Those fathers who had a great relationship with their children
> before the divorce and who, therefore, got joint custody are certainly
> likely to pay support.  However, not all fathers who have little visitation
> are being 'denied' such rights by the mother -- some don't bother asking.
> 

This does happen.  My co-worker's husband walked out a year after they
had adopted two children.  He did not even see the children for an ENTIRE
year, although she called him regularly, begging him to visit them.  It
has been seven years, he is almost seven years in arrears on his child 
support, very irregular on his visits, and claims that paying child support
only benefits his ex-wife so he won't pay.  She's had him in court repeatedly
attached his wages, he just changes jobs and she has to go through the 
whole thing all over again.  Meanwhile she is still paying off *HIS*
student loans that were taken out in both their names, drives a 10 year
old car she hopes will last just a little longer..... and tries not to
be bitter...

> My ex asked for 2 hours every other Sunday.  I insisted on overnight visits
> so the boys could get to know their father for the first time.  I got my way.
> I did not insist that he exercise his 'right' to 6 weeks in the summer and
> he was grateful.  He has paid support regularly but I can see where the
> matchup of no support and no visitation could be a problem that did not
> start with the mother.

My friend Marie's ex- told her that she could keep 'her' daughter, he only
wanted 'his' son.  

Sue
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football,soc.women,soc.men
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Women Sports Reporters
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:20:39 GMT

In article <1ifhh1INNcqd@shelley.u.washington.edu> gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
>
>	Hmmmm....according to the news reports >I< have on record, he got
>fined for specifically banning ONLY female reporters.
>
>	However, what Wyche was fined for was banning female reporters
>and not male reporters.  This is NOT what is being claimed here.

He did NOT ban them from the locker room, he erected a wall with
blankets or something like that in the locker room and told the women
reporters to stay behind that "wall" until after the players were
decent.  The league took exception to his actions, so he recanted.  He
had sincere wishes to do good for the sake of his players, to keep
incidents such as the female reporter who kept going into the New
England locker room while men were showering, even after the players
there complained.  When the players for New England, lacking in social
graces, made lewd comments and gestures to her, she got them and their
management all in big trouble.  That was what Wyche was trying to
avoid.

Sam Wyche was and is no saint.  Anyone familiar with some of his
offensive innovations knows that he saw the rules as things to be
challenged (can you say "no-huddle offense?").  But he is not a bad or
callous person.  He was VERY active for the United Way and the
Salvation Army.  In fact, he spent so much time working in homeless
shelters in Cincinnati during the season that sports reporters used to
complain that he should be more concerned about winning than feeding
derelicts.

You can believe that Wyche is a sexist pig, but some of us think
differently.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.child-support
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:41:19 GMT

In article <xn#3mqg@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>[alt.sex and alt.fan.whatsisname removed]
>
>shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
>
>>In a recent missive james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> tells us:
>>*dennissteve really is frightened of women, isn't he?
>
>>And he has every reason to be.  I work with men on a *daily* basis who
>>are the victims of *completely* unfounded allegations of sexual abuse
>>[although in my case it is in the context of false allegations of
>>sexual abuse of their children in a divorce/custody context].
>
>And of course, you are completely qualified to determine when a
>charge of sexual abuse is *completely* unfounded.  There isn't
>the ghost of a possibility that some of the men are lying.

In the mountain of cases where the lies of the mother are documented, where
the children admit when they're older that the mother coached them every
step along the way, I'd be much more likely to believe the man than the
woman. 

I suppose you'll interpret my belief as "misogyny", of course. Can't 
control those knee-jerks can ya?

>>We in the biz call this the "nuclear bomb" of the divorce/custody
>>war.  It's quick, it's easy, and it acheives the desired result:
>>immediate, and often permanent, removal of the 'enemy'.  Women love it.
>
>Sorry, but you don't speak for me.  

Learn the difference between a general statement -- "women love it" -- and
a universal statement -- "ALL women love it".

>I can hardly think of a more
>detestable thing for all parties involved.  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.  

Extremely rare.

>Isn't the child
>sometimes placed into foster care when charges of abuse are made?
>How does that benefit the woman?

Usually, the woman gets to keep custody, and the man is restrained from
having any contact with the child.

>Unless, of course, the "enemy" you refer to is the children themselves.

Cheap, undeserved shot.

							- Kevin
Xref: sparky soc.women:22300 soc.penpals:5122 soc.net-people:1587 soc.couples:4565 soc.singles:35649