HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Of apples and their skins
Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:35:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.022116.11126@cheshire.oxy.edu> rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney) writes:

[stuff deleted]
>  And I'm by no means convinced that philosophy has nothing 
>to offer in terms of justifying moral claims: it just seems rather
>iffy.

OK.  So does this mean you haven't made up your own mind about the question,
or do you truly think the question is "iffy" in a metaphysical sense?
NFI, just q question...

>
>	When did I (or Russell) ever claim that abandoning strong
>foundationalism should cause us to give up hope or stop caring about
>human suffering?  "We can't sure of anything" does not equal "We can't
>argue with the Powers that Be". [...]

Yes, I forgot, there is always screaming at the top of your lungs at
somebody else incoherently.  Yes, as skeptics we CAN argue, can't we?

>
>	Steve, like a lot of people today, you seem to have invested 
>heavily in the Despairing Skepticism view of abstract philosophical or
>mathematical inquiry.  Blindly assuming that technical philosophical
>conundrums have no relation to the real world, or that philosophers
>just spend their time on these problems in a sort of cynical disregard
>for the Real World (tm) is as much a ideological construct of the
>vaunted Men in Power as any of the ignorant accusations you're hurling
>here.

There are lots of "technical" philosophical point that have relationship
to the real world.  I can take many very technical points and demonstrate a
usage for them in the real world--i.e. the world outside of the direct
discpline.  My original point about Russell et. al. was that this was not
the case with them.

>
>	I'm glad that you were able to discern my "final solution"
>innuendo.  You should note, however, that subtlety is an entirely
>different phenomenon than cowardice.  (Come on, I compared you to 
>the Khmer Rouge -- surely you don't think I would hesitate to label
>you a Nazi if I really wanted to?)

sci.philosophy.meta.flame, anyone?


_____
Steve Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com
From: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark Peterson)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Date: 10 Oct 1992 20:51:00 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: inet
Reply-To: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <1992Oct9.121245.16202@husc3.harvard.edu>, by zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny):
> In article <1b428rINNcdr@uwm.edu> 
> hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>>From article <Bvto3K.D3J@umassd.edu>, 
>>by pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman):


> MP:
>>And just in case the horse 

> MZ: 		  ~~~~~~~~~
> Is this a reverse synecdoche, or what?

Synecdoche?  ;-)  Nice to see you too Mikhail....


> MP:
>>[...]
>>of.  Unless, perhaps, you are referring to Immanuel Kant's lesser
>>known, and illegitimate son, P.D.Q. Kant.  This sounds more like him.  ;-)

> MZ:
> Would he be the issue of his legendary sole instance of sexual intercourse,
> allegedly self-described to his students as "an irregular progression of
> aimless movement"?

Yes.  That's him.

On the other hand, you know, Kant really takes it in the neck as being
a real stick in the mud -- probably as a result of his prose, ahem,
style -- but if you read letters from his students and reports of
colleagues, the old boy was really a wild man and terribly funny in
lecture.  I still have not been able to make these add up.  A bit like
Descartes and his melons.

Why are y'all still talking about the Randian heresy in here anyways?  ;-)


hiho
-- 
mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | (414) 335-5200        

     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: The search for Truth and the Good
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:24:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <183877@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:

>Campbell suggests that All world mythology points the way
>toward our having a profound and continuing experience of connection to
>the river of Life, our own inherent completeness.

If I am inherently complete, why do I need an experience of connection
to the river of Life or to anything else?
-- 
Jim Kalb 		"The trouble with the modern world is that
(jk@panix.com)		 stupidity has begun to think."  (Cocteau)
From: jamiller@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Phil.of Language (Ok Here or Not?)
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:07:48 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

> Wittgenstien, Tolkien and Tolkein. Of course, soberly regarded, it is clear
> enough how this happens, what with Americans variously pronouncing their
> names stine or steen, but still...

Hey you didn't even hear me butcher the pronunciation yet.  And
besides the skeptical paradox really can't be said to be either
Wittgenstien or Kripke's.  It's _Kripgenstien_ as my professor
jokingly calls *them*.-);

>   ("Dr Frankenstein!" - "No, it's Frankonsteen!")
-- 
jamiller@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
James Miller

_chicchai .sig no ho ga ichiban iin janai ka..._
             Enlightenment Happens?
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: The Bible In The Context of Its Time
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:25:11 GMT

In article <5967@news.duke.edu> strange@acpub.duke.edu (Michael B. Scher) writes:
>>
>>  I suspect we have been in agreement in principle--perhaps I wasn't
>>making myself clear.  Thanks for the recap.
>
>     I took you as indicating that anthro wass concerned with the individual.
>"Human beings" is of course our topic area, but that is also the topic area
>of sociology, psychology, the humanities in general, anatomy, and so forth.
>It hardly indicates a prediliction for individual-oriented studies.  If you
>meant only to say we are not only concerned with the sum-total outcome of social
>forces, then I can agree, but I took you to mean that anthro was concerned
>with describing the bahavior of individuals as individuals;

  I would rather claim that psychology is concerned with describing
behavior of individuals as individuals--not anthropology per se.

  The distintion I was attempting to draw was between sociology and
anthropology where sociology tends to be more interested in the 
interactions of institutions of people and their outcome in terms
of social forces, whereas anthropology studies those institutions to gain
insight into human interaction.  On this point, I would agree with you
that the distinction between sociology and anthropology is one
of methodology.

>Mike Scher                      strange@hercules.acpub.duke.edu

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School

"Les dieux existent : c'est le diable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Sexism vs. Racism (was Re: Female breast (bosom) expe
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:19:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: kbsw1.1992Oct13.201902.8426
Reply-To: chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

In article <1992Oct13.150459.20521@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>YES, ABSOLUTELY. What if our symbol "two" stood for this many objects: x x x
>
>and our symbol "one" stood for this many objects: x
>
>then one plus one would not equal two. However, due to the linguistic
>CONTEXT of english, ie "two" stands for this many objects: x x
>one plus one does equal two.
>
>-r

I've never heard of a group that can't count at least to three, (someone
will correct if I'm wrong) and it looks like you are confusing the
token "two" with the concept of two. Has anyone ever heard of a
group that adds x and x to get xxx ? If not this argument looks
suspiciously like one that starts with "What if pigs has wings".

Chris Kostanick
Xref: sparky sci.anthropology:1130 soc.culture.netherlands:3339
From: dude@losers.hacktic.nl
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,soc.culture.netherlands
Subject: Re: Female breast (bosom) experience wanted!
Date: 15 Oct 92 09:01:38 GMT
Organisation: black mail inc.

In article  <Bvrw41.8Es@nic.umass.edu>, 
Vera B. writes:

 S> I once had a professor who referred to African Americans as niggers
 S> and then he would add, "but I'm not really racist, ha-ha" - and
 S> I would think - Really? either you don't know what you are or you
 S> don't know what racism is. He couldn't see any racism in his 
 S> attitude either. Funny, isn't it? 
 
 No it's not.
 
 S> I've seen these excuses before...racists and sexists will always need
 S> to justify their lack of respect as something else other than what it is.
 S> 
 S> Vera B.
 
 So I can't make a joke about my black friends ?
 Once, we were in walking in the dark, and I could only hear one of my
 (black) friends, I couln't see him. So I asked him to smile so I could
 at least see his teeth in the dark (no a great joke, but it's an example).
 Was I being a rascist at that time ?
 Or is there a difference between jokes *about* women/blacks/* and jokes
 *against* women/blacks/* ?
 
 S> 'There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see'

 
 'Don't take yourself too seriously'                 Dan Millman
Xref: sparky sci.anthropology:1101 soc.culture.netherlands:3297
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,soc.culture.netherlands
Subject: Re: Female breast (bosom) experience wanted!
Keywords: femal breast bosom
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:22:48 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  Jezus, Esther (and Marieke, etc) is there some compelling reason why 
>  you insist on posting to a worldwide distribution in Dutch?

>  First of all, your comments appear to be directed at your compatriots
>  so a worldwide distribution is inappropriate.

>  Second, unlike, say, French or Spanish or English, Dutch is not very 
>  widely spoken outside of the Netherlands.  So these messages are not

Obviously you have been misinformed, although not as much as English,
dutch (or a derivative) is spoken in a very large part of the
world. What do you think is that funny lanuage they speek in South Africa
(apart from English) or Surinam or Belgium, so they're all bilingual
but there's also a large amount of dutch in places like New Zealand
,Australia, Canada and the US, heck don't forget New York used to
be Dutch even though that *is* a long time ago.


>  likely to be read or understood by anyone outside your borders in
>  the first place, except for Dutch travelers, students, etc, who most
>  likely speak English.    When I was in The Netherlands last year 
>  virtually everyone spoke English -- I've traveled all over the world
>  and I've never been to a non-native-English-speaking country where
>  where such a large percentage of the poulation spoke English as 
>  The Netherlands.          

True, the Dutch are known to learn foreign languages very easily.


Erik



-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
From: scls_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Scoles)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Demarcation of Anthropology
Date: 16 Oct 92 11:44:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: galileo.1992Oct16.114416.17879
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <-1366699169snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:


>In article <1992Oct14.010849.2580@midway.uchicago.edu> coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

> > Demarcation of Anthropology
> >  
> > CO -- Charles Onstott
> > GH -- Gil Hardwick
>                                     .
>                                     .
>                        [Discussion deleted as read]
>                                     .
>                                     .
>Thank you again, finally.

>Now that you have decided to comply with the established discourse of
>Anthropology on a public forum, hopefully we will see more of the value
>arising from your studies.


Okay, I've been reading this nonsense for about three weeks now & I'm tired
of it.  I think Onstott was well justified in refraining from specific
references in what he (and I and I suspect everyone else here except
yourself) considered an informal forum.

You are imposing your standard -- which I consider a rather odd one, to boot
-- on this group.  Anyone who imposes their standard on another ought to be
prepared for that other to fail to live up to it.  Be prepared, Mr.
Hardwick.

>--
>Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
>Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
>PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
>   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
-- 
Eric Scoles			: <<insert witty, pithy comment 
scls_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu  :    here >>
University of Rochester --------:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: s1006420@titan.ucc.umass.edu (If you want peace work for justice)
Subject: Re: The Bible In The Context of Its Time
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:22:54 GMT

In article <-1367383082snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct6.133109.15664@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU writes:
>
> > What IS 'anthropological'?  I read GNOSTIC GOSPELS for an anthro class.
> > What is the difference between studying religion in a cultural context,
> > and studying culture? Can you study culture without studying religion?
> > Can you study religion without studying culture?
>
>I have "Gnostic Gospels" on my shelves also, but under Women's Studies
>rather than Religion. It sits alongside Greer "Sex & Destiny", Warner

Now this is curious - if GG is about religion - why do you classify
it as Women's Studies?

>"Alone of All Her Sex", Dahlberg "Woman the Gatherer", Tiffany & Adams
>"The Wild Woman", and many others.
>
>What we mean by the term "anthropological" is material not published
      ^^
Who exactly is 'we'?

>within the discourse of Anthropology as a study of society & culture.

If a lot of so-called 'Women's' Studies is exactly about studying
and analysing society and culture as a whole  - and therefore it is 
exactly anthropological -
is the difference drawn because traditional anthropology either is
directly sexist in its analysis or indirectly by its lack of
critique? 

>It is only of partial relevance that the work is by an anthropologist
>as such; what is very important is how the material is treated.
>
>One studies religion in a seminary. One studies the culture which
>sustains religion in Anthropology, using the artifacts of religion (in
>this case literary artifacts) as examples, within the context of other
>related studies on the social organisation of seminaries, for example.
>
>Certainly, I draw on divers cultural artifacts which can not by any
>stretch of the imagination be deemed anthropological, since they have
>their own purpose far beyond the scope of Anthropology. Whether the
>artifact be a literary work, stone edifice, bow & arrow, or anything
>at all, does not alter its standing as an artifact. My classifying of
>artifacts as a scholar is merely transient, within the thesis I may be
>working on at the time, following which they should reasonably be put
>back where they belong.
>
>etc
>
>Gil
>
>--
>Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au

Vera B.





Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: bechdol@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jeff Bechdol)
Subject: Re: Female breast (bosom) experience wanted!
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 17:08:53 GMT
Reply-To: bechdol@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester
Keywords: femal breast bosom


Greetings !

|> >>OK girls. Put your breasts on the scanner and FAX them to PTT Research. 
|> 
|> >I see a lot of sexism on USENET, such as the post above. 
|> 
|> Sexism? Sorry I can't see any sexism in it; this is just having a bit of
|> fun. 

While the remark may not have had the INTENT of sexism, its CONTENT did.  
Whether it was funny or not makes no difference... because some people didn't 
see any sexism in it does not imply that it wasn't sexist.

I'm sure the above was not intended to be sexist, that it was not meant to offend
anyone.  Sometimes we make mistakes, that's okay, humans do that... we make a
mistake, apologize, learn, and try again.

Sometimes we forget that when we talk on USENET, we are talking to the whole
world, and so the audience is quite diverse... we should, perhaps, be more aware
of that.

I recommend a publication from the University of Wisconsin Madison titled "A
Guide to Bias-Free Communications: A Reference for Preparing Official University
Publications"... it discusses phraseology in Gender, Age, Race/Ethnicity,
Disabilities, and Sexual Orientation.  For more information, please call the
Office of University Publications, 1-608-262-0948.

-- 
                                                                     Cheers,

                                                          Jeffery A. Bechdol
"What is essential is invisible to the eye."        IBM/ABS System Design II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: bechdol@vnet.ibm.com                           Voice: 507/253-5500
  Office: rchland(bechdol)                                 Fax: 507/253-8684
    Post: 3605 Hwy. 52 North; Rochester, MN 55901-7829     T/L: 553
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Disclaimer: These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Sexism vs. Racism (was Re: Female breast (bosom) expe
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 03:34:40 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1b4pjgINN4cr@agate.berkeley.edu> ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu writes:

 > My first post on the subject ended with "Anyone know better?". This was
 > meant as a sincere request for comparisons between racism and sexism (as
 > I more detailed above) in regards to cultural and/or biological aspects.
 > I was not arguing a position or belief per se, but merely offering it up
 > for critical and illuminating discussion.  So far, there's been a lot of
 > heat, and little light, and I am interested in knowing more.

It would be extremely helpful if people posting to this group gave their
name, and added a .sig advising us where they are and what they do. I
personally have no interest in responding to some binary code emerging
from a computer somewhere in the Cybervoid, and professionally it
becomes impossible to reply to queries lacking adequate reference to
reality.

Please understand that everything in Anthropology is wholly context
dependent, as is everything in Science in fact. Removing an artifact,
event or phemonenon from its context immediately destroys probably 90%
of the information about it. If you insist on doing that please do not
then complain that we are unable to tell you anything substantial or
"illuminating" in response to your enquiries.

Who are you, and what do you want to discuss about the phemonena you
refer to as "Racism" and "Sexism" in particular? They both represent
extremely complex and heated political issues, and you need to be
specific that we may as anthropologists assist with your concerns.

Also, since this is a free service some appreciation and respect for
the many years of study and application at our end now contributing to
your edification would certainly bring less heat, and perhaps allow a
little light to get through occasionally.

Thanx

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Changes in Methodology
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:49:45 GMT
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Changes in Methodology 

CO - Charles Onstott
GH - Gil Hardwick
 
CO:
Which is precisely why I placed new and old in quotation marks-- 
"old" is a vague reference to methodologies that are being
challenged today. 

GH: 
Challenged by whom? Please be specific and support your argument
with facts. 

CO Reply:

	I refer you to the methodological arugmentation published by
anthropologists for at least the last 20 years.  There are a
number of anthropologists interested in reversing old methods to
avoid subjectivism in their writings.  For a few samples, see the
writings of James Clifford, Clifford Geertz, Victor Turner,
Marshall Sahlins(who is here at the University of Chicago),
Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo, Sherry B. Ortner, Alfonso Ortiz,
Victoria Bricker, and John Watanabe.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School

"Les dieux existent : c'est le diable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,soc.culture.netherlands
From: mrs@athena.research.ptt.nl  (Marieke Schuijt)
Subject: Re: Female breast (bosom) experience wanted!
Originator: mrs@athena.research.ptt.nl
Keywords: femal breast bosom
Organization: PTT Research
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:22:04 GMT

jeroenp@rulfc1.LeidenUniv.nl (Jeroen W. Pluimers) writes:

>In article <1992Oct7.184237.15858@fwi.uva.nl> erijken@fwi.uva.nl (Esther Rijken ) writes:
>[... over FAXen van borsten ...]
>>
>>Marieke, ik ben het helemaal met je eens. Wat een walgelijke vertoning
>>om dit soort dingen te vragen. Zullen wij twee ook eens een
>>'onderzoekje' houden naar mannelijke geslachtsorganen? En dan zeggen dat
>>het 'voor een vriend van ons' is. Ja ja, het is ongelooflijk wat sommige
>>mensen zich denken te kunnen veroorloven.

>Sinds wanner heb jij een FAX dan?   ;-)

>>Je bent wel gezegend met collega's als Ronald en Mike, Marieke....

>Marieke vindt het vast *heerlijk* ....

>(au nee, nee, niet kietelen, daar kan ik niet tegen ;-)

Dit vind ik wel erg ver gaan hoor. Ik maak toch zelf wel uit wie mij
kietelt en of ik dat leuk vind. RABIATE ENGERD!!! VIEZERIK!!! Nee, laat
ik het netjes houden, ik ga niet verder met schelden.



>NB: Nee, ik ben het ook niet eens met dat borstonderzoek. Daar hebben
>    we toch gezondheidscentra voor?

Ja, maak er nog maar grapjes over ook. Je bent al net zo erg!!!

	Groetjes van Marieke
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,soc.culture.netherlands