HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tonym@world.std.com (Tony Matt)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Homeschooling (spp's response to multiple posts)
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:04:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1ifcplINNmm8@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>In what I can only presume to be flamebait, Francis Muir writes:
>>>John Scott writes:
>>>	Making such generalizations about homeschoolers is as ludicrous 
>>>	as claiming that all Oregonians are homophobes because some of
>>>	them supported Measure 9.
>
>>Which is itself as ludicrous as claiming that all those Oregonians who 
>>supported Measure 9 are homophobes.
>
>To which Laurie Mann's (very measured) response is:
>
>> I would say anyone who supported Oregon Measure 9 (or Colorado 
>> Measure 2) is a  homophobe.  That doesn't mean everyone in Oregon or 
>> Colorado is a bigot, just the ones who believe some minority groups 
>> don't deserve equal protection under  the law.  And having seen some 
>> of the ravings from the "Pro-9" and "Pro-2" groups, I'd be curious 
>> how people can support either of these measures and 
>> not be homophobic.  [...]
>
>What she said.  I'm quite curious about this myself.

What I'm curious about is how you can assert that you *know* what's in 
the hearts and minds of millions of people based on their support of
a political position.  And not only the majority or vast majority, but
every single one of them.

The rational philosophy, as I understand it, that's behind the opposition
to expanding the number of protected groups is that it degrades the moral
imperative that all human beings ought not to suffer discrimination.
There should, in other words, be a law that essentially mandates equal
protection for every individual, period, rather than more laws prohibiting
unequal treatment towards group after group (I should note that I appreciate
the difficulties involved in writing and enforcing such a law; nevertheless,
I'm referring to the philosophy itself here).  I think that Arthur 
Schlessigner is one voice warning of the 'Balkanization' of American 
society, one result of which is the increasing demands for group protection.

Obviously, those who are anti-gay can use this philosophy as cover for
their agenda (and while I agree that Measure 9 appears to betray this, CO2
seems more ambiguous to me), but to cast the philosophy itself as anti-gay 
(or anti- anything else) is a gross distortion of the intent and beliefs 
of those who truly believe in it.

Tony Matt   tonym@world.std.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Homophobia
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:14:37 GMT

                                       Saturday, the 9th of January, 1993

Laurie Mann writes:
  I can't know for sure.  I can only say I believe that for people to fight
  against equal protection on the basis of orientation makes them a homophobe
  in my book.  I have seen a few people attempt to argue this "rationally"
  in r.a.b., but I don't find the arguments very convincing.

I don't now find my own argument convincing in favor of CO2. I think I
think I was wrong in my stated support for it. Basically, it now
makes me worried about *equal protection under the law*
in the meta-sense that I'd be much happier if ``...homosexual orientation''
were replaced by just ``sexual orientation'', and if the phrase ``claims
of discrimination'' were removed altogether from the statute. I basically
am agreeing with Evelyn, Mikhail, and Roger that far. That is,
I think insofar as the measure itself is an attempt to prune back
any growth in protected minority status within the law, it is an
essentially unfair pruning.

My fundamental disagreement with Roger, however, stands. I do
not think that law ought to be used positively to enforce
non-discrimination in employment. A Right to Life is a statement
about the essential criminality of unjust killing, not a coercive
commandment that other human beings have a duty to go out of their
way to keep you alive (or to give you a livelihood). And this coercive
power (i.e. the governmental kind that always happens at the point of
a gun) I understand to be much more dangerous than the economic power
of any single manager not to hire you.

                     Mike Morris
            (msmorris@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Cross-Writing (was: Books I Got For Xmas)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 5 JAN 93 22:00:27 GMT

Mike Godwin wrote:

>I would not dream of disputing that the Canon "accepts" more male authors 
>than female ones. ... But this thread originated in a discussion of the 
>issue of whether it is difficult for an author of one gender to convey the 
>point of view of a character of the other. 

No, that was not the issue.  The issue concerned perception: whether
audiences would be more demanding of accuracy from a female writer writing
from a male point of view than they would from a male writer writing from a
female point of view.  We have not touched on the subject of authors' actual
ability to convey points of view, and whether it is connected to gender.

>Representation in the Canon is irrelevant to this issue. 

I don't think it is.  In any case, I'm not talking about simple male-female
representation in the canon, but the incidence of "cross-writing" in the
canon, and its relative distribution between male and female authors.

I wrote:

>>Now, is "writing like a man" only a concept that 
>>comes into play when women writers bid to be taken seriously? 

Mike wrote:

>When have women writers not bid to be taken seriously? 

I'm not sure what you're asking here.  I was talking about women writers of
genre fiction, like Sayers or P.D. James, as opposed to women writers of
"serious" fiction, like Oates. 

>I note here that there is a distinction between what is misleadingly 
>called "writing like a man" and the activity we may call "creating male 
>characters." 

Hmmm.  Well, if there is a distinction, I haven't made it, because I don't
know exactly what "writing like a man" means.  Anyway, we're not talking
about writers creating believable characters of the opposite sex: we're
talking about writers *inhabiting the points of view* of characters of the
opposite sex.  I think there's a difference. 

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu
From: ah@dunaad.co.uk (Alan Hunter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: 1992 in Review
Date: 9 Jan 93 14:33:15 GMT
Organization: Dunathad

Vince Gibboni wrote:
>
>    I don't mean to pick on Miriam specifically - it seems like _everyone_
>    who posted their 1992 reading had read about this many books - 
>    but I'd like to point out that it's absolutely physically impossible 
>    to read 214 books in a single year. Okay, that's not quite right, it's 
>    absolutely physically impossible for _me_ to read 214 books in a single 
>    year. I just figured it out - I read about 25 pages/hour, 

Its a universal law that everyone who reads faster than you do is
skipping. Depending on material, I read 2-4 times as fast as you do. I
rarely skip. Anyone who reads faster than me skips, its obvious.  

I was sent on a speed reading course once and learned to read at a
phenomenal rate, my brain couldn't process it though. I like to drift.

Alan

-- 
Alan Hunter
Johnson Hunter Ltd
Isle of Islay, Scotland
A.Hunter@dunaad.co.uk          fax: +44-496-2336         voice: +44-496-2286
From: hoosiers@carson.u.washington.edu (Mary Loveless)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Woosterspeak
Date: 12 Jan 1993 16:59:57 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

In article <MATT.93Jan8112247@physics2.berkeley.edu>
matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes: 
>
>_The Code of the Woosters_ isn't specifically anti-Nazi, and Hitler is
> And the parts about newts are just as funny as the parts about fascists,
anyway. >--
>Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a

Not to mention the "ribbon-like seaweed." The passage where Bertie, in
attempting to declare his love, declares himself one with the newts and
seaweed in their passion at mating season, is a classic.

Mary Loveless  hoosiers@carson.u.washington.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of my opinions are self-righteously my own and **certainly** have
nothing to do with the University of Washington.

"Outside of a dog, books are a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read"                    Groucho Marx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Paul Johnson (was Paglia)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:18:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.071035.28973@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>Like those Castro-lovers who say, in response to the point that Cuba puts
>PWAs in quarantine, "At least Cuba's doing something about AIDS!"

Source, please?


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Homophobia
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:16:04 GMT

In article <C0p4Lz.H6y@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris) writes:
>By the way, Mike, do you not also understand that, as these laws
>are often used (in practice, I mean, in reality) we are talking
>about prosecuting employers for a thought crime in which presumption
>of innocence is thrown out the window? 

Not true.  Or do you have a case you wish to cite?

>I mean how in the heck are
>you going to *prove* discriminatory hiring or firing? I suppose

It's been done quite convincingly in the past.  Try reading a few 
decisions.

>you can videotape the employer saying ``We don't like your kind here,''
>if he's stupid that is, or you've got only numbers of minorities
>hired and fired left to go on. 

The testimony of witnesses has been used as well.  Evidence existed
before videotape.

Also, there are tests.  In housing cases one need only send a black
couple ands a white couple to see whether there are any vacancies.
The manager of a building I lived in was fired for excluding blacks
in this very way; the evidence was pretty hard to ignore.

As for numbers, patterns can be detected in them.  Not at will, mind
you -- one must find patterns that twelve jorors will see, too.  Most 
jurors are very hard sells on this kind of thing, too.

>What if every employee in a 30-man firm is
>a white het boy? Do you think that'd make your case of discriminatory
>hiring practices? Do you think it ought to?

Well? Does it?  Has any company ever been prosecuted for this and this
alone?

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu (michael bruce mcdonald)
Subject: Re: Paglia:  clarification needed
Reply-To: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:04:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.123714.17946@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <C0H2qB.Bqr@news.iastate.edu> s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
>>How on earth can some of you claim that Paglia is *not* a difference
>>feminist when she says that if women had been responsible for 
>>civilization, we'd all be living in grass huts?  She may insist on
>>equal rights, but her insistence on absolute differences based on
>>biology render her insistence on social equality rather tepid, in my
>>view.
>
>Michael, "difference feminism" is not merely the belief that men and women
>are different in fundamental ways. Paglia can't qualify as a "difference
>feminist" because she does not believe women are better than men.
>
>For a discussion of "difference feminism," see Katha Pollitt's excellent
>article in THE NATION ("Are Women Morally Superior To Men?" Dec. 28,
>1992).

Sorry, I read the same article (which, like everything I've read by Pollitt,
is truly excellent), and I think it's a bit simplistic to say that her thesis
about difference feminist depends entirely on the notion that difference
feminists necessarily share the idea that women are superior to men, though
I'll admit that she suggests that most diff. fems *do* share such assumptions.
Paglia may not believe that women are superior to men, but her feminism adheres
to diff. fem. in most other respects, fur as I can see.


>
>>Sorry, but I don't see Paglia has some great advocate for 
>>women.
>
>Who said she was?

Listen, man, I respond to the implications of what people say, so get off this
business of "provide a quote or stand refuted.

mbm

>
>
>--Mike
>
>
>
>-- 
>Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
>mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
>(617) 864-0665  |                           
>EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: ah@dunaad.co.uk (Alan Hunter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: propriety in Pride and Prejudice
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:33:23 GMT
Organization: Dunathad

I wrote:

>In article <JMC.93Jan7015510@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
writes: 

>>Miss Austen always shows a high regard for Mr. Bennet.
>
>Except that she persistently spelt his name as Bennett, don't you think
>that was impolite? or was she just winding him up?
>

It has been pointed out to me rather forcefully that not only 

1. did I omit "as Bennet not" before "as Bennett"   

but also 

2. that the discussion (which started as a claim for a single typo of
Bennett - the vastly more common spelling of the name - in some edition;
and degenerated into Bennett being correct and Miss Austen deliberately
spelling his name incorrectly at every available opportunity, because of
some deep seated antagonism and certain feelings with respect toward her own
father) did not take place in this medium at all.

It was also opined that the posting was therefore a greater waste of
bandwidth than normal for rec.arts.books.  I suspend judgement on that but
do apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Sorry
Alan



-- 
Alan Hunter
Johnson Hunter Ltd
Isle of Islay, Scotland
A.Hunter@dunaad.co.uk          fax: +44-496-2336         voice: +44-496-2286
From: ah@dunaad.co.uk (Alan Hunter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: BOOK TITLE REQUEST
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:39:29 GMT
Organization: Dunathad

AMY CHARLES writes: 

>
>    This one's eluded me for almost ten years, now.  It's vaguely SF, set in
>    England, protagonist is a boy about thirteen.  A disease resembling
>    progeria sweeps the country and he's one of three, I think, left.  One of
>    the most striking images was his school enemy, a redhead who wore a
>    canary-yellow vest, prematurely aged.  I seem to remember something about
>    a charwoman's daughter near the end.  Reads a lot like Christopher
>    Whatshisname, the one who wrote the Tripod books (Beyond the Burning
>    Lands, etc.)

A Scent of New Mown Hay by John Cristopher?? (c.1960)



-- 
Alan Hunter
Johnson Hunter Ltd
Isle of Islay, Scotland
A.Hunter@dunaad.co.uk          fax: +44-496-2336         voice: +44-496-2286
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Text of CO2 and OR9
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:02:20 GMT

                                  Saturday, the 9th of January, 1993

Mikhail Zeleny writes:
  I like to think that no more than a commonsensical consideration of the
  meaning of "slander", is required to rule that the promulgation of
  accusations of scrofulousness is itself morally justifiable only in the
  presence of a rational justification for itself.  Considering that,
  despite my requests to do so, you have, up to this point, abjectly
  failed to substantiate your charge of falsehood and immorality of my
  moral assumptions, your continued vilification of my moral reasoning is,
  by definition, no more than hypocritical slander.

I should think rather that your own condemnation of acts of homosexual
intercourse consitutes precisely such slander (as you define it), until
you have actually established the correctness of your grounds for making
the condemnation. Since your assertions about the moral nature and
generative purpose of sex actually contradict what is the case with human
nature, I would suggest that you have so far failed to establish your
point. I have told you, Mikhail, I am willing to continue the argument
at a later date. Not now.

                       Mike Morris
              (msmorris@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Education and the Environment by Gregory A. Smith
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:43:00 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <1993Jan6.035212.19318@cheshire.oxy.edu>  
athena@cheshire.oxy.edu (Staci Ann Waldroop) writes:
>You say that the educational system is bad.I ask you...WHAT ARE YOU DOING 
>ABOUT IT???

Advocating an educational system that does not rely on the premise of an  
efficient, responsive government monopoly.

--
Don McGregor | Double your pleasure, double your fun.  Xerox
drm@esl.com  | your paycheck.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Subject: Re: Political Correctness in the Dark Ages
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:07:21 GMT

Dani Zweig raises some important points in mentioning the perennial debate
about Heinlein's politics and whether we can judge past writers by current
standards.

A useful new term has arisen for just this attitude: "presentism." When we
judge the people or art of the past by today's standards, we are applying an
inappropriate standard. We usually apply presentist values to our own
antecedents; if we apply them to people in other cultures, we risk being
impolitic. So it's okay under presentism to blast Mark Twain's supposed
racism, but if we were to encounter (for example) a Mexican novel that
presented US citizens in a bad light we could not dismiss it as racist.

We might consider, while enjoying the endorphin rush of pure righteousness,
what our grandchildren will think of us, and which of our attitudes and
actions they will cringe to think about. After all, the social values of 2043
will be as different from ours as ours are from those of 1943 (when, by the
way, Ernest Hemingway was calling for mass sterilization of all Germans, and
Robert A. Heinlein was expecting the complete removal of sovereignty from
both Germany and Japan, forever, and Life Magazine was running feature
articles on how to tell Chinese from Japanese).

There's a thought: What will the presentism of the next century condemn in
our present political and social values? The disenfranchisement of children?
The heartless lack of euthanasia? The withholding of drugs from anyone who
wants them? The requirement that people drive on one side of the road only?
Perhaps people could offer their best bets on what we're now doing that our
descendants will condemn.


--
Crawford Kilian   Communications Department   Capilano College
North Vancouver BC Canada V7J 3H5
Usenet: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca
Internet: ckilian@first.etc.bc.ca
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Jeeves and Wooster on BBC
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:11:14 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Rod Williams writes:
>
>That rings a bell, but not loudly enough :-).  The BBC
>also ran a short-lived Ukridge series, and, of course, a
>delicious Emsworth series, with Ralph Richardson born to
>play dotty Lord E. 

Richardson could play dotty in his sleep, but I think he was best
when there was implicit strength or even something sinister in his role. Even 
though I usually cringe at the thought of watching a Shakespeare production, 
I'd have paid good money to have seen him in "The Tempest."

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Confirmed Biblioholics
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:56:42 GMT

mworley@mathcs.emory.edu (Meg Worley) writes:
>People seem to misunderstand me here.  Be a little more creative,
>please; imagine incorporating books and/or reading into your
>sex lives in ways that do not depend on their lascivious natures
>(the books', I mean).  Think hard...

Oh, no problem.  If the lady takes a while to reach her peak orally,
simply place the book up near her navel and enjoy both your greatest
pleasures at once.  If you need more light, you can get one of those
little bookstands with the built in lamp.
-- 
It isn't work unless you'd rather be doing something else.
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Homophobia (really not about  Homeschooling)
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:27:05 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1993Jan10.031748.17865@Princeton.EDU>
roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>In article <C0M6vv.EMn@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca>
>msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris) writes:

RL:
>[...]
>Horseshit.
>[...]  
>Go stuff it. 
>[...]

MM:
>>What is so wrong about letting the employment contract be freely negotiable
>>between both parties? 

RL:
>Can you say "horse and rabbit stew"?  When the employer has thousands of
>times more resources, the freedom in the negotiations is entirely his/hers.

Pardon me for insinuating myself into this exceedingly polite discussion,
but hasn't the ever-so-aptly named Roger ever heard about unions?

>Roger

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."