HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: Pentagrams
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 05:58:34 GMT

>As far as I know - the pentagram, whether inverted or not, was claimed to be
>an evil symbol by the Christians. I am uncertain about the time period. You
>might recall that the ceremonial magicians of the middle ages and before,
>who were good Christians, used the pentagram in their ceremonies.

No references, and no idea how this fits into the subject at hand, but
I believe that the pentagram was used by the Eastern Church early on
as a Christian symbol.  I'll check into that and see what I can find out.




-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: jasonp@bungie.Prime.Com (Jason Pascucci)
Subject: Re: My postings of Orgone Committee Stuff
Organization: Prime Computer R&D
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 08:27:56 GMT

We find ourselves not totally repulsed by this (quite potentially 
mythical) idiological group of workers, but are thus far fairly 
unimpressed.Their purpose is enough clear, their intent easily 
enough disentangled. We recommend a more serious study of 
discordianism. 

One wonders whether these groups actually exist, or are but
products of a deranged imagination. 

As a personal note, the 'History' is the most amusing of
the lot, with second being the Neo-Thelmoid College.
The least amusing was the description of the Astral
Meeting place, whose description could have been 
thought out much better, and whose #1 test is completely
fallicious, for the obvious reasons. 
--
Jason R. Pascucci
jasonp@primerd.prime.com
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: K Street
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:59:51 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Dec30.133531.11001@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> News reports seem to me to use just the street name, but political dramas
> always use `number ten' to distinguish it from number 11 (The Chancellor of the
> Exchequer) and number 12 (the whips' office).
> 
Another one which has just sprung too mind:

Whitehall for the British civil service.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
From: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English
Date: 31 Dec 1992 04:22:32 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <1992Dec22.235749.14921@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, by nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau):
> 
> But will you violently object if some people prefer to use a less
> ambiguous word, like "person"?

Riddle me this:  The word "person" contains the word "son".  "Son" is
		 a _male_ offspring.  SEXIST, no?

Therefore, we should use a suitable gender neutral word, such as ...
Hmmm...   I can't think of an appropriate word right now.  :-(
"Humanoid", perhaps?  Except that word has "man" in it.  Oh, good golly
gee willikers!  What will I do?  What will I do?   Help!

My mental thesaurus is depleted for this year.  Sorry.

And a Happy (Civil, and civil) New Year to you.
-- 
John G Dobnick                          ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
Computing Services Division             INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee     UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Keywords: scatology, slang
Date: 26 Dec 92 14:30:20 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <1992Dec21.192905.22541@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:

# In article <BzM6px.Dyo@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk
# (David Morning) writes:
# >charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
# >
# >>And the old Army saying
# >
# >>   Shit flows downhill.
# >
# >Must be some diet they have in the US army.
# >
# >Prunes, rhubarb and baked beans all washed down with a couple
# >of pints of Guinness?
# >:-)
#
# "downhill" means down the chain of command.

Aha!  The origin of the "trickle-down" theory!

David Johns


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (Jeremy Mathers)
Subject: Re: Twatology (was Andy the Canadian twat)
Reply-To: pynq@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: D. J. Dougherty & Associates
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:56:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.195333.1@vxdesy.desy.de> godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.155859.23475@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
...
>>>>It's also atrocious grammar.  The masculine is twit.
>> 
>> Perhaps I'm just falling for the bait here, but I don't believe the two words
>> to be related.  "Twit" comes from the Old English "witan," meaning "to
...
>just as the harsher word for the female genitalia may be applied to either,
>but in practise is more commonly applied to males.

Now, I of course, am probably falling for the bait (nominee for motto of
the week, anyone?), but I think it is only on the net that one could
even imagine using "the harsher word for the female genitalia" to refer
to a male... (*)

(*) Assuming that we are both talking about the same harsh word for the
female genitalia.  One of my favorite words in the language, BTW.

************************************************************************
La plus belle fille du monde ne peut
donner que tout ce qu'elle a.

	- pynq@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
	  hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:25:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <38070@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
>In article <BzMxsK.HnF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
># The word "woman" comes from "man". (wif-man or literally "wife of
># man")
>
>Sigh.
>
>Now to your ignorance of language in general, and the English
>language, and England, and the BBC, and the queen, we must add your 
>ignorance of Old English (aka Anglo-Saxon).
>
>Since "wif" meant "woman", and "man" meant "person", "wif-man" meant
>"woman-person".  "Wife of man" would be something like "weras wif".
>

I'm just trying to follow this, so don't anyone think I'm working
an agenda here.  It doesn't make sense to me to have "wif-man"
mean "woman-person".  Woman to me means "female human", and I
imagined that "wif-man" meant the same thing.  In other words,
wouldn't "wif" just equate to "female", and not "woman"?  

Just curious.
From: hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Standards 
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 08:33:44 GMT
Organization: Lethargy Inc.


In article <BzMtxB.F8w@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> 
mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu writes:

  > significant change in standards of speech. Whatever minor change
  > occurs, can be accommodated. The new monarch will constitute the 
  > standard. If the British reject the monarch as a standard, then
  > the BBC will be the standard.

Good sir, I have a few small questions for you. Could you enlighten me 
as to when the monarch's style of speech became the standard for 
English usage, what the standard was before that, and why the change 
occurred? (I presume it happened some time this century.)

 ----------------------------------------------
 Phil Anderson  ***  hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz
 ----------------------------------------------
       "No-one is equal to anyone else!"
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: American English
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:44:59 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <BzpByH.D30@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
>(Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>
>>Well then, if you *do* speak
>>English then why do you defy standard English? (No....the argument
>>"there is no standard English, isn't good enough.")
>
>It's good enough for the British, so it ought to be good enough
>for you.
>
It isn't. Prove to me that most Englishmen find American English to
be as good as English English.

>Werner
>

                                                         Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: Idjit alert (was Re: Fund raising at the FSF)
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:35:44 GMT

In article <C083y9.M91@demon.co.uk>, gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
writes:
> In article <1993Jan2.043903.18936@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu
(Michael Zeleny) writes:
> :
> :Flame me as only you can, rms.  After all our past arguments, I am
> 
> A gentle warning to all our readers.  This Zeleny character is one of these
> people who stir up flame wars in groups that they're not really interested
> in just for personal amusement.  Zelany in particular has ruined a couple
> of good groups for *months*.  I strongly urge everyone not to rise to any
> bait he posts here.
> 
> G

Indeed, yes.  Careful statistical analysis has revealed that Zeleny is
not the ignorant undergraduate toady he pretends to be, but is in fact
a piece of software trying to emulate a human being on the net.  He was
created by Harvard pranksters who wanted something like Eliza.  But don't 
expect anything nearly as good from Zeleny.  As AI programs go, he's 
definitely second-rate.  Don't expect him to make sense, and don't bother 
to reply to him.  



Marie Coffin
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: More English Excrement
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:38:23 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <92355.212038HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> HERSCH@auvm.american.edu writes:

>The expression is "shit-eating
>grin". I've never really understood what particular sort of grin this
>is, nor why someone eating shit would be grinning. Any thoughts?

Someone (like a kid eating shit) grinning the huge shameless grin of
thoroughly enjoying doing something naughty, and carrying the
implication that (as is often the case) the enjoyable activity is not
only proscribed but dirty, childish, and definitely not grown-up.

Biological note for non-parents: there is an age below which many
things adults regard as repulsive, such as shit and soap, are not
perceived as repulsive by the child, who can happily eat the stuff,
grinning with a shit-eating grin which the (uneducated) adult finds
not just inexplicable but outrageously improper. Hence the term.

I think the other "suggestions" about the meaning of this term were
guesses by Americans rather than alternative opinions :-)

-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: K Street
Date: 24 Dec 92 10:46:16 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <Bzqz8z.2Jt@techbook.com>, dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
> This also reminded me of a short list that I have of streets that have
> become metonyms or toponyms.
> 
>     Wall St.
>     Madison Ave.
>     Fleet St.

Fleet Street is now sadly out-of-date, as all the national dalies have moved.
As a result it is declining in popularity. `Wapping' is occasionally used to
refer to the Rupert Murdoch Empire: the Sun, the Times and a few others. 

>     Skid Road  an actual road in Seattle
>     Grub Street  my dictionary tells me that this referes to literary
> 	    hacks, but I've never heard it used.

Broadway.
Downing Street (for the Prime Minister's Office)
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Comments in source code
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:10:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.060209.17732@g2syd.genasys.com.au>
roberts@g2syd.genasys.com.au (Robert Swan) writes:

>I have noticed two principal commenting styles in code (C and FORTRAN)
>that passes across my screen (when there are any comments to observe).
>
>The first is to be found in older code (yep, the FORTRAN) and is
>very impersonal.  It simply states in terse, not quite English, the
>intent of some ensuing piece of gibberish `PROMPT FOR FILENAME', or
>`CHECK RIGHT TYPE'.
>
>However, in the newer code, comments tend to be complete sentences and
>(here's the part that interests me) speak in terms of the 1st person
>plural ...  `We need to get the filename', `We can't proceed unless it's
>the right type'.  Reading the source code has taken on an us and them
>aspect.  I used to catch myself writing comments like this, and change
>it back to a more impersonal form.  Nowadays I don't bother, and quite
>like the idiom.
>
>Who are `we'.  Me and my program?  Me and the other programmers?
>The royal we (since I am creator of the universe in my program,
>I suppose I could put on royal airs)?

I venture a guess that it's the influence of hackish.  From the Jargon File

   Semantically, one rich source of jargon constructions is the hackish
   tendency to anthropomorphize hardware and software.  This isn't done in
   a na"ive way; hackers don't personalize their stuff in the sense of
   feeling empathy with it, nor do they mystically believe that the things
   they work on every day are `alive'.  What *is* common is to hear
   hardware or software talked about as though it has homunculi talking to
   each other inside it, with intentions and desires.  Thus, one hears "The
   protocol handler got confused", or that programs "are trying" to do
   things, or one may say of a routine that "its goal in life is to X".
   One even hears explanations like "...  and its poor little brain
   couldn't understand X, and it died."  Sometimes modelling things this
   way actually seems to make them easier to understand, perhaps because
   it's instinctively natural to think of anything with a really complex
   behavioral repertoire as `like a person' rather than `like a thing'.

This suggests the "we" is all those little homunculi.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: They (was Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language))
Date: 25 Dec 92 13:51:32 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <BzL4yC.L31@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

# In article <1992Dec20.233047.24993@cdf.toronto.edu>
# g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Ro semary Waigh) writes:
# >The net is hardly representative of the population in general.
#
# That is debatable. People from different backgrounds post to the
# net and the variety in opinions you encounter here, is hardly
# observed in real life.

If the variety of opinions encountered on the net is hardly observed
in real life, then the net is hardly representative of the population
in general, right?

Why do so many of your contradictions end up sounding like agreements,
Mandar?

David Johns
From: jww@evolving.com (John W. Woolley)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Apostrophe's - one more time
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:57:41 GMT
Organization: Evolving Systems, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman) writes:
: Many people write Jones'
: for the singular possessive -- even if they pronounce it with two
: syllables!  The Chicago Manual, however, recommends -- I think
: sensibly -- adding 's to *all* singulars except for classical names
: like Socrates & Jesus.

"National Review" uses the rule, better to my mind, that you write
another "s" only when you pronounce another "s".  Jones's car, Max's
bike, France's burden, Arkansas's (!) governor; but Goebbels' lies,
Dickens' novels, King Charles' head.
-- 
Fr. John Woolley (jww@evolving.com); vastly enthusiastic about Augustine,
Austen, babies, Bach, backgammon, baseball, beer, the Bible, Botticelli, Burke,
Chesterton, Dante, Dixieland, hardboiled, Hitchcock, Dr Johnson, Latin, Mozart,
Shakespeare/de Vere, St Teresa, Tolkien, Trollope, Fats Waller, and Washington
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English
Date: 21 Dec 92 10:54:43 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec16.104350.10831@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
<In article <BzAGFo.5y8@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
<> Amazing how the very Americans who shouted down the program/me
<> distinction, applaud the freshman/first-year distinction!
<That, my dear Mandar, is because `freshman' excludes half the freshers

The hell it does.  Many American female first-year undergraduate students
have no problem referring to themselves as "freshmen".

<whereas `first-year' excludes no-one. 

No.  Not even the first year postgraduates.  They are not freshers, are they?

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: lukoff@carson.u.washington.edu (Fred Lukoff)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 03:22:16 GMT

In article <38032@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
>In article <BzJpFu.AG5@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
># However, no one has been able to put together an effective argument
># that challenges the superiority of English English. I think the
># reason behind this is that IT'S A FACT. *No one* can dispute that
># English spread from England to other lands.
>
>How do you say "non sequitur" in English?
>
>David
>
>
Hasn't Mandar been through this before? Sure, English spread from England
to other lands. Does that mean the original is superior? Certainly not! I
hold that no language is SUPERIOR to any other. Furthermore by saying the
original is superior to the 'copy' (although American English is a further
DEVELOPMENT of English) would also mean that the Everly Brothers' version
of "Bye Bye Love" is superior to Simon and Garfunkels, which is simply untrue.
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: They (was Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language))
Date: 25 Dec 92 12:38:18 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <BzMuyJ.FyD@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

# >>(Rosemary Waigh) writes:
# >
# >>>I know no one my age who rejects the semantically singular
# >>>"they", except perhaps in extremely formal writing.
# >>This is either ignorance or an attempt at being dense. Rosemary,
# >>MANY persons on the soc.college newsgroups rejected the use of
# >>"they" as in "That person isn't late, are they?" and *most* of
# >>them are of your age.
# >
# >If you demonstrate anything with this example (and in others
# >elsewhere) it is only that there are sentences in which the use
# >of gender-neutral 'they' is not appropriate. But you claim that
# >people reject it in general, which requires better evidence.
#
# *I* never made such a claim. I was simply countering Rosemary's
# claim that people ALWAYS use "they"/"their", and consider it
# "natural".

Of course, Rosemary did not make that claim, if you read her words
carefully.

You are actually making the same mistake yourself that you're accusing
her of.

Interesting, interesting ...

David Johns


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: tylee@leety.austin.ibm.com (Ty Lee)
Subject: Simplified English
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:08:31 GMT
Organization: IBM, Austin

In the Chinese world, there has been a movement to promote the idea
of simplifying the strokes in writing the Chinese characters. Some
argues that this will save time in coding the language into computer.

Is there any similar movement going that will simplify the English
language?

Do you think it is a worth try to simplify the English by removing
the definite and/or indefinite articles from the written English?
If we examine the text in this article, we will find as many as 13
occurences of the definite articles, the, are used. If I removed them,
the meaning of the text would not be distorted severly.

-- 
/* The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of IBM's.         *\
 * Take care and have a nice day.                                            *
\* Ty Lee                                                                    */
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: An apology
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:30:58 GMT

In article <BzMx61.HEq@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

>My sincere apologies for misquoting John Lennon.

Great.  Now imagine there's no countries, and then tell us what one
would have to do to resolve "interdialect conflicts" in the absence 
of an automatic "superior" standard.  After all, if there were no 
England, there would be no way of telling who spoke "superior"
English.  

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Keywords: scatology, slang
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:20:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.192905.22541@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>In article <BzM6px.Dyo@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes:
>>charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>>
>>>And the old Army saying
>>
>>>   Shit flows downhill.
>>
>>Must be some diet they have in the US army.
>>
>>Prunes, rhubarb and baked beans all washed down with a couple
>>of pints of Guinness?
>>:-)
>
>"downhill" means down the chain of command.
>
>-- 

Neither of you have ever spent much time on a dairy farm, I'd
guess.  If you had, then you would know where the phrase might
might have arisen.  Not necessarily from dairies, mind, but
from roughly similar methods of sanitation from the good old days.   ;-)

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english