HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dcgreen@pro-harold.cts.com (David Green)
Newsgroups: soc.net-people
Subject: Attention DAVE GREENs!!!
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:49:50 GMT
Organization: The Harold Network -- An Alliance For Creative Communication

Cannabis Action Network -- Planting Seeds...

I spent a wonderful afternoon in Balboa Park yesterday at the Cannabis Action
Network's Medical Marijuana Rally. I met an eccentric chap who shares my
name, Dave Green. As I type this, that other Dave is touring the country,
spreading the word about hemp. I'd appreciate some Internet help in giving
Dave a little moral support as he moves from city to city.

Dave and I out-joked each other about starting a Dave Green Society, to go
with our popular name, so it would please me greatly if a Dave Green at each
stop can greet my new friend Dave with a copy of the message I'll post below.
It'll be sort of like the John Doe Clubs in Frank Capra's "Meet John Doe,"
and it will knock the socks off good old Dave.

For more information about tour sites and dates, call CAN at (606) 873-5604.
Mid-West and Southern Tours also are in progress as we speak.

Thanks, Daves.

Keen Dave Green :>



Dave:

By virtue of the fact that you are the junior member of the founding
fathers of the Dave Green Society, I hearby proclaim you Dave #2.

Trust me when I say that Dave Greens all over this country believe in the
message you have carried from Kentucky to my beloved California. I envy
your journey, and I wish you a Dave Green at every place you call. When
hemp is once again legal, maybe that grass in Kentucky finally will stop
being blue and cheer up a little. You think? ;>

Dave #1 :>


===========================================
David Green      dcgreen@pro-harold.cts.com
-------------------------------------------
     System Operator of Pro-Harold BBS
   "Moral Support For Intelligent Sorts"
===========================================


===========================================
David Green      dcgreen@pro-harold.cts.com
-------------------------------------------
     System Operator of Pro-Harold BBS
   "Moral Support For Intelligent Sorts"
===========================================
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women are inferior
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:44:17 GMT
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA

In soc.women, lams@acfcluster.nyu.edu writes:

 >>>>>  It is true...  Women were not created equal.  They are clearly inferior
 >>>>>  to men....

 >>> I will make the rash assumption that you are male.
    
 >>  You SUCKER!  :)  My first assumption was that this was posted by a woman
 >>to try and make men look bad, else why the anonymity?
 

 >  I don't really understand what the big fuss is all about.  Does it
 >  really make a big difference if a man posted it or a woman?  
 >  If you can, please be so kind as to explain to me why is it such a
 >  big deal?  I really don't know!  

The reason it is "important" is that it is more likely to be their actual
opinion if it is a male.  If it is was female, it is more likely to be
a sneaky way of saying that they believe just the oposite.  Either side
could start it as a joke.  I would not use the word "important".
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:08:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
 >In article <wentzell.78.715973345@ace.acadiau.ca>, wentzell@ace.acadiau.ca 
 >(LEEANN WENTZELL) writes...
 >>I recently read an article which pointed out the bias in the college 
 >>entrance tests (GMAT?? Sorry, I'm not American) towards males. For example, 
 >>there were many analogies which dealt in sports terms.  . . . . 

>I saw an article in the New York Times about gender-biased questions on the 
>SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test, for those outside the U.S., widely used in 
>undergraduate admissions decisions); this article alleged that even on the 
>mathematics test there were questions biased towards men because of the use of
>sports knowledge. 

I can't say much about current SAT tests since I took it in the 60s but I
could not have scored in the 700s (max score=800) if there was any bias
towards sports since I knew little to nothing about them.  The GRE tests
(graduate record exams take between bachelor's degree and higher education)
that I took in the mid 80s could not have done so either since I scored at
the 99th percentile and still do not know enough about sports scoring or
statistics to get a question of that nature correct.  The questions *could*
intimidate someone who skips the question because it has 'basketball' in
the first sentence (for example) but the articles seemed to imply more than
that.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 | Vicky Hansen                      | e-mail: sam@hpsad.HP.COM         |
 | Firmware - 859x Product line      | Telnet: 794-4442                 |
 | HP Microwave Instrument Division  | AT&T: (707) 794-4442             |
 | 1212 Valley House Dr.             | HPDesk: Vicky HANSEN/HP5300/UM   |
 | Rohnert Park, CA 94928-4999       | HP Mailstop: 2LR-R               |
 |----------------------------------------------------------------------|
 |        Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty         |
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:36:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Cook Can't Read (Was: "A Feminist" (was Re: Barbara H.))
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

in reference to:
  man must have higher income than woman, be taller, etc.
 
I have had 3 e-mail responses to my "dating rules".  Since all 3 expressed
the opinion that I condoned the list I posted, I decided to clarify it.
I think the rules are irrelevant if not downright stupid.  

I have dated all races, short guys, blue collar, handicapped, etc.
In fact, my late husband was confined to a wheelchair during our marriage
and was already in a walker when we met (he was 44 but had a degenerate
knee).

I posted the list after trying to explain to my 12 year old son why his
42 year old engineer mother is not the pick of the crop.  He had thought
that I looked OK and was nice so there should be no problem. Several of my
friends have agreed that most people use at least part of the list that
I posted.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Smart Women/Smart Men
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 06:14:46 GMT

bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:

>In article <73740009@hpsad.sad.hp.com> sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>/As to the "in her head" bit -- if so, why are air-heads so popular?  Where
>/are all the men who want something in my head?  As an engineer with some
>/other smart women freinds, I can vouch for the fact that (on the average),
>/men do not appreciate much in there.  Maybe you were referring only to
>/personality?

I am unavoidably, tragically drawn to intelligent women.  They don't see the
need for another person in their life (they say), they think they will be
happy being alone forever, pair bonding is an emotional weekness they do not
suffer from.  Then they marry bikers.

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky soc.women:16497 soc.men:16335
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: 3 year old burn victim goes home
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:58:04 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep10.054627.25349@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> In article <1992Sep9.141250.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
# #|   Cal me silly, call me barbaric, call me irresponsible, but it occurs |
# #|  to me that torching a small child justifies the death penelty in the  |
# #|  slowest and most painful manner allowed by law.                       |
# 
# I don't know about the death penalty but I agree that someone who
# would do this to anyone, particularly a child, deserves to be locked
# up for a very long time.
# 
# The man who did the same thing to his son served something like 6
# years and is now out of prison.  I think the law (in California) has
# changed since then and the penalty for something like this is much
# harsher (as it should be, imo).  Six years and his son will serve a
# lifetime of pain and disfigurement.

I don't if it was specifically because of that incident, or because
of the girl whose arms were chopped off, but California now has a
new crime: aggravated mayhem, as distinguished from kindler, gentler
mayhem.

The Democrats being in charge out here, it was obviously not
acceptable to increase the penalty for mayhem from its current
4 year minimum -- after all, that would have made mayhem a more
serious crime than unregistered sale of a rifle -- and we know
how liberals feel about the relative hazards of both.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: 3 year old burn victim goes home
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 05:46:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.141250.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>
>  Little Sammy, the 3 year old who was kidnapped, locked in a car, and 
>then set on fire by his mother's lesbian lover, was released from the 
>hospital today.  Sammy had suffered third degree burns over
>60% of his body, including being burned clear to the bone in many places,
>including his right arm, which was covered during Sammy's TV appearence
>today. Doctors had originally given him only a 1 in 10 chance to survive
>at all and were pleased that he was able to go home, although he will
>require extensive physical therepy for many years to come, and will not
>recover the full use of his body.

>|   Cal me silly, call me barbaric, call me irresponsible, but it occurs |
>|  to me that torching a small child justifies the death penelty in the  |
>|  slowest and most painful manner allowed by law.                       |

I don't know about the death penalty but I agree that someone who
would do this to anyone, particularly a child, deserves to be locked
up for a very long time.

The man who did the same thing to his son served something like 6
years and is now out of prison.  I think the law (in California) has
changed since then and the penalty for something like this is much
harsher (as it should be, imo).  Six years and his son will serve a
lifetime of pain and disfigurement.
From: holly@sybase.com (Innocent Bystander)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Barbara H. Advocates Financial Rape
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:10:52 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Sep1.230329.23972@u.washington.edu> twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:
>Re: the contemptible claim you make in your subject line:
>I don't know what, exactly, you're so hysterical about, but regardless 
>of the feelings or the experience that make you act this way, these do 
>not give you license to post vicious and irresponsible statements about 
>other people. 




In spite of his poor manners, try not to take him so seriously, Barbara. 
Few do.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
holly@sybase.com 			   *Who else would want this opinion?*
Soff^H^H^HophH^H^H^Hoftwea^H^H^aer Enj^H^H^HEngn^H^H^H^H, uh, Programmer
Sybase, Inc.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: 09 Sep 92 01:56:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <Bu6tFA.K57@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>Mind you, I think the +best+ solution would be to provide flexible
>and enforceable marriage contracts, where (eg.) a wife could agree 
>to notify her husband or lose marital rights X,Y,Z (eg. alimony).
>If she didn't want to agree, she could find someone else or avoid
>marriage.  Same for him.

This is where pre-nuptial agreements come in and should be enforced.
"While neither party at this time is certain about whether children
are desired, it is agreed that should 1 party decide that children
are desired and the other party does not want a child, then a divorce
can be obtained under [insert fair conditions here].

Should she become pregnant, she agrees to notify him as soon as possible.
If he does not desire to be a father, then a divorce will be obtained
under [insert fair conditions here] and he shall not be required to   
provide support for the child. 

Should both parties agree to have a child, both parties will support the
child until it reaches the age of majority. 

[insert clause on she's preggers and don't want, etc]

What I like about the pre-nuptial type of arrangement is that 1)
anyone can do it now and 2) it encourages communication BEFORE marriage,
ie, if one party is assuming 'let's have basketfuls of kiddies' and the
other is assuming 'let's be DINKS' this will - ahem - make these assumptions
known.

What I don't like is that courts do not always enforce such agreements
and that it's not REQUIRED that pre-nuptials be done. They should be.

>It should be pretty clear that marriage isn't strictly a romance thing,
>when such a large percentage of marriages end up in court.  Why don't
>we allow the participants to state their interests in marrying and
>be bound by what they've agreed to -- as long as, like any other contract,
>it is within certain bounds?
>
Don, I don't think we should allow it - we should REQUIRE it.

>Don
>-- 
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged

-jen


Xref: sparky soc.women:16651 soc.men:16482
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Missed Opportunity....
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:32:11 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

Please move this discussion to talk.abortion.

-EMP
From: lams@acfcluster.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women are inferior
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:53:47 GMT
Organization: New York University

In article <1992Sep4.105444.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
> In article <32620081@hpmwmat.sr.hp.com>, mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:
>> 
>> 	  There are only two kinds of people.....
>> 	  those that start flame wars....
>> 	  and those that don't.
>> 
>         There are only two kinds of people.....
> 	Those that split people into two kinds.....
> 	And those that DON'T!  :)
> 

          No, there are three kinds of people.....
          "those that split people into two kinds
          And those that Don't!" And those that
          add flame on flame.  :-]
From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: .
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:50:07 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <73740014@hpsad.sad.hp.com> sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>Here are some unwritten rules for dating that I have come across.  
>None are absolute for each individual, of course, but enough people follow
>an approximation of them that the eligible mate list shrinks.
>What have I missed?

Well, let me see how I "score"...

>1. woman's age  <  man's age  <  (woman's age * 2)

Hmm... nope, my ex was 2 days older than me. :-)

>2. woman's height  <  (man's height - 3")

Yup, I'm 6', my ex was 5'.

>3. woman's income  <  man's income  >  her (father or ex-husband's) income

We were both students, so I can't compare. :-)

>4. woman's (religion, race)  ==  man's r+r

Yup.

>5. woman's IQ  <  man's IQ

I have no idea about this one.

>6. woman's handicaps == man's handicaps 
>      (i.e healthy don't date cripples)

True.

>7. woman's education  <  man's education  >  her (father or ex's) education

I don't think this is true.

>8. woman's % overweight  <  man's % overweight

Not sure about this either.  We were both somewhat overweight, but it's
difficult to tell, what with different body types and all.

>9. man's score  <  woman's score (Bo=10)  >  man's score-3   
>     (i.e. woman is at least as attractive but not overly so, MissAmerica is
>      not supposed to go out with total dogs)

Beats me.

>10. woman's athletic ability  <  man's

We were both pretty nonathletic.  She actually worked out semiregularly, and
I did not.

>11. woman's social standing  <=  man's

Son of doctor, daughter of lawyer.  What do you think? :-)

>12. woman's independence level  <=  man's
>      (a woman who is competant on her own doesn't make him feel needed?)

Again, we were both students, so had roughly equal independene levels.
(Neither was on financial aid, either.)

>13. woman's handyman level  <  man's 
>      (i.e. if he can't handle a drill, they have to hire someone, 
>            if he's a whiz then she can be familiar with it)

We were both equally incompetent in the handyman area. :-)

>14. sex of partner #1  <>  sex of partner #2

True for us. :-)

-- 
Michael Rawdon				 rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

My plants outnumber me.
Xref: sparky soc.women:16292 soc.men:16103
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Missed Opportunity....
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 8 Sep 92 09:54:15 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>> ps: small clue - things that are not yet are not yet.
>> their potential to become something is there, but they
>> are not yet that which they might become. Thus the loss
>> of that which is not yet is NOT the loss of the 'thing_in_itself'
>> but the loss of the 'thing_in_its_potential_to_become.'
>> 

  Okay  drieuxjustdrieux. On a return from your last expedition up the
(remains of) the Amazon valley, you come down with the dreaded desease
of Bholla-Tang, a very rare tropical desease that puts you into a total
coma for 9 months, requiring complete life support. That's the bad news.
The good news is that Bholla-Tang is not in and of itself fatal, and that
as long as life support mis maintained you will wake up in 9
months feeling like a million bucks. For the moment, however, you
have no detectable brain activity, your heart must be kept beating
by artficial means, you are on a full respirator, a kidney machine, and IV
nutrition.

  Prior to the 9 month wake up period, are you just a "non-realized potential"?
If I yank the plug and turn of your life support, is it murder? Since there
is no conscisousness or awareness, turning off your life support does not
remove anything, because it's not there to begin with, right?



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|      And if the potential for a thing is not the same as the thing     |
|     itself, how come most child support is calculated on the divorced  |
|     father's earning potential rather than on what he happens to have  |
|     at the moment?                                                     |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: FM010201@ysub.ysu.edu
Subject: Women in engineering ( help ..)
Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:23:43 GMT

I am a graduate student in engineering, a minority, doing a thesis on " Women,
engineering and creativity". i am interested in knowing about the opinion of ot
her's about why there is not much interest in women about becoming engineer. I
am pursuing two traditional line of search:
1. nature: women have different cognitive abilities than men and do not have mu
           ch interest in men's pursuit of dominating nature. As most of the en
           gineering is. More right brain with thicker connection between left
           and right brain. (corpus colossum)
 
2.Nurture: women are discouraged , verbally or non verbally to pursue abstract
           topics such as math, science and engineering. Feminist perspective.
 
 your comments, opinion on both line of thougt are requested. Thank you
Lisa
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Men and Miscarriages
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:26:34 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <6423@armltd.uucp> hwatters@armltd.uucp (Helen Watters) writes:
>>If, however, the person keeps harping on the fact that he had a miscarriage, 
>                                                        ^^
>I didn't know men could get pregnant, but you learn something new every
>day :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

>Ah! You were being grammatically correct. Grammar rule 21 of the English 
>langauage says that man/his/he includes both genders, so I guess a man 
>can get pregnant :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

>Sorry I just couldn't resist,

S'aright.

Actually, I wasn't implying that men could get pregnant.

I was implying that men can be part of the process of "having a baby."
That is, the woman is the one who's actually pregnant, but he's also
caught up in that feeling of "we're having a baby."

Thus, if there's a miscarriage, I am implying that he has just as much
grief as the woman who physically had it.

Spiritually pregnant, perhaps?

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:45:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Statistical "proofs" (Was Re: women in engineering ( help..))
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, cathy@octel.com (Cathy Kearns) writes:

   >Gordon Fitch writes that he believes before programing became software
   >engineering and engineering degrees became derigour(sp?) that a larger
   >percentage of programmers were women.  I don't have the longevity in
   >the industry that Gordon has, but I wouldn't be suprised if that were true

I started programming in 1963 and have never noticed the wealth of
women that this thread has claimed.    -----

   >After having been a "software engineer" (with an EE degree
   >yet) for 10 years, I've come to believe that a good software author
   >does not need a degree, or any calculus, or physics, or much science.
   >What a really good "software engineer" need is common sense, or rather,
   >the ability to reason things through.  ...
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

While I agree that someone who has never take physics or calculus could be
an excellent programmer, when hiring, I would take someone with a degree.
Why? First, anyone who has completed a college degree has proved he/she is
willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done (i.e. take econ 101 and
pass it to get papers eventhough there is absolutely no interest in the
subject and the &*%#$% computer assigned it at 7am on Monday morning).
Secondly, anyone who passes caculus and physics is likely to be able to
"reason things through".  If only there was a test for common sense!!
Xref: sparky soc.women:16386 soc.men:16215