HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: banta@blagg.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: The dickheads on rec.arts.movies (and in general)
Date: 21 Jul 1992 07:54:02 GMT
Organization: Sun, Moon, and Stars
NNTP-Posting-Host: blagg

(Richard "Dick Rouser" Rauser) writes:
>   That group is so full of assholes it never ceases to amaze me. 

I guess it's all a matter of taste.  Do you have the One True Answer
regarding whether an asshole is an exit of excreta or a portal of
pleasure?  Based on your tone of voice, I'd guess you think the 
former.  Well, son, there are frightfully few assholes here, and 
personally, I'd like to keep it that way.

While you may, at some time in the future, show that you have the
recipe for a successful peeve, you're falling woefully short in
articulating the panache, the verve, the *essence* of something that
truly peeves you.  You're a half-wank.

No.  Really.  Look down.  That's your limp pud in your paw.  You
just don't have the arousal, the erotic *tension* to peeve.  True
peeves don't come from moral injustice, sleights of courtesy, or
emotional distress.  True peeves come from the loins, glistening,
engorged, and wanton.

"Asshole" is something muttered under your breath at an incompetent
driver.  Telling us that once you rended their flesh, you sold it to
Alpo for their puppy chow division, to be masticated by the needly
teeth of slobbering mutts would be worthy of getting our
sensibilities erect.

>These
>dickheads bitch and whine every time someone slams a movie they like. 

So what did you want them to do?  Politely disagree?  Asshole.  If
you didn't expect this type of response, your head is so far up your
ass that the goo your mother dabs from your ears won't be shit for
three days.  You`re the Porky Pig in the Warner Brothers cartoon of
life.  You're due to be buried face down in a tray of lasagna.

>Truly this is a "politicially correct" group...you have to know what movies
>to slam, and what movies to praise, and you don't dare cross the line. 

So what.  In spite of a surname of "Rouser," you wouldn't know a
rabble if it tackled you blind, dry-poked you in the navel and
gargled your blood on its exit.  You happen upon a passel of
blowhards, and tearfully retreat instead of organizing a feast on
their marrow?  Sorry, I'm fresh out of pocket-sympathy for you.

>I posted a review of Cool World which praised the film, and all these
>idiots started making fun of it and saying I'm a moron...just because I  
>liked a movie that they didn't understand.

You are a moron.  Maybe that's what it takes to understand the film.
I'll wait till it's out on video tape to make a judgement, unless
you convince me, through your incessant puling and wimpering, that
it isn't worth my while.  If the best you can say is you got your
rocks off on Basinger's hooters, then I don't have the time or
interest to list more interesting films that aren't PG 13.  Maybe if
you eat your vegetables, Mommy will rent you an R movie that you will
really make your pillowcase crusty.

drew
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"I'll perfrom any perverse sexual act on any member of phylum
chordata.  I don't do invertebrates."  - JZ
From: booter@Autodesk.COM (Elaine Richards)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Men's Cologne and Other Proof of Satan's Existence
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:54:12 GMT
Organization: Autodesk, Inc., Sausalito, CA

In article <LARRY.92Jul21135958@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>
>There's a good short book around called Class (can't recall the author)
>which talks about such things, in a very interesting fashion.


Paul Fussell (sp?) wrote it. He's definitely a PeeveTown PhD. I have
a copy of that book, along with a more recent book called ,"BAD".

Paul is a major antipeeve of mine. His books are dogeared and have
paper clips in them. Its fun to pick up "Class" open it to any page
and wind up hollering, "YEAH!" every so often.

ER
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know when it was that I scratched Fate's car door, but I should have
left a note. --Tim Mefford
From: sac@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Neccesary and sufficient conditions
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:40:41 -0500

In article <1992Jul27.182811.9523@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Rob Mayoff) writes:
>>> = (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> 
>>>I Do Not Believe in .sig files
>>>as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
>>>And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
>>>But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
> 
>>Please answer me This: How do You decide what to capitalize?  I can See
>>neither Rhyme Nor Reason To Your Upper-casement.  
> 
> What rationale is used, and it's the same reason neither you nor I will
> ever understand:
> 
> 	 it's drieux spin on germane topics

What the Hell's the Germans got to do with anything


Once you become comfortable with drieux's style it no longer poses
any problems to your sense of reason. It's exactly the same thing
as becoming comfortable with the effects of relativity and quantum
theory on spacetime and reality...or the lack thereof for you aspiring 
physicists.
	  	       							
physicist HEEL Thyself.

Scott A. Chasse
U of Fl- Ft. Lauderdale
Research Station
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: hypocritical Guvmints
Date: 23 Jul 92 08:44:13 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <24049@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
=>egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
=>
=>
=>>Extra peeve: Home owners expecting to be bailed out of the mortgages
=>>which they can no longer afford. Owning a house is an investment -
=>>sometimes the price goes up, sometimes it goes down. If these same
=>>homeowners had sold their houses for a massive profit I don't suppose 
=>>they'd be falling over themselves to put some extra money back into
=>>the kitty, would they? Fuck 'em, I say.
=>
=>I think I can help you here Dr. Jeremy. You see  it's essential to the
=>Economic Recovery which is in sight just around the corner where
=>conditions are right and confidence has been rightly restored by the
=>re-election of the Tory Guvmint, that house prices are once more set on
=>their rising path.
=>
=>The reason for this is 

[... reason deleted ...]

Well that makes me feel a lot better to look at it like that. Now if
I just bend over a little bit more so that Our Tories Who Art in Power
can just insert that giant-size, ribbed, leather-covered, studded dildo
just a little bit further up my arse.... ooh! that feels better! Here
have some more of my money. Oh, yes! baby!!

P.S. When did you say the recovery is starting? Real Soon Now!


-- 
-Jeremy Henderson        egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk   

(or am I?)
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:35:11 EDT
From: Jenni Sheehey <JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Drug testing and welfare
Distribution: world

In article <a5qkoB16w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> says:
>Jenni Sheehey <JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>Has it occurred to you that people might want to choose to take drugs?  That
>they might do so occasionally, without becoming addicted?

I don't really care whether they want to or not, if they're using my
money to do so.

>If drug use weren't illegal, you'd have Drug-users Anonymous alongside
>Alcoholics Anonymous.  You wouldn't have to force people to get treatment,
>they'd walk in and ask for help of their own free will.

You don't have Narcotics Anonymous over there?  I know quite a few
people who have been over here.  Because nobody forced them, they were
allowed to totally and completely screw up their lives before receiving
any treatment.  They lost jobs, spouses, they had debtors following them
everywhere, lost cars, homes...  I'm sure they're really glad now that
everyone just let them rot.

>>                                                       and b) I would
>> know that I wasn't eating on $5 a week to finance someone else's drug
>> habit (which I don't happen to be quite doing now, but I have done it
>> for considerable periods of time since I started supporting myself
>> after college in 1990).
>
>Well, given that it costs more to keep addicts in jail than to give them
>treatment for their addiction, I'd say your big concern should be stopping
>the "war on drugs" and spending the money on rehabilitation centres.  Then
>there'd be no money wasted on jailing drug users, and everyone who wanted
>treatment would be able to get it.

Well, given the fact that the bill doesn't propose to put anyone in
jail, but merely force them to get treatment...

>> Peeve: People who think that people have a *right* to indulge in illegal
>> activities.
>
>Yeah.  Let's jail all those law-breakers who engage in oral sex or sex
>outside marriage.  They have no right to have sex, so lock 'em up.

If it's important enough to them to break the law, it's important enough
to try to change the law.  Those things aren't illegal in a lot of states.

                                                 --Jenni
From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Guvmint largesse - The way to go....
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:00:37 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Edinburgh University

Following article appeared in The London Times 25/7/91


Dutch local councils could face a wave of applications for sexual grants
after a high court ruling this week upholding a physically handicapped
man's right to receive a monthly social security payment for sex. The
31-year-old applied to the council in Noordoostpolder several months ago
for a social security contribution to the monthly cost of the services
of a female "sexual aid worker".

The council rejected the claim but was taken to the high court by the
provincial authorities, which believe it is a duty of local councils to
provide sexual help.

According to the provisional ruling, the man is entitled to a monthly
grant of 65 guilders as part payment for the services of the woman, who
specialises in providing sex for the physically handicapped at 150
guilders per one-and-a-half-hour session. The court concluded that the
sum involved was so small that it posed no burden for the council's
finances.

The man, who lives in a home for the severely physically handicapped,
based his claim on a psychological report which concluded that he had a
need of sex once a month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I need now is a psychologists report that I become a raving
Libertarian if I don't get sex once per day. Hell, it's enough to turn a
chap into a socialist....

Of course, we'd have to have Guvmint inspectors supervising, we wouldn't
want them spending their grant on any illegal forms of sex.....

FoFP
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: The dickheads on rec.arts.movies
Followup-To: alt.peeves
Date: 22 Jul 1992 16:11:07 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



In article <=afm2f-@lynx.unm.edu> hillman@carina.unm.edu (Dan Hillman) writes:

>!Peeve: *Redneck Zombies* is *so* bad that in one scene when a RZ is
>attacking this guy the guy's shirt *changes*!

Ever seen Biohazard?  Perhaps the most incredbilbly low-budget sci-fi
flick I've ever seen.  "Army" guys dressed in hunting camouflage; a
platinum "blonde" heroine obviously recruited off the set of a porno
movie; and that monster!  HAHAHAHAHA!  One good thing, though, is the 
series of bloopers included at the end of the tape.


>Peeve: Talking about movies with my mom. She bases her opinions of all
>movies on what movie reviewers write. "No, I don't want to see that,
>it got lousy reviews." Jesus! 

My dad used to decide what to watch on TV based on the reviews of Judith
Crist, who used to have a column in TV Guide.  (Maybe she still does, for
all I know.  This was when I was in high school.)  But his policy was,
if Judith Crist said a show is lousy, *watch it.*  I found her reviews to
be pretty much opposite to my own tastes as well.

Since I got to work this morning, there's been a nonstop stream of people
coming in to talk to my officemate -- at length, naturally.  And now her
phone has started ringing.  <sigh>  I may as well get to work, since I 
sure as hell won't be able to concentrate well enough to write.



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
    "True peeves don't come from moral injustice, sleights of courtesy, or
    emotional distress.  True peeves come from the loins, glistening,
    engorged, and wanton."  -- drew
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Newsgroups: alt.peeves
From: minch@lotka.stanford.edu (Eric Minch)
Subject: Oleolimpics
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:19:38 GMT

(Undoubtedly the first of many)

Peeve the First: The merest glimpse of a newspaper will suffice to tell  
you how much of the world's troubles today are due to people's blind  
allegiance to nations, languages, regions, and tiny-city-block-size  
communities. Why then do we tolerate all of this foofaraw over flags  
and which country has how many olympic golds, silvers, and bronzes?

Mind you, I love the idea of getting all these folks together from all  
over the world for peaceful athletic competition. Stirring and all  
that. But let's let the athletes compete, and let them take credit for  
their accomplishments, without trying to puff ourselves up simply  
because they come from the same political unit as us. I've said it  
before and I'll say it again: borrowed glory is only for losers too  
gormless or feckless to accomplish anything themselves. 

Peeve the Second: What is it with the hair-splitting of competitive  
classes? We want to know who the best boxers are, or the best runners,  
or the best (I dunno) solo synchronized swimmers. We *don't* need the  
matches all finely chopped up into forty-seven different classes of  
weight, height, sex, hair color, and so forth. Women want to compete on  
an equal footing? Fine, let 'em. Get rid of so-called "women's events"  
and let all the runners or gymnasts compete together. More power and  
glory then to those who make the grade.

We've got weight classes down to the bantam-, feather-, and fly-weight  
level. Hell, my little nephew is pretty good. Why can't he go for the  
gold in an under-70-lb class? How about my local elementary school in  
hockey? It's so unfair (sniff) that they can't compete. I'm just trying  
to point out how absurd this trend is: in the limit, everybody stays  
home and gets a trophy in the mail. My answer: ONE 400-meter event, ONE  
boxing event, ONE set of weightlifting events, and so forth. Otherwise  
in a few years we'll find ourselves watching the quarterfinals in  
bedwetters-with-hangnails-and-alcoholic-mothers basketball.
--
 
Eric Minch             Any resemblance to the opinions of persons
Epistemic Artisan      or organizations other than myself--living,
Stanford Genetics      dead, or imaginary--is purely fortuitous.
From: kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: radio stuff
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:03:10 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul23.200350.6227@igor.tamri.com>, donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
> In article <35977@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi) writes:
>>>[whining about the practices of commercial radio stations mercifully excised]
> >> 
> >> Take responsibility for your life, if you have one. Otherwise GET ONE NOW!
> >> Nolan "Grandpa Grumble" Hinshaw
> >
> >Looky here, dude, this group was created for whining and
> >complaining about anything that bugs us. So you keep complaining
> >about whiners and I will keep writing about what I feel like.
> 
> Wrongo, you weenie.  You haven't a CLUE what this newsgroup is for.  Let
> me provide one...open your mouth and say "Ah".
> 
> You see, whining is a particularly mindless and unproductive activity.
> It accomplishes nothing and gets on our nerves.  Peeving is something
> different than whining.
> 
> [ lots of stuff deleted ]   
> 
> You see a difference, chucklehead?  Peeving means that you've at least
> tried real hard to find a solution to the problem you're complaining
> about, instead of merely yammering to a support group about it.
> 
>     don


Now that (almost) everybody has pointed out to me (in their own rude
way) what exactly the difference between peevers and whiners is, I thank
you.




--Prashanth
  prash@bhaskara.ucsd.edu
  U of California at San Diego

f

o

d

d

e

r




Newsgroups: alt.peeves
From: rauser@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser)
Subject: Re: My pet peeve....
Keywords: peeve
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:09:25 GMT

derich@netcom.com (Scott A. Steinbrink) writes:

>My pet peeve is other people posting about their pet peeves...


  Mine is people posting to complain about those posting about their
pet peeves.

-- 
Richard J. Rauser       "You have no idea what you're doing."
rauser@sfu.ca           "Oh, don't worry about that. We're professional 
WNI                        outlaws - we do this for a living."
--------
BANNED from alt.good.news! Censorship is alive and well on Usenet!
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:27:22 EDT
From: Sonja Kueppers <SEK@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Another Olympic Peeve

Last night, after an incredibly boring shift, I returned home to watch the
Olympics at 10:30pm.  (Much to my roomate's dismay, who would no doubt have
rather been watching nearly anything else.)  This was the first I'd gotten
to see of the Olympics, and they were showing the only event I really care
about: Women's Gymnastics.

I turned it on, and for a half an hour or so was able to watch what passed
for gymnastics. I say, "what passed for gymnastics" because over 60% of the
time was consumed with either advertising or watching the gymnasts prepare
for their routines and wait for their scores.  During these times, there
were perfectly good gymnastics routines being performed by gymnasts who
weren't in the running for a medal, but were probably pretty good anyway.
I would rather have watched the Vietnamese gymnastics team compete rather
than watching the Unified team or the USA team standing around.

After half an hour, the signal started breaking up.  For the next hour, the
signal faded in and out.  It became nice and clear just in time to see
the gymnasts receiving their medals.  We decided there must be a special
filter on the cable, which filtered out anything we actually wanted to
watch.

*sigh*
-Sonja
From: hillman@carina.unm.edu (Dan Hillman)
Subject: Re: BDI On Board
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 13:57:16 GMT
Organization: Holy Order of Quadra 950 Lust

In article <39563@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> Not_Al_Crawford@ed.ac.uk (Not Al Crawford) writes:
>
>Dog on board, sheesh. What next, special safety seats
>you can strap Fido into?

Um, !Al, I hate to break the news to you (heh heh heh) but here in 'Merika,
the land of the free and the home of the brave where the streets are
paved with gold (they're a bit slippery in the rain, but what the hell),
these things *have* been for sale for years.

-- 
| _   ;/                                                          Dan Hillman
|(")_/   "I'm right and you're not."                   hillman@carina.unm.edu
|~~/                                                 University of New Mexico
|~/                                               Land of Fucking Enchantment
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Drug testing and welfare
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:48:59 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <24169@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
=>yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
=>
=>>fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
=>>>Then again, I'm not real impressed by the argument that the Guvmint has
=>>>a legitimate interest in what goes on in folks bodies anyway.
=>
=>>You have the wrong line of reasoning there.  The assumption that the
=>>government shouldn't be concerned about people's bodies leads directly to
=>>the conclusion that welfare should be junked completely.
=>
=>No, just that the Guvmint shouldn't be handling it. Folks could take
=>out unemployment insurance. For the ones that never were employed, well,
=>if they want our money they can ask for it and let us make a decision on
=>the merits of the case. That way we can cut out the Guvmint as an
=>expensive middleman.
=>
=>>Which would be out of line.  We all live in socialist countries, where
=>>socialist thought is so all-pervasive that nobody would ever _dream_ of
=>>eliminating welfare, except for a few radical Libertarians and such who are
=>>light years away from having any power.
=>
=>Hey, am I one of *those*?

No. You're a dozy pillock that buys Hawkwind albums.

=>>No, the argument that the government shouldn't be coercing people is naive.
=>>What the hell do you think our governments are for, besides coercing
=>>people? 
=>
=>Protecting people and their rights?

But surely this could be dealt with by a Rights Protection Company. People
concerned about their rights would pay a monthly fee. People unable to
afford this fee could request members of the public to protect their rights
and the public could assess each case on its merits. This will radically
alter the nature of interaction on Cowgate. At present, horrible old
drunks (*) lurch over to you and assault you with haltosis before demanding
"A coupla quid fer an old fella", or "tenpence fer a cuppatea", or
"spare any change sir?" or "fuck off you fucking bastard". In the
Holmes Utopia I suppose we could expect to be accosted by street lunatics
asking for "spare change to protect my rights". Life just won't be the
same.

(*)No, Babs, not you. This time.



-- 
-Jeremy Henderson        egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk   

(or am I?)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Picnics
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:22:36 GMT

In article <szgmgr=@lynx.unm.edu> baldwin@carina.unm.edu (Chris Baldwin) writes:
	   I hate people who seem to be incapable of not saying something
   incredibly stupid, like your example, over and over again. As another
   example, it is impossible to use any form of the word "assume" without
   some dimbulb saying "When you assume..." Also, I like my steak very rare. 
   Every time I have eaten steak in the presence of my mother for the past 23 
   years, she says that I like it so rare that it is still mooing. 

[Wow. You've been eating steak now for 23 years, Chris??]

Or, worse yet, the ignoramus who repeats his little trite funny two or
three times for you, apparently thinking it will sink in momentarily and
everyone will lapse into hysterical laughing.

(Ahhh.. Duhh.. Now we get it! Haw haw haw. Hey feller! Columbus kicked 
 an Indian's butt for telling *that* joke..)

UnrelatedPeeve: Chewing the foil from a gum wrapper, when you have
		 fillings.. Not the act so much as people who remind you
		 about the experience. Yooww!
L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Oh sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.

Newsgroups: alt.peeves