HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Victims of False "Memories" Form Organization
Date: 29 Sep 92 04:37:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <z6_pakm.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>         IF YOU'RE INTERESTED
>         For more information about the
>         False Memory Syndrome Foundation, call (800) 568-8882.

Check out the October 1992 issue of Playboy.  There's an article on this
subject by Debbie Nathan called "Cry Incest".  Debbie goes "undercover"
at a retreat for suvivors of abuse.  It's certainly intersting reading.

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape? No way!
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:46:08 GMT

lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
 
>BTW, in the Chicagoland area, Mace and its ilk are avaliable only (far as I
>know) at gun stores which exist (far as I can tell) only in the suburbs.

I live in the city (of Chicago) and mace and its ilk are available at the 
local hardware store, in my neighborhood.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims) 
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:17:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.153545.5845@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>garry:
>>| BTW, did Robert propose a "return to the kitchen amendment" ? (hint: no).

>Of course not. I am not suggesting compulsion on *anything*. There are,
>however, some women who DO wish to spend at least part of their adult
>life "in the kitchen," and IMHO it's time to stop the feminist war
>against them. As Paglia notes, under feminism the virago (a useful word,
>look it up) becomes the SOLE legitimate role model for a woman. This
>is at least as absurd as the scheme that viewed 'wife and mother' as
>the only role. Women must be allowed to choose the kind of role that
>suits them, rather than being coerced into the tough-as-nails-career-track.

	Where did this super-virago Camille Paglia claim that??? I
know that she bitches about other women not being as ultra-macho as
she is, but this???

	And a lot of women in careers are not as ultra-macho as you
seem to stereotype them as being. And I don't see _you_ complaining
that men are not allowed to be non-macho.

	Robert Sheaffer, I'm surprised that you are not pushing for
being a "husband and father", that is, a househusband, being a more
socially acceptable role for a man to take. After all, you seem to
think that being a housewife is such a great thing to be, so why
aren't you complaining that men are not allowed to be househusbands?

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1936 soc.men:17255 soc.women:17315
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:17:17 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct2.192010.5075@ads.com>, charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:

> Oh, right.  Like the royal family is really going to sue for libel.  <snort>

Charleen, that's *SNORT* not <snort>!

Actually, hasn't the Royal Family sued papers in the past?

> Hey, could it be because the _National Enquirer_ demonstrably has no
> journalistic integrity at all? 

If I don't read about it in the Weakly World News, I never believe it! ;-)

Terry "Naah!" Wood
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2022 soc.men:17305
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: "Attack Pattern" #2
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:14:11 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
| >  ...   From my observations, women seem to be more underhanded and 
| >backstabbing than men are.  Men more or less tell it like it is,
| >but it seems that women will lie to someones face, supposably to keep
| >from hurting their feelings and then go tell everyone else what they 
| >couldn't tell this person to their face.  I've also noticed that this 
| >sort of thing goes away with age.  Now I'm gonna get my head chewed off
| >for stereotyping, but these are MY OPINIONS so please be gentle.

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne):
| Sorry, you will be asked for names, dates, and thousands of irrelevant
| questions to back your -assertions-. Failure to provide proper peer-reviewed
| references, citations, and your entire lifes history will invalidate your
| claim, as well as your lifes experiences. ...
| If you have not met Gord[o]n Fitch, and Richard Lynch, and they have a
| single quantum of consistancy to their attack pattern, you soon will.

Wrong, Rich.  Robert Walker's remarks are just what he
says they are, stereotyping, vacuous remarks following
a banal prejudice.  They aren't worth responding to.  It's
been my experience that women are far more straightforward
than men, possibly because confrontations where women are
involved are far less likely to result in physical combat,
but there's no way of proving anything or even gathering
evidence, because so much depends on interpretation.

Your remarks, on the other hand, were interesting to me
because there was some possibility of exploring the
difference between your perceptions and mine.  For
instance, on the matter of people advocating anti-male
legislation, it would have been possible for you to 
quote some articles and point out why you thought that
they did what you said they did.  Unfortunately, my
questions seem to elicit a feeling of persecution in
you.  It doesn't seem useful to pursue our discussion.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2057 alt.folklore.urban:24888
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Legislation Based on Urban Legends?
Summary: Summarize while you can, Monkey Boy!
Keywords: FILM AT 11
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:08:31 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct5.143959.23961@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

> I haven't been on the urban legends newsgroup for a long time, but
> this story has the hallmarks of an urban legend.  The most important
> point of the story is it's unbelievability.  Notice what it says -
> she rents it every week to keep other people from seeing it.  Does
> this make sense to anyone.  What would this accomplish other than
> making it one of the top renting films?  If this were true, she'd
> rent it and burn it and then demand that the owner sue her for
> damages.

> This, more than all the safeguards in the amateur porn industry
> makes this sound like an urban legend.

Really.  Why didn't she just call the police?  Or if they "police are covering
it up" (ala most ULs), she could rent it and copy something over the tape
with her VCR.  Let the next bozo who rents it figure out what happened.

Of course, the video store only has 1 copy of this tape so my "solution"
would work out just fine.  How do I know that they only have 1 copy?  Why
the UL says she rents *it* each week.  If they had more than one copy (or
if this was not THE original) the video store would get/make more copies as
demand increased.  And demand is pretty high.  The tape circulates each
week! ;-)

This story just screams "UL! UL! UL!".  But, just like the snuff film legends,
we're all waiting for someone to come forward with a copy to "prove" us wrong.

Terry "Lost in space REALLY IS BETTER than Star Trek" Wood
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Daycare (was Re: Bias in Academia?)
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:27:22 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <BvMFA2.8J9@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley]) writes:
>chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>>  [daycare]
>> Yes.  It should be called that, if it is.  However parents
>> are the best people to teach a young child and they should
>> if they can.
>
>even illiterate, uneducated parents? What about abusive ones?
>What about teenage parents? Or mentally handicapped parents?
>
>Education is `best' done by those with some aptitude for it,
>and preferably some training as well IMHO.
I just don't like the idea of the federal government being the one responsible
for determining who's a good educator.  You know if the feds pay for it they'll
get in there and %^&(* it up.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1941 soc.men:17257 soc.women:17319
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:10:37 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

I can sympathise with Di being driven to violence. She is denied one
the most basic and useful attacking questions in the armoury of the
aggrieved wife:

	"Just who the hell do you think you are?"

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:25:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.180425.17725@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.142923.155@ads.com> charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>>
>>From _The Skeptical Inquirer_ to the _National Enquirer_...really, Robert!
>
>Well, E(I)nquiring Minds want to know many different things! 
>SI's coverage of scandals in the Royal Family has been rather deficient.
>>
>>I guess I'll keep my SI subscription for now, though; Martin Gardner's
>>columns are still worth reading.
>
>Hopefully, mine still is, too?

That's what's in doubt, isn't it?

If you're considering the _National Enquirer_ as a serious source of
information, it does make me wonder about the validity of the research
you do for other activites, such as your _SI_ column.  The _Skeptical
Inquirer_ is expensive, as magazines go; I don't care to pay (what is
it, $6.50 an issue now?) for shoddy assumptions and rumor-mongering.
In fact, I thought that opposition to such practices is what _SI_ is
all about.

Charleen

--
I was walking down the street wearing a leather jacket when the woman steps
up to me and says, "Did you know a cow was brutally MURDERED to make that
jacket?"  I said, "Yes, but I didn't think there were any witnesses, so I
guess I'm going to have to KILL YOU TOO!"  -- Jake Johansen
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:17:47 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Sep25134542@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <Bv5HH0.58s@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Sep25114657@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>[Re: getting rid of the draft/registration]
>>>Ditto for above.  Tell us where the action is...I'd be glad to support
>>>it.
>
>>Oh boy, "put your money where your mouth is." 
>
>I'm not sure what the problem is, here.  Isn't that what you are asking
>for?  For feminists to support this cause?  As I say, I would be glad
>to.  Where is it?

Actually, I'm not asking for feminists to support this cause --
I don't see any reason why a feminist should be +obliged+ to support
men's interests.  (This is because I don't equate feminism with a
movement for equality, although I have seen many feminists who
+are+ interested in equality.)

I would like all +persons+ to recognize the issue (but no,
my discussions are local, not global, apart from the net).

If I could find or start an anti-registration movement, I would
ask that feminists support it, but I would still not expect that 
they must.  (But I might certainly try to influence their decisions
with arguments about "equality.")

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: More deception from your hero, not mine
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:20:20 GMT

:       I think he's stupid.   Conservatism as a philosophical viewpoint
:       is really getting dragged through the mud these days by the 
:       lunatic extremists who have become its fellow travelers: Limbaugh,
:       Buchanan, Falwell/Robertson, etc.  The George Will editorial posted
:       here a few weeks ago expressed these sentiments very clearly.  What
:       is needed in the US is a "thinking person's" conservative movement.
: 
I, for one, feel no sympathy if conservatives are dragged down by their
lunatic fringe.  For years we liberals have been blasted for the excesses of
a small group of left wing freaks.  Many of these attacks have been launched
by persons well aware of the difference between mainstream liberalism in
general and the democratic party in particular. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith)
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S TAX LIST(S)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:41:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.175444.20913@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>	Finally, somebody printed Bush's tax list to go along with Clintons.
>>It shows that Bush raised taxes 178 times in 3-1/2 years, as opposed to
>>Clinton's 127 times in 12 years (thats 127 increases to 610 for bush,
>>if you pro-rate the numbers).
>>
>>	This list is printed in full on the Editorial page of the New York
>>Times today (Sept 29) and if someone has a scanner, I'm sure that we would
>>all appreciate the posting.
>
>I enjoyed Mickey Kantor's method of counting, which went something like:
>
>	44. Raised the tariff on nitrocellulose from Brazil
>	45. Raised the tariff on nitrocellulose from Argentina
>	46. Raised the tariff on nitrocellulose from Peru
>	47. Raised the tariff on nitrocellulose from Bolivia
>	etc.
>
>Of course what's good for the Chicken is good for Mr. Kantor.
>

That is the point.  The article says they are using the same criteria
that the Bush campaign used.  It is NOT 128 to 1.  Is is 128 to 178 (in
different time frames).  

More holes in the disinformation from the Bush Campaign.

-bert


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:03:06 GMT


I'm deeply concerned about precendent (sp?) set by abortion.  TThe technology
already exists that allows the parents to know what their child's sex will
be (that's been around for years), but now their exists the means to
determine whether or not a child might be born with some sort of problem.
Abortion in this case is akin to eugenics-abortion simply because a child
might be "inferior" by someone else's standards.  That's frightening.
Deciding a child doesn't have the right to exist because it might be born
different.
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What is a conservative
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:47:57 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus

In article <1992Oct5.192717.9529@ncsu.edu> mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN HARPER MULLIS) writes:
>
>  Believe it or not I get tired of seeing Rush, Bush,
> and Buchanon all being called conservatives.
> Bush as we all know is not a conservative by any stretch of means
> and generally gives us a bad name.

	[details deleted]

>  Please try not to lump these men into one category.

	Sorry, but this is Rushs group, and while that doesn't mean that we
like what Rush says, it does mean that we play by Rush's rules. 

	Rush says:
	Bill Clinton is a liberal, Like Jane Fonda.

	We get to say:
	George Bush is conservative, like Rush Limbaugh.

	Rush says:
	Jesse Jackson is definitive of the Democratic party

	We get to say:
	Pat Robertson is definitive of the GOP.

	et al.

If you want to have a rational discussion about politics, you'll have to
leave Rush out of it, sorry. If you want to sling mud, however, you're
in the right place at the right time.

	



-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Murphy Brown
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:54:20 GMT

In article <6449@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>> I say we discredit the media and make journalism a highly shameful
>> profession. They are blatant liars, cover-up maniacs, and they just
>> don't do their job. 
>
>Uh, Steve, apparently you overlooked the fact that your corpulent hero,
>Rush, is part of the media.
>
>As for "liberal media," it's a phrase used seriously only by Rush's
>whining army of girly-men. Analogously, if you were losing a game of
>chess, you would be whining that your opponent had too many pieces on
>the board.

At the risk of being a sissy...

You have a good point in that if the media is in fact liberal well then
why don't you do something about it?   I do not object to the bias in
the media (much) but it is there - so be it.  What I do object to, and
Rush has pointed this out, is that they do not admit that they are
liberally biased.  I find this slightly misleading.

Have you ever noticed that Rush is always introduced as "conservative"
talk show host R.L. but that "liberal" is never used when introducing
Mario Cuomo or Jesse Jackson?  This is but one small observation 
of a truism, the media has a liberal bias.

Mike "Girly-Man with little Girly-Ideas" Best
From: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:16:48 GMT
Reply-To: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Originator: cassidy@cypress.cps.msu.edu

In article <Sep.28.15.30.30.1992.20846@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>Don't think you're so clever.  The point of the pro-choice stance is
>not to decide which choice is right or wrong universally.  If I say that
>I personally do not condone abortion, but I support the right to choose,
>that does not mean that I support the right of others to make the "wrong"
>choice.  It does not mean that I have decided that the choice is universally
>wrong.  It means that I have decided that the choice of abortion is
>wrong *FOR ME*, and I support a woman's right to decide what is right
>and wrong for her, just as I was free to make that decision for myself.
>
>Which is why it should be a matter of personal choice, and the government
>should stay out of it.

	Why can't you be pro-choice on taxes, then?  I personally believe
that people should pay taxes, but I reserve the choice to pay taxes for
each person individually.  Why are the Democrats, who want to make choices
--backed by the force of law -- for everybody about who gets the money
that someone else works for, saying that everybody should be able to make up
their own mind about something that is *potentially* related to murder?

	I know, it's only fair.  It's only just.  It's the nice thing to
do.  I'm not sanctioning tax-revolt, and selfish capitalism, I'm only giving
people the right to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
	What about the CONSTITUTIONAL right to bear arms?  If the second 
amendment got rescinded, I would not be the first one to cry over it.  My 
friends tell me that such a thing would come back to haunt me, but I am 
not convinced, necessarily.  Why does everybody want stricter and stricter 
gun control?  Why can't they leave that choice for others?  Why can`t they 
just say, "A gun would be a wrong choice for me."?  I have heard many say 
that a delay of 24 hours in an impingement upon the "constitutional" right
to abortion, but I have heard none of the same people say that a *7* DAY 
waiting period is an impingement upon the right mentioned in the constitution
to bear arms.  

	As an interesting note: people on the very left of the democratic 
party are working on reclassifying doctors who refuse to execute abortions
from their "conscientious objector" status.  Right to choice....right!


>
>-- 
>Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
>Publications Coordinator - User Services
>Rutgers University Computing Services

	
	John J Cassidy 		cassidy@cps.msu.edu
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:17:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

el27166@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (This Space for Rent) writes:

> The thought of Rush Limbaugh on Madonna is certainly not a pleasant one.

Rush would be wise to review the downfall of Fatty Arbuckle before he
ever considers getting on top of Madonna or anyone else.

John
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:29:47 GMT


I have been trying to contact the technical folks at UTSA about
why I can't quote text from a message I am replying to.
I also have a problem getting the text to scroll while typing.
I log on from my home PC, I might try using the terminals on campus.

Technical problems aren't stupidity.  I notice the tone of the replies
I get--is this to escalate the debate into a flame-war??  I'm trying to
avoid that.

Simon
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6226 alt.news-media:1430 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4727