HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.penpals
Subject: Re: DANGER!!!!
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:26:53 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Aug14.204826.22837@cbfsb.cb.att.com> joni@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (joni.dunlap) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.123439.606@ualr.edu> casmith@acs.harding.edu writes:
>>I am posting this to warn the public of a great, grave danger that lies 
>>ahead. Bill Clinton is running for president....if he gets it we will 
>>be doomed to a great depression! I give this warning because I am from
>>Arkansas and I have seen what he is like. The press in this case is not
>>digging into Clintons record or life, therefore they are giving him 
>>glamorus reviews when he really deserves mud. You think that I am exagerating,well I'm not in the past ten years Clinton has raised Arkansas taxes by 
>>more than 250%, most of which is payed by middle classed Farmers! Clinton
>>has consistantly lied to the Arkansas public and because of a large pop.
>>of people with little or no education, he has gotten away with it! You
>>say look at his education record, well lets do. Clinton has done nothing
>>for the Ark. Educational process except make more paper work for teachers
>>and close smaller schools. I have 2 aunts that are teachers here and neither
>>one of them like him nor do they support him. You don't realise what Clinton
>>is like until you have seen him in action for a long time. I think I can 
>>truthfully say that Clinton would make the even a typical Used Car salesman
>>seem like a saint. No, I am not a Republican trying to discredit Clinton.
>>I am just an honest person who doesn't want to see a snake elected to
>>office. Thanks for your time.
>>                                               Craig A. Smith
>>Bill Clinton sells snake oil!
>
>If he was so bad then why did the population of Arkansas re-elect him
>so many times? At a 250% increase in taxes, Arkansas still has some of the
>lowest taxes in the US. Try coming over to DuPage, Cook  or Lake county in
>Illinois if you want to know what paying taxes is really like.  Why would the
>news media say that the literacy rate in Arkansas has risen greatly if it
>wasn't true?
>
>Joni :)


Craig. 99.414% of the people who read this stuff are literate, educated,
?adults? Please keep this shit where it belongs. Take it to alt.HUH?
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:32:12 GMT

In article <5p0m07=@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.045933.20323@practic.com> brunner@practic.UUCP (Thomas Eric Brunner) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug14.000117.23988@nsc.nsc.com> jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe) writes:
>>>If she chooses to give birth and give up the child for adoption, the
>>>man has no right to the child, in almost all jurisdictions.

[my reply, omitted]

>But notice that he has to go to court to get custody of his child.

Paternity needs to be established before the claiment, or presumptive
father, has standing to bring a motion in family court. Ditto in order
to meet the "parties at interest" test in dependency court.

>She, on the other hand, simply has the child handed over.

That dosen't completely describe a legal, voluntary adoptoin proceeding
in California. In a legal adoption, some where, somehow, formal custody
is surrendered and established by the two parties.

>However, I'm a bit confused by the legalese.  What phrases in the
>above paragraph relate to him being able to sue her for child support
>should he wish to acquire custody of his own child?

None, I didn't see the support question as being raised, only the custody
question. If the candidate adoptive parent appears unable to support the
child, what point is there in going forward with the adoption? There are
usually better alternatves than permenent placement with a party that
intends to litigate child support, or requires both an order and the
sucessful execution of the order, to bring up the child.

Is this a personal question? Are you seeking to prevent loosing custody
to your child or are you asking on behalf of someone who is? If so you
really should get local legal help. If not, let me know so I won't waste
my time again.
From: ng@MOE.OPTICS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Baldwin Ng)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: REQUEST:  TOP 20 WAYS TO ASK A FRESHMAN GIRL OUT
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:18:36 GMT

Status: R

Hello to all!

I am interested to compile a list of "TOP 20 WAYS TO ASK A FRESHMAN GIRL OUT"
for the incoming freshman guys here at U of Rochester.  Any input/suggestion
is welcome!  I will pick the 20 ways from all your replies that I think are
MOST CREATIVE and post it up in "soc.college" at the end of this month!

Thanks in advance!

Baldwin

(ng@moe.optics.rochester.edu)
Xref: sparky soc.men:15089 soc.women:15359 alt.censorship:6984 sci.skeptic:14472
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Brian Siano Posts Private E-Mail (was: Robert Sheaffer's Loyalty Test)
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:49:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


If anyone did not yet realize that Mr. Brian Siano, the reverend P.C.,
is a person of very low integrity, this blatant posting of the private
E-mail I sent him should remove all doubt about that. As he must
surely know, for he is no Usenet Neophyte, the posting of private
e-mail, with attribution but without the sender's knowledge or consent,
is a flagrant violation of all network rules and etiquette. Every
so often, some dumb schmuck or some newcomer does this, and is
justifiably flamed. But this guy is no Brian-come-lately, so I cannot
imagine what excuse he will offer, for there surely is none. Decent
people of the net, if you are offended by scoundrels such as he, let
him know this and flame away! But be warned: your flames may someday
be posted in public. In fact, let EVERYONE be warned: whatever you
send this asshole in private email is likely to turn up in public,
without your knowledge or consent. Shame on you, Brian.


I cannot see how he can call what I wrote a "loyalty test". I intended
it as a "reality check," to see how deeply his head was buried in
the sand. All (except one) of the assertions from those questions 
are supported by newly-declassified Soviet archives, revelations
that are excruciatingly painful to dyed-in-the-wool leftists, as it
shows them to have been utterly duped by Soviet disinformation,
and that the right-wingers they reviled were in fact correct. Brian and
I were having an extended email discussion of certain issues, some political,
some not, and seeing his reflexive 'leftists-can-do-no-wrong' stance,
I decided to pull his chain a bit. I expected I'd get his goat a
little with this (and expected I'd probably end up answering a
similar questionnaire from him!), but I never expected him to blow his
top, totally and completely. Let's face it, Brian, you lost it, and
you lost it but good! That's what happens to people who are forced
to deal with a crumbling Weltanschaung! Drink two coffees, and call
your analyst in the morning. Reality CAN be dealt with by most people,
and the world contains many stockbrokers and accountants who used to
be as radical as you when they were young and foolish. Learn to appreciate
the taste of crow, learn from your mistakes (both in politics, and in
net.rules), and someday perhaps you'll have a firm grasp on reality.


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Xref: sparky soc.men:15353 soc.women:15637 alt.child-support:2849
From: samurai@homer.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy Brockbank)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:58:53 GMT
Reply-To: samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <1992Aug18.212535.29469@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>  
chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
> and not all the rest, like "eating food"?  Is sex some dirty,
> filthy, slimey habit like smoking, so be indulged in furtively
> and only by adults in a dark room somewhere?  What sort of
> revolution would occur if we treated sex precisely as "everyday,
> normal behavior" like eating, sleeping, and taking a shit?  Oops,

Sex is not like eating food. 

Sex can mean power, and love, and the combination can mean 
damage to formative people (ie: children).

We've never heard of "eating related abuse of children" and
we have heard of "sexual abuse of children."

Human Sexuality is a powerful thing, and you're incorrect to
trivialize it with comparisons to eating. Human sexuality is
closely tied to our conciousness, and our sense of self.
If sex was no more an act than eating, why are people so damaged
by sexual assault and rape? Sex is a powerful thing. It can be
a weapon.

In any event, I assure you that Psychologists would think that 
sex with one's mother at the age of 15 is not healthy behaviour.

- db
From:  (kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat))
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Tired of that subject
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:13:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: here

[stuff deleted]
> 
> I love the cowards who use the term "Politically Correct" for "I have no
> idea how to respond to truth, so I'll twist your words and whine anyway".
> 
> The point, Oh Dense One, is that at any time while a woman is pregnant
> the man can get up and leave.  Doesn't HAVE to be another country.  Could
> be another town or state.  Sorry if I baffled you.  A determined man will
> NOT get caught for child support.  Even if he does, it would at least
> delay for a time financial support (not to mention emotional) for the
> woman he impregnated.
> 
> The woman at this point could get an abortion.  Unless they're made
> illegal. 
> 
> Is *your* point that it's the same for the pregnant woman as the man who
> impregnated her?  Open your eyes.
> 
> 
> -- 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> steven@advtech.USWest.Com
> 
> 
Thanks for blasting that fellow for acting as if the Politically Correct hype is real.
I agree with your point now let me add to it.  I think that abortion should remain
legal so that the individual may choose it or not.  I also think that men should not have 
parenthood forced on them against their will.  To my mind, the 1st Amendment guarentees
the primacy of the individual in matters that are religious speculation (appropriatlely, it 
is followed by the 2nd Amendment).  The 13th Amendment outlaws involuntary servitude.
Consistency demands that men and women have equality of rights under the law.




SunCat   kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
Xref: sparky soc.men:15115 soc.women:15382 alt.censorship:6999 sci.skeptic:14520
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:32:26 EDT
From: <SML108@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Brian Siano Posts Private E-Mail (was: Robert Sheaffer's Loyalty T

In article <d19m39k.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
says:
>
>If anyone did not yet realize that Mr. Brian Siano, the reverend P.C.,
>is a person of very low integrity, this blatant posting of the private
>E-mail I sent him should remove all doubt about that. etc blah blah blah...

You know, you have occasionally posted some very good skeptical articles,
but if you really believe that annoying flame material should be kept private,
perhaps you should pick up your toys and go home...  Stop being such a
sphincter boy or you're going to give Uri Geller a good name...
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Ann Landers Sexual Harassment article
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:50:17 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Murasami Labs

In article <32660052@hpmwmat.sr.hp.com>, mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike
Powell) wrote:
> 
> 
> 	
> 	I recently read a recent letter to Landers (I think it was in the
> 	Landers column) about a man that was in an airport waiting for

> 	There are so many important lessons in this story.  I wish I
> 	could find the original so I could post it...

Those are the essentials of the letter. Disgusting, isn't it?

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.men:15171 soc.women:15438 alt.child-support:2795
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Sex Insurance
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:49:53 GMT
Reply-To: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:

-> karen dawn writes
-> > jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
-> > 
-> > >  The government should use our tax money
-> > >  to insure people`s sexual contact.
-> > >  If a child is born then the insurer 
-> > >  (the government) should reward money
-> > >  to the primary care giver.  The Insurer
-> > >  would do its damndest to prevent conception.
-> > >  Thus men would not be made slaves to women.
-> > nonsense!
-> 
->     Of course you say "nonsense!", you're a woman -- 
->     the benefactor of injustices against men.
-> 
->     If the minority can be enslaved then the majority
->     will support it.

Nonsense!


---
Bob Kirkpatrick, Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: chauvinistic Posts
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:56:01 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Murasami Labs

In article <479mpr+.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert
Sheaffer) wrote:
> 
> In article <HARKCOM.92Aug17164922@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp> harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes:
> >
> >   If the man picked the wrong woman then he deserves the blame for it...
> 
> From which I presume it follows that if a woman picked the wrong man,
> and gets beaten, abused, etc., then she deserves the blame for the
> situation?

Hmmm...hadn't thought of it that way...hmmm...
 
> Or is this another one of those situations that can't be gender-reversed,
> and a man is always to blame?

Lesson #1003493. This is what Politically Correct means. The Officially
Sanctioned Victim's fate is bemoaned. The same fate occuring to an 
unSanctioned Victim is his own damn fault, or just flat out ignored.

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.men:15333 soc.women:15612
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 21 Aug 1992 20:35:43 EDT
  m.com> <1992Aug11.225224.13677@s1.gov><1992Aug12.210134.19586@news.cs.indiana
 . edu> <BswLzz.Jt4@news.cso.uiuc.edu><jysuh.713680789@copper> <92233.141512RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET><10396@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
-Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women
-Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
-
->    There seem to be three points of view about mental differences between
->    men and women.
->
->    1.  There aren't any.
->    2.  Men are smarter than women.
->    3.  Women are smarter than men.
-
-You missed one:
-
-     4.  What's the point?  If it doesn't affect the way I treat a given
-         individual man or woman, why should I care?
-
Good point.  I agree.  But some do care, and it is worth saying that
they need not.

-Followups directed away from sci.bio and sci.skeptic.
-
--EMP

Rohit Parikh
Xref: sparky soc.men:15267 soc.women:15542
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:23:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Bm8RPB1w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>>     You have every right to ... I knew the kindest thing I could
>>     do for the women of this world is to hate men with full force."
>> 
>> (entered exactly as published in Liberty).
> 
>     You know, I don't see the same sort of outrage from Sheaffer over
>such issues as genital mutilation, gang rape, forced prostitution, the
>sale of 'wives' from overseas, or-- closer to the point-- that
>derange-o who shot up a bunch of coeds in Canada about two years ago
>because he was 'sick of all the feminists.'

I guess it's because I haven't seen anybody post to the Usenet *in favor*
of those particular outrages. If they did, I'm sure I'd respond.

And should any university propose to establish a department to promote
genital mutilation, or gang rape, I'd come down on it quite hard!
But departments already exist to promote man-hating.

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Newsgroups: soc.men
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 16 Aug 92 18:40:37 GMT

shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes
> In article <1992Aug14.132649.29292@ncar.ucar.edu>, 
> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
> > 
> > km> There is no public university, anywhere in the U. S., that can't be at-
> > km> tended on govt. grants and loans.
> > 
> >   You forget that men must be registered for the draft to receive these
> >   loans and grants. I wonder how many women students would be willing to
> >   give up any of these loans/grants they recieve as a form of protest
> >   against this sexist policy.
> 
> Probably about as many as the number of men who refuse to
> walk alone at  night, as a form of protest against rape. :-(

You are comparing apples and oranges. Rape is universally condemned. Vast  
amounts of money are spent on rape prevention, prosecution, counseling aso. And  
despite everybody trying it appears to be hard to stamp out. The draft is a  
policy of the US government which could be eliminated by a simple act of  
political will. That this does not happen clearly shows a societal sexist bias   
against men.

> [...]
>  Men have plenty
> of  privilege; why should we resent one of the few that
> women have? 

_What_ legal privileges do men have ? The only one I can think of is that only  
men are allowed to serve in some parts of the armed services and that one is  
under heavy attack. It also is quite a small one, compared to the countless  
privileges which women enjoy either by judical fiat or law.

	Carl Edman
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: "Uncritical support"
Date: 13 Aug 1992 23:14:47 GMT
Organization: Huh?, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Hillel) quotes:

 "She will be a great mother if we will just send the FBI after the 
 father and take him to the cleaners."

Where did this quote come from?

Dano
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Bob Black/Abolition of Work
Date: 13 Aug 1992 21:03:54 GMT
Organization: Vactioners Unite
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(A@a.cl.mnsu.edu, whoever he may be) reprints a review:

    We also, however, suspect that it's rooted in a refusal to
 admit that your present efforts have made life no better,
 they only make life seem to go faster. You are coping in your
 own way, trying to get it over with.
    As for the rest of us, we'll be much too busy to work.
    ---
    Mr. Black, an unemployed lawyer in Albany, N.Y., is the
 author of "The Abolition of Work and Other Essays".


Clearly Mr. Black has become bitter from being unemployed so 
long. I wonder if it's like the spurned lover denying the
existence of love at all...


Dano
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: king@meaddata.com (Mike King)
Subject: Re: Paul Vixie
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:44:27 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug5.010205.20391@u.washington.edu>, jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
|> 
|>    Paul, you will never know me.
|>    I have a vasectomy and I don't have sex.
|>    Your "rules" are slavery -- not responsibility.
|>    And it harms the kids. 

The voluntary absence of a parent from a childs life has ALREADY
harmed the child.  By forcing these voluntarily absent parents to
financially support their children at least assures that the children
will have enough to eat.
 
|>    You like parenting, so
|>    you want to make the whole world a parent.
|>    You don't care about the kids the man or the 
|>    society.  You only live in your deam world 
|>    where everyone copies you.

What are you supposed to say to a child you don't want.  Have a nice
life?

-- 
Michael W. King     |  "I'm going to graduate on  |     (513) 865-1395   
Mead Data Central   |  time, no matter how long   |     CAPRR Conversion
P.O. Box 933        |  it takes"                  | mead!mwk@uccba.uc.edu
Dayton, Ohio  45401 |      -- Rod Brookin         |    ...!uccba!mead!mwk
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:35:46 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

Robert Sheaffer writes:

 
 
 
> A few brief quotes from Houston _Chronicle_ reporter Jacsun Shah, as
> reported in the Jan., 1992 issue of "Liberty" magazine, p. 78:
> 
>    "Yes, I am a man hater, yes, I am a feminist. and why not?
>     Women are dying . They die every day, at the hands of men.
>     Men ... beat them, rape them, dismember them. Hell yes, I
>     hate men ... To all of you women out there, I say _hate_.
>     You have every right to ... I knew the kindest thing I could
>     do for the women of this world is to hate men with full force."
> 
> (entered exactly as published in Liberty).
 
     You know, I don't see the same sort of outrage from Sheaffer over
such issues as genital mutilation, gang rape, forced prostitution, the
sale of 'wives' from overseas, or-- closer to the point-- that
derange-o who shot up a bunch of coeds in Canada about two years ago
because he was 'sick of all the feminists.'
 
     It's okay for women to be beaten, tortured, degraded, sold like
so much cattle, and even shot. But if one of them says that she hates
men, well, that's Evil Incarnate.
 
     Pretty funny criteria for moral outrage, eh?
 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"What? They have BIGGER DICKS?! _BOMB THEM!!!!_"
                        Our Leaders, paraphrased by George Carlin
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: swells@triton.unm.edu (Earth-daughter)
Subject: Re: sexual harassment case in Moorepark.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 22:04:40 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

wow, that's great!  sometimes california is a bit (ahem) too
socialist, but they occasionally make strides like this that
really encourage me.

both of those women need a Boot To The Head.

smileys for the Frantically impaired.  :-D

someone give the judge a cookie.

shannon the mouthy pushy ranting broad

Newsgroups: soc.men