HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Yet Another AA Argument
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:40:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.000935.2109@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>I recall a recent study that indicates that the parents educational
>>evel is one of the best indicator of how well the child will do in
>>college and whether he will finish.
>
>I'd say a better indicator than the educational level of the parents
>is the importance they attach to education.

 I said I wasn't going to do this but .... I think I trust what the
 experts who spent years tracking families have to say than your
 opinion on this. Don't you think that the parents educational level
 just *might* have an effect on the importance they attach to education.

>A good example will be the Vietnamese

 Yet another stereotypical answer. I come from an area next to a military
 base which has a huge influx of Vietmanese immigrants after the war (oh
 excuse me, conflict). Most of them and there families are still there
 in a portion of the town they have basically taken over. They are in
 general as educated or uneducated as the native americans with quit a
 bit more poverty. What you see are the tokens, the lucky, the children
 of the vietmanese equivalent of the middle and upper class, or very
 exceptional, held up as examples, by people who end up saying something
 basically of the form, 'Now why can't all you mInorities go out and do
 something like that?'

>> I feel that whatever is needed to bring this about, including
>> priming the pump so to speak by giving extra assistance to minorities to
>> get to and graduate from college needs to be done.
>
>Why only to minorities?  There are lots of other people who could
>benefit as much from such "pump-priming".  Why not provide it to all
>of them?

 Hwaaahahaha. I've been patiently waiting for someone to say this. There
 is absolutely no reason it should be for minorities only and I have
 never said this. There are indeed lots of people who need help. Your
 idea, however, seems to be to equalize lack of opportunity by taking
 away the gains that AA has given minorities. If you would like to focus
 on equalizing opportunity for those in need by giving assistance to
 others not covered by AA at a level that matches their need, I would not
 have any problem with it.

-kelvin
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:42:25 GMT

In article <VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:

)No.  Every human has a choice of who he will or will not *create*.
)Deception and error are irrelevant to this.  You helped make a child,
)you can bloody well help support it.

Just don't ask for custody of 'your' child - you won't get it.

)  You had your chance to make a
)different choice.  Now stop whining and get your shoulder to the wheel.

Yeah - shaddap and take it like a *man*!  Real Men(tm) don't complain - 
it's demeaning.

:-> for the sarcasm impaired

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jjj@mits.mdata.fi (Joni Jarvenkyla)
Subject: Re: Useless Follicles
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:10:22 GMT

Better go and see a doctor; a friend of mine started loosing his hair
over a course of a few weeks and it turned out that he was lacking some
vitamine.

-- 
jjj@mits.mdata.fi             Kirjoitatko sin{ n{it{ ihan selvin p{in?
jjj@niksula.hut.fi                          -Petteri J{rvinen
Xref: sparky soc.men:13781 soc.women:14190 misc.legal:14979 alt.child-support:2256 alt.dads-rights:1606
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:03:41 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <VIXIE.92Jul27184646@cognition.pa.dec.com> 
vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:

>_before_ pregnancy occurs, both "parents" have the same choices.

>_after_ birth occurs, both "parents" have the same responsibilities.

>what exactly are you asking for here?  something seems inequitable but every
>time i try to understand it it squirms out of sight.

Like most feminists, you make a real effort to miss the point.

If you read feminist literature, especially what was written before
1974, you see talking about the importance of abortion right,
so women will have sexual freedom.

If you read today's feminists, you see the importance of sending
the FBI after dead-beat dads, no matter why they don't pay, so
all these nasty men will not have sexual freedom.

The issue is control, and main-stream feminism just hate the idea
of men's sexual freedom; they want to control us.  (The "logic"
is similar to women's "logic" in support of the Prohibition BTW.)

All your above arguments are just a poor try to hide this
obvious fact by a lawyer-like talk.

>Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	

Hillel                                              gazit@cs.duke.edu

"When I do it to you it's sexism,
when you do it to me it's feminism."
Xref: sparky soc.men:13649 soc.women:14032 alt.censorship:6207 talk.politics.misc:35625 alt.folklore.urban:19614 misc.legal:14726
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: The Cabal Of Bored Rich People (Was: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?)
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:26:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: gauss.ATAYLOR.92Jul23132657
	<1992Jul22.071137.18941@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> <62588@cup.portal.com>
Followup-To: alt.stupidity
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <62588@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:

<   Please be careful with this topic -- you might make it happen!  I've heard
<   that there is a group of bored rich people who like to make urban legends
<   come true.  

	Yes! And they are all Masons, members of the Illuminati
	conspiracy and Gnomes of Zurich, too!!!!

<Remember the "Little Buddy" stories?  

	Nope.

<There was a kid named
<   "Little Buddy" who was dying and wanted to get into the Guiness book for
<   getting the most greeting cards.  This went around for years.  Then
<   someone pops up (Craig Shergold) who really wants this.  What I heard
<   was that one of his doctors is a member of this group, and heard the
<   legend, and decided it would be fun to attach it to a real person
<   instead of the mythical "Little Buddy."  It worked so well, he and his
<   rich friends decided to try to make all the legends happen.

	Ohhhh...rich bored DOCTORS! This is getting scarier!

<   Too much talk of snuff films as urban legend might make them arrange
<   to film one!

	It's worse than that; they already HAVE filmed one, but
	didn't release it so that everyone would talk about it,
	so that they could release it and make a lot of money,
	which they don't need because they are bored rich Masonic
	Illuminati Gnomes of Zurich who are tired of re-reading
	the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

	I hope this helps. 
	
	Note the followup.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: soc.feminism
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:18:23 GMT

One of the moderators soc.feminism told me that they had very few complaints
about the way that group is moderated.  I found that surprising.

Ken
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 25 Jul 92 01:13:58 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <Brx1K7.4xG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)  
writes:

+ It would only qualify as snuff if the reason for the execution was so that 
+ a movie could be made.  The reason for the execution was that the victims
+ were part of the overthrown government.  They were killed for their 
+ politics, not their talents as movie stars...

D*mn shame. Imagine all the snuff flicks pouring outta Hollywierd...

Talent. What a concept... :)

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim)
Subject: Re: Pay Discrimination for Women?
Organization: Fordham University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:54:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: mary.fordham.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

>When someone is complaining that sexism is resulting in
>lower wages, they're not complaining about the thirty-year-old discrimination
>that still has its effects in the earnings of 50-year-olds, or the
>socialization of women to dislike math or science, or that women take
>more time off to care for children than men do.  They're complaining about
>the wage structure, which isn't sexist at all now, and addressing the
>wage structure while ignoring where the real sexism is occurring will
>mean that the underlying problems will never be solved.
> 
>>                      ....................................
>                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
>                      the university of chicago law school 
>                      official member of the cultural elit


Exactly.  To see if the wage structure in a field for new entrants is 
sexist, one needs data on the salaries of new entrants, isolated from 
the data on 50-year-olds.  

In my own field (mathematics), there were 188 men and 54 women who had
new PhD's in the academic year 1990/91, and were hired for teaching-and-
research jobs in academia.  The median salary of the men was $33,000. 
The median salary of the women was $33,200.  (Source:  Annual American 
Mathematical Society / Mathematical Association of Amerca Salary Survey,
found in the Nov. 1991 issue of "Notices of the American Mathematical
Society")

Here are the figures for the last four cohorts of new math PhD's:
(all have been rounded to the nearest $100)

Year               Median Salary for Men     Median Salary for Women
(of first job)      (in first year)             (in first year)
_____________      ______________________    _______________________

1988                  $29,000                    $29,900
1989                   30,500                     31,000
1990                   32,000                     32,500
1991                   33,000                     33,200 

So the wage structure in our field is equally rotten for everyone. :-)
Seriously, there is no salary discrimination for new mathematicians by
gender.  (One can ask why so few women chose the profession.)   

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Hate speech okay, Supreme Court says
Keywords: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:24:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.215707.29491@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>If the St Paul law was unConstitutional because in some strange way it
>addressed the "content" of a "speech act", and (stare the 1988 decisis
>re the Revolutionary Communist Party's flag burning) almost any act is
>therefore speech, then I hereby state that the way I speak about the
>idiot injustice of our economic system is, I knock over convenience
>stores.  A la Thelma 'n Louise.  Whaddya mean there's a law against
>armed robbery?  You is unjustly addressing my speech act based on its
>content, which I claim necessarily includes emptying the cash drawer.
>So all you people git yo ass down on the floor.

And under the Viktora precedent, you will not be convicted because
your action promoted the Communist Party (or whatever speech value you
claim it to have).  You will be convicted of armed robbery, just like
Viktora will be convicted of arson (or whichever charge he's still up
on).

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: A New Era
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:02:00 GMT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
X-To: MR. EUSTRESS

jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes...
ME> khely@ccvax.ucd.ie writes

ME> > P.S. I hold a third level degree -- do you, men?

ME>     I hate to give you the third degree:) but what
ME>     do you mean when you say you have "a third level degree"?

A PhD, maybe?   Dunno...

Will
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * * <- Tribble     _ <- Tribble vs. Godzilla
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Power, Control, & Victimology
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:40:42 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Cross-Posting Police
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Homosexuals.  In California, their control is now so total that 
>our courts have made a special case exception to the initiative
>process: if the city council passes a gay rights ordinance, the

It must be very tough for you, being so paranoid and all.
Now that the "homosexuals" are in 'total control', what
are you going to do? Move from Petaluma? 

Also, I see no reason to cross-post all this to: alt.sex,soc.women,soc.men

>So why do they have a right to pass laws forcing me to associate with
>them?  What this comes down to is the same fascist crap that the
>homosexual lobby is demanding: we know that we aren't particularly
>approved of, so we'll use our power to pass laws to make it illegal
>to express that opinion.

Whine, whine, whine. It sure is tough living in a democracy
isn't it? I guess the constitutional provisions to protect
the rights of the minority and individuals is a bit messy.

>I don't have any power, except (for the moment), I still have the right
>to refuse to associate with homosexuals.  But the liberals/fascists
>will take that away next.

Well you can always stay home. . .there you can refuse 
to associate with whomever you wish. Honestly, don't
you weary of all this self-righteousness?

---
Dano
From: me@isnext9.msu.edu (My Account)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Semantics was: Re: topless?
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:29:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <9962@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)  
writes:
> In article <1992Jul24.152915.12799@ee.rochester.edu>  
> cherkaue@ee.rochester.edu (Brian Cherkauer) writes:
> 
> + If you mean to be insulting, by all means use insulting words.
> + If you do not mean to be insulting, then do not use insulting words.
> + This is merely the nature of communication.  It has very little to
> + do with "feminism."
> 
> Au contraire, mon ami. "Feminism" would argue that for a man to be
> insulting, he would be "oppressing", and hence the term "girl" would
> always be demeaning.
> 
> K'Char
Feminism?
Guess what.  You and I attach different meanings to the same words.   
Happens all the time on USENET.  Infact it happens so often that I don't  
like to assume I know what someone's getting at unless the terms are  
defined.  I say that the fascists who claim to be feminists are not really  
feminists.  "Abuse does not rule out proper use" and all that.  But if I  
grew up in Lansing Area Michigan (where womens' fascism receives no  
challenge) I would not know any better.  
=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"Society is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.  
Society is a joint-stock company in which the members agree, for the 
better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty  
of 
the eater."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Xref: sparky soc.men:14020 soc.women:14436 misc.legal:15302 alt.child-support:2343 alt.dads-rights:1697
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:38:56 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul31.170017.27645@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25337-buoni) writes:
> From porthos!walter!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!uunet!ogicse!plains!news.u.washington.edu!news Fri Jul 31 12:44:33 EDT 1992
> 
> >No man should be dehumanized by the removal
> >of his "Right To Not Support".  Be that 
> >financial support to minor children anything
> >else.  Slavery should be outlawed!
> 
> He should have considered that before he dropped his pants!!  This is NOT
> slavery, it is called responsibility.  Individuals not wishing to be 
> responsible for the possible consequnces of an action should not partake in
> that action.

Ah, thank you for the straight line!  Is it then reasonable to tell a
woman who got pregnant because birth control failed "You should have
considered that before you dropped your pants"?  This dichotomy is
precisely what I was referring to in my post of a couple of days ago.

[deleted]

> Bill Buoni
> My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of my employer

-- 

Dan S.
Xref: sparky soc.men:13806 soc.women:14220 alt.dads-rights:1618 alt.child-support:2267
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   )
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:53:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:

> "The case concerned a Ms. Omerod who was employed as a registered 
> nurse for 8 years before leaving her job to start a family.  She 
> worked part-time in an unrelated field and as a volunteer during the 
> 16 years in which her main activity was child-raising.  Upon the 
> ending of her marriage, Ms. Omerod began retraining to prepare for 
> the resumption of work as a nurse.

Which seems to say that she was voluntarily unemployed, or under-
employed.

> "The Quantilex analysis used published 1981 Census data on nurses' 
> employment income, together with ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT RATES OF 
> FUTURE REAL WAGE GROWTH, to project future earnings for a 
> hypothetical nurse who had not had the 16 year interruption in her 
> nursing career experienced by Ms. Omerod.  Quantilex then projected 
> Ms. Omerod's earnings following her re-entry to nursing.  Using a 
> discount rate of 2.5 per cent (as prescribed by the Ontario Court), 
> quantilex calculated the present value of the income streams 
> projected for the "uninterrupted" career and for Ms. Omerod.  The 
> present value of Ms. Omerod's projected income stream was 
> estimated to be about $103,000 less than if her earning level had not 
> been reduced due to her 16 year career interruption.
> 

Using this same logic, doctors who volunteer for military service
should be getting some hellaciously large separation benefits when
they terminate that service.

Last I heard, nobody forced women to get married, any more than people
are forced to go into military service.

I wonder if this was something Mr. Omerod's attorney didn't think of?


---
Bob Kirkpatrick  --  Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
root@dogear.spk.wa.us           bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
Xref: sparky soc.men:13852 soc.women:14289 alt.child-support:2293 alt.dads-rights:1643 alt.abortion.inequity:2723
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:48:09 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <nancyo.712373787@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>We live in a society where DNA testing should eliminate this
>uncertain paternity, and it would thus be (if he is able)
>in the father's best interest to support his child.

In the FATHER'S best interest?  What in the world prompts you to make such
a generalization?  If the father does not want to have any contact with the
child, then it seems that it would be in anything BUT his best interest to
support it.

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

hardware, n. The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.
Xref: sparky soc.men:13535 soc.women:13907 alt.censorship:6115 talk.politics.misc:35150
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:51:06 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <cass8806.101@elan.glassboro.edu> cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu  
(KYLE CASSIDY) writes:
+ what about a public execution -- i'm thinking of the ones which recently 
+ took place in romania, which were filmed and distributed world wide. is  
that 
+ a snuff film? if so, the international media is traffiking in them to a 
+ henious degree.

No. A "snuff" film has a murder committed as an act of gratuitous violence,
solely as a "plot device" for the film. Executions by the state are just
that: they'll happen whether or not the camera's are there.

K'Char
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:36:51 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <7mFRoB1w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob  
Kirkpatrick   ) writes:

+ I'm not sure of other locations, but here in Washington, paternity tests
+ which were made after the 'dad' had begun his support, demonstrated that
+ the putative father wasn't actually the dad.

And in some states, a test after-the-fact doesn't mean diddly. You made
payments, you accepted the responsibility, they are yours.

+ It is a wise thing to demand paternity testing. 

Agreed.

K'Char
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Their walls are built of cannonballs.
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:57:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <3335@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
|> 	It never ceases to amaze me that in this day and age people are ready
|> to kill over who sleeps with who, and what kind of clothes you wear.

	"Same as it ever was, same as it ever was..." - David Byrne

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Today's Joke (Was: Right To Not Support)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul27.175023.1@fnalno.fnal.gov>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:13:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.175023.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:

SOMEONE writes:
<>   Social Security provides for people who are over 65 -- it should further 
<>   provide for the minor children.

<SS is paid into by the people it pays out to. 

	HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!

	Thanks for the joke, Mr. Holzman, I appreciate it.

	Remember this joke when you try to collect SS, after
	paying into it for years...
	
< Shall children work to pay into SS?

	Well, the minor dependants of workers who die or
	are crippled get SS money until they are 18 years 
	old. 

	So, either you are wrong here or you were wrong
	above. Take your choice.

Newsgroups: soc.men