HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: herpst@b56vxg.kodak.com (dan herpst)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: The TRUTH about Mormons (was Re: "infidelity")
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:55:00 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester NY
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Sarah,
    In the simplest way, any sex outside the bonds of marriage is a sin. I 
would recommend being very up front with the missionaries. I have asked similar
question about my lifestyle and have found great happiness in the Mormon church,
but I have made major changes in my life. This was not always easy and 
several times I felt I was giving up a important part of my self. In the long
run I have found that the things that were hard to give up were hard because
they weighted me down. The question you first have to ask when looking at the 
church is do you have a testimony of it. If you have then the bottom line is
for you and your Heavenly Father to work this out.

Your brother in spirit,
Dan
From: pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: accepting poly* in partner means being poly?
Date: 13 Dec 92 12:43:41 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Dec12.193042.11514@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>Just a quick note to say that I think that a poly's partner can still be
>monogamous.

Technically, this is true. Someone who allows thier SO to have other lovers,
but who has no outside lovers themselves would fall into this category. 
It does cross into a grey area of the definition, though. The 'non-roaming'
partner is in a multi-partner relationship, even if only indirectly.

Scott


-- 
Scott Moir  /  Satyr on IRC    ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
pentangl@Ursa-Major.spdcc.com  \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+!) s+ m r p+    \/\/  # "What's that?"
These are my opinions, not SPDCC's    # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 14 Dec 92 08:02:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <ZEN.92Dec12194848@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.113603.25819@midway.uchicago.edu> mbr2@quads.uchicago.edu (Curious Of All Natures) writes:
>
>> >I've never met anyone who found the term "monogamous" ambiguous.  Again,
>> >please tell me how it is that it is ambiguous.
>
>
>  Once you start modifying a word with redefinitions, new or unusual
>situations and personal feelings, then any word can be used in a
>different way from it's generally accepted meaning.  All you showed
>above was that the word monogomous could be used to describe different
>(but similar) things, depending on where/how it is used.

     That's precisely the foundation of the disagreement here.  The
basic question that I need to ask is "Which words are OK to
redefine or qualify?"  From past posts, it's clear that "polyamorous"
and "bisexual" fall into this category for Muffy, while "monogamous"
does not.  Why?


>  If I choose to call myself a horse, regardless of how descriptive that
>may be to parts of my anatomy, because I feel that is the best way to
>articulate what I feel that I am, then I'm free to do so.  But, since
>I'm actually human, if I start referring in my posts to myself as
>trigger, secretariat, man-o-war, whatever, and how great my tail and
>hooves are, then you might be right to point out that the way I'm using
>the term isn't consistant to the general definition of the word.

     If you said "I am a horse.  By this I mean that sometimes
I feel horselike, although I am anatomically bipedal," then I don't
think anyone would have a problem with it.


>  From
>what I understand of her situation, I don't think that vicki's actions
>are consistant with the label she chooses for herself.

     By the definition that Vicka has rather clearly articulated,
her actions are 100% consisent with the label.  If you choose not
to accept her definition, then so be it.


>  It might be that
>she chooses to avoid the poly label because she feels that monogomy is
>somehow superior, or perhaps she just wants to believe that she is
>monogmous, for whatever reasons.

     Psychoanalyzing a complete stranger?  Seems an unproductive
venture at best.  I could as soon say that you are posting due to
an early childhood trauma involving a large and scary clown.


>  Indeed, I don't really care *what* she
>calls herself, but if she starts posting about it, and using the word in
>a way that I find incorrect, I'll say something about it, no matter how
>much she elaborates about her personal usage and meaning of the word.

      This is interesting - are you so hung up on the word itself
that you refuse to accept any of the clarifications of the term
that have been posted?

				-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: robb@tfs.com (Not a tty)
Subject: Re: terms for SO, lovers, ect
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:53:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.075108.26783@penet.fi> an1691@anon.penet.fi (Christina) writes:
>I've just basically got a question -- in a thead Poly=different people 
>were using SO & lover as different kinds of relationships -- and I was
>curious as to their general definitions.  I guess because SO is a pretty
>recent term -- I've been using it for about a year & it doesn't connotate
>a very strong, or commited, or whatever relationship -- I like it mostly
>because it's gender nuetral.  I have used/heard 'lover' for a longer period
>of time & it was often used to mean a significant partner -- one lived with 
>& commited to (often monogamously) I usually heard the term among lesbians 
>-- and since I was raised among lesbians, it was my basic term for 
> relationships (yes I used husband/wife/spouce -- but they connontate 
> legal/religious marriage & mainstream, heterosexuality)   I myself have a 
> lot of difficulty in figuring out which terms to use when and such.

In article <1992Dec13.064611.12698@bcrka451.bnr.ca> bbooth@bnr.ca (Bradley Booth) writes:
>I tend to use the term SO for someone who I'm having the
>primary relationship with (ie. spouse, boyfriend, whatever).
>The term "lover," I tend to associate with someone who is
>new to the me or my SO.
>It really starts to get confusing when my SO has her own
>SO... yes, life can be confusing, but as fun as all...!!
>


Having been involved in polyfidelic relationships for quite some time, we 
struggled with the problem of finding an appropriate word that adequately
defined our relationship.  "Lover" didn't feel quite right, in that it did 
not indicate any permancy.  "SO" felt too contrived, and seems to already
be reservered for dyadic relationships.  "Girl/boy-friend" doesn't work, and
"mate" didn't fit either.  We decided to use a word that had some previous
meaning relating to relationships, redefine it to fit our new requirement,
and reintroduce it back into the lexicon.  To this end I humbly suggest
the term "swain" to represent any relationship of intended continuity and 
fidelity involving two or more people.  It is gender neutral, and does not
not require a plural form.  It can be used to refer to one or more persons
with whom you are involved.  Additionally, it is just familiar enough that
people can infer the context, and unusual enough that they may ask about
it.  

It's originally from the middle english, meaning a suitor (usually the lower
class lover of a female noble, with all the impropriety that implies) or one 
responsible for the care and maintenance of a vessel, as in boatswain, or 
the shepard of a flock, as in sheepswain.

Cheers!

-- 
Robb Kane (robb@tfs.com) | Triarchy - 1: government by three persons   2: a 
TRW Financial Systems    | country under three rulers   3: A large, elegant,
Berkeley, California     | full keeled sailing vessle so named for its crew.
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:11:21
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec09.195829.8886@microsoft.com>
	<MUFFY.92Dec9234317@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec11.194314.14772@microsoft.com>
	<MUFFY.92Dec11202447@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<921216181012@desire.ftp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: fks@vaxeline.ftp.com's message of Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:10:12

In article <921216181012@desire.ftp.com> fks@vaxeline.ftp.com  (Frances
K. Selkirk) writes:
   Muffy might also assume that Vicka, who has been so very clear from the
   beginning of this as to what she, personally, meant by monogamous, was
   similarly clear to her lovers about what she meant by it. 

I have indeed assumed this.

   > >I don't lie to myself or my partners.  Whatever lifestyle someone
   > >chooses, if I see them lying, I will think that that is wrong.

   Vicka does not lie to her partners either, or others. I have never
   met a more forthright person than Vicka (occasionally prickley, but
   definitely honest! *grin*). She used a word in a way you would not,
   while being completely, totally clear about that usage. Deal.

Why?  If I started using extremely insulting terms to refer to her,
claiming that I had simply "redefined" them for myself, would you say
the same thing?  I have defined "lying" to be "calling yourself
monogamous while having more than one partner."  Are you going to stop
complaining about my use of that term now?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: mbr2@quads.uchicago.edu (Curious Of All Natures)
Subject: Could anyone be poly?
Reply-To: mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Universtiy of Chicago
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 09:40:42 GMT

(Disclaimer: This is a reply by Devil's Paraphrase.  The D'ed words are
not mine.  If Phil wouldn't swallow them either, and he replies to set
himself apart from them, all the better!)

Phil writes:

>	I believe that the fundamental obstacle to polyamory is
> jealousy, and I also believe that jealousy is a fundamental part of
> some, if not most, human beings.  Certain people are jealousy- impaired;
> they don't practice it, don't understand it, or can keep it under
> control to an extent that the rest of the world cannot.  These are the
> people that can be happily polyamorous.

D Most people are not jealousy-impaired.  Such people inevitably
D experience jealousy in polyamorously-flavored situations.  This 
D jealousy inevitably makes a polyamorous lifestyle unworkable.  It is
D not possible for these people to emotionally learn and grow in ways
D that make them immune or even less susceptible to jealousy.  
D Confronting insecurities, discovering one's inner okness, evolving
D a foundation of internal happiness rather than external happiness - 
D none of these could even begin to declaw that beast.


My own words to follow.

-Matt Ryan, anyone for a game of duelling narrators,
mb-ryan@uchicago.edu                Curious Of All Natures
==================================  ====================================
If I'm dreaming, never let me wake. You'll never see the end of the road
If I'm awake, never let me sleep.   When you're traveling with me.
               -old chinese fellow                        -Crowded House     
==================================  ====================================
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: eng10276@nusunix1.nus.sg (TAM CHUAN YAP)
Subject: individualism
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:53:32 GMT


Humans today are simply too selfish and individualistic that they forgot
about the welfare of the [people around them.
From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:47:21 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

|> What you don't seem to know is that "pursuit of happiness"
|> is part of the Declaration of Independence, and thereore
|> has absolutely no legal basis nor bearing.
|> 

That's right, and it also had no legal basis nor bearing in 1776.  Ask
King George (or any Brit for that matter.)

But I feel it should be used exactly the same way today that it was in 1776.
It doesn't make any difference which side of the Atlantic Ocean the rulers
sit on, oppression is still oppression.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@cs.uofs.edu         |  This space would be left intentionally blank
                              |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Indivi
Date: 15 Dec 1992 02:55:54 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg8.corp.sun.com

Is bicycle riding a privilege?

If it were, then we would have to have a license that was issued as the
result of some sort of test that proved that we could handle this
responsibility. This is what we do with a drivers license.

Driving a car is a privilege.

Driving a bicycle is a right.

Being required to wear a helmet is an infringement of your rights. From
a constitutional perspective the governement has a responsibility to
defend your rights, not take them away.

Long ago, I asked for the help of bicyclists to defend motorcyclists in
their effort to stave off the motorcycle helmet law. Bicyclists didn't
express any interest. Now, that your rights are being removed you must
fight to defend them.

Individual rights are rarely lost in one fell swoop. Rather, they are taken 
away one-by-one when they are left unguarded.

What's next? Hang-gliding sounds is a likely target, then technical
climbing, scuba diving. What other sport do _you_ enjoy?

Left unattended, Willie Brown (the Calf. Assembly speaker, fill in the
blank for your state) will make everything but staying home and
watching his speeches on TV illegal!

Kris Skrinak
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:03:36 GMT
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) says:

>I would like to propose a newsgroup for the patriot movement in the U.S.
>This would include discussions on rights violations by legislation, gold 
>and silver as payment for debts, freedom organizations and many other basic 
>US Constitutional topics.
>
>Thanks
>-- 
>Brian Sheets		    _   /|  	"TRUCK?! What truck?"
>153 N. Hayden Bay Dr.	    \`o_O'    	 
>Portland, Or 97217	      ( ) 	   -Raiders of the Lost Ark
>brians@atlastele.com           U
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: individualism
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:55:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.035332.18723@nuscc.nus.sg> eng10276@nusunix1.nus.sg (TAM CHUAN YAP) writes:
}
}Humans today are simply too selfish and individualistic that they forgot
}about the welfare of the [people around them.

Is this a joke?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Indivi
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:50:22 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <liqi9qINNra@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak) writes:
|> Is bicycle riding a privilege?
|> 
|> If it were, then we would have to have a license that was issued as the
|> result of some sort of test that proved that we could handle this
|> responsibility. This is what we do with a drivers license.
|> 
|> Driving a car is a privilege.
|> 
|> Driving a bicycle is a right.
|> 

Be careful what you ask for, for you just may get it.

There are a number of places right now that REQUIRE the registration of
bicycles for just this reason.  They are basicly claiming it is yet another
priveledge granted to you by the state and as such can be controlled by the
state any way they wish.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@cs.uofs.edu         |  This space would be left intentionally blank
                              |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
From: Star.One@f88.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Star One)
Sender: Jpunix@urchin.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Freedom, Social Responsi
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:17:16 -0500

JS>From: jas@miro.com (Jim Shankland)
JS>Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty, alt.activism,
JS>alt.individualism, rec.bicycles.misc, talk.politics.misc
JS>Subject: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
JS>Reply-To: jas@miro.com (Jim Shankland)

JS>In article <lihr6aINNce5@spim.mti.sgi.com>
JS>mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
JS>>The ladder example is always a good one.  I hear complaints that
ladder
JS>>companies have to label the ladder saying that you should not use
the
JS>>top rung.  Why the hell is the rung there if it should be obvious
that
JS>>it is not safe to use it?

JS>That's an easy one.  If they removed the top rung, the current
second
JS>rung would become the top rung, and therefore be unsafe; so they'd
JS>have to remove it, which would make the current third rung the top
JS>one, hence unsafe ....  It's easy to see that all rungs would have
JS>to be removed, leaving only two long, wooden poles.  Which might or
might
JS>not be safe, depending on what they're used for.

Well you could pole vault to the roof but it's really hard to wrap
yourself around a pole and hold the paintbrush\can at the time time.
You have the strangest tendency to flip over like a possume!
___
 X OLX 2.1 X Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

Newsgroups: alt.guitar
From: kew@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (steve.w.askew)
Subject: Re: Brian Setzers sound on Stray Cat Strut
Summary: What Brian Plays
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:13:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.181328.16136@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, bky@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (william.a.stafford) writes:
>    I have been trying to learn Stray Cat Strut and I have become extremely
> frustrated because no amount of tweaking will get my Strat to sound like
> whatever Brian Setzer is playing on Stray Cat Strut.
>    Does anyone know what he plays on this song?
>    Does he use any effects?
>    Is it possible to get a Strat to produce this 'Setzer' sound?
> Thanks in advance.
> -=[]=-=[]=--=[]=-=[]=--=[]=-=[]=--=[|]=-=[]=--=[]=-=[]=--=[]=-=[]=--=[]=-=[]=-
> Wm. A. Stafford                     |

	I think Brian Setzer is fond of Gretch 3 inch hollowbody's with 
	Bigsby. Maybe a 50's Club model or 50's Country Gentleman is what 
	he's using equiped with Filtron pickups. Brian is a retro kinda guy 
	and probably limits his effects to reverb, vibrato/tremelo, echoplex.


	Steve
	Doin That Blues ThAng!
From: dcd30@yellowjacketcd.amdahl.com (Dan C. Devou)
Newsgroups: alt.guitar
Subject: GIBSON ES125
Keywords: Guitar
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:47:11 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Can anyone help with dating my 125 serial # 2287_9.  It was purchased
used in 1959.
Newsgroups: alt.guitar,rec.music.makers.guitar
From: bgray1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Brandon)
Subject: Re: anyone seen a STRAT ELITE for sale?
Organization: Only represent myself...
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:42:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.225914.1@wharton.upenn.edu>, hsu22@wharton.upenn.edu
writes:
> 
> After recently failing to jump on one quick enough, I am now eagerly
> seeking a good condition Fender Strat Elite.  I would like to know, even
> if you don't own one, if you happen to be in a store and see one.  They
> are easily recognizable--the pickups are squared off on the ends, they have
> three push-buttons instead of the typical five way switch, and have a 
> funky looking locking bridge.  Please e-mail to:
> 
> Calvin Hsu
> Hsu22@wilma.wharton.upenn.edu
> 
     Of course, if you're Ty Tabor then you can have two or three guitar
companies design you these guitars precisely to your own personal
preferences ... I do recall actually seeing two of them in the Dallas/Ft.
Worth metroplex in August.  They were in moderately good condition, and I
believe the dealer was asking some $400 for the first one, and $600 for the
second one because it had a maple neck (they claimed this was unusually
rare, but I didn't particularly believe them...maybe someone else out there
knows...).  Anyway, I've played on quite a few Strats, aand I did like this
model...nice thick neck, the fret radius didn't seem nearly as curved as on
the re-issues, and the body was much heavier than I remember most Strats
being...all in all a nice guitar to add to your collection, although I
would probably stick with an American Standard for a first Strat...who
knows, perhaps if Fender were willing to build me a nice new Elite with a
rosewood neck and Sunburst finish...


Newsgroups: alt.guitar
From: pkor@phoenix.oulu.fi (Pasi Korhonen)
Subject: Re: Need help spending some money.
Organization: Ripoff Industries
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 09:46:06 GMT


: In article <1992Dec9.120843.26299@ms.uky.edu>, iguana@mik.uky.edu  writes:

: > I would really like to get my hands on a used lefty Paul Reed Smith
: > or a used lefty Gibson 335. I know where I can get these new, but
							   -------

	Where can you get a lefty PRS ? I thought that they don't make
	lefties at all ? 

	Pasi	
	

--
 p a s i   k o r h o n e n             p k o r @ p h o e n i x . o u l u . f i


 saaristonkatu 3 A 6      90100 oulu     finland,europe     tel:358-81-377 81
Newsgroups: alt.guitar
From: US30139@VM.CC.LATECH.EDU
Subject: Re: SleepWalker Movie slide song ?
Organization: Louisiana Tech University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:22:03 CST

In article <1992Dec15.024133.21934@cabezon.uucp>
larryh@cabezon.uucp (Larry Huntley) writes:
 
>In article <ROUSSEAF.92Dec11181654@saguenay.IRO.UMontreal.CA> rousseaf@saguenay.IRO.UMontreal.CA (Francois Rousseau) writes:
>>I've heard in a movie named SleepWalker, near the end, a
>>great pedal steel (I think) song. It was very slow and passionate. The
>>scene where it is heard actually shows one of the main actor putting
>>a 45' rpm on an old stereo (before eating a young lady...).
>>
>>I've heard this ballad before, it's an oldie, may be a classic. It's
>>instrumental. What is the title ?
>
>    That would be "Sleepwalk" by Santo and Johnny.  Jeff Beck has
>    covered this, which may be the version that was used in the movie.
>    The Beck version can be found in the "Beckology" boxed set; the
>    original must be on some "Oldies" compilation somewhere.
>
 
        Methinks the original Beck cover is found on the _Porky's Revenge 2_
        soundtrack.  The movie stunk, but it's a great soundtrack.  Dave
        Edmunds produced it, and Edmunds, Beck, the Fabulous T-Birds, et al,
        are all on it.  Look in the bargain bins.
 
        mikejames (US30139@VM.CC.LATECH.EDU)
 
Xref: sparky alt.guitar:10935 rec.music.makers.guitar:987