HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: waldo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Todd J. Dicker)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: Athletics over Academics at CU, surely not.dir
Date: 19 Dec 92 23:10:24 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

turnerbl@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes:

> Sorry to hear about the death of academics at your school.  We in academics
> continue to suffer from the golden rule, those that bring in the gold, make t
> rules.  It applies to all segments of our world.  It is sad but true. 
> Eventually, all of our big time colleges and universities will become nothing
> but farm leagues for organized athletics.  
> 
> The worst thing that happens is that athletics pretends to "return" to the
> school monies earned from tv and radio.  I really wish the lying would stop a
> that we culd all admit that we just suck these kids in, use them and discard
> them at alarming rates and keep the money in our athletic departments.  
> 
> While I am afraid to tread on toes here, might I remind all of us the % of
> those discarded students who are non-white?  The rate is horrific.  I am
> appaled.  Chech the Chronicle of Higher Ed for the stats.  Even I was amazed,
> and our school is average.  *sigh*
> 
> Brian Turner
> Admissions Officer
> University of Cincinnati
> College of Design, Architecture, Art, & Planning


Perhaps you'll be happy to hear that Clinton's new Health and Human
Services Secretary is Donna Shalala, Chancellor of the University of
Wisconsin - Madison (45,000 students).  She is credited for standing
up to the alumni and sports fans in favor of strict academic standards
for all athletes (she refused to graduate illiterates simply because
they play ball).

She did an outstanding job at my alma mater, and I'm sure that her
appointment to the Cabinet has been based, at least in part, on her
views toward education and public management.  It's refreshing to
see someone in D.C. get appointed based on qualifications and
abilities rather than political friendships.
Newsgroups: soc.college
From: cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Cousin It)
Subject: Re: creating a fraternity newsgroup
Organization: News.groups Junkies
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 10:04:41 GMT

fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy) writes:

|3) decrease in the "greeks suck! do not! do too!"
| flamewars.

	Ha! Please, it would not decrease the flames, it would
increase the flames dramatically. just because a group has the word
fraternity in it doesn't mean it is the property of said sect.

|So what does everyone say?  I don't have the 
| resources to run a vote, would anyone like to
| get this started?  We could start the vote in
| January + be done by February.

	A) Propose a name.
	B) discuss here (especially if your going to rename this
group)
	C) If opinions are favorable, Run an official RFD (Request for
Discussion) in news.groups.
	D) After a minimum of 3 weeks of discussion, if you want to go
ahead and run the vote, run an official CFV (Call for votes) in
news.groups (and other affected newsgroups). If you don't do these
steps (especially C & D), the vote will not be counted,

	Please, if you have not done so already, read the
documentation on how to create a new group in news.announce.newgroups.

Cousin It                                         cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
           Special Productions Director and Engineer
WBRS 100 FM, Waltham Ma.                   WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
All Genre Music Programming            Free Live Music-4 times weekly
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: garvey@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Heather Garvey)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: 16 Dec 1992 18:48:57 GMT
Organization: Smith Undergraduate Lab, CWRU, Cleve. OH, 44106, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: marina.scl.cwru.edu

g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>
>What word do you use to refer to male humans in general?  

	Gee, I dunno...maybe I should pull out a thesaurus...no, i'll
just try to wing it...mmmm, maybe, how about....

	MM      MM      EEEEEEEEE   NN    N
        M M    M M      EE          N N   N
        M  M  M  M      EEEEE       N  N  N
        M   MM   M      EE          N   N N
        M        M      EEEEEEEEE   N    NN

	SEEMS PRETTY FRICKIN' OBVIOUS TO *ME*!

--
						| Heather "Moose" Garvey
	"CHAD BLUNT, the BALL carrier!"		| Biochemistry - CWRU '93
		-- The entire band after 	| <hlg@po.cwru.edu>
		   any given running play	| "Wooooooah, PIZZA!"
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: streater@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:00:32 GMT

In article <Bz7nKp.7LM@rice.edu> conor@owlnet.rice.edu (Conor Frederick Prischmann) writes:

[referring to "freshman" and "first-year student"]

>
>"Infinitely less descriptive"??  I guess "first-year" must have some other
>meaning for you.  For me, and the rest of the English speaking world, they
>mean exactly the same thing.
>
Not sure I agree entirely; see my other post. Are there those from other parts
of the English-speaking world who can give their definitions of "freshman"?
(Non North-American parts, I mean).

tim.
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:31:30 GMT

In article <BzDIIu.G26@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.053521.29308@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
[...]
>>What word do you use to refer to male humans in general?  
[...]
>Coming back to your question, no doubt you wanted me to answer "men". 
>Well, as I said earlier, "men" is used to indicate "men" and "women"
>as well. The predominant usage is to indicate the male species, of
>course. But, "men" includes women too, depending upon the context of
>the word. This usage is common  in philosophical and proverbial
>quotes. 

Right.  Also true: there is often some ambiguity; context doesn't 
always make clear what you mean, and the fact that the situation
maps rather nicely onto the marginalized status of women -- not least
in the realms of philosophy and the stuff of proverbs.

>      Compare this argument to words which have many meanings, depending
>upon the context. Just because one meaning is  conveyed more often than
>others doesn't justify your attempt to attach this meaning to the word, 
>when it used in a different context.

You mean, as with "Dialect"?  You tried to do that just the other day.
But you're right, "just because" that's true is no reason.

Of course, nobody's *given* that as a reason.  The reason given -- you
*have* been reading the posts you're replying to, right? -- is that 
the usage in question has the effect in the minds of many -- even most --
users of the language of suggesting men, and not men-and-women.  To be
sure, the speaker in question may *mean* both, but the effect of the 
word is different.

Accordingly, some people who want their meaning to get across without
ambiguity or unwanted associations avoid the "humans" meaning of "men"
because it just doesn't do what they want it to.

Roger
Xref: sparky soc.college:5606 alt.usage.english:9574
From: ebp4907@ultb.isc.rit.edu (E.B. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Comments on fraternities (was Re: Comments on G**** life)
Originator: ebp4907@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:36:03 GMT

In article <ELM.92Dec9153741@terrorism.berkeley.edu> elm@cs.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.061755.11967@njitgw.njit.edu> dcg5662@hertz.njit.edu (Dave Grabowski (KxiK)) writes:
>=>   Example: Last night, we had no toilet paper in our 2nd floor
>=>bathroom. I noticed this AFTER I did my thing on the crapper. Now, I
>=>had TWO choices: 1. Get streaks in my undies, or 2. Walk down the
>=>hall, NAKED, and get some napkins. Go ahead, try to tell me a woman
>=>wouldn't be offended by this.

>nude?  The only way to get around this problem is to bar women from
>visiting residents' rooms (at *all* times, not just overnight).
>Somehow, I don't think this is going to happen.

Seems to me, a good solution to this problem is to check for paper
*before* you sit down on the crapper. :)

>
>ethan
>--


-- 
Erica                                        | "I co-oped for Kodak and all  |
                                             |  I developed was this lousy   |
ebp4907@ritvax.isc.rit.edu                   |  cold."                       |
erica@damage.bah.rochester.ny.us             |_______________________________|
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:39:08 GMT

In article <BzABs3.37r@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.194608.22045@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
>>"Recent studies of college students and school children indicate that the broad
>>definitions of *man* and *men* [i.e. to refer to all humans and not just males],
>>although still taught, have to a significant degree become inoperative at a
>>subliminal level.  Phrases like *economic man* and *political man*, or
>>statements like 'Man domesticated animals' and 'Man is a dreamer,' it turns
>>out, tend to call up images of male people only, not female people or females
>>and males together." (p 10)
>>References:
>>"Among studies which report and discuss evidence indication that the so-called
>>generics *man* and *men* (and compounds incorporating them) are not generally
>>understood to include females are the following:
>
>[long list of references deleted]
>
>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>for the thought. 

Or is it because words such as "mankind" are the masculine counterparts of
words such as "womankind"?
>
>     Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>little purpose. As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language. 
>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. Attack the
>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.

But language reinforces the attitudes which cause the problems!
I have never said that language is the only factor in sexism, but it is a
factor.
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:49:53 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec17.092132.19098@ucthpx.uct.ac.za> heidi@ucthpx.uct.ac.za (Heidi de Wet) writes:
>mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.182343.1179@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>Sorry, Mandar, but it's *not* unrelated.  It's *not* unrelated
>>>to the *continuation* of these hardships.  
>>
>>Language isn't related to the continuation of these hardships, *people*
>>are.
>
>Yes, 'people' are related to the problem.  No, that doesn't mean language
>is unrelated.
>
>Some more set theory: if set A intersects with set B, and set B and set
>C are disjoint, that does not imply that set A does not intersect with
>set C.
>
Nor does it imply that it *does*. Your example proves exactly *nothing*.

>Language shapes thought, and therefore affects what people do.  It is
>not the only influence - I haven't seen *anyone* suggest that it is - 
>but it is nevertheless not unimportant.
>
>-- 
As I said earlier, prove it.

                                                              Mandar.

-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Xref: sparky soc.college:5814 alt.usage.english:9802
From: pelle@lk-hp-12.hut.fi (timo.pelkonen)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:28:57 GMT
Reply-To: timo.pelkonen@hut.fi
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In <12149@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.182137.18930@news.eng.convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>>From the keyboard of thf2@midway.uchicago.edu:
>>:It's a shame we don't have a third-person singular the way the Finnish
>>:do.  It would be a simple solution. 

>>We do.

>It says "the way the Finnish do".  Which is not the case for three reasons.

>Finnish _ha"n_
>    (1) is grammatically singular,
yep.

>    (2) is _only_ a third person singular pronoun,
correct...

>and (3) is part of everyone's language.
is it? ...NOT!

>English "they"
>and (3) is rejected by a large number of speakers.
same as above, i guess.

in real life (spoken language) h{n is seldomly used. i just can't recall
when i heard h{n last time - of course the "bbc" finnish used in TV is
an exception. then what do we use? it's se - i.e. se is it. talk about
non-sexist language, you are called "it" no matter are U a boy, girl, pen or
parrot. i've told this to U before, Ivan.

ob english &c: i'd like to get info on "phonetic spelling in english" i.g.
how to pronounce karaoke? it's kah-RAH-aw-keh... could someone post or
mail the PC set of these syllables, and why not their slashed equivalents
/l/i/k/e/ /t/h/i/s/ ?

tnx, timo pelkonen tee-maw pehl-kaw-nhen :)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: Sexist language
From: censtad@nic.gac.edu (Topher the Gustie)
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:13:25 -0600
Reply-To: censtad@nic.gac.edu   
Distribution: world

In article <1992Dec13.153732.29471@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  writes:
> 
> You can use 'freshman' for so many things -- such as the new members of
> Congress, etc.


Well then how about First-year member of Congress?  Same thing no cause  
for gender dispute...case settled.
Newsgroups: soc.college,soc.net-people,news.answers
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 04:41:00 GMT

In article <BzLCtr.3MI@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>Awwww....I was just changing the sentences to make them sound more
>correct, grammatically. The essence of what he wished to convey
>remains the same. 

If it's a paraphrase rather than the exact words then it shouldn't be in
quotation marks.  (In my dialect the null complementizer in place of "that"
is perfectly grammatical, and "there" is usually grammatically singular.)
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: coed again
From: censtad@dion.gac.edu (Topher the Gustie)
Date: 12 Dec 92 14:56:45 -0600
Reply-To: censtad@nic.gac.edu   

In article <1992Dec11.030015.18883@news2.cis.umn.edu>  writes:
> In article <1992Dec7.153633.2719@gacvx2.gac.edu>  
blinky@chihuacle.gac.edu (Laurie Cooper) writes:
> >	I can't believe the amount of mail written about the coed dilemma.   
> >Frankly, I haven't read any of it because it looked rather dull, but  
> >here's an uninformed viewpoint, anyway.  I am a member, one of the  
ruling  
> >regime, actually, of a coed sorority.  It's absolutely wonderful.  I  
> >couldn't imagine it any other way.  Of course, we're all underground  
right  
> >now, not that it should matter.  Do what you will, but I think the  
grass  
> >is greenest here. 
> 
> I couldn't agree less.  I was once a member of a coed fraternity.  I  
left 
> after two years because the people were hypocrites, talking endlessly  
about
> the house's high and lofty ideals of truth, love, and honor, etc., but  
not
> bothering to apply these ideals in practice.


Not to mention that Laurie's coed fraternity here at Gustavus is virtually  
unknown and not included as a Greek organization.  Funny, I am a student  
here at Gustavus (pop 2300) and I've never heard of it or its name.  What  
is it's name?
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: faust@vpnet.chi.il.us (Chad Lawson)
Subject: Need help selecting a school
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:08:56 GMT


I am in my third year at a two-year school, and I am dying to transfer,
but before I can I need to know where to go.  But with a major in
Computer Science and a minor in Theatre it's hard to find a school that
does both and is relativly cheap.

Does anyone know a school that meets my needs?

Please let me know what you can find.

Thanks,
Chad FAUST Lawson

         Chad Lawson       |                                             
        708.420.0977       |    "Imitate the action of the tiger.     
    5 S. 464 Sherman Ave.  |Stiffen up the sinews, conjure up the blood.
     Naperville IL 60563   |Disquise fair nature with hard-favored rage. 
    faust@vpnet.chi.il.us  |   Then lend the eye a terrible aspect!"     
   faust@oaknet.chi.il.us  |           -Shakespeare, Henry V 
      faust@apres.UUCP     |                                            
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 22:24:19 GMT

In article <BzFyxv.ICD@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>Yes, and sometimes people don't wish to shoot one another AT ALL. Yet
>they misunderstand each other. The responsibility of the misunderstanding
>lies in the speaker/writer as well as the listener/reader. It is the
>listener/reader's responsibility to infer the meaning of a word from
>its context. In cases where the meaning cannot be resolved from the
>context of the word, it is the speaker/writer's responsibility to
>include an explanatory note.

Or to use words that need less explaining . . .

To use a famous example - the "All men are created equal" phrase that is
the basis of the U.S.  constitution.  Was this meant to be an inclusive
or exclusive usage of the word?  The authors neglected to explain, and
the word has been interpreted in a wide variety of ways of the years
(and sometimes used to explicitely deny women equal rights).  In fact,
remembering that many of the authors of that constitution were
themselves slave owners, one can't even be sure they didn't just mean
"male whites" (and there are still those who hold this view!)

>Nor do *I* approve of it. People who deliberately misinterpret words
>are the ones at fault as are the ones who deliberately use these
>words out of context.

Am I "deliberately" misinterpreting when the word "men" brings up a
mental image of males?  This is, after the all, the most frequent usage
of the word.

Are women "men"?  Only when it suits the speaker.  Reread that sentence,
and think of how the word "men" can be used to diminish women -
deliberately or otherwise.

I have no intention of being misunderstood; therefore, I will use words
that do not so easily lend themselves to being misinterpreted,
deliberately or otherwise.

The easiest way to properly establish context, Mandar, is to use the
word that most clearly conveys my meaning, not to use a less precise
word then surround it with "this means women too!"  explananations.  If
I say "all persons are created equal", I don't have to explain that
"this means women too".

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 15 Dec 92 05:32:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: constell.BzACqt.40D
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <baron.84.724348556@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>2. chairwoman has a long history as a stigmatized term

Could you please explain why it was regarded to be a stigmatised term?

>
>Legislating language often produces resistance.  This was the case when
>chairperson was introduced here in 1975, and it clearly remains the case 
>else-where with that term of with chair.
>
>
>All the newer, sex-neutral -person compounds, have met with resistance
>and have been treated jocularly.  It is often observed that -person
>has become a euphemism for -woman, that the person referred to is
>always a woman.  
>

You're absolutely right! Changing words will do little to efface
prejudices in the minds of men. (yes, men - which includes women) :)

>
>Cheers.  
>
>--
>Dennis
>
                                                           Mandar.

-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 04:08:14 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <92355.210842HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>In article <BzL3Ft.JE5@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
>mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) says:
>>
>>In article <92355.112019HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
>>writes:
>>>
>
>>"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do.
>          ^^^^^^^^^
>"Imagine there's no countries" in the version we've all heard.
>
>>Nothing to kill or die
>> for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
>> You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
>
>That's "You-hoo-oo-oo, you may say I'm a dreamer" not "that I'm a
>dreamer".
>
>>I hope that some day you'll join us, and the world will be as one."
>
>"I hope some day you'll join us", not "that some day". Okay?
>H.

Awwww....I was just changing the sentences to make them sound more
correct, grammatically. The essence of what he wished to convey
remains the same. Next you'll be asking me to *sing* it because
mere words may not convey it as effectively as the song itself.  ;)
Hey! I am a big fan of the Beatles and of John Lennon, too!

                                                       Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english