HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate speech okay, Supreme Court says
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:57:07 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul21092147@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>
>	Once again, Nilges displays his howling ignorance of the
>	concept of "prior restraint". It is NOT illegal to shout
>	"fire" in a crowded theater, however if there is no fire
>	and the act of shouting causes injuries and/or damages,
>	the shouter may be held liable for the act. 

Prior restraint has nothing to do with it.  It is a reduction to
absurdity to argue, as the SC did in the Viktora decision, that any act
that may remotely be construed as speech must receive First Amendment
protection, just as its corollary,  that any LAW which addresses what
the SC is pleased to call "content" must receive First Amendment
censure, is absurd.  Brandeis was not arguing for or against prior restraint of
idiots like you, who might, or might not, shout "fire" in a theater
which may, or may not, be in flames, or who might, or might not, shout
"theater" in a crowded "fire."  Or whatever.  Prior restraint has
nothing to with it.  Got it?  Get it.


>
>	Nilges argues in favor, metaphorically speaking, of 
>	slapping duct tape over the mouths of theater-goers who
>	*might* shout "fire".

Oh bull shit.  I merely quoted Brandeis in support of Fish and the
constitution of our more sensible neighbors to the north: Brandeis was
stating the obvious: "there's no such thing as free speech and it's a
good thing too."  

>
>	Nonsense; the act of crossburning on someone else's
>	property is still quite illegal in several different ways
>	including but not limited to "criminal trespass".

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.

In other words, you talk of slippery slopes; but there's a positive
Vail, CO, between the actual Viktora decision and extending First
Amendment protection to any behavior whatsoever.  I'm a performance
artist or snuff filmmaker.  Laws against murder prohibit may favorite
form of speech.  Laws against insider trading directly address my
freedom of speech.  Any crime involves some text since we are textual
beings.


>
>	Perhaps Nilges could show exactly how the S.C. decision
>	voids *any* of those laws?

Done!


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: tilton@gladwrap.UUCP (Charlie Char Tilton)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: EXHIBITIONIST VS NATURIST
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:33:06 GMT

>Tom, ask yourself this, Would YOU go nude with seven naked FEMALE strangers?
>If your answer is yes (and mine sure as hell would be) then you should back
>off and not be so quick to judge your ex.

I get the feeling that we haven't heard the whole story here.  I'll be willing
to wager that somebody either got dumped when they whined/got jealous/ etc
or somebody is not telling the truth about this woman being their "ex".  It's
quite possible that somebody WANTED this woman to be their girlfriend and
got blown off when they couldn't keep the sex/nudity separate.

This seems more like a posting for soc.singles to me.

Char
Xref: sparky soc.men:13588 alt.discrimination:3711 soc.women:13961 misc.legal:14690
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.discrimination,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Males Doing it to Themselves
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:47:12 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

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


>  Does our legal system have an anti Male bias?
>  Of course it does -- it kills, fines and jails
>  men FAR FAR FAR more than women.
>     But its MALES who are doing it to themselves
>  -- due to their own competitiveness.

	Beg pardon?  Males are in competition with women to receive longer
sentences?  Male judges are in competition with each other to give men longer
sentences for the same crime than women?  What in the world do you mean?

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Xref: sparky soc.men:13557 soc.women:13930 alt.censorship:6135 talk.politics.misc:35248 alt.folklore.urban:19434 misc.legal:14672
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:44:35 GMT
  <1992Jul22.071137.18941@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

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.  Remember the "Little Buddy" stories?  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.

Too much talk of snuff films as urban legend might make them arrange
to film one!
From: mmhemsi@isrc.sandia.gov (Michelle M. Hemsing)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Doing Research on Divorces
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:29:55 GMT
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Org. 1600, Albq., NM

I am a college student writing a English research paper
about the effects of a divorce on an individual (whether
he/she be the husband, wife, child, etc.)  I am interested
in the negative effects as well as the positive ones (if
there are any).
Please respond as soon as you can, and I would appreciate
it if you could give me some background information.
For example:
	Were you the child of a divorce?
	How old were you?
	How does it effect you today?
	What is your outlook on marriage before and after
the divorce?
Any comments are welcome.  Thank you.

Sincerely Michelle
Xref: sparky soc.men:13664 soc.women:14043 alt.dads-rights:1565 alt.child-support:2217
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: 24 Jul 92 15:31:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

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

> Canadian women team up with the government to propose a new rationale
> to extract money from men.
> 
> If a married woman quits her job to raise children or maintain the
> household, her loss in seniority and competitiveness means a loss in
> income when she re-enters the job market.  This income loss represents
> a "burden of the marriage" that, in case of divorce, must be shared by
> her ex-husband, according to a report by the national Commission on the
> Status of Women and the Department of Justice.  Her ex-husband must
> shoulder his share of this burden until she re-establishes her career
> -regardless- of the time required, even if it takes the rest of her
> life.

Now, if a man had FORCED the woman to make that choice, then this would
make sense. Since that isn't the case... well, it makes absolutely none.
Of course, I'm a man, so what would I know.

This seems to go hand in hand with the press release yesterday which
claimed that men were "wholly responsible for the spread of AIDS." The
statement which stood out to me in that revelation regarded men who
had affairs with mistresses or used prostitutes and brought the disease
home to their wives.

"...and I think to myself, what a wonderful world."


---
Bob Kirkpatrick  --  Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
root@dogear.spk.wa.us           bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
Xref: sparky soc.men:14021 soc.women:14437 alt.dads-rights:1698 alt.child-support:2344
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:41:56 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In article <1992Jul30.205332.27482@news.nd.edu> slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu 
(susan larsen) writes:

>And, as Bronis pointed out, poorer women will get nothing out of 
>this new scheme to relocate dollars. 

I don't think I'd state it that strongly.  There are many entry-level 
jobs that aren't dead end.  For example, she worked for a couple 
years at the cash register at Burger Heaven, then quit to raise the 
kids for 15 years.  The divorce judge decides that, had she stayed on 
the job, she most likely would have been a manager by now, with a 
considerably higher income than she'll have when she re-enters, 
back at the register.  That difference, integrated from divorce until 
retirement (with reasonable attenuation), could still translate into a 
whopping settlement.  In other words, it's the potential difference, 
not the actual income, that's pertinent, and there are many entry 
jobs that have enough potential to yield a sizable sum over the last 
10-20 years before retirement, -if- there were no interruptions. 

-S. Schultz
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Feminis
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:32:30 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Jul23.143912.15524@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> 
crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:

> No condemnations here of gay men, but
              
> We are not so selfish as to think of ourselves
> as more important as men - but

Interesting to see these structures in a response to a post that included:

> I am not a sexist or MPC but


************************************
I worked as a technical writer ... editing manuals ... on how to dispose 
of sewage in permafrost; we all had to wear white shirts -- that was 
mandatory -- and I was fired at the end of two weeks for spending too much 
time staring out the window.  
(Edward Abbey)
************************************ 
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Reply-To: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:57:34 GMT


In article <VIXIE.92Jul27184646@cognition.pa.dec.com>, vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>once a woman is pregnant, she has choices and options which have no parallel
>for the man.  the current basis for her having these choices at all is that
>there are some intimate and dangerous things that go on in her body to turn
>a fetus into a baby.  i'm not going to argue here and now about whether that
>basis is a good one.  i will only point out that it is the one currently in
>force and that it does not apply to the man/father at all.
>

So if it were possbile to transplant a fetus into a surrogate mother, your 
opinion would be that after that fetus is born, you would have no problem
with charging the genetic mother with child support to support the baby.  
This case would be identical to the situation a man is put into. 

>_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.

During the pregnancy the mother has the choice of whether BOTH persons will 
become parents.  The father has no choice whatsoever.  

--
___________________________________________________________________________
Thomas Walsh 		walsh@via.enet.dec.com		Nashua, NH

:opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employers
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Re: Garvin Hallucina (2)
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:46:15 GMT
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)


	Will writes :
	I know that this isn't strictly my business, but I am going to blatantly
	admit my ignorance as to how a man can be raped.  I am *not* saying that
	I disbelieve you, because in fact I *do*, but I am wondering about the
	question of - What happened?
	-------------------------------------

	Will....

	Just a reminder:  The women's movement has successfully enlarged
	the definition of rape up to and including "being pressured or
	coerced into engaging in sex" in other words, unwanted sex.  A
	form of date or aquaintance rape.

	The average woman can involve themselves in this type of 'rape'
	almost as easily as a man.

	In fact, one of my earliest sexual encounters was with a woman
	that was both older and bigger than I was (I was a teenager then)
	and basically, she just "took me"....  would have been rape, except
	I decided to enjoy it instead :-)

	-Mike-
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: N020BA@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Subject: Re: e
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 05:09:19 GMT

   Please do not post in all caps. Your article was almost impossible to read!
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:30:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.dads-rights
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <1992Jul28.200201.12268@ntmtv>, irvine@ntmtv.UUCP sez:
>In article <VIXIE.92Jul27184646@cognition.pa.dec.com>, vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>|> 
>> once a woman is pregnant, she has choices and options which have no parallel
>> for the man.  the current basis for her having these choices at all is that
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> there are some intimate and dangerous things that go on in her body to turn
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> a fetus into a baby.  i'm not going to argue here and now about whether that
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>Who says that this is the "current basis"?  [etc.]

All *terribly* innaresting.  Please continue this discussion SOMEWHERE
BESIDES MISC.LEGAL, in which it does not belong.


-- 
      I am George Bush, miwwionaire.  I own a mansion and a yacht.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky soc.men:13813 soc.women:14234 alt.dads-rights:1620 alt.child-support:2269
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:58:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <5ysooB2w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:
>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.
>
 Hmm, I haven't been following this really closely and I dont know
 where you're posting from but in Colorado, there are exemptions for
 being underemployed where it is for the purpose of education, retraining
 and such where there will be a forseable point in the future when the
 party will be re-employed to full capacity. I think this saved my ass or
 my ex would have probably stuck it to me just to force me to drop out of
 school.

-kelvin
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: P.C. Professors Try to Censor Anti-Feminist Book
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:15:16 GMT
Keywords: Paglia's "Sexual Personae"

In article <1992Jul23.173859.20069@athena.mit.edu> aviksroy@athena.mit.edu (Avik S. Roy) writes:
)lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
)
)) :Who is Carol Tavris?  Are we talking about a book, or articles?
)) :The nice thing about discussing whether or not gender differences are "supposed"
)) :is that they are grounded in scientific study and can't be deconstructed out of
)) :political whim.  Can you share with us some of Carol Tavris' assertions on gender
)) :differences?
))
))	You can find it all in _The Mismeasure of Woman_, which she
)) recently published.
)
)In the meantime, can you provide a synopsis?

This is a rough approximation from a quick skim:

Good news:  Men and woman are about equal in intelligence, math,
aggressiveness, etc.

Bad news:  Women aren't morally superior than men, or 'more nurturing'.

I'm not sure Travis actually used the good news/bad news terminiology,
though.

She quotes some studies to support her position, but I wasn't as impressed
by her writing as by that of Gould on the similarly named 'The mismeasure
of man', perhaps because hers is a more general and hence hard-to-prove
position that Gould's.

The book should be available in Crown bookstores (a US discount bookstore)
in hardback for a fairly reasonable price.

From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:59:13 GMT
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.men

	
	I wonder what would happen if all men insisted that their
	wives work before, during, and after having kids... (not forcing
	her.... just insisting).  This might invalidate her claims to
	any monies lost because of dropping her career...  Perhaps we
	will see the mother AND father quitting their jobs..... and
	expecting the 'state' to make up for their delayed earnings.

	It's amazing to me how some people (mostly feminists) show
	disgust for stereotyping women by assuming they have a specific
	set of domestic roles..... and then can turn around 180 degrees
	and attempt to put into LAW provisions that support and
	_encourage_ stereotypical treatment of women (and for that matter,
	the stereotyping of men... as money factories... and little else).

	Forget the studies... forget common sense....  kids don't need
	fathers...  all they need is a mother and a steady flow of 
	cash.   And women claim second class status...   what a bunch
	of crap.

	-Mike-
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: power, sex, and astrology
Date: 18 Jul 92 18:55:45 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

> In article <32_mrvm.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer
> )In article <3258@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> 
> )>	Your assertion that because women on many cultures prefer 
> )>"powerful" or "dominant" men this indicates a genetic predispostion to
> )>this choice remains...incorrect... to say the least.
> )
> )To call it "unproven" would be justified. But calling it "incorrect"
> )is not, because that implies that *you* have final proof about something
> )that socio-biologists have been debating for decades.
> 
> I have the same sort of negative feelings about saying that women have
> a genetic desire to be dominated that I do about, for example, claims that
> the earth is currently being visited by aliens and the military is hushing
> it all up.  I can't disprove either one, but a lack of the ability to
> conclusively and ultimately disprove something is no reason to believe it.

        And this business about women wanting to be dominated has been used 
in the past to either justify or lessen the heinousness of rape. Such 
histories should serve as caution to those who would make such sweeping 
generalizations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"Best Reason Not to Vote for Perot-- If he wins, it might encourage Bill 
Gates to run." 
Xref: sparky soc.men:13968 soc.women:14401 alt.censorship:6516 alt.politics.correct:4896
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:29:01 GMT
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

patrick.b.hailey writes
> By forcing working humans to fork over their earnings to the program.
>  . . .
> You obviously don't believe this, as you've just proposed forcing me and you
> to support this kid.  Or do you think Social Security money comes straight
> from God?

    Social security reflects the national attitude that kids
    should be supported  -- A national attitude is not
    an individual attitude.  The country WILL ALWAYS support 
    kids an individual has the RIGHT to not support.
    The country is not FORCED to support kids -- it chooses
    to support them. Countries are VERY predictable -- 
    individuals are very unique.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: samurai@uriel.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy Brockbank)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:42:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.024431.1214@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu  
(Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> In article <1992Jul27.221249.11640@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John  
Stevens) writes:
> >be illegal.  If it isn't illegal to steal the probable future of a
> >baby, why is it illegal to steal the probable future of a child, or
> >adult?
> 
> Because, by doing so you're STEALING THE CURRENT LIFE OF A WOMAN!

Right. You're both right... it's not a black and white issue. You've
got on the one hand, a fetus with a right to live, and a mother with
a right to live. 

The only problem that I see is determining WHEN the right of the one
being outweighs the right of the other. Surely, when the child is
due to be born in 10 mins, it's very much wrong to abort it. There's
essentially no difference between that and aborting it 10 minutes
after it's born (and killing newborns is frowned apon by our
society :-).

Surely, when the fetus is a collection of 8 cells, it is NOT a 
capable human being. It's not much different from the sperm and
egg that joined to make it. At this point, I'm sure the mother's
right outweighs the fetus'. 

So I think that the mother should be allowed her decision up until
the gray area in between those two states. At that point, it is
the government's responsibility to protect the life of the child,
and thus dis-allow the abortion of the fetus.

I can't say what the gray area is, or at what time it occurs, as
I'm not a philosopher, lawmaker or a scientist trained to figure
that out.

I just don't see it as a black and white issue, where it's WRONG
or RIGHT... 

Anyway, I'm sure I'll be flamed by everyone for this...

- db

--
-------
I always thought that NeXTStep was very good in its approach to color since
the tasteless are protected from their own stupidity. -- Jason Breckenridge
(I know Jason, Jason is a close personal friend of mine, and I am not Jason!)
Newsgroups: soc.men