HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joeo@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:41:04 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <715922557@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.002927.18462@ultb.isc.rit.edu> 
> kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>>But what if *no one*, both biological parents included, 
>>want to support this child?  
> 
> Have you ever heard about adoption?
> 
> Do you know what the length of adoption waiting lists for
> newborn babies?
> 
> (I suggest "choice for men" long before the baby will be born so
> the woman will have the choice of abortion or the time to look
> for the kind of adoption (e.g. open) she might want.)

	The length of adoption waiting lists for WHITE babies.  That is an 
important distinction because in the U.S. the majority of aborted babies 
and unwanted babies are black.

						JoEo
						Joe Orenstein
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:44:16 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:

>robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
>>kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>>
>>>I think it is a pretty sad person who can't enjoy this.
>>
>>	I think it is a pretty *aware* person who can't enjoy this.

>Sorry, but I'm with Ken...you have to be a pretty uptight person not to
>be able to laugh at stuff like that Seminars for Men list. Both my SO
>and I thought it was a hoot!

	I *did* laugh.  I had other simultaneous emotions about the unfairness
of a society that will permit this humor passed around in a business
environment, that would consider an opposite list as grounds for dismissal.

	The list was funny.  All good satire is funny.  That doesn't stop it
from being many other things as well, and some of those can overpower the
positive elements of humor.  I think it's very important to be able to laugh
at yourself; I think there's something wrong when you're expected to be
able to laugh at yourself by someone who who wants to make fun of you who
is not similarly prepared to laugh at themselves.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: bowling and child support
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:07:16 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <3672@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>In article <2488@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>>Why was the support payment singled out as the culprit? 
>
>	Well, if Bubba owes me $100.00 and I'm broke, I don't say "Gee,
>I'm broke 'cause I didn't win the lottery" I say "I'm broke 'cause Bubba
>said he'd pay me by Friday and it's already Sunday..."

If Bubba is your only source of income, you have more problems than trying
to find someone else to blame.

BTW, I have a friend named Bubba and he says he don't owe you no money ;^)

>>Why then didn't she say, "I can't go bowling because I don't make enough"?
>>Add to what she did the fact that she is possibly telling her child that
>
>	Duane, you're building strawmen and you know it.  In the same way
>that it trivializes rape when she claims that "6 weeks ago he put his hand
>on her leg and she didn't want him to, the rapist" it trivializes the
>real problems with this system when you pull this kind of stuff.
>									wr

Is it a straw man when I have seen it and experienced it in my own life?

Sorry wharfie, this is another aspect to the blaming that goes on inside
the system. Matter of fact, the judge told my ex to stop telling my son
that I was to blame for his mother's financial crises. Seeing as how I
actually paid the support when I was financially capable of doing so.

When my electricity or phone was cut off because I couldn't pay, it wasn't
because I had to pay child support. It wasn't because I had to pay lawyer's
fees in order to even see my son. It was because I didn't make enough
money or I didn't budget it well. Goose and gander time.

I ask again, why is it the support check and not her paycheck that is
short?

-- 
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
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Summary: turnabout is fair play ?
Keywords: rec.arts.tv.soaps, male bashing
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:26:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.160742.13253@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
> In article <1992Sep7.223656.11081@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> )
> )I completely forgot I had this downloaded to my PC.  My wife likes
> )soaps so I download articles from rec.art.tv.soaps for her.  Saw this
> )one and thought I should share it.  There's a lot of male bashing going
> )on out there and this one is more gratuitious then most - I mean it has
> )NOTHING to do with the newsgroup.  I'm sure if we men came up with our
> )own list we'd be accused of being terrible people.
> 
> I'm not so sure about that.  Especially if you just turn this list around.
> These stereotypes usually cut both ways.
> 
> )SEMINARS FOR MEN:
> )
> )Once again, the female staff will be offering courses to men of all
> )marital status.  Please note, the names of some of the courses have
> )been changed.  Attendance in at least 10 of the following courses is
> )mandatory.
> )
> ) 1.  Combatting Stupidity
> ) 2.  You Too Can Do Housework
> ) 3.  PMS - Learning When to Keep Your Mouth Shut
> ) 4.  How to Fill an Ice Tray
> ) 5.  We do not Want Sleazy Underthings for Christmas.  GIVE US MONEY.
> ) 6.  Understanding the Female Response to your Coming in Drunk at 3am
> 
> etc
> 
> /* set parody on */
> 
> SEMINARS FOR WOMEN
> 
> Once again, the male staff will be offering courses to women of all
> marital status.  Please noe, the names of some of the courses have
> been changed.  Attendance in at least 10 of the following courses is
> mandatory.
> 
> 1.  Combatting Stupidity
> 2.  You too can earn a salary
> 3.  PMS - Learning how to control your emotions
> 4.  How to mow the lawn.
> 5.  We do not want Neckties for Christmas.  GIVE US MONEY  (See course #2)
> 6.  Understanding the Male responce to your large department store bills.
> 


you are preaching to the choir - come up with about 20 more an dost
to rec.arts.tv.soaps (predominantly women I think) and see the
laughter fly.

marc colten

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 22:08:05 GMT

Aaron H wrote:
  "I think EuStress has told us that his ex- wants him out of the
   picture completely.  She doesn't want to see or hear from him 
   - ever again." 

Bob K. Replied
  "Not exactly. 'Euie' wants out and she's agreed."

Both are right.  She has repeatedly expressed that
she does not want my heathen-deadbeat ass around.
Plus I don't want to force myself (using our great 
laws) into her home.

I want the preaboption parental termination (sans 
adoption) as outlined in the Utah State Code.
But I can't have it, because courts force "family 
values".   So instead, I avoid my financial gang 
rapers -- by hiding my Social Security Number from 
the government.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Molly Yard, hyenas and lions
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:30:47 GMT

RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>
>    In 1989, after  the Webster decision,  Molly Yard, visibly  upset, said
>    "sixteen years ago, the women  of America sent a message...".   Now the
>    important event that  took place sixteen  years earlier, was  the Roe v
>    Wade decision, which was a decision by  nine MEN. It was NOT in fact  a
>    message from the women of America  at all, many of whom are  opposed to
(...)

I think she was referring to - Norma McCorvey (?) (Jane Roe),
whose case it was, and allowing her to stand for women in general.
Xref: sparky soc.men:16194 alt.sex:28786
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.sex
Subject: Birth control failures (Was: Impact of the absent father)
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:18:44 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#2) Women have several very safe (99%) birth control methods, such
#   as the Pill, Norplant and the diaphragm.  Still, quite a few 
#   people (I included) are pro-choice for women even if she has 
#   never used birth control and she had 15 abortions before.

In article <1992Sep9.183919.22136@colorado.edu> 
fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>    Ah, last I heard, the diaphragm was statistically much worse than
>    condom, around 75% or something.

From a Consumer Reports, when birth controls are used *properly*:
1) Condom - 95% effective.
2) Contraceptive foam - 98% effective.
3) Diaphragm - 97% effective.
4) Sponge - slightly less effective than the diaphragm.
5) The combination Pill - 99% effective.
6) The minipill (lower dosage of hormones) - 97%-98% effective. 
7) IUD - 97%-98% effective.  (Note that IUD is very easy to use, properly.)

All this data convinces the "no choice for men" feminists that women
should have a choice in a case of birth control failure, but men 
should have no such choice...
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:58:14 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:

>I think it is a pretty sad person who can't enjoy this.

	I think it is a pretty *aware* person who can't enjoy this.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
From: stafford@msus1.msus.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: where do we come together
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:42:35 -0600
Organization: Minnesota State University System


When so many conflicts arise concerning the bonding or compatibility of
men and women, I've got to ask: is there not already a bonding among
all humankind which already exists albeit obscured by convention?  And
by contrast, assuming that such a premise is impractical in everyday
contemporary life, then why we should expect compatibility to exist at
all?
 
A popular, perhaps poetic, assumption seems to be that men and women
have some 'natural' affinity and another seems to derive from a
'necessary' affinity.  Two assumptions _typically_ represent the range
of arguments: on the one hand, the naturalists assume that the
differences evince an imperative that bonding that will yield
_congruence_ and the other assumes a difference which has been unfairly
imposed and must be _defeated_.

In our tiny lifetimes we tend to move toward challenges and the two
mentioned above seem worthy.  Where, if anyone dares, would you draw
the line?  Where does the poetry of everyday life separate from the
political?  Where do we come together?


Xref: sparky soc.men:16289 soc.women:16453 alt.romance:11368
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.romance
Subject: Re: Chiro-quackery (was: Backrubs and Body Massages)
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:20:06 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: sci.med,sci.skeptic
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

Gee, what does this have to do with any of the listed newsgroups?  Note
followup line.

In article <BuDKHE.4rn@belay> buick@belay (Patrick D. Buick) writes:
>For the training they receive, I'd place a chiropractor up there with
>physiotherapists, recreation therapists, massage therapists etc.  These
>are generally considered by the medical community to be "specialists"
>to whom referrals are regularly given.  Compare the training.

And, guess what!  Sometimes, physicians DO refer patients to chiropractors,
but only when they are sure that the chiropractor is just going to do 
manipulation and not claim to do anything more.

The problem is that chiropractors frequently (i.e., a lot of them do this)
get the idea that they have the Power to go beyond merely limbering up your
joints and diagnose and cure everthing from cancer to asthma with everything
from coffee up your ass to balloons up your snout.  There's also this mythical
malady of spinal misalignment (or subluxations or whatever) which is purely 
invented.  Your back is SUPPOSED to slosh around a bit.  That's why you don't
snap in two every time you bend down to tie your shoes, get it?  And if 
your trapezius or your latissimus dorsi get overworked or pulled, OF COURSE 
your spine is not going to be ramrod straight for a few days, and it shouldn't
take an extraordnary amount of cogitation to figure out why.

If chiropractors only claimed to be able to do what manipulation can really do, 
they'd be called physical therapists, and nobody would mind.

If chiropractors took the time to get sufficient medical training to justify
their diagnoses, they'd be called osteopaths, and nobody would mind.

However, what chiropractors typically do is take a knowledge of anatomy less
than an average registered nurse, call themselves Doctor, advertise themselves
on the teevee as primary care practicioners, and try to get people to come in
for regular spinal examinations at twenty-five bucks a pop.  

Some people do mind this.

-EMP
Xref: sparky soc.men:16088 soc.women:16273 alt.child-support:3086
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 8 Sep 92 06:34:18 EST
 <1992Sep7.094652.3937@desire.wright.edu> <1992Sep8.002652.15573@smds.com>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep8.002652.15573@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
> In article <1992Sep7.094652.3937@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep7.001738.5101@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
> 
>>> Actually, there is something fundamentally wrong with a system where
>>> officials [judges] with the full punitive power of the state behind
>>> them make binding decisions "for the good of parties involved" without
>>> making an independent determination of the facts.
> 
>>Mr. EuStress also claims he only makes $4000 a year.  Seems to me that either
>>he is lying about his income (where upon the IRS would be VERY interested in
>>him), or he is really just laying around doing nothing.  $4000 a year comes
>>down to $80 a week.  Working in Burger King or McD's, he'd make at least twice
>>that!
> 
> That's as it may be.  I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. EuStress is a candidate
> for the funny farm -- his postings do seem to have a bizarre air about them.
> However my point was not about whether one particular person is telling
> the truth, or has received a fair shake.  In an individual case, when
> someone yells foul, one has to look at particulars.  My point was that
> a system where rulings are made without ascertaining the situation is
> unjust, even if it produces a fair result by chance.
> -- 
> Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
> US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
> In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
> Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.

I have some serious problems about Mr. EuStress's postings.  Sometimes he
talks about 'accidently' leaving his sperm in a woman who lied to him about
her birth control, then he talks about his 'children' (?) living in a 
$70,000 house.  (BTW, in most places, *MOST* houses cost $70,000, unless it
is in a really bad neighborhood.  At least it's that way, here in the mid-west
where housing is quite affordable.)

Sue
Xref: sparky soc.men:15976 soc.women:16176
From: daveh@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: rape and child support
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:43:36 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana


Mr. Eustress writes: 
>     Child-Support *IS* Financial-Rape and it
>     *IS* as bad as Sexual-Rape.
>     
Have you ever been raped 
Have you ever been raped? I can virtually garauntee that you haven't
judging by your post. If you ever want to be anything more than an
arrogant fool go to your local library and read a few things by people
who have survived rape.

Dave Hinman
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Keywords: rec.arts.tv.soaps, male bashing
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:08:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.160742.13253@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.223656.11081@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>)
>)I completely forgot I had this downloaded to my PC.  My wife likes
>)soaps so I download articles from rec.art.tv.soaps for her.  Saw this
>)one and thought I should share it.  There's a lot of male bashing going
>)on out there and this one is more gratuitious then most - I mean it has
>)NOTHING to do with the newsgroup.  I'm sure if we men came up with our
>)own list we'd be accused of being terrible people.
>
>I'm not so sure about that.  Especially if you just turn this list around.
>These stereotypes usually cut both ways.
>
>)SEMINARS FOR MEN:
>)
>)Once again, the female staff will be offering courses to men of all
>)marital status.  Please note, the names of some of the courses have
>)been changed.  Attendance in at least 10 of the following courses is
>)mandatory.
>)
>) 1.  Combatting Stupidity
>) 2.  You Too Can Do Housework
>) 3.  PMS - Learning When to Keep Your Mouth Shut
>) 4.  How to Fill an Ice Tray
>) 5.  We do not Want Sleazy Underthings for Christmas.  GIVE US MONEY.
>) 6.  Understanding the Female Response to your Coming in Drunk at 3am
>
>etc
>
>/* set parody on */
>
>SEMINARS FOR WOMEN
>
>Once again, the male staff will be offering courses to women of all
>marital status.  Please noe, the names of some of the courses have
>been changed.  Attendance in at least 10 of the following courses is
>mandatory.
>
>1.  Combatting Stupidity
>2.  You too can earn a salary
>3.  PMS - Learning how to control your emotions
>4.  How to mow the lawn.
>5.  We do not want Neckties for Christmas.  GIVE US MONEY  (See course #2)
>6.  Understanding the Male responce to your large department store bills.


Now, THIS is an appropriate (and more entertaining) response!
(I found both versions humorous and offensive.)

I thought the fact that the male-bashing comes from *rec.art.tv.soaps* 
to begin with  was itself a telling, reverse satire!

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: valenMatt_Valentine
Subject: Vasectomy?
Reply-To: valentin@next3.corp.mot.com
Organization: MOTOROLA 
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:42:53 GMT

I know I should ask a doctor, but does anyone know of any type of  
reversible vasectomy that would enable someone to be fertile again in,  
say, ten years?

How painful is the initial procedure?
Xref: sparky soc.men:16410 soc.women:16583
From: nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:37:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fordham University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
X-Posted-From: mary.fordham.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1617@idacrd.UUCP>, desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes...
>Leonard J. Nissim <nissim@mary.fordham.edu> writes:
>>A *basketball* team has a record of six wins and nine losses in its first
>>fifteen games.  How many games in a row must this team win, beginning
>>with its sixteenth game, to rise to a winning percentage of 55% ?
> 
>>    If this is the best example they could come up with, then the test
>>is *not* biased at all.  Points: 1.  One need know nothing about
>>basketball to answer this question.  One needs to solve the equation
>>6+x=0.55(15+x).  The solution is x=5.
> 
>This is not correct.  The problem is not just solving the equation
>6+x=0.55(15+x), but formulating the equation.  This can be experimentally
>tested by giving some students the question as posed, and some students
>the question of solving the equation.  I'm sure that many more will get
>the question right if they are given the equation.

I agree.  The ability to solve the equation is necessary; that is all my
post said.  The ability to solve the equation is not sufficient; the test
taker must also generate the equation.   

> 
>It seems completely plausible that, in general, more boys than girls
>routinely follow sports scores and make use of such statistics, and thus
>boys will have a better understanding than girls that "winning percentage"
>can be computed as 100*wins/(wins+losses).  This can also be
>experimentally tested, by observing if there is in fact a gender bias in
>the scores on such questions which is not present on questions without
>sports-statistic content.

I disagree.  It has nothing to do with any sport.  Only the definition 
of a percentage is needed, as 100*(cases you're interested in / total cases)
Anyone who gets through high school without knowing the definition of a 
percentage is indeed lacking in mathematical background.

> 
>>2.  Basketball, at the high school and college level, is played by both
>>men and women anyway.
>>3.  Replace *basketball* with *field hockey*.
>>4.  Replace *basketball* with *4-dimensional Martian-steam-polo*.
> 
>These points are not germane.  The issue is not basketball, it is
>familiarity with the statistics.
> 
These points are germane, because those who complained about the question 
specifically said it was biased because basketball was a boys'.  I don't 
believe that the definition of a percentage should be called "statistics";
I would call it "junior high school arithmetic" at most.  

>                                        David desJardins

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard J. Nissim  (nissim@mary.fordham.edu)   
Disclaimer:  "I speak only for myself."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------