HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Pornography and Playboy
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:23:31 GMT

In article <9207301925.AA28983@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM> dgil@IPSAINT.IPSA.REUTER.COM (Gillett, David) writes:

>     In an ideal world, the "talent" gets to pick and choose which productions
>to rent out their physique and face to.  In practice, this luxury is enjoyed by
>only a relative handful; an awful lot of "starving actors" must and will take
>whatever roles they can get.
>     That's where I have to draw the line.  Marie's attitude seems, to me, to
>equate financial need with moral inferiority, and I won't buy that.

	"This is a fair point, and it's an example of why judging
people is so much more dangerous than judging hypothetical actions.
We're all of us beset by conflicting needs and motives.  Which doesn't
necessarily make every action everyone takes justified, but certainly
most people who commit bad acts (assuming, for the sake of argument,
that we could agree on what to characterize as bad) don't do so out
of an enjoyment of malice.  If the choice is between setting back, by
a small margin, a societal cause of justice, and watching one's kids
go hungry, the choice wouldn't even be very hard.  Not that every
actress is such a noble martyr, but the point is, _we don't know_.
She knows her reasons, while we can only infer them or learn them
piecemeal.  There are times when one has to try and guess people's
motives, such as when they directly injure us, or we must determine
how much trust to place in them.  There are other times when the act
is so unambiguous that motive becomes secondary-- if someone is
committing serial homicide, the primary issue is _stopping_ him, and
whether attempting treatment or punishment or simple restraint
afterwards is the most appropriate response is secondary to that.

	"But a lot of the time, we judge people on insufficient
evidence for no good reason.  (Well, _I_ do, anyway, though I try to
control it where possible.)  We attribute motives to our allies and to
those we consider our adversaries.  In many ways, life would be
simpler if those who agreed with us always did so for motives we
approved of, and those who opposed us always did so for nasty reasons.
But such judging is perilous, because it can easily lead to supposing
that _anything_ one's own side does is justified, while _anything_
one's opponents do is base-- and that can lead to tragic results."

Michael
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Workers of the world, forgive me.
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 You had more to lose than I thought."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Karl Marx (1990) as imagined by
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Jim Koncz (konc@midway.uchicago.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: gryphon@openage.openage.com (The Golden Gryphon)
Subject: Re: The New Kid
Organization: Open Age, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:19:00 GMT

In alt.callahans you write:

>"Gosh, Gryphon, how nice of you!" In this place the New Kid gets to smile 
>with all the dimples she always wanted to have, and does so. "Here's to you, 
>and too cool beings everywhere (including all the wonderful ones who emailed 
>me the past few days)!"

>Smash, crash, band, sticky mess coating the pile of glass shards in the 
>fireplace.

>"So, how did you manage to get to become a mythical being?"

"It was a quest actually.  I never felt comfortable with a name given to me by
my parents.  I always wanted to me myself, and to have a name that I picked.
I used a few different ones over the years, but it all came together for
just before I came on the net.  I had choosen Gryphon, and a very good friend
of mine mentioned she had seen me in a dream.  She said I had a Golden aura
of energy in her dream."

"I just put it together.  Now I am The Golden Gryphon.  I think it suites me,
and so do most others.  Now I can be known by a name that I found, or found
me if you want to get esoteric."


[Please let me know if you see this. My news feed is screwy. No incomming news
in the last 36 hours.]

-- 
The Golden Gryphon 				gryphon@openage.COM
Solve a man's problem and he has 1 less.        No incumbents in 92.
Teach a man to think, and all his problems are less.
Openage - The Premier SCO UNIX integrator in the Washington D.C. area
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Tom Swifties (was Re: and stuff.. as always..)
Organization: The Cat Factory
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:04:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.200356.13037@cs.yale.edu> lower-tony@CS.YALE.EDU (Tony Lower) writes:
}
}  Manx picks up a glass of ginger-ale from the bar, and takes a
}swig.  "Well, along the lines of 'What can we do other than puns?'
}there's a sort of word-play, whose name eludes me, which involves
}the adverb at the end of a sentence.  It's really best shown by
}example:"

"They're known as 'Tom Swifties'," explains the Polymath. "They're really
a parody of the writing formula used in the Tom Swift books.  Tom never
just said anything.  He always said it '<adverb>ly'."

}He turns the board so that
}everyone can see his rather poor examples:

[ Rather good examples, actually.  Not repeated here.]

"I'll just add my personal favorite ..."

   'Actually, I'm a homosexual necrophiliac,' said Tom in dead earnest.

The Polymath returns to his table amid a rain of peanuts.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
From: Adrian.Waterworth@newcastle.ac.uk (Adrian Waterworth)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: A different observation (was Re: The Nightstalker makes an observation)
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:08:09 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

A silent, dusty figure sitting in a corner somewhere slowly begins to
stir again. Scattering loose leaf sheets of A4 paper in all directions
(many of them containing cryptic scribbles such as "Chapter 5" or "Node
Architectures Deliverable") he gradually raises himself to his feet,
with a chorus of groans, clicks and creaks from his protesting bones
and muscles.

Approaching the bar, he orders a pint of milk and drains the glass
immediately. He then walks over to stand by DM, who is currently in the
process of getting a little tired of the present "religious
discussion".

It takes a while for the long-unused throat to get back into the swing
of producing sounds, but Martyr eventually says...

"Hi everyone! And a special Hi to you, DM! At the risk of using an
inopportune phrase :

	'Amen to everything that you said.'"

"Sorry, Speaker, I've just got back on-line after a busy couple of
months and a three-week network partition, so I've only seen the last
dozen or so posts on the God/Evolution/Whatever thread. However, even
allowing for that, you seem to me to have taken the whole thing far too
seriously. I've read Nightstalker's postings and so far he doesn't seem
to have said anything sufficiently inflammatory as to justify your
rather violent reponse. Oh, and just for the record, I'm not in the
least bit religious myself and I don't know either of you personally,
so I hope that my reaction to all this is just about as objective as
you can get."

"Regardless of any rules (unwritten, imagined or otherwise) about
Callahan's not being the place for flame-wars, I think you may have
over-reacted quit spectacularly to what Nightstalker was saying."

"Of course, all of the above is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary,
as they say." ;-)

"Anyway - to Callahans! It's good to be back...leastways, I hope it
will be!"

...and the milk-stained glass sails sharply into the fireplace where,
not surprisingly, it breaks. (Hey! What'd you expect? Fireworks?)

				Martyr.

		\----------------------------------------/
		 |  Adrian.Waterworth@newcastle.ac.uk	|
		/ ---------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: ablanch@physics.su.OZ.AU (Shonias)
Subject: Re: Anti-freeze
Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:52:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.165852.1005@cs.yale.edu> lower-tony@CS.YALE.EDU (Tony Lower) writes:
>
>   Manx HAS to put his two cents in on the temperature
>debate.
>
>   "Look, DM, the simple fact is, that because of internal
>heating, and salt content in the blood, human beings do
>not freeze until below -50 C.  Anything above that is due
>to local Gulf Stream conditions, and favorable actions of
>the weather gods.  You just have an environmental disposition
>towards displeasure when the temperature falls below your
>body temp.  In other words, you're a Temperature-Wimp!"

"Count me in with the Temperature-Wimps! Anything below 18 deg
C is cold, below 16 is freezing, and below 10 is absolutely obscene.
-50 is not real. -50 is specifically designed for lunatics who
think that cold is a good idea!"

>   Aloysious, meanwhile, thinks the whole conversation is
>silly, because no matter what temperature you CAN tolerate,
>it's much more fun to curl up in front of a nice fireplace,
>even if there is the occasional thrown glass.

Shonias, on the whole, doesn't hold much truck with cats, but on
this occasion, "I'm with Aloysious!".

Shonias


--
**********************************************
Walk by my side, and follow my dreams,
And bear with my pride, as strong as it seems.
Will you be there tomorrow?
**********************************************
From: jpalmer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John D Palmer)
Subject: Re: Yet another sleepless night
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:08:32 GMT

    Abner, I've been trying to think about this one. . . 

     What's your control like?  Can you walk away from a woman you
love when she needs sex, and nothing but sex?

   "If you loved me you would."

   "It's such a little thing."
 
   "I can't get pregnant. . . the doctor told me, and I WANT children, b
I can't have them."

    "It's not like it MEANS anything."

     Until finally?

    "Wasn't that WONDEFUL?"

    No.

     I couldn't walk away.  I didn't want or need sex or intercourse. . .
but I was hooked on the love and on the making out.

     I wished I DID have a condom with me. . . it wouldn't have felt so. . . 

     Never mind.

     I'm not telling you what to do or how to live your life, because
you may be better than me. . . but at the time, I didn't see any other
way to get out of the situation.

     Abner, I respect your decision. . . but, you know, even if you think
you COULD have sex with this woman. . . well, maybe you might consider 
changing your policy.  Because not having a condom may not be enough of an
excuse for you sometimes.  It wasn't enough for me. . . I had to have a way
to get rid of her, condom or no, pregnancy or no.

                                                John

-- 
"Love is cool; I mean, like, really cool.  Like, the coolest thing in
the universe, where, like, people open up inside and show the world how
they feel, and they ain't afraid someone's gonna laugh because they, like,
love themselves already!"  --Personality 42, a generic 60's philosopher 
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:42:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Columbo re: yet another sleepless night
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.callahans


> 
>   None of it's members has ever shown
> >>the slightest interest in adopting, or even helping support, the unwanted
> >>children they would force others to have.  Once the kid is born, their
> >>interest ends.

Stephanie refered to this as one of the most thoughtful posts on
the subject.  Perhaps, but I would like to see the empirical evidence
to support the assertion that NON of 'it's' members have ever
shown the slightest interest in adopting or support.  In fact, I 
would assume that given the diversity of human thought, this statement
is self-evidently false.  Perhaps the word SOME or MOST should
have been used.

doug
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: HF.TXG@forsythe.stanford.edu (TJ)
Subject: Re: More of Nathan being Depressed. (feel free to skip this)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:04:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.213049.29967@news.iastate.edu>,
SG.MML@isumvs.iastate.edu (M. Loughin) writes:
>
>You think *that's* funny, try watching Dr. Who some time.
>Particularly with Tom Baker.  I think that show is the
>originator of Calvin and Hobbs' technology.
>
>--Marie

I *love* Dr. Who, especially with Tom Baker! It's a wonderful show,
albeit comical and a bit unbelievable. But then, so was Batman and
Batman Returns; Two movies I thoroughly enjoyed.
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: nev@Turing.ORG (Niles E. VanDenburg)
Subject: Re: Breakfast is Served!!!
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:52:34 GMT

seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:

>	The Wasp returns the kiss (Would YOU turn down a lovely Sprite??
>[no one start talking about Coke or Seven-up, either, or I'll give you
>a POP!]), and grins widely.


OOPS, too late again


>	By the way... this is a special birthday for me... since
>I am
>
>		THIRTY
>
>	Today.
>
>
>                                 Sea Wasp
>                                   /^\
>                                   ;;;

Welcome to semi-demi-cootdom

Niles
-- 
Niles VanDenburg
nev@turing.org
niles_v@cho000.cho.ge.com
niles_v@cho000.dnet.ge.com
From: rkoch@lonestar.utsa.edu (Ruth M. Koch)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Zaphod's sig questions (was re:and stuff...and  Re: Gypsy makes a toast
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:12:36 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

First of all, let me apologize for making this a thread so late.
I had meant to do something with it before anybody else, but...

Also, a few people had already posted comments on these questions,
I deleted them, rather than include their comments in a new subject
line without their permission.

I am making this a thread, because like a few others who have already
posted, I thought they were neat questions.

Again, apologies to everyone who has already been discussing this,
I don't want to step on anyones toes, just make this discussion
a little easier to find.

Thanks to Zaphod for posting these questions originally.

Nathan.



"How much of our lives is just idle conversation?" -- bean thought # 11

  Unfortunatly, too much.

"Where is the seat of our awareness?" and related questions..

  The seat of our awareness rests on our need to care and be cared for.

"Why do people tend to fuzz the differences between sex and love?"

  Because we are all searching for love, and we refuse to believe
  that sometimes we just won't find it.

"What happens when I die?" (side-note to awareness, really)

  I have no idea, and hope never to find out.

"Why can't I remember most of my childhood?

  Because I have errected a very powerful mental block against ever
  remembering, and lord, let it last.

"What do I need to do in order to feel that I'm surviving in this world?"

  I need to feel the security of knowing that I am still at heart, the
  same person I was to begin with.  If I ever change so much that I don't
  recognize myself, then I'm not surviving very well at all.

"How much control of my life do I want to leave in the hands of others?"

  Not very much.

"What things am I still unwilling to let other people see about me?"

  I still have a problem with letting my friends see that I am
  human, and have human failings.  I always feel the urge to make
  everyone think that I am some sort of superman, but the only
  person that is fooled is me.

"What things am I still unwilling to let myself see about me?"

  I don't like realizing that the only reason that I don't do
  more with my life is because I'm afraid of failing.  I know it
  in my heart, but I try to blame everything else.

"Why am I straight?"

  Ah ha!  An easy question.  Answer:  I'm not.

"Why do so many people still work within the stereotypes?"

  Because sterotypes are easy.  If we had to think of people as
  individuals, why it wouldn't be that easy to hate them, now would
  it?


  Nathan.

  BTW, If I forgot and left any of the questions off the list,
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: sjane@bmers248.bnr.ca (sjs)
Subject: Re: Zaphod's sig questions (was re:and stuff...and  Re: Gypsy makes a toast
Organization: Irrelevant, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 12:01:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.221236.5079@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> rkoch@lonestar.utsa.edu (Ruth M. Koch) writes:

>"How much of our lives is just idle conversation?" -- bean thought # 11
>  Unfortunately, too much.
>
And as a continuation of that thought: "How much of our lives is spent doing
something worthwhile?"  (Use a subjective definition of worthwhile: if you
think it is worthwhile, it is.)

   My answer: virtually none.  (Other answers will differ.)
  
>"Why do people tend to fuzz the differences between sex and love?"
>  Because we are all searching for love, and we refuse to believe
>  that sometimes we just won't find it.
>
   Because, for me at least, I won't have sex with someone unless I love him.

>"What do I need to do in order to feel that I'm surviving in this world?"
>  I need to feel the security of knowing that I am still at heart, the
>  same person I was to begin with.  If I ever change so much that I don't
>  recognize myself, then I'm not surviving very well at all.
>
   (This one's simple for me.)  If I'm alive, I'm surviving.  Period.

>"How much control of my life do I want to leave in the hands of others?"
>  Not very much.

   Ahhh, but there is often a large gap between 'want to' and 'actually'.
   Are you married?  How much control over your life does your s.o. have?
   Have you got children?  How much control over your life do they have?
   How much control over your life at work, does your employer have?  
   Me, I'm married.  I negotiate for control over my life (and his).
>
>"What things am I still unwilling to let other people see about me?"
>"What things am I still unwilling to let myself see about me?"
>
   Ugh, 2 questions to delve into the dark, miserable pathways of my mind.
   I am not going to shed light on those yet.

>"Why do so many people still work within the stereotypes?"
>  Because sterotypes are easy.  If we had to think of people as
>  individuals, why it wouldn't be that easy to hate them, now would
>  it?
>
   Because stereotypes are easy.  If we can lump people into categories,
   we don't need to think any more about them.  The label on the 
   category tells us how to think of them & how to deal with them.

>  Nathan.

sjs
   (p.s. Thanks Nathan for pointing these out; I've stopped reading .sigs)
   (p.p.s. Interesting questions, Zaphod!)

--
It's not irrelevant; it's a hippopotamus.   sjane@BNR.CA
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: braley@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (The Didi-Sprite)
Subject: Re: More of Nathan being Depressed. (feel free to skip this)
Originator: braley@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:31:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.204252.18740@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> rkoch@lonestar.utsa.edu (Ruth M. Koch) writes:
>kitten quoting john:

[    ]
>
>>>      But you can love.  And I never know of a time when when a little more
>>>loving wasn't appreciated.
>>
>>"amen"...
>
>  I'm learning this.  Takes me a while, but I'm learning.
>>
>>kitten hugs john...and nathan too...
>
> <hug>


The Didi-Sprite has been sitting close by helping Ramda do
a cat's cradle with some string he found (this isn't easy
for a teddy bear you know), when she hears Nathan make his
statement about love, she passes off to Ramda, leaps up and 
hurries over to Nathan:  "Nathan!  You are the best!"  and 
immediately enfolds him in one of her warmest -Spriteful hugs!

----<--<@

The Didi-Sprite
Montreal * Canada

braley@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca

Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: trumpins@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Barbara Trumpinski)
Subject: Re: A return
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:15:38 GMT


>>
>>"does DM have cold hands?  }:).....i am totally crushed..."  giggles
>>kitten... 

>"Sorry Kitten, don't fear! I wasn't implying that *he* had cold hands,
>just that as a rule, one should be careful what one touches when one *does*
>have cold hands. In fact his hands are quite warm"

}:)

"love them little mousies...mousies what i love to eat...
bite they tiny heads off...nibble on they tiny feet...."

and what is this about chocolate frogs?????????
--
***************************************************************************
conan the librarian a.k.a. kitten           /\ /\  barbara ann 
"my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"      {=.=}
                                              ~   trumpins@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu 
"perhaps _any_ universe becomes real in proportion 
to the number of people who believe in it and spend time there." s. robinson

Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: pierce@spop.navo.navy.mil (Jim M. Pierce)
Subject: writing Re: The Nightstalker makes an observation
Reply-To: pierce@navo.navy.mil (Jim M. Pierce)
Organization: POPS Operations I/O Operator
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-1020]: spop.navo.navy.mil
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 14:44:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.072051.2522@cco.caltech.edu>, lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Speaker-to-Minerals) writes:
|> So we know God wasn't simply dictating the message for transcription.  Now, how
|> do we figure out just how much of the message was invented by the people
|> writing the Bible?  Just how far does the style of the authors or conventions
|> of the period in which some part of the Bible was written influence the
|> content?  You CLAIM it doesn't influence the content in any significant manner,
|> but what evidence do we have for that claim?
 
    I took a Bibical Archaology class last year. The professor told us that
  there were computer programs that could pick out a writing style. Thats
  how researchers know that numerous people wrote what we thought were
  Shakespeare's plays and also how we know that three people wrote the book
  of Genesis. A woman wrote most of it, with two men contributing some
  writing to it. I belive he said they used original Aramaic manuscripts
  from some era. Sorry I don't remember exact dates, its possible they used
  the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I am not certain. And yes, the information that
  a woman wrote most of the book of Genesis upset several people in that
  classroom.

-- 
jmpierce0smcp6.bitnet@vm.tcs.tulane.edu <- guaranteed there Wed. only !
Disclaimer: Standard. Recent Album: Muddy Waters:Muddy Waters Live 
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: pierce@spop.navo.navy.mil (Jim M. Pierce)
Subject: Re: Yet another sleepless night
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-8235]: spop.navo.navy.mil
Reply-To: pierce@navo.navy.mil (Jim M. Pierce)
Organization: POPS Operations I/O Operator
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 16:13:37 GMT

In article <Bs039K.A9p@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, trumpins@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Barbara Trumpinski) writes:
|> kitten looks down off the top of a mountain of soap boxes...hoping
|> somebody will catch her if she jumps.
 
        I will.
DJ.
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: mar@physics.su.OZ.AU (David Mar)
Subject: Re: A return
Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:41:09 GMT

>"does DM have cold hands?  }:).....i am totally crushed..."  giggles
>kitten... 

Danger Mouse glances in kitten's direction (not hard, considering she is
still feeding him chocolates (or at least I hope she is!)) and opines,
"_I_ have cold hands? No, no, no... Shonias is the one with the cold
hands... as she demonstrated this morning*..."

DM grins and attempts to tickle kitten in the ribs.

- Danger Mouse.

* At 10am, after we'd both arrived at university. Why, what did _you_
think I meant??  :-)