HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: an application of the five stages
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fVnGEAb@quack.sac.ca.us> <1992Nov18.015718.13362@leela.cs.orst.edu>
Date: 21 Nov 1992 23:57:21 UTC

1. Anger
	I don't wanna talk about those ph*cking fundamentalists. They
	ph*cking give me the creeps. Did you see that convention thing?
	Man, that was BUSH*t. Make me wanna get a gat too, and peel a
	cap too, but I ain't down for the tattoo. 187-thousand-G.
2. Denial
	It's just a phase. It'll never happen here. It's against the
	Constitution. It's not happening. People are overreacting.
	Christians are people just like us. It's just a small minority
	of bad people. The majority doesn't support this stuff. Does it?
3. Bargaining
	OK, so they get the GOP and morality legislation and prayer in
	school. As long as it doesn't affect me, why should I care? At
	least the trains should run on time. Maybe it won't be all that
	bad. Besides, what can I do about it? Maybe family values is a
	good idea. You saw those LA riots. We can't let that kind of
	stuff happen. Those people have to know that they can't do that
	and get away with it. Somebody has to pay, why should it be me?
	Maybe a strong government is what we need for a change. Maybe
	the lawlessness of the 60's has gone too far. Maybe we should
	return to family values and traditional values. Besides, why
	should I care? It won't affect my life. I don't do anything
	wrong.
4. Depression
	Damn, how could this have happened? Pass the forty, I'm going
	down.
5. Acceptance
	I'm dead.
From: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Guns & self defense
Date: 18 Nov 1992 23:10:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ksm@abb-sc.abb-sc.com (Ashley) says:

>It's
>starting to sound as bad as my trip to the gunshop where a greasy man fondled 
>the barrel of a gun he wanted to sell me and talked about how fast it could 
>"spurt" bullets. Not as "potent" as his gun of course, but it can really 
>"spew out the lead". Just sick.

	If you are the same person who posted about considering a first
time handgun purchace around the time of the riots, and had the story about
a teenage clerk offending the hell out of you by using the "this is your 
brain on drugs" analogy to diferentiate .357 from .38, then your story
seems to have changed quite a bit from when you first posted it.

	Even if not, I have a hard time believing that "potent", "spurt",
etc. above,  came from any place other than your own imagination.  
	Maybe there is some reason that gun counter clerks act different in 
your town than they do in the rest of the US, but in every place I've ever 
been they are not known or observed to exibit behavior that would distinguish 
them in any way from clerks in a sporting goods store, hardware store, etc.
	Most sales clerks are all the same, whether they are trying to
sell you a lawn mower, a revolver, or a VCR.

>			- Ashley 
>		(probably out of my depth, but I don't care)

Jim Del Vecchio

    "...and then my greasy dentist fondled the shaft of his dental tool
that he wanted to use on me and talked about how deep it could "probe" 
my "orfice".  Not as "penetrating" as his drill, mind you, but it can 
really "fill my cavity" I think he said.  Just sick.  Those dentists
are all the same."

>It's
>starting to sound as bad as my trip to the gunshop where a greasy man fondled 
>the barrel of a gun he wanted to sell me and talked about how fast it could 
>"spurt" bullets. Not as "potent" as his gun of course, but it can really 
>"spew out the lead". Just sick.

8-)
From: gnome@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Gary)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: That GUN flame -- captions for the brain dead and humor-impaired
Date: 24 Nov 92 03:40:15 GMT
Distribution: na

From article <1992Nov20.234021.4730@radian.uucp>, by markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr):
> Why in another newsgroup? *YOU* dragged it into this one. 

Wrong, as usual, Mark.  Go back and look at all the other posts first.
I did, and noticed why I shouldn't even waste time and bandwidth on
replying to your multitude of posts.
And anyway, as I said before, it belongs in TPG, by definition.

In keeping with the above statement, I'll end this message
and save at least some of the bandwidth here...

Gary
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Women and Men Witches
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:03:55 GMT

An interesting sidebar on this p/m (atriarchy) discussion.

I happened to catch CNN's coverage of a CDF function where
Hillary Clinton was a keynote speaker, and I was very impressed
with her. It kind of made me wish that she had run instead of her
husband. :-) Anyway, she came out with a great line when she was
bemoaning how she and Bill couldn't just pop off to events like
this any longer, but had to bring along  a lot of `new friends'.
She said that their `new friends' were easy to spot, cause they
were the ones `speaking into their sleeves'..

I got a real kick out of that. :-)
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Who are we kidding?
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:27:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.133156.15828@mic.ucla.edu> suzi@trifid.astro.ucla.edu (Suzanne Casement) writes:
>>	Best estimates of the Sun's stable future is about 20 billion
>>years, FYI. It's a real mellow G-type.
>>
>>						Kayembee
>
>Hate to disillusion you but the estimated lifetime of a G-type star like
>the sun is only about 10 billion years. Therefore it would only barely
>have enough time to rejuvinate life before evolving into a red giant and
>cooking all the interior planets, if life could even evolve again since
>the conditions during which life evolved were much different than they
>are today.

Just one not-so-minor nitpick.  Earth and the Sun would not have to
evolve life all over again.  Sure, getting it started all over again
would be a chore and took a way fucking long time the first time around,
but there would doubtless be some forms of life that would not become
extinct even after we're done screwing over the planet.  Even if only
one little colony of cockroaches survives, they're hardy enough to keep
going.  

We were little shrew thangs when the dinosaurs kacked, and 65 million
years later, it looks like we're going down the same path.  65 million
years from now, that little pest you tried to squish under your sink will
be running the place.

>Let's hope good ol' mother earth doesn't have to try to start life again
>why don't we. If EVERYONE pitches in, I think we can make a difference!

Again, she'll just have to shepherd other species toward new directions;
we just won't be around to see it.

Blessings,
Janis
From: wce@hogbbs.scol.pa.us (Bill Eichman)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Behavior of pagans
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 02:15:48 EST
Organization: The Heart of Gold BBS, Lemont PA

casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Paul Cass) writes:

> Just for the sake of curiosity; are there pagan communal groups?  Or
> pagan co-op support systems that have been in existence for some time?
> It would seem to me that anti-life behavior would be confronted by
> peers or social pressure in that sort of arrangement.  Particularly if
> the groups were consensus based.
> 
> That would be interesting...a Pagan Farm devoted to the care, feeding
> and growth of Wiccans and their like.  No doubt it would attract some
> interesting visitors.

Yeah, that would be interesting. I know of half a dozen failed 
experiments, two or three that are still working, and I'd guess there are 
dozens that I don't know about.

Circle farm has some of those qualities. Lothlorian. Cerren Ered in 
tennessee, if it still exists. other places that aren't what you would 
call 'pagan', but definitely have the spirit, also exist.

Support systems. Yep, we need em. At least I'd like to have em around.

Later, Bill
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Madonna was Tipper Gore? was the US elections...
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:33:51 GMT

In article <Bxo6uH.IIE@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <74213@apple.apple.COM> russell@Apple.COM (Russell Williams) writes:
: I never paid much attention to Madonna because I didn't care for her
: music. But I went to see her film, Truth or Dare, and was extremely
: impressed. "Slut" or not, she's no passive sex object; not a vapid,

>Actually, the MTV full-length parody of Truth or Dare is *much* better. But,
>I can't remember the title, maybe someone else does, it's on VCR. So, we go
>to Japan and it turns out it's right in the middle of the monsoon season, I
>can't believe nobody knew that!

	It was "Medusa: Dare to be Truthful" by "Just Say Julie"
Brown, who appears as a Madonna-type singer.

	Personally, I'm surprised that the Vatican has not
excommunicated Madonna for what she's done. I don't think they'd be
too happy with someone who seems like she'd love to hump a saint.

	That sounds like ritual sex ... hmmmmmmm ...

Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: Pagan Belief revisited
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:36:38 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <2B0C0C02.971@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.191319.25227@radian.uucp> markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>>In article <2B0B2FA3.305@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>><snip>
>>>specifically Hindu ones.  What is the opinion of Hinduism on the
>>>mind/body duality?  Are the considered separate, and is the feeding and
>>>care of one preferred over the other?  I ask because I know a woman who
>>>works at Unex here at UCI who is a Hare Krishna (I may be using this
>>>term incorrectly strictly speaking, and if so I apologize; this is the
>>>general way the term is used in the US.  If there is a more proper way,
>>>feel free to tell me).  Her opinion is that the mind must be fed and
>>>that feeding of sensation is not a good thing -- again, a mind/body
>>>split with which I disagree.  I was wondering what general Hinduism says
>>>about this.
>>
>>Yay! Another person who thinks "mind-body" dualism is bunk! 
>>
>>But, Janis, what does this make us, monolists? Or should that be ...monoliths?
>
>Dunno -- how about "intergrated?"  "Connected?"  "Wholists (as oppsed to
>"holists")?"  Now that I think about it, "body/mind holists" sounds
>okay.

Dunno about Wholists - we'd get newaged, I should think. Connected turns into
"I've gotten connected", which sounds like Scientology, or FRIENDS (or somewhere
to buy something controlled....). How about "unilists"?
>
>Blessings where you can find them,
>Janis
>
and to you, Janis.

	mark


Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: Women and Men Witches
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:12:14 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <1992Nov22.165134.20765@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (T. O. Radzykewycz) writes:
>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>> Two groups of people are running a race, one free and the other with
>> ankle hobbles on.  After the race is half over, you take the hobbles
>> off, and tell the second group to start running.  Of course, they are
>> about three laps behind the first group.  What do you do?  You pick up
>> the group that wore the hobbles and plop them down next to the first
>> that has been running free all this time.  THAT is a fair race.
> >No, it still isn't a fair race.  Once the hobbles were put on in
>the first place, the only way to get a fair race is to take the hobbles
>off, wait a few days for the runners to get back in shape after their
>efforts, and then run the race fairly from the beginning.
>
>Of course, that can't happen in real life.  Face it, there HAS been
>descrimination in the past, and there's no way to change or eliminate
>that descrimination.  We *do* need to have some affirmative action,
>but we need to be *constantly* on guard to make sure that the
>*REVERSE DISCRIMINATION* (embodied in affermative action) does not
>continue beyond the point that it's necessary.
>
>If anyone believes that affirmative action is NOT discrimination,
>then that person is very deluded.  Statements like Janis' imply
>that AA is not descrimination, when it really is.
>
It isn't. I'm surprised that you think it is. When the butcher's thumb
has been on the scale forever, when he weighs your meat, and you realize
it, then it's time to put *your* thumb on the scale to *balance* his.
*THAT* is what affirmative action is. When the counts are closer to even,
*then* you can take off both thumbs off.

	mark
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Scummy behavior of pagan males
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:28:59 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Nov16.102307.44819@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, 
kumagic@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Stephen R. Figgins) writes:

I am personally acquainted with a High Priestess who beats her son with a
riding crop.  Can we conclude from this scummy behavior on the part of a pagan
woman that all pagan women are scummy?  If not, why not.

[Hint for the particularly dense, I do *not* so conclude.]

--
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: hart0037@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: rats
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:11:47 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <1992Nov16.153014.29703@eskimo.com> feathers@eskimo.com (Cheryl Owen) writes:
>
>  Yeah, some of my rats died under anesthesia in a vet's office.  They
>had developed growths; the growths themselves were non-cancerous and not
>painful, but the vet advised that they would continue to grow and the 
>rats would be more comfortable with the growths removed.  Well, I dunno
>if "metabolically challenged," i.e. dead, qualifies as "more
>comfortable."  After several episodes of that, I came to the conclusion
>that rats either don't deal well with anesthesia or that vet wasn't very
>skilled at determining the proper amount to give so small an animal.
>  All my other rats save one eventually died of cancer.

   I'm sorry to hear about your rats dying.  I've had people tell me "it
was just a rodent", but I think people who say that just don't understand!
   I worked for a vet and he didn't have problems with rats and
anaesthetic.  He used Halothane--an inhalant.  Perhaps your vet is trying
something injectible like Ketaset?  However, of the rats I've known that
have successfully gone through surgery (about 4, I think), all have
developed more tumors and died soon anyway.   Guess it's just part of the
territory of loving something than has a higher metabolism and a shorter
lifespan than yourself....
   --Amy
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Women and Men Witches
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:29:36 GMT

radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (T. O. Radzykewycz) writes:

>> 
>> Again, that assumes that a matriarchal culture would be a
>> "mirror image" of the patriarchal one.  I don't think that one
>> can so automatically make that assumption.
>> 
>> Again, I have a belief that women have essentially different
>> values than men; the "why" here is irrelevant.

>No, it isn't irrelevant.  Assuming that the value systems are
>created by society, then when we replace the center of power
>by men with a center of power by women, then the value systems
>are likely to flip-flop.  Women will be likely to pick up on
					 ^^^^^^
>the power-over that men currently have available to them, and
>the mirror-image *will* result.
		  ^^^^^^
How do you so easily go from `likely' to `will'? Isn't that also
making some easy assumptions? I am not so sure that I would want
a `matriarchy' either, but since neither I nor anyone else here has
any experience with that model, it is difficult to project what the
paradigm `might' be and impossible to predict what `will' result.

I prefer the model of the `partnership' where neither men nor women
have any more inherent value than the other. But given a choice
between patriarchy and matriarchy, at this point in time, I would be
willing to try matriarchy. :-)

>power-from-within rather than power-over, then we're in complete
>agreement.  That's exactly what I want, too.

We are all in agreement there I think.


>you're making, namely that women in a position of power won't develope
>into power-over based creatures, is simply false!

How do you know this to be absolutely false. Do you have some empirical
evidence to support this flat statement?

>> But the essential thing is to change that focus itself before we
>> destroy ourselves and our planet.

>Right.  But *not* to replace one abusive system (patriarchy) with
>a different one (matriarchy).

Again..assumption that matriarchy `must' follow the same paradigm as
patriarchy. I am not saying you may not be right. I am just wondering
how you can be so sure.


>Gender-free Blessings!

And to you.
al

-- 
Al Aldrich	inet:aaldrich@encore.com
"..if you understood everything I said, you'd be me." miles davis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MY opinions are not to be construed as those of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Paul Cass)
Subject: Re: Who are we kidding?
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 02:13:52 GMT

In article <2B0A8245.16232@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>It's finished, people.  We're just not going to change in thirty years,
>face up to it.  We're not the first evolutionary cul-de-sac that's ever
>come down the pike.  The dice rolled, and we came out, and it just
>didn't work out.  If we had 150 years or 200, maybe.  But we are NOT
>GOING TO CHANGE IN TIME.  Think about it.  Do you honestly think that
>today's 10-year olds are going to suddenly have this mass jump in
>consciousness despite being reared by today's 40-year olds and rise up
>as one and go back to living in thatched-roof houses or at least give up
>their Nintendos long enough to find out what's happening?
>
>We just don't want to admit it because we can't imagine the Earth --
>Goddess, whatever -- being around without us, its central and most
>important children.  Get real.  We won't be the first evolutionary dead
>end, and we won't be the last.  It's time to exit stage left and let
>something else have a shot at it.  Right now, all I want to do is find
>some quiet little island or something to live on so I can avoid as much
>of the splat as I can when the shit finally hits the fan. 
>
>Janis
> 
>

Janis; You just have to do something about this pollyanna attitude of
yours. |B{)  Your article sounds like I felt after spending a summer
of reading and researching environmental science.  It took the better
part of a month to regain my equilibrium and to decide that if the
biosphere was going to go down the shitter at least I wouldn't flush.
I finally came to the realization that I needed to be active in 
resisting environmental degradation.  Not to save humanity, not even
to save the larger animals.  All life is the issue and life will 
rebuild if the basics remain.  On the off chance that we manage to
degrade everything back to single celled beings...well, I am not sure
that the sun has 4.5 billion years to do the whole process again.
Paul

-- 
                          * * * * * * *
"It is possible to join forces, to identify common goals, and to agree on
 common action." - U.N. World Commission on Development and Environment
		       casspa@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
From: zebee@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au (Zebee Johnstone)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Women and Men Witches
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:46:32 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sirius.itd.adelaide.edu.au

holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:

>Gender does not determine whether someone will be hierarchical in orientation
>or not.  To the extent that it does, it is the result of socialization, not
>inherent to the gender, and not universal to the gender, even in people of this
>society.  Men are capable of non-hierarchical relationship, women are capable
>of hierarchical relationships.  Thus, the solution to the problem of our
>society is not in changing who the focus is on, but in how each individual
>chooses to interact.

Wholehearted agreement.  YOu mentioned Margaret Thatcher, who is an obvious case
of a woman who adpoted "male" strategies to succeed in a male-dominated
area.

Many management studies have concluded that women in managerial roles
do not tend to use significantly different management methods than
their male counterparts, but I don't know of any which analyse whether
they have been socialised out of any "different" tendencies.

THe people to look at in this contxt are perhaps those women who have been 
ordained into mainstream Christian churches.  Has being in a male-oriented
religion affected how they act?  DO they find themselves doing things
differently to their male counterparts?

Seeing as the ordinatin of women is a big thing here at the moment, there
have bene interviews with some of those who are waiting to be ordained in the
Anglican church.  While they are extremely reluctant to speak (in case
it jeopardises something), they seem to think that it may help their
parishoners, as many of them are women, to talk to a woman, but that is
also a socialisation thing.  The fact of being female doesn't seem 
to change their relationship with their God.


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
     Zebee Johnstone  DoD #605   | You don't own an Italian motorcycle 
     Adelaide City Council       |  - you merely have the privilege 
    zebee@itd.adelaide.edu.au    |    of paying its bills....
From: lazarus@magna.ksu.ksu.edu (Bart -Laz- Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Attn: Suzanne Casement!
Date: 17 Nov 1992 02:34:20 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: magna.ksu.ksu.edu


I hope you catch this post!  I'm going to be off to Wichita here pretty
soon, and my access to alt.pagan is up in the air.  I've lost your
e-mail address, to top things off!  Please contact me...

--
Bart -Laz- Smith
Kansas State University
'Cats - Hell, I can't remember the score.  They just lost to Mizzou.  *sigh*
"I've got the motive which is money, and I've got the body which is DEAD."
	-- In the Heat of the Night
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: corun@access.digex.com (Corun MacAnndra)
Subject: Re: the US elections...
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:05:41 GMT

In article <1ea6i4INN15i@magna.ksu.ksu.edu> lazarus@magna.ksu.ksu.edu (Bart -Laz- Smith) writes:
>
>
>Yeah, but at least MY granddad's hunting rifle was made for the hunting of
>animals, not humans.

All guns share the same origins, and the first guns were developed for
killing other human beings. They were used for killing other life forms
later. A gun is a weapon of war. The crime on the streets today could be
considered a war. It's all a matter of how you choose to defend yourself.

Bb,
Corun


-- 
===========================================================================
    Corun MacAnndra    |    My opinions *are* those of my boss, because
  Dark Horde by birth  |   he is me, and I am he, and we are all together.
    Moritu by choice   |                 Coo coo cachoob.