HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Last call (e: Child molestation & celibacy
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:46:16 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Since there has been continued interest in this thread, (and since I've
had a chance to think things through better) I just want to ask     
why people think there's a special link between vows of chastity
and a tendency towards child molestation? I believe Joan Shields [I think]
responded much better than I did when she pointed out that most child
molestation occurs in the home. No one seems to want to posit a special
link between common monogamous married life and a tendency towards
molestation.

Now, were I a judge I'd probably have to recuse myself from this case
having been in the seminary, and having about a gazillion or so
relatives who have been priests and nuns.* But, child molestation is
not a unique problem among Catholic clergy. What is shocking is that
the Church has hushed up the incidents which have come to its 
attention. I think the tenuous link here is the connection between
Chastity as an ideal and the notion that Chastity is so far from an
ideal as to be some kind of breeding ground for sexual deviance.
An odd modern notion considering the problems that 30 of 40 years
of capitalist sexual consumerism has given us. 

Again, the issue is non-book, and were the implications of the
posts so antithetical to my own beliefs I'd have let the thread
slide. Please, no follow-ups except to me here at
   
            davis@keats.ca.uky.edu

I'll be glad to argue until you're blue in the face. 


*including one semi-distant cousin who edited the Jesuit monthly
"America"
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Cross-Writing (was: Books I Got For Xmas)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:15:37 GMT

In article <401@uiunix.ui.org> donz@uiunix.ui.org (Don Zirilli) writes:

>>The statistics on use of the opposite gender's point of view wouldn't
>>really tell us how well the writers' efforts were received.
>
>note above that HH said "canon".  This is not a term of "use" but precisely
>a term of "well...received" work.  You can dispute her facts here, but not
>her logic.

On the contrary, I was disputing the connection between the question as
phrased and the research as suggested. Heather recognized the validity of
my distinction when she wrote, in response, that the data wouldn't address
the question as she phrased it. (It certainly would be useful in settling
the question as she rephrased it.)

I would not dream of disputing that the Canon "accepts" more male authors
than female ones. (And thank you for your kind explanation of what the
word "canon" means.) But this thread originated in a discussion of the
issue of whether it is difficult for an author of one gender to convey the
point of view of a character of the other. Representation in the Canon
is irrelevant to this issue.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox)
Subject: Re: Shouting at robots
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:27:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.163429.6956@math.ucla.edu> dstein@oak.math.ucla.edu (David Stein) writes:

>  Well well well.  You get paid thousands and thousands of dollars and
>it's not enough -- now you want to conquer the little leagues, too.

	I merely alluded to the story.  I did not enter it in Prof. McDuck's
contest.  In fact, for unintentionally misleading you into believing that
I was trying to gain the prize, I will myself contribute a coupon good for
a Big Mac and Big Fries to the winner of the prize (unintended rhyme alert)
provided that the winner is actually hungry enough to eat such swill.  If 
not, I will agree to meet the winner at Cactus Taqueria (close by the 
Rockridge BART station) and buy and carry to the winner's table a taco or 
tostada of the winner's choice (I recommend the carne asada taco myself)
along with a reasonable selection of side dishes and drinks.


-- 
				Tom Maddox
		    	    tmaddox@netcom.com
	"That's a bird bone chair, Bob.  I don't know if I should sit there."
				Tom Waits
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: sammy@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Sammy)
Subject: Re:  92 in rabreview
Organization: The Comp Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:06:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.203628.13812@nas.nasa.gov> wismith@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (William R. Smith) writes:
>
>I read one book in 1992.  It was a very good book, but the title and
>the author's name escape me at the moment.  I highly recommend it.
>
>I'm now searching for a book to read in 1993.  I want to start soon
>so I'll finish this year.
>
>
>
>
>William Sburgfort Smith

I highly recommend you re-read the book you read last year. 
Since you found it to be a very good book, you won't be 
disappointed, and you already know that you can complete
it before the end of the year. In fact, since you've already
read it, maybe you could read it faster this year, and have
time to read another book. A very short one.

-- 
Sammy=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The enemy of women...is not men, just as the enemy of blacks is not whites.
The enemy is "the tyranny of the dull mind." Carol S. Pearson, _The Hero Within_ 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: bh419@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ted B Samsel)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Paglia (again)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 12:10:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I recall reading about British war brides during WWII who 
married American GIs. British mores (at that time) put the
responsibility to "Say when" on the male. British males were
prone to not go on with the sexual act due to enculturated
restraint. American GIs had been brought up with the idea
that the woman would set the boundaries and say "No" or "when"
at the "appropriate" time. 
  Thus it was Katy bar the door when the GIs began to date the
English roses.
-- 
Ted....
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Paglia
Organization: Clark University
Date: 9 JAN 93 03:02:10 GMT

I wrote:

>>And heck, Ron, being a film student, you should know that film directors 
>>are, by definition, narcissistic, boastful, arrogant and egomaniacal.* 
>>That's why there are so few female ones. 

Michael McDonald wrote:

>And *that* is utter bullshit! 

I guess you miss my point.  The point is that it's perfectly acceptable for
(male) film directors to be arrogant and egomaniacal.  That's the way they've
been throughout history, from D.W. Griffith all the way up to Coppola and
Oliver Stone.  The director has a great deal of power and prestige, and thus
it's a position that has historically been held by men.  There are probably
more women in the world who can fly a fighter jet than have directed a
feature film.  It's not because women are unable to deal with such a task,
but because the male-dominated film industry is unable to deal with the idea
of a woman in the director's chair.  If you read any interviews with female
directors, you'll see that they're asked questions like "How do people accept
taking orders from a woman?" and other such questions that would never be
asked of a man.  

Times are changing, and now women like Penny Marshall and Penelope Spheeris
are directing big-budget movies, but I consider them pioneers.  And I doubt
that they could get away with the egotistical antics of an Oliver Stone.

Now, if you still think my point is bullshit, fine.  The funny thing is,
Michael, I have the impression you consider yourself a feminist, but you
certainly don't seem to think like one.

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: stame@emunix.emich.edu (Stewart Tame)
Subject: Re: another Atlanta rabfest
Organization: Eastern Michigan University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:29:51 GMT

In article <104298@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>
>I'm jealous.  Are there any r.a.b.bers in the Detroit area?  I'm going to
>be moving there in June, and I'm trying to find some reason to get
>excited.  Any good book stores?  Any fun folks?  Or is it truly an
>industrial wasteland, and I may as well go stick my head in the oven?
>

I live in the Detroit area.  Closer to Ann Arbor actually.  Best for new
books that I've found is Border's in Ann Arbor.  Best for used is Dawn
Treader, also in Ann Arbor.  I freely confess to not being terribly
familiar with Detroit's bookstores, mostly due to the fact that there's
no regular bus service between here (Ypsilanti) and there but there are
regular busses to A^2.

If you (and any other area r.a.b.ers) ever want to get together for a
biblioholics version of a pub crawl, feel free . . . :-)

		-- Stewart "books are my life" Tame

****************************************************************************
 I understand it's obligatory to mention Kibo somewhere in one's postings.
****************************************************************************
		Email:  stame@emunix.emich.edu
****************************************************************************
Disclaimer:  Not only do my opinions represent those of Eastern Michigan
University, but also those of Dan Quayle, Richard Nixon, Frank Zappa,
Pee-wee Herman, Bart Simpson, Tipper Gore, Murphy Brown, Maggie Thatcher,
and the Easter Bunny.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Re: Reading as an addiction (Was: 92 in rabreview)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:46:24 GMT

     Wheeh. I only scored 11. That's a relief. 'Course, I guess that means that
I can't be a rabber any more... :-)

                                        Steve
|
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Robert Conquest's _The Great Terror_ (was Re: The WORST novel ever written?)
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:01:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.180034.3470@athena.mit.edu>, kamorgan@athena.mit.edu (Keith Morgan) writes:
|> Jack Campin dilates parenthetically:
|> 
|>   (The original condemnation quoted here was from the ultra-right
|> CIA-funded propagandist Robert Conquest, from who you'd expect a kneejerk
|> condemnation of anything Lenin liked enough to steal from.)
|> 
|> 	Ah yes, Robert Conquest. This reminds me of what Conquest said
|> after the Soviet archives were opened and he was approached about 
|> reprinting a revised edition of _The Great Terror_. The publisher
|> suggested a new title in keeping with the spirit of the project.
|> Conquest, not missing a beat, replied, "How about _I Told You So, You
|> Fucking Assholes_."
 
 Interesting comments about Conquest. I'm currently in the middle of the 
revised edition of _The Great Terror_ (actually I've been in the middle of
it since September -- yet another case of the non-fiction being pushed to 
the bottom of the queue by fiction), and I hadn't gotten the impression 
that Conquest was telling the story with any kind of ultra-right slant. In
fact, I'd reccomend it as one of the more reliable works on Stalin's purges.

 (While I don't consider myself a conservative, it's an undeniable fact that
the conservatives were right all along about the Soviets' atrocious violations
of human rights.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
 ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *|          he who refuses to do nonsense  
     \_|          is doomed to talk arithmetic.
      ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written
From: msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: SF + PC
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:11:05 GMT

                                     Wednesday, the 6th of January, 1993

Curtis Yarvin writes:
 Fine; I am happy.  We have worn our fists down to the nubs.  Hold that
 definition, freeze its frame, and hang it on your wall; and pretend not
 that it has any inherent utility or worth; and my canons shall be, at last.
 spiked.

My own shall not be. Because with my definition it isn't so much a
question ``inherent utility or worth'' (this sounds to me like 
you're still invoking Mahler), but practical utility and worth.

                 Mike Morris
        (msmorris@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)
From: jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (Jeremy Henderson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: academic settings
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:21:31 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1993Jan11.004646.12311@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
~In article <1993Jan9.1479.24625@channel1> "john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com> writes:
~>I just finished David Lodge's hilarious book 'Small World', based on a
~>recommendation in a recent post, and have started 'Changing Places',
~>also by Lodge.
~>
~>Can anyone recommend other books set in academia? Any genre will do.
~>I'll post the list.
~
~This seems as good a time as any to post the obligatory monthly
~recommendation of A.S. Byatt's POSSESSION.

And to point out that, though entertaining, it's just a ponced-up copy
of "Changing Places" ;-)


-- 
===Jeremy Henderson===jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk=          

This message cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars.
Bloody good value if you ask me.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: callahan@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu (Paul Callahan)
Subject: Re: SF + PC
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:09:20 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>Bah, humbug.  Science graduates write as well as graduates in English,
>and include far less nonsense in what they write.  

I hate to contribute to a non-book thread, but I'm curious.  What exactly do
you mean by "nonsense"?  A facility to express the irrational seems quite
important to me, because irrationality is an undeniable (if subjective) part of 
being human.

That said, I agree that it's important to know whether or not you're writing
nonsense at any given point in time.

--
"I would rather be torn to pieces by the poison-clawed cat, than to suffer one
instant of acceptance by the resident intellectuals of rec.arts.books." 
     [slightly modified; attribution left as an exercise to the reader]
              -- Paul Callahan, callahan@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu --
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Homophobia (really not about  Homeschooling)
Date: 8 Jan 1993 17:14:30 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

> Mike Morris writes:

> (attribution missing) writes:

>> Had CO2 listed heterosexuality as also barring one from a claim to "any
>> minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of
>> discrimination," I might (*might*) actually believe that someone might
>> think it was intended to provide equal protection to all.  As it stands
>> it clearly does not.

> I would think that it would have been much better if CO2 had said
> ``Sexual Orientation''.

An amusing thing happens if you disallow wrongful termination
action for termination due to "sexual orientation".

You then have a situation where an employer can fire *any*
employee, listing whatever their sexual orientation is
as the reason, and be free from any consequences.

In other words, just like the old days...

Steve
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Same difference
Date: 8 Jan 1993 15:53:57 GMT
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oas.stanford.edu

All this talk of difference feminism has reminded me that I had promised
to read *DIFFERENCE ENGINE* in 1992, and I did not. So, may I reopen
discussion to a short thread on this book? Who wrote it, &c. It did
occur to me that Ada Lovelace could herself be described as a difference
engine in modern terms. So, do I still want to read it?

							RABworm

PS. It occured to me that Splurge-fforth Smith might like to tackle the
*PRINCIPIA* for his book of 1993. Now there's a book that no-one ever
read. 

Post post-ille. I must have read fewer books in 1992 than anyone else,
discounting the esteemed S-ff Smith. My problem is twofold. First, as
I re-read books -- which I do -- I take longer and longer each time.
I begin with a skim, and then, if i have enjoyed it, I regurgicate and
ruminate. Then, if I am really interested, I get interested in the
author's textual provenance. For example: in 1991 I began reading John 
Gay's book to *THE BEGGAR'S OPERA* and then quite quickly found that I 
had to track down the some of the folk-texts that formed part the basis 
for the songs he re-wrote. Weird.
Not finished yet, of course, and never will be. Just a pleasant new
addition to my permanent list.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: trb@cbnews.cb.att.com (tom.balent)
Subject: Re: Rasputin and Cajun References.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:28:51 GMT

In article <C0HFtH.24C@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> stevem@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Steve McGowan (RA)) writes:
>
>
>The title says it all. Anyone know any good books/references/etc on i)
>the life and times of Rasputin, that great Russian character,

The book _Nicolas and Alexandra_ (by Massie?) was more about the
tsar and tsarina, but since Alexandra was a big fan of Rasputin the
book talks a lot about him. It is a very good book (the movie made
based on it was also good) it is a bit old now and may be hard to
find.

A more off the beaten path book is one by Colin Wilson called, you
guessed it, _Rasputin_.  But it is older than N&A, and not as
mainstream - so I think it would be harder to find.


>and ii) the origins, history and culture of the Louisianna Cajuns?
>

Chef Paul Purdhomme's cookbooks!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mgrimes@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael Grimes)
Subject: HENRY JAMES : THE SACRED FOUNT
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:26:07 GMT

  Does anyone know where I might find a hard-cover copy of THE SACRED FOUNT ?

Has anyone else read this?  I'd like to hear via e-mail or postings from any 
other "JAMESIANS" !

Lambert Strether
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Books I Got For Xmas
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:39:39 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Chuck Smythe writes:
>Slim haul this year - 

Ditto...but cherce...another copy of _Ulysses_.
I did get a CD which has a selection of the Grappelli/Menuhin duets,
but that's a different forum.
>
>BTW, has anyone else been following Masterpiece Theater?  Their Jeeves and
>Bertie is great fun, though Jeeves is younger (and Bertie older) than I'd
>visualized.
>
I can't stand it. Jeeves is not a character -- he's a deus ex machina
with a big bag of high/low gags. Plus, Wodehouse's prose moves much
faster than any actor could possibly keep up with. And...I don't much
care for the 2 principals. Fry and Laurie aren't really much fun. They're
very clever comics, but I imagine they're funnier if left to their
own devices. Particularly in the Jeeves novels the humor comes from
what Bertie tells us he's doing...seeing it is a drag. 
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> One never knows, do one?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: gwr@hedonist-1.lanl.gov (Graham W. Redgrave)
Subject: Cigars and Homophobia (Was Re: Homophobia)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:01:54 GMT

Mike Morris writes eloquently on rights and laws and things:
[...]
|>                             I think rights are things like free speech,
|> free press, due process, free association, [...]
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes.  Absolutely.  I have the inalienable right to free associate:

"Cigar, doughnut, cigar, doughnut, cop, bad cop, no doughnut, cigarette..."

ObBook:  _Dora_, by You Know Who ...


Yours in hysterical puffing and dunking,


-- 
Graham Redgrave    |    --  I don't speak for the government, 
gwr@life.lanl.gov  |        but I wish the government would speak for me ...  --
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Cross-Writing (was: Books I Got For Xmas)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 22:09:57 GMT
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
NNTP-Posting-Host: oas.stanford.edu

Cameron Laird writes:

	Desiree Sy writes:

		Francis Muir writes:

			Likewise, the Shagger Pagger wins no prizes 
			for his women qua women. 

		Whaaaaat?  Really?  Excepting the histories, I'd think 
		the women are quite a lot more interesting than the men.  

	That gets my vote.  'Fact, I could have sworn there was a time 
	when it was generally accepted in academe that Shakespeare's 
	women were more interesting--lively, realistic, and so on.  I'm
	no expert, certainly ...

Oh I agree totally that there are an interesting lot; my point is that
they are interesting as persons, not as women. One reason why the
Shakespeare comedies are a favourite for acting in boys schools such as 
was my own, Stonyhurst, is that not only were the ingenue roles written
to be acted by boys but they were written for boys. They are boys.

						RABworm
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams)
Subject: Re: Jeeves and Wooster on BBC
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, California
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:01:28 GMT

> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>I also recall there was a very good series of Wodehouse adaptations
>starring John Alderton and Pauline Collins, but I can't remember if
>any of them were Bertie Wooster stories.

That rings a bell, but not loudly enough :-).  The BBC
also ran a short-lived Ukridge series, and, of course, a
delicious Emsworth series, with Ralph Richardson born to
play dotty Lord E.  And Derek Nimmo attained Brit super-
stardom playing several Wodehouse characters, mostly of
the Fink-Nottle variety (Bingo Little, fer sher), in the
Carmichael/Price Jeeves series, but he may also have been
in that Alderton/Collins series.  All this would have been
in the early '70s, I imagine...
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san ramon, ca -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Paglia (was: Cross-Writing)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:28:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.135722.24875@maths.tcd.ie> afcondon@maths.tcd.ie (Andrew Condon) writes:

>I disliked the book but, in so far as the subjects were prescribing modes of
>living for others personal lives, the tactic seems appropriate. Of course, not
>all of those thinkers did so.

If Bertrand Russell did not adhere to the prescriptions of his MARRIAGE
AND MORALS, does it follow that MARRIAGE AND MORALS is any less useful or
insightful a book? 

But, really, you put your finger on the issue when you point out that not
all of Johnson's INTELLECTUALS prescribed anything at all. (It's hard to
see how Gollancz did so, for example.) Johnson's purpose is simply to
trash people whom left intellectuals revere.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books