HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sivap-m@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Muhunthan Sivapragasam)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.sri-lanka
Subject: info needed: airfare to colombo
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:30:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci
Originator: sivap-m@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU

hi,
	i stay in Buffalo, NY. I plan a trip to Colombo in December.
Can u suggest some travel agents offering good deals ? i am a student
( some agents have special student offers ).

	thanks in advance,
							--muhunthan
-- 
						S. Muhunthan,

	"The shortest distance between two people is a smile"
################################################################################
From: bandu@acsu.buffalo.edu (Jagath Samarabandu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.sri-lanka
Subject: Re: How many Sri Lankans does it take ...
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:32:42 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Electrical Eng.

In article <9208182015.AA06118@arcss5.FRB.GOV> pkd@fed.UUCP (Prasad Dharmasena) writes:
>
>	Q1: How many Sri Lankans in the US does it take ....
>	Q2: How many Sri Lankans does it take ....
>
Q2: None. They just shoot them. (how do I draw a sad smiley?)
From: bandu@acsu.buffalo.edu (Jagath Samarabandu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.sri-lanka
Subject: How to forward usenet articles to your friends
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:57:38 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Electrical Eng.

Hello all,

If you want to forward usenet articles with minimum hassle to those who do not
have access, this is one way of doing it (UN*X). I have used full path names at
all times since this seems the most trouble free way of doing it. Change them
to suit your environment.


1. setup an 'at' command by running the following script once. It'll queue
itself for the next day. I usually say 'at 0200 ~/bin/late_night' to send them
when the net traffic is low.

============File:/home/bandu/bin/late_night=============
#! /bin/csh -X
# send the file 'net' to the list of people found in `.slnet`
#
# queue for the next day
at now + 1 day  /home/bandu/bin/late_night

if ((-e /home/bandu/.slnet) && (-e /home/bandu/net)) /home/bandu/bin/mailto /home/bandu/.slnet /home/bandu/net
======End=of=file=======================================

======File:/home/bandu/bin/mailto======================
#! /bin/sh 
# put this in a file called (say) mailto and the mailing list in a file called
# name.list .
# Save the messages in mailbox mode in a file called (say) msgs. Then type
# "mailto name.list msg".
#
(
echo "From: UsenetRelay <bandu@myaddr.edu>"
echo "To: You"
echo Date: `date`
echo
sed -e '/^From /,/^$/{
/^From /c\
----------------------------------------
s/^>From/From/
/^Article/p
/^From:/p
/^Date:/p
/^Subject:/p
/^$/p
d
}' $2 ) | /usr/lib/sendmail `cat $1`

# remove the message file
/bin/rm $2
==========End=of=file===================

2. Save usenet articles to a file called 'net' while you read them.

3. Get back to more important work such as reading alt.tv.melrose-place :-o

Bandu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.sri-lanka
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Woody Allen Charged With Molesting his Kids in Custody Battle
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:59:03 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1992Aug20.014104.21456@u.washington.edu> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>Barrie Trinkle writes
>> I don't understand why the media persists in calling it an "affair" (unless
>> either Woody or the woman is legally married, but they haven't said that).
>> Why not "relationship"?  Are they just trying to make it sound sleazy?
>
>   Yes they *ARE* "trying to make it sound sleazy".
>   Woody and the woman are neither married nor living together.
>   She has many (8?) children whom ONLY she adopted.

As far as Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi goes I suppose he broke no law.

But to me relationships are much deeper than matters of definition.  He had
a 12 year relationship with Mia Farrow.  That relationship extenended to her
family and well as their family.  Oh yes by law most of the children's  were
Mia's but that is just a technicallity.  I believe he betrayed them all.

It's like saying that Moses ( Mia and Woody's natural child) and Soon-Yi 
( Mia's adopted child ) were not brother and sister.  But Allen's 14 year
old son says it better than I could when he states, "I;m very upset about 
what he did.  He was a 12 year boyfried to my mom, and all of a sudden he
started going out with my sister.  And I cannot forgive him for that."

The children are upset to say the very least.  Another daughter Daisy Previn
( natural child of Mia and Andre Previn ) said, "I will never forgive him.
I loved him as a father.  We all thought of him as a father for years."
Previn also said that he been more of a father figure to Mia's children 
then the natural fathers.  It has been reported that none of the children
that Allen wants to have custody of want to go with him.  He has hurt
them very badly.

I do not feel their is any need to defend Woody Allen.  He has showed how
shallow he is.  That he has relationships with people who loved him, respected
him and for his own selfish reasons choose to not to care about them.

starbuck
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Followup-To: soc.men
Summary: Questions on "Paternity"
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:55:59 GMT


< lots of stuff on paternity, testing, and financial responsibility
   deleted>


I've been following this thread, which included the "Right not to
support" and it's brought up some questions in my mind.  I'd like
to hear other people's opinions on the matter.


The main problem I have is the "biological connection" we men are
supposed to have with our children.  I have no children and may
never have any, so I don't know first hand, but throughout history
it has been vitally important to men to know and control the destiny
of their children - even ones they will never see.    In the days
of kings even bastard children of monarchs were considered special
and had to be taken care of.   They even had a right to the throne,
as if they were better than any other kid born to peasant women
who weren't sired by kings.

There are two cases that come to mind that make me wonder about this
connection.

The first was the paternity suit against Paul McCartney.  I don't
remember if it was ever resolved but there was this woman who had
a son who she said was fathered by McCartney and she was suing for
MILLIONS!  Look at it this way - a baby is produced when a single
sperm hit a single egg.  The paternity issue hinges on that single
sperm.  They were gonna do blood and DNA tests on the kid and
supposed fathers and all I could think was - if that single sperm
came from McCartney the kid is now worth millions of dollars and
everything he does from his first step to his first detox will be
front page news.  If it came from her former boyfriend the garage
mechanic - the kid is worth nothing and can die for all anyone
cares.

The second case was the doctor at the fertility clinic who used his
own sperm (instead of husbands) to impregnate 700 women.  None of
the articles I read even bothered to speculate on WHY he did this,
and yet it was obvious to me.  It wasn't "rape" it was fatherhood.
The guy has got 700 children, he's laid his eggs in other peoples
nests, like the ultimate cuckoo.  I remember thinking that this
guy was totally nuts and truly evil and they could slap him in
the electric chair and roast him slowly, but he's still won.  And
yet, who set up the rules that he worked under?  Society did - your
sperm, your kid.

The right of support is a strange one too.  One question that comes
to mind is - If a woman has your baby, you are required (or can be
made to) support that child. If the child is put up for adoption,
can the foster or adoptive parents sue you for support?  It's still
"your" child - biologically speaking.

There are volumes to be written on this concept - even including
the number of people who claim to be "the" Lindberg baby, the
children that come out of the blue (like the case of the actor
on Northern Exposure).


marc colten
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: chauvinistic Posts
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:59:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <HARKCOM.92Aug17164922@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp> harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes:
>
>   If the man picked the wrong woman then he deserves the blame for it...

From which I presume it follows that if a woman picked the wrong man,
and gets beaten, abused, etc., then she deserves the blame for the
situation?

Or is this another one of those situations that can't be gender-reversed,
and a man is always to blame?

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Xref: sparky soc.men:15063 soc.women:15333 misc.legal:16076 alt.child-support:2769 alt.dads-rights:2010 alt.abortion.inequity:3131
From: harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 16 Aug 92 22:56:30 GMT
	<1992Aug7.205638.29522@u.washington.edu>
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Yokogawa Electric Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
In-reply-to: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu's message of 7 Aug 92 20:56:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug7.205638.29522@u.washington.edu> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu
    (Mr. EuStress) writes:

 =}Alton Harkcom writes
 =}>    Fraud, deceit, coercon, duress, etc... can be figured in.  Of course
 =}> they won't help with the case in point.  In this case the father willingly
 =}> created and now wants to avoid responsibility...
 =}
 =}    Al, Give me all your money!
 =}    Don't avoid this responsibility . . .  Give me all your money!

   Since when is it my responsibility to give my money to some idiot
that I didn't spawn?

   Ed, give your child a life!
Don't avoid this responsibility...  Give your child a life!
From:  (kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat))
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Impossible
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:34:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: here

In article <1992Aug8.233104.1796@u.washington.edu>, jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
> 
> avri@asherah.clearpoint.com (Avri Doria) writes...
> > once you make a semen deposit, you are committing yourself to support
> > the child, if the woman decides to have one.
> 
>    Men are not Women`s slaves.
> 
> 
This is unclear to me.  Are you saying that men *should* not be slaves or 
are you saying that men are *in fact* not slaves to women.  There's a differnece
betweern a matteer of fact abd a matter of values.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  I don't like man-hating.  I find
that Phylis Schlafly, George Gilder and others of the anti-feminist Right hate
men more than any radical feminist could (certainly more than a sincere feminist).
To both sexes the Right says "Live, work, obey.  Do and think what you are told.  
Reproduce, fight, and die when we say."  How sad to find the Right's useful fools in 
the feminist camp.

SunCat    kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:10:02 GMT

In article <2A92C195.10912@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:

)shomer writes:
)> I didn't have legal privilege in mind, but this raises an
)> important point. Patriarchal privilege is largely
)> extra-legal, in the so-called private  sphere and in
)> public relationships (at work, for instance) where the 
)> legal system can only partly regulate behavior. I think
)> one of the great contributions of feminism was to show why
)> the public/private distinction in  American political
)> thought is fundamentally false and misleading.

)This is hardly a "feminist contribution". The idea that there is no line  
)between the private realm and the public realm which under the control of the  
)state, that everything is political is considerably older than modern feminism.  

Yep.

)As a matter of fact, this is the central, defining idea of totalitarianism.  
)Hence I - for one - would not consider it a "contribution" in any positive  
)sense.

Yep.

I think there are things that might be able to be done to help fight some
of the problems women do face in the private realm without stepping on 
individual rights.  However, vague laws that can be very broadly interpreted
to cover just about anything (such as current Sexual Harssment definitions)
are definitely *NOT* the answer (IMO).
Xref: sparky soc.men:15246 soc.women:15517 alt.child-support:2812
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Sex Insurance
From: Gavin.Flower@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Gavin Flower)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:51:08 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.

In article <1992Aug18.212816.17674@u.washington.edu> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>karen dawn writes
>> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>> 
>> >  The government should use our tax money
>> >  to insure people`s sexual contact.
>> >  If a child is born then the insurer 
>> >  (the government) should reward money
>> >  to the primary care giver.  The Insurer
>> >  would do its damndest to prevent conception.
>> >  Thus men would not be made slaves to women.
>> nonsense!
>
>    Of course you say "nonsense!", you're a woman -- 
>    the benefactor of injustices against men.
>
>    If the minority can be enslaved then the majority
>    will support it.

*nonsense*


Gavin

-- 
Tomorrow's Society                              | flower_g@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
    Depends on                                   ----------------------------
Today's Children  - help us raise them properly! 
*******  These comments have no known correlation with dept. policy!  *******
Xref: sparky soc.men:15006 soc.women:15279 alt.child-support:2755 alt.dads-rights:2004
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:56:38 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women
Organization: Murasami Labs

ljf wrote:
 
>shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:

>> Gary Strand writes:
 
>> km> There is no public university, anywhere in the U. S., that can't be at-
>> km> tended on govt. grants and loans.
>> 
>>   You forget that men must be registered for the draft to receive these loans
>>   and grants. I wonder how many women students would be willing to give up
>>   any of these loans/grants they recieve as a form of protest against this
>>   sexist policy.

>Probably about as many as the number of men who refuse to walk alone at 
>night, as a form of protest against rape. :-(

Maybe they ought to. But not necessarily to protest rape, but rather to
avoid being attacked themselves.
 
> Yep.  About as many as couples of the opposite sex who are refusing to
> marry because couples of the same sex aren't allowed to marry in the
> US.

There is a minor little difference. There's no Association of Married
People out crusading for equal opportunity in marriage laws. There are,
however, several feminist-type groups that lay claim to the concept of
"fairness and equality". Oh, and of course, the vaunted "level playing
surface."

I've been told not to expect them to fight the fight on behalf of fathers
seeking fair and equitable custody of their children. Maybe they use a
different dictionary than I do...

Ok, so I'm cranky...

K'Char
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Ann Landers Sexual Harassment article
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:49:26 GMT
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)


	
	I recently read a recent letter to Landers (I think it was in the
	Landers column) about a man that was in an airport waiting for
	a flight.   Among the other people waiting was a woman and her
	daughter.  The little girl was apparently misbehaving so the
	mother told her daughter that unless she behaved, "that man over
	there" (pointing to the writer of the letter) "will pick you
	up and throw you into the river!".   Obviously the woman said
	this loud enough for him to hear....

	This made him uncomfortable to be used in this way, so he got up
	to find another place to sit.  As he stood up, the little girl
	freaked out.... screaming "Mommy, don't let him take me!".  The
	man was understandably pissed at this point and told the woman
	that she should be ashamed of herself for what she had done.

	About this time, airport security shows up, and asks the woman
	if she wants the man arrested!


	There are so many important lessons in this story.  I wish I
	could find the original so I could post it...

	-Mike-
	(the guy tired of seeing men being
	treated like pieces of meat with wallets)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: holzman@fnala.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbriefs #48
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:08:41 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnala.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug13.213023.5077@rosevax.rosemount.com>, 
peter@beeker.rosemount.com (Peter Swanson) writes:
> This isn't original, is it?  Substitute "white people" for "women",
> and substitute "African-American people" for "men", and you'll have the 
> version I saw.  The original version was also substantially longer, but the
> parts reprinted here are word-for-word. (I specifically remember the
> words "monkey-sucking noise", which was the most appalling part
> of the article.)

AAARRRGGGH!

The one you saw was a spoof of this one, so done to illustrate the bigotry
inherent in thius one!

Dan
Xref: sparky soc.men:15352 soc.women:15636 alt.child-support:2848 alt.dads-rights:2058 alt.abortion.inequity:3220
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: "As a taxpayer [Bob B. says] screw [Deadbeats]"
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 23:00:56 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.test,alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug22.213200.17101@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>hamton.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>>>    Says you.  So long as you can pretend that that
>>>    child is supported by a (unwilling) father, everything
>>>    is "off your shoulders."   Society his content.
>>
>>If they agree beforehand that they are going
>>to dump any offspring in society's lap, as a taxpayer that
>>is now my concern and my simple answer is screw you. You
>>want to play the russian roulette of sex, but figure that
>>someone else should get shot if it lands on a live chamber.
>
>   "Agreements beforehand" are invalid.
>   Only the judge can determine the child's fate.
>   
>   So you don't want to pay for "unwanted children" --
>   society, as a whole, does -- by forcing men to
>   be "wallet dads".
>
>  May you be forced to support someone else --
>  and may you have no legal recourse to get out of it.

Please keep the non-legal posts off of misc.legal.  Thank you.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 05:57:20 GMT

In article <VIXIE.92Aug22215909@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>[beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)]
>>Could you explain "trivially overcome it"?
>>
>>Is it really possible for a man to take the baby into his own house,
>>into his house for half the time, or even just into his arms, if the
>>woman objects?
>
>In the case where the woman wants to give the baby up for adoption, yes,

But if she wants to keep it, and decides that she doesn't want
the father to walk out of the hospital with the baby, or even
to see the baby?  Who is the baby given to?

>>Or are you saying the +legal+ consequences of not being able to
>>take the child into his arms are trivial to overcome?  Does this
>>mean that the woman's sole personal care of the baby is not taken
>>into account in any subsequent custody dispute?
>
>Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here.

It was a suggestion to explain your "trivially overcome": if the problems
were purely legal (eg. the father's legal rights depend on having
openly taken the baby into his own arms; or, eg., a later custody decision
is based on the mother being the primary caregiver by fiat), then perhaps 
there were trivial ways to overcome the legal consequences of the father 
being denied these opportunities.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:14910 soc.women:15184 alt.child-support:2737 alt.abortion.inequity:3109
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:54:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <mDNcPB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>
>> 
>> 	But the difference *is* that if a pregnancy occurs (whoever's
>> 	"fault" it is) at that point a woman has material say in
>> 	weather a child is born.  A man has none any more.
>> 
>> 	(BTW, I am not pro abortion.  I'm making a point)
>> 
>> 	WOMAN:  Choice 1:	"mistake" of getting pregnant.
>> 		Choice 2:	"mistake" of having the child.
>> 
>> 	MAN	Choice 1:	"mistake" of impregnanting.
>> 		Choice 2:	NONE
>> 
>> 	The man only has a "choice" to make a mistake once.
>
>Yes. But I think it may have been more accurate to say:

	I fail to see how stating something in a more general
	way is more accurate.
	We'll have to add and addendum to Choice 2: 

>
>WOMAN:  Choice 1:  Participating in becomming pregnant
>        Choice 2:  Dealing with Choice #1
	 	OPTIONS in dealing with choice 2:	

			a) deliver a baby
			b) have an abortion
>
>MAN:    Choice 1:  Participating in a pregnancy
>        Choice 2:  Dealing with Choice #1
	 	OPTIONS in dealing with choice 2:	
		
			NONE!

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:57:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.152547.9278@ryn.mro4.dec.com> walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh) writes:
)

)It is more accurate to say 
)
)WOMAN:  Choice 1:  Participating in becomming pregnant
)        Choice 2:  Dealing with Choice #1
)
)MAN:    Choice 1:  Participating in a pregnancy
)        Choice 2:  Dealing with the woman's choice #2

Actually, it's probably more accurate to say:

Generic choice for men & women

1) Live
2) Die

though there are a very few unlucky people who may not even have this much
choice (POW's & such).

So, since there is almost *always* a choice (you can always commit suicide
if things are really bad) anything goes, right?

:-(