HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: etxtdi@exu.ericsson.se (Tord Ivarsson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: An old question ...
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:26:24 GMT
Reply-To: etxtdi@exu.ericsson.se (Tord Ivarsson)
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

>> pab1@midway.uchicago.edu >Paul Braier writes:
>>
>> More proof is on the way. I am still compiling 'the Book of Yaakov' in which
>> I chronicle all the miracles which (by next century or so) will be attributed
>> to him.
>> [rest deleted]
>
>> etxtdi@exu.ericsson.se (Tord Ivarsson) writes:
>>
>> I expect an explosive growth of the Howard Church the following century and
>> for the coming 2000 years continusly growing Howard Churches around the globe.
>> What Howard stands for and what the claims he is said to have made will never
>> cease to challenge the minds of both his sceptics as well as his followers.
>> Healings in Howards name will continue to take place everywhere.
>
>
>Exactly true.


Tru or false you cannot say Paul,
since it still remains to be seen ...

/Tord
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dear Rich (was: Dear Starbuck)
Date: 5 Nov 92 01:02:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <misdeva-031192014257@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:

>
>Fine.  All I was saying on this point is that anti-feminists do not for the
>most part restrict their opposition to only the feminists who have such
>views.  For example, Starbuck is not just anti-feminist a la MacK. and D.,
>but also anti-me, although he and I actually share a lot of common ground. 
>Anti-feminists, at least in my experience, are anti-all feminists.

Devjani Mishra, I am not anti-you.  I respect your right to your opinion and
thoughts and feel they are as valid as mine. I can also say we share a lot of
common ground. I am aware that when I post that I may say 
things that can be taken the wrong way.  This has to do with anger at radical
feminism as well as my not being willing to make statements to excuse my
anger.  But to tell you the truth I am getting a little tired of being angry
at feminists.   Too much anger is not good for the soul, it clouds ones
vision, twists ones thoughts, and makes meaningful discussion wiht others
impossible.  In many ways I am guilty of the same things I accuse the radical
feminists of. 

starbuck
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Dear Rich (was: Dear Starbuck)
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:30:48 GMT

 lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>The question I have now is:  Have the feminists managed to get rid of enough
>male-only awards that there are now actually more female-only awards than 
>male-only awards?

I don't know.  Maybe if you point out some of the awards that women are
barred from, I could find out.  I really can't think of any that apply to
Canadian scientists.  I know that I have never come accross one.

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:05:09 GMT

In article <1drm22INNgjk@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>>The point is *someone* has to pay to raise the children.  It either has
>>>to be the parents (how many single parents can affort to raise children
>>>without help from the other parent?)  or the taxpayers.

[Don: 
 Women are presumed to be able to make responsible reproductive decisions.]

>>It is her power; it is her right; it is her responsibility.
>
>In our society (as things currently stand) the woman has neither the 
>right nor the responsibility.  A woman is prevented from making a
>responsible, considered, unbiased decision regarding abortion.  And
>the law is most unclear on the responsibility that will devolve upon
>her if she decides to bear the child, as well as on the responsibility 
>that will devolve upon the father.  

In what state does a woman not have the right to an abortion?

In what state is it impossible for a woman to obtain child support
from a proven father?

Where can a father avoid HR 5123, the "Child Support Economic Security
Act of 1992"?

Where does a mother have less than a 90% likelihood of success
if she chooses to keep custody?  Where is it illegal for a mother
to give her child up for adoption?

Her rights and responsibilities, under the law and in our
court systems, seem pretty clear to me.


Don't tell me you have an acute case of Supreme-Court mania -- beyond the
"one vote away" to "abortion is already illegal."

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:16:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.211232.26686@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:


>It's fairly well established, as well, that women vote along
>more liberal lines than men. 
>
>>>A working mother can be as good a mother as a non-working mother.
>>>
>>>                      % men       % women
>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>Agree                  55.3         68.1
>>>Disagree               44.7         31.9
>>
>>
>>Now, how do men and women feel about the following?
>>
>> A working father can be as good a parent as a non-working mother.
>
>I don't know, but I bet most of both would disagree.  It's still a 
>fairly "traditional" world....

This scares me no end.

I guess the women aren't going to vote along lines *that* liberal.

signed,

a working father
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Feminist Jokes
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 07:05:04 GMT

In article <23650@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>
>I said what I said for a number of reasons formost of which is what 
>feminists on the net and in print say about men, society, and history.  
>I feel that women who feel about men in the way that these women do
>could not have meaningful relationships with men in general.  They do
>not like men and some even hate men, at best are indifferent.  

You feel this way.  I feel that many so-called hetero men hate women
very much.

>And so I feel that women who are like that could not have much interest 
>in meaningful relationships with men, could hardly have much interest in 
>sexual ones, save for animal gratification.

Fucking only for the sake of fucking is bad?

>Do you really think that I give a care who sleeps with whom?  You just 
>don't get it.  That fact that many feminist are lesbians does not escape
>me and I do think about it, but not on such a shallow level.  I have given
>some thought to how lesbian feminists influence feminist thought especially
>that which deals with sexual theories and the anti-man bias that seems
>to be woven into feminist thought.

On such a shallow level?  Then tell us what you think, without the
rabid anti-feminist remarks that your posts generally consist of.
Steinem is hetero, Wolfe is hetero, Faludi is hetero.  I believe
MacKinnon is hetero.

All that I've seen so far is your (and Sheaffer's) insistence that
most feminists are man-hating lesbians.  Sheaffer even manages to take
a stat that Masters and Johnson discovered long before the feminazis
ever became infamous to "show" that feminists are mostly lesbians who
hate penises.

>"How many men does it take to change a lightbulb?"
>
>Well how many?

None.  They're sitting in the dark, bitching about how their ex-wives
took all the lightbulbs.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:14:43 GMT

In article <8KRSBLST@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.181558.19617@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1LLSBRZY@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>>Mr. Gazit has proven only that men too suffer, not that they suffer 
>>>worse than women.  
>>
>>Where did this come from? How is it relevant?
>>
>>>       The mechanism by which women suffer is institutionalized in a way that
>>>men are not discriminated against.  Men, of course, suffer as well.  
>>>There are numerous prejudices against men as well.  These are bad things.
>>>
>>>Most sexism marginalizes and disempowers women more than it does so to men.
>>
>>By definition it would seem, and mostly defined by feminists.
>>
>>>Men suffer too from sexism, but seldom materially.  
>>
>>I'm sure that this is a consolation to the homeless men on the streets. 
>
>Did he get there via sexism?

In part, althought from the postings here and eslewhere, it seems mostly
to have been political. But sexism seems to be the thing that keeps 
homeless men on the streets.
 
>>>                                                 Sexism, prejudice against
>>>either gender, damages the soul of the chauvinist whatever the material
>>>consequences. Still, women tend in our society as in most to suffer the brunt
>>>of the material losses acrued from sexism.
>>
>>So far most of the materials I have seen posted tend to show that women are
>>getting paid about the same for equivalant education and experience. And
>>almost all of the aid society provides is for women and children. What
>>exactly do you mean by the above?
>>
>>>-dave
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>Let me see if I can pull my brain together.
>
>Women suffer from sexual harrassment and assault.  

All suffer from sexual harrasment, and men are assaulted far more than men.
Are you implying that all women "suffer from sexual harrassment and assault"
all the time?

>Women are not at the highest positions in our society as much as men are.  

You should watch the elections, this is changing. BTW, it is a 100% sexist
point. Women have to -run- for office. 

>Women often have to subordinate their carreers to raising children.  

What do you propose to do about this? Have the baby then send it off
to some state institution?
 
>-dave

Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was:Feminist Jokes)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:59:09 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov6085825@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.054611.23437@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>> Why do people read Stephen King books? Probably for the same reason many
>> women read romance novels, it fullfills some need. Probably not the same
>> need though rini. I suspect that the Stephen King books meet some need
>> for excitement, somewhat like the T2 movie.
>
>Why *not* the same need?  Many romance novels are essentially
>adventure stories with some (often a lot of) sex thrown in (ever see
>"Romancing the Stone"?).  These do meet a need for excitement in the
>non-sexual sense.  

Too the extent that they both *may* contain romance, and adventure, I
agree with you. But Stephen King writes -->horror<-- novels. People
get eaten by giant worms, cars which take on a life of their own, and
do non-romantic things to their owners, the townspeople, etc...

Are you saying that romance novels and horror novels address the same
needs? I disagree, any common elements notwithstanding.

>                  These are the ones where the woman is kidnapped by
>the pirate, eventually rescued by him from the *real* "bad guy," etc.
>Other romance novels satisfy other needs - the main other theme that I
>see is the rich, successful woman who creates her own empire and then
>battles the people trying to take it away from her, having sex along the
>way.  That is exciting in a different way from the action-adventure type
>books, but still exciting, especially to a woman who has little power in
>her own life.

Do you mean women who do not choose to use the power that they do have?
 
>Muffy
>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Polygamy
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:42:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.011516.27332@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <T4SSB5HJ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>[...]
>Ah, but that is only one of *your* reasons for entering in a marriage.  Others
>may work out their own, and still have something that could only be called
>marriage.  [...]

I never claimed that my reasons should be coerced upon others.  (Neither am I
taking it that you implied those were my claims.)  If alternative arrangements
work for you, than more power to you.

-dave
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: 7 Nov 1992 18:42:02 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov7.054047.11378@panix.com>
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>However, in this particular case, I've also been blowing off
>a bit of emotional steam.  

Thanks for the acknowledgement.

...
>I haven't seen much concern for the homeless in this
>thread; instead, I've seen a kind of maneuvering to use
>their existence as yet another stick to beat feminism with.

If you're referring to the comments by Hillel and Garry, I think 
you're overreacting.  Their point, with which I agree, is that men 
clearly aren't better off than women at all levels of society, as you 
asserted.  It was a disagreement with a rather authoritative and 
'blowing off steam' sort of comment that you made.  If this also 
represents a disagreement with a certain subpopulation of 'feminists' 
who also believe your assertion, so what?   There's plenty within 
feminism to criticize (and praise); I personally prefer to ignore the 
labels and discuss the issues.

>And in case some low rhetorical maneuver _was_ planned --
>not by present company, of course -- it will now be too
>embarrassing to carry out.  So much the better, wouldn't
>you say?

Well, I just carried it out above.  Am I now going to be crucified?  :-)   

>Is that sort of thing a cheap rhetorical dig?  I think
>it's a fairly cogent kind of argument.  One like it
>certainly ended the famous draft discussion.  We are
>talking about real human beings and real problems, aren't
>we?  Why is it a cheap rhetorical dig to ask what the
>talk is supposed to accomplish, or where it is going?

It is a cheap rhetorical dig to oversimplify and distort the problems 
of homeless men as a means of telling your net.opponents to 'put up 
or shut up.'  Your 'analysis' of the problem in terms of a size 
dimorphism is rather transparent in this regard.

>And now, for one more round of "anything you can do, I
>can do better" and the final point:

You misread my comment.  I'm not saying that you should be out on 
the front lines, I'm saying that your logic implies you should be, 
rather than wasting your time and intellect on Usenet.  It's now 
apparent that you didn't mean what you said, so my question is 
answered.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Jennifer Reins
Subject: Huge fight?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:47:13 GMT

I heard from a reliable source that there was a huge fist fight Sunday
night between two sorority girls on the street.  Apparently, sometime  
after the bars closed two girls started beating the hell out of each other  
over a rather trivial matter.  Supposedly, these two girls were two of the  
best looking girls on campus (can you tell a guy told me this?), and by  
the end of the fight (over 5 minutes later!!!), they looked like they went  
through a meat grinder!  I don't know anything else about it, not even the  
location of the fight.  Does anyone know anything about this????
                                     Curious.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:33:20 GMT

garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) wrote:
 
>> Well, if this argument was coming from, say, Shaeffer or Garry King,
>> I could see why you might be suspicious.
 
>Is this like being inducted into the pantheon of demons ?
>If so, I deeply honoured, but probably don't deserve it.

I *knew* you would get a kick out of that!  :)  

>> Of course, that's my opinion.... and as we all know, I'm an unjust and
>> opressive arbiter.  Oh well.  :)
 
>No, just a bit thin-skinned and ineffectual, but we understand. :-) 

Thin-skinned?  Nah.  

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Dear Starbuck
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:45:46 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Nov4165119@death.corp.sun.com>, zen@death.corp.sun.com
(d) wrote:
> 
>   Aha!  He didn't deny that he likes you, rini!  I *knew* it.  There had
> to be some reason for all the incessent babbling... he was just trying
> to keep you talking by making rediculous claims that he knew you
> couldn't let slide by.  No sentient being could actually *believe* what
> he says.  As for the GIFS... I'll never let them go.  They're the prizes
> of my collection (next to the ones of muffy, that is.)  Letting random
> people have them somehow cheapens their value...
> 
>  -- d

Maybe we could start an alt.rich.n.rini group?

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:49:43 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>To my knowledge, no one has gotten away with saying/implying something 
>>like "all men are rapists" on the net.
 
>So you are saying that while using man when speaking of all mankind
>devalues women, talking about rape as if it were usual, normal, and
>almost the expected behavior does not in any way devalue men?

Nope. I have never claimed either.

rini
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:00:26 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov5.163209.3920@netcom.com> 
payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
 
>I think a valid point that is usually missing in most feminist postings
>is that most of the things men do most of the time are productive and/or
>constructive.

Okay, I'm with ya so far...

>Men and women both have good points and bad points, strengths and
>weaknesses. Reading posts here gives one the impression that the only
>things men do deserving consideration is to rape, sexually harrass, have
>sex with their children, etc... 

Oh please.  You're tempting me to pull your post that says, "Who here has
said this!  Give examples!  If things are as you paint, you should be
able to point just about *any* post to prove your point!" or something
like that.  (Then we could have 50,000 follow-ups where I go, "BUT IS
THIS REPRESENTATIVE!!".)  But I think it's not a good idea to get Rich
started.  :)

>In this regard, most feminists seem
>to go along with macho standards. It is expected that men work and
>support their families or spouses (if they have them). It can be ignored.

I have never seen feminists support the expectation that men work and 
support their families or spouses.  No, because "support" implies 
"dependency" and that's what feminists are very vocally against.

(Lose one point for child custody/support laws/habits, but the basic 
argument still stands.)

rini
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dear Starbuck
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:51:19 GMT
	<ZEN.92Nov3154554@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Nov4.193125.20008@netcom.com>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Wed, 4 Nov 1992 19:31:25 GMT


In article <1992Nov4.193125.20008@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> In article <ZEN.92Nov3154554@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov3.214045.26503@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
> >> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> >> [to rini: ... ]
> >> Just one minor point: the above phrase is a blatant falsehood.  
> >> Not that it matters too much.  I just hate see misrepresentations 
> >> go unnoted.  :)
> >
> >  I think he likes you.  Perhaps he's seen those x-rated GIFS of
> >you...

> No, I haven't. Perhaps you could post then to the net?   :^)

  Aha!  He didn't deny that he likes you, rini!  I *knew* it.  There had
to be some reason for all the incessent babbling... he was just trying
to keep you talking by making rediculous claims that he knew you
couldn't let slide by.  No sentient being could actually *believe* what
he says.  As for the GIFS... I'll never let them go.  They're the prizes
of my collection (next to the ones of muffy, that is.)  Letting random
people have them somehow cheapens their value...

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Appoved Bodies
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:37:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.172346.5987@wam.umd.edu>, sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve
Russell) wrote:
> 
> Aside from star trek I stopped watching TV years ago.  I read few magazines.
> Since then I've been amazed how many GOOD looking women I meet think
> little of themselves because they are under 5'11'' and weigh more then
> an ounce.  Every now and then when I buy a magazine Im usually shocked
> to see how abnormally thin....to the point of looking sick the models are.
> 
> From a purely physical standpoint, I think one of the sadder things
> about the kind of "media approved body images deal" ( Elle Calenders for-
> example) is that few men ever come to appreciate the wide range of
> beautiful female body types.  I guess to a certain extent the media does
> this to other areas of our lives as well.  We only want what is good and
> they tell us what is good if we dont watch ourselves.
> 
> 
> Steve R

Actually, when body-type preference studies are conducted, by asking men
which female body types (using faceless outlines) they find most attractive
and asking women which female body types *they believe* men find most
attractive, women nearly always choose thinner, taller types than men do. 
I think that's even sadder.

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women