Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:20:42 -0600
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was aharwell@PANAM1.PANAM.EDU
From:         Bandwidth Pig <harwell@BANDW.PANAM.EDU>
Subject:      test messages -- repost
Comments: To: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

Here's the latest from Project H. Looks like we haven't been sampled during
their testing period.

-abh
--------------------------------------
>Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:00:34 +1100
>Reply-To: "Comserve special projects: Working Group H"
><PROJECTH%RPITSVM.BITNET@PANAM1.PANAM.EDU>
>Sender: "Comserve special projects: Working Group H"
><PROJECTH%RPITSVM.BITNET@PANAM1.PANAM.EDU>
>From: fays@ARCHSCI.ARCH.SU.EDU.AU
>Subject: test messages -- repost
>To: Anne Harwell <HARWELL@PANAM1.PANAM.EDU>
>
>This is a repost of the 9 pretest messages for new members.
>Fay
>
>======
>
>CODERID:   <your initials>
>LISTID:    <1>
>MSGNUM:    <1>
>AUTHORID:  <1>
>LOCALTIME: <1737>
>UNIVTIME:  <X>
>
>Date:         Wed, 9 Dec 1992 17:37:00 PDT
>Sender:       Women's Studies List <WMST-L@UMDD.BITNET>
>>From:         SMITHD@CLARGRAD.BITNET
>Subject:      gay parents
>
>I understand there are some books out now dealing with children of lesbian
>and/or gay parents. One or more of these books is by a psychiatrist. Does
>anyone have references for them?
>Daryl Smith
>SMITHD@CLARGRAD
>Thanks.
>
>=======
>
>CODERID:   <your initials>
>LISTID:    <1>
>MSGNUM:    <2>
>AUTHORID:  <2>
>LOCALTIME: <2157>
>UNIVTIME:  <X>
>
>Date:         Wed, 9 Dec 1992 21:57:46 -0600
>Sender:       Women's Studies List <WMST-L@UMDD.BITNET>
>>From:         NAME <KESTERBERG@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
>Subject:      Re: gay parents
>
>There is a growing body of work on lesbian/gay parents (mostly lesbian
>parents).  Some books that I know of include Alpert's WE ARE
>EVERYWHERE: WRITINGS BY AND ABOUT LESBIAN PARENTS (Freedom, CA:
>Crossing Press); F.W. Bozett (ed.), GAY AND LESBIAN PARENTS (N.Y.:
>Praeger); and S. Pollack and J. Vaughn, POLITICS OF THE HEART: A
>LESBIAN PARENTING ANTHOLOGY.  Charlotte Patterson, a psychologist
>at Univ. of Virginia, is doing some longitudinal research on
>the children of lesbian parents.  She has presented papers at
>a number of conferences and is, I think, editing a special volume
>of one of the developmental psych. journals on the issue.
>I have several of her conference papers and wuold be happy to
>send them on to you.
>       Kristin Esterberg (kesterberg@vax1.umkc.edu or
>        kesterberg@umkcvax1.bitnet)
>        Dept. of Sociology
>        University of Missouri-Kansas City
>        Kansas City, MO 64110
>
>=======
>
>CODERID:   <your initials>
>LISTID:    <1>
>MSGNUM:    <3>
>AUTHORID:  <3>
>LOCALTIME: <1827>
>UNIVTIME:  <X>
>
>Date:         Thu, 10 Dec 1992 18:27:08 EST
>Sender:       Women's Studies List <WMST-L@UMDD.BITNET>
>>From:         Paula Rust <prust@ITSMAIL1.HAMILTON.EDU>
>Subject:      Re: gay parents
>
>>
>> I understand there are some books out now dealing with children of lesbian
>> and/or gay parents. One or more of these books is by a psychiatrist. Does
>> anyone have references for them?
>> Daryl Smith
>> SMITHD@CLARGRAD
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>There is a book called something like "Different Mothers" that
>is a collection of writings by children of lesbian mothers.  The
>children are of different ages, and they talk about what it
>is like for them to have lesbian mothers.  I don't have the
>book here, so I can't give more info on it.  Also:
>
>Cheri Pies, Considering Parenthood, 1988, San Francisco: Aunt Lute
>
>Frederick W. Bozett (ed.) Gay and LEsbian Parents, 1987,
>New York: Praeger.  (This book was already mentioned in another
>message, but I want to emphasize its value; it cites *numerous*
>studies on different topics related to gay and lesbian parenting,
>and can be used not only for its own arguments, but as an
>annotated bibliography.
>
>Jeanne Jullion, Long Way Home: The odyssey of a lesbian mother
>and her children, 1985, San Francisco: Cleis Press.  (The story
>of a mother's custody battle)
>
>The following two books have chapters on legal issues (custody, etc):
>
>the editors of the Harvard Law Review, Sexual Orientation and the Law,
>1989, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
>
>Richard Green, Sexual Science and the Law, 1992, Cambridge, MA:
>Harvard Univ. Press.
>
>=====================================================================
>
>CODERID:   <your initials>
>LISTID:    <2>
>MSGNUM:    <1>
>AUTHORID:  <1>
>LOCALTIME: <0736>
>UNIVTIME:  <X>
>
>>From soc.culture.australian Tue Dec 22 12:52:58 1992
>>From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
>Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.australian
>Subject: Re: Do we really need the monarchy?
>Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 07:36:36 MST
>Lines: 92
>
>WARNING !! NUCLEAR EXCHANGES BETWEEN MONARCHISTS AND REPO RE?PUBLICANS HIGH
>PROBABLE IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS!!!
>
>Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>- In article <gPBmVB4w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>, yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
>- (Dave Shariff Yadallee) says:
>- >
>- >Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>- >
>- >
>- >  Excuse me, but do you want to end like the USA?  The monarchy is NOT
>- >anachronistic!!  If you ever hear of the Ismailis, they have a monarchy of
>- >its own, nemevolent in nature, philanthropic and very nice people!!
>-
>- Is this the best you can do? We should keep a British Queen as not to be
>- american. Personally, I think official bilingualism does a lot more to
>- distinguish us from the Yanks than paying allegiance to a foreign soverign
>
>  Froeign Sovereign?  I BEG YOUR PARDON.  Since when did Canada's indigenous
>population were made up of white-people?  And on on whose model of government
>has Canada based itself on?  THE BRITISH !!  You seem to ignore the fact that
>Canada's government culture in BASED ON THE BRITISH parliament.  Canada was in
>fact the Loyalist answer to a Nation in North America!! You are forgetting what
>is historically and fundamental Canada.
>
>-
>-
>-
>- >-
>- >   Easy, there is TOO MUCH power in the hands of the government, but then
>- >again
>- >Conservatives parties have been under the 'guidance' of the USA, hence must
>-
>- How is this relevant to the UK government not consulting the commonwealth?
>
>  Excuse me, but are you aware that Margaret Thatcher, Brian Mulroney and other
>Commonwealth Conservative leaders seemed to dance to a pied piper by the name
>of Ronald Reagan?
>
>- >our disasters can be attributed to that! Time and time again, I have propose
>- >a
>- >representative government that would be directly responible to God, Queen an
>- >country on a VERY LARGE SCALE! It is time to consider who our friends are!!
>-
>- I'm sorry, you aren't answering the question at all, you are responding to
>- an argument which has not only not been made but is completely irrelevent to
>- the issue of commonwealth consultation. Again, if she is OUR Queen as much as
>- she is Britain's, why do Canadians have no say on the succession?
>
>  Try this one.  the reason the British Empire fell was that only England,
>Scotalnd, Wales and Ireland, when it was part of GB, were the only ones
>represented in Parliament.  No Canadian, Australian, India, Zealander sat in
>Westminister, which I take issue with!!
>  In case you missed it, Canadians, Australians, anybody who has Her Majesty
>as Head of State, IS consulted! That was definitely the case 56 years age when
>Edward 8th abdicated the throne.  IT depends on whether or not Parliament OR
>the Privy Council addreses it and if the media CARES to report this!!
>
>Andy, I suggest you go back and re-read what is Canada, or even British north
>America before posting again!!
>
>Rosemary Waigh, I said God, Queen and country, NOT JUST God and Queen!! you can
>not seperate 2 from the 3rd element.  In other words, these are mutually
>INCLUSIVE!
>
>- >
>- >REMOVE REPUBLICANISM FULLY !!
>- >
>- >Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
>- > (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
>- >God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
>- >Happy Christmas and Merry New Year to One and All - John Lennon
>
>  That still stands.
>
>Addressing the issue of Henry 8.  He as founder of the Church of england did
>permit divorce.  Even there, I do believe that a divorce king should not be at
>issue.
>
>Addressing furthur the issue of Edward 8.  It was KNOWN in circle that none of
>the British upper echelon would want him as king!  German sympathizer the
>politicos said, unreligious the CofE said, hence he WAS secretly put away as
>cleanly as possible.
>
>Au Quebecois, la REine Elisabeth II peut parler bien le francais.  On l'a vu
>pendant la fete du Canada.
>
>Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
> (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
>God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
>Happy Christmas and Merry New Year to One and All - John Lennon
>
>========
>
>CODERID:   <your initials>
>LISTID:    <2>
>MSGNUM:    <2>
>AUTHORID:  <1>
>LOCALTIME: <0545>
>UNIVTIME:  <X>
>
>>From soc.culture.australian Tue Dec 22 12:52:59 1992
>>From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
>Subject: Re: Do we really need the monarchy?
>Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 05:45:13 MST
>Lines: 20
>
>gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>
>- In article <PRBoVB5w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
>-
>- ... no, I'm sorry, I can't quote any of it, I'm too emotionally disturbed.
>- Are you sure you're all right, Dave?
>- --
>- Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757
>- Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
>- New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl
>- Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
>
>My dear fellow, when it comes to any pro-Republican, I nuke away!!
>When it comes to anyone challenging the monarchy for rightful reasons, I do
>decide to side with them quickly.
>
>Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
> (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
>God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
>Happy Christmas and Merry New Year to One and All - John Lennon
>
>============
>
>CODERID:   <your initials>
>LISTID:    <2>
>MSGNUM:    <3>
>AUTHORID:  <2>
>LOCALTIME: <1845>
>UNIVTIME:  <X>
>
>>From soc.culture.australian Tue Dec 22 12:53:00 1992
>>From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
>Subject: Re: Do we really need the monarchy?
>Date: 16 Dec 92 18:45:01 GMT
>Lines: 53
>
>In article <1992Dec16.021656.24969@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
> writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.160442.11926@fwi.uva.nl> hm@fwi.uva.nl (Hans Mulder)
> writes:
>>>In <1992Dec12.234429.13224@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>>>>>>I'll bet the *French*-Canadians haven't suffered from this "national
>>>>>>identity crisis".
>>>>>
>>>>>No, they have their own identity crisis -- they think they are being
>>>>>persecuted.
>>>
>>>>This is true.  Still, IMO, their relations back home certainly
>>>>had a rather efficient way of ridding themselves of a parasitic
>>>>monarchy a few centuries ago.
>>>
>>>If you think all those revolutions the French staged between 1789
>>>and 1848 rid them of parasitic monarchies, you're wrong.  The one
>>>thing that finally worked (in 1871) was getting conquered by Prussia.
>>
>>OKOK, slamdunked by a net pedant.  Always happens.  How about,
>
>I thought Hans was being clever, rather than pedantic.  A matter of
>taste, I suppose.
>
>>the UK could consider getting rid of the present parasitic
>>monarchy using the same methods employed in France in 1793.
>>(rats, and I just sold my shares in the tumbrel manufacturing plant)
>
>The British thought of this method before the French, in 1649.  It only
>worked for 11 years.  Kings, like cockroaches and other parasites,
>tend to come back even after you try to exterminate them.  Repeated
>treatments may be necessary.
>>
>>And I didn't promise that chopping the heads off the current batch
>>would necessarily guarantee that the UK would get a better class of
>>parasitic monarchs.  So there.
>>
>>>
>>>>Probably can't be done today, I suppose.
>>>
>>>Seeing as Prussia no longer exists, no, it can't be done today.
>>>Maybe the Canadians could ask the Germans to conquer Canada.
>>
>>What does Canada have to do with this?
>>In any case, since there is no monarch *residing* in Canada, your
>>advice seems, well, strange.   Also, shouldn't you have picked a
>>conquering nation with some sort of monarchy?
>>
>Hans picked Germany because it is the successor state to Prussia.
>Remember that it was the French who got rid of Napoleon III, not the
>Prussians.  The fact that Prussia was a monarchy at the time was
>irrelevant.
>
>Tom Box
>CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
>
>=====================================================================
>
>CODERID:   <your initials>
>LISTID:    <3>
>MSGNUM:    <1>
>AUTHORID:  <1>
>LOCALTIME: <1326>
>UNIVTIME:  <X>
>
>
>#: 85712 S3/Hospitality Suite
>    06-Dec-92  13:26:39
>Sb: #85653-#Civilization or savagery
>Fm: Louis J Kim 76450,2231
>To: J.T. McQuitty 76620,2703 (X)
>
><Fm: J.T. McQuitty 76620,2703 <To: henry hines 74040,3145 < <Many middle and
>upper class people don't realize how close to the jungle they <live. . . . <A
>huge percentage have practically no empathy for other human beings. . . .
>
>J.T.,
>     I was curious about what percentage you think these people make up in the
>population of the United States?  I don't believe it's all that high. It's just
>my perception.
>
>                                    Louis
>
>There is 1 Reply.
>
>=======
>
>CODERID:   <your initials>
>LISTID:    <3>
>MSGNUM:    <2>
>AUTHORID:  <2>
>LOCALTIME: <2041>
>UNIVTIME:  <X>
>
>#: 85808 S3/Hospitality Suite
>    06-Dec-92  20:41:14
>Sb: #85712-#Civilization or savagery
>Fm: J.T. McQuitty 76620,2703
>To: Louis J Kim 76450,2231 (X)
>
>I wouldn't pretend to know an exact figure.  The thrust of my post was that
>many upper & middle class people don't even know they're there, though people
>who live, for example, in many housing projects, S. Central LA. probably still
>Roxbury MA, and other places could probably show you some.
>
>We (the US) doesn't seem to be able to keep violent offenders in prison very
>long.  The average in Texas is 25% of sentence.
>
>If you want a guess from thin air, I would say 5% of male population has not
>internalized any restraint against violence and another 5 or 10 percent would
>probably use violence if circumstances appeared propitious. Figures are
>probably lower for female. I would defer to superior erudition in this regard.
>
>Im not sure how important statistics are. I had an anti-gun friend who worked
>in a big-city morgue for a while, after which he bought a .44 magnum for his
>house and a 9mm to carry (illegally).
>
>What would you guess?  Or anyone else out there?
>
>
>
>There is 1 Reply.
>
>=======
>
>CODERID:   <your initials>
>LISTID:    <3>
>MSGNUM:    <3>
>AUTHORID:  <3>
>LOCALTIME: <0041>
>UNIVTIME:  <X>
>
>#: 85863 S3/Hospitality Suite
>    07-Dec-92  00:41:36
>Sb: #85808-#Civilization or savagery
>Fm: pat cassidy 76605,2365
>To: J.T. McQuitty 76620,2703 (X)
>
>J.T.
>
>I believe the U.S. is THE MOST EFFECTIVE democracy in keeping people in
>jail, at least if you look at the percentage of population incarcerated.  In
>fact, I think I remember stats that indicate that the U.S. is in the top
>three, of >all< countries, in terms of percentage of population
>incarcerated, and that includes totalitarian countries which routinely jail
>"political" prisoners.
>
>We also have one of the highest violent crime rates/percentages.  That
>seems to suggest a positive corelation between incarceration and violent
>crime. In your opinion, is there a "cause and effect" corelation here, and
>if there is, which is the cause, and which the effect.
>
>=======================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU