HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phantom@gagme.chi.il.us (Leif Ericksen)
Subject: Re: Time to put in my 2cents worth
Originator: phantom@gagme
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:25:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.045446.24719@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> varney@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Al Varney) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.210437.26699@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.054320.9132@gagme.chi.il.us> phantom@gagme.chi.il.us (Leif Ericksen) writes:
>>>	I have a friend that is an Illinois State Police officer, he teaches
>>>womens self defense an preaches that the women FIGHT AND FIGHT HARD, kick, 
>>>bite, scratch, YELL!!!!, and NEVER NEVER EVER use mace.
>>
>
>   For a somewhat similar viewpoint, I selectively quote a one-page article
>from "The Journal", a twice-weekly Wheaton, IL publication. (8/7/92,
>by Catherine Coerr - staff writer).  The article is a description of
>a presentation on "Street Smart" safety strategies, by Chicago Police Dept.
>Detective J. J. Bittenbinder and a group called Self Empowerment Group.
>Mr. Bittenbinder has been making such presentations for about a decade,
>and is booked through 1994.

	Speak of teh devil, that is the Chicago Cop I mentioned that
says YELL FIRE!

	- Leif Ericksen
	phantom@gagme.chi.il.us
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Time to put in my 2cents worth
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 02:12:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.012139.12326@gagme.chi.il.us> phantom@gagme.chi.il.us (Leif Ericksen) writes:
>	I have ever heard in reports was that the majority of the time
>when a weapon knife/gun is used it ends up being used against the victim.

That isn't correct: If a woman uses or attempts to use a gun against
a would-be rapist, the crime is prevented 97% of the time. Presumable,
the weapon is taken away from the victim only 3% of the time.

>	I am not against Guns when I get some money I am buying one for
>myself to use at local indoor ranges for Fun and sport.  BUT IF used
>for defense I tell use this much IT WILL NOT WORK if the person is say
>50 feet away or closer and you have to pull it out, of a purse
>or shoulder hoster, or if you are crazy enough to place it down the
>front of your pants the attacker will see that and be on you before you can
>fire a shot... ( MOST LIKELY )

In fact, it does work in all but 3% of the cases (statistics from the
FBI's Uniform Crime Report, by the way.) Apparently, the problems
you refer to only occur in a miniscule percent of cases.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: FIREARMS FOR SELF DEFENCE:PRACTICALITY
From: hayes@brandonu.ca
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:11:50 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

I have been reading comments concerning use of firearms for self defence in
rape and other situations.  Taught many women's self defence courses over
the years, based on combination of assertiveness, danger avoidance, defusing,
physicial techniques, and weapons.  Most of what I see concerning use of
firearms, IMHO, is skirting realistic use characteristics.  Most use of
firearms for real life self defence situations is done up close...3-7 feet.
One study I saw about ten years ago said 3-5 feet.  Articles by Jeff Cooper,
information from his shooters school just outside of Phoenix, ARizona,
also indicate that it tends to be quite close.  I have advised women's groups
that after careful -read very CAREFUL- thoughtful consideration that if 
someone decides to go the handgun route, weighing every bit of information
they can find, then make the committment and practice, practice, practice.
Cooper and several others give excellent briefings on reading situations,
appraising risk factors, etc.  Practice with human size targets and begin
at six feet.  Order of priority is to stop any and all physical action
capability to use weapon (knife, gun, club, hammer, etc.).  STomach is
primary target area,  groin secondary, chest in throat area next.  All sorts
of conditions and warnings concerning threat level and fear for your life
apply.  Recommend contact J. Cooper at Gunsite, ARizona for best course
available for shooters who are serious.  Good practice level is a box of
50 twice a month fired at an average distance of 6-12 feet.Laugh if you
want, but we are not talking about the O. K. Corral.. We are talking about
someone wanting to do you badly and probably permanently.  If this is
not appealing to your common sense, sorry about that, but if you think
people get raped from across the room or get beaten to death from six
metres away...you are entitled to at least one other think. If you are
into room distances, get a shot gun, with #2 load and it will deal with
threats effectively without going through a wall and doing the watchdog
next door.

STANDARD DISCLAIMERS:  IMHO.  No one where I work, thinks like me anyway.

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: opinion from males
Date: 10 Nov 1992 23:14:35 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department
Reply-To: rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek)
NNTP-Posting-Host: mrg.phys.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov2.082336.18808@wam.umd.edu> nuke@wam.umd.edu (root) writes:
>In article <92301.135015HCS100@psuvm.psu.edu> <HCS100@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>I have a request..I'm wondering how you guys would feel about your girlfriends
>>if you found out that she had been raped prior to your dating her.

>While scrolling through these messages, I noticed that someone seemed to think
>that physical violence towards the rapist would only serve to pamper the
>ego of the man involved.  I, on the other hand, cannot imagine how you could
>*not* want to smash this person into oblivion.  I am perfectly aware of all
>the logical arguments for and against punnishments, the lack of justification
>of cruelty, etc, etc...  This is all very clinical and anylitical, and you
>can state studies, and you can write a position paper on it, if you wish.  The
>fact of the matter is that this person has proven himself to be outside of
>societal morality, and isn't really applicable to such a discussion.  
>Such folk should be treated like any other rabid animal.  <shrug>

Well is seems to me the most overwhelming question for a man involved as 
a secondary victim of a rape is:

How does how I act primarily in the presence of the primary victim,
effect said primary victim.

Not all rape victims want their boyfriends/spouses etc. in jail for
aggravated assault even if it is perpetrated on the primary victimizer
(or killed or severely damaged by said possible primary victimizer).
This is a not unlikely result of treating "such folk" like rabid animals
in our society - and this is not without justification - lynching is often
a bad thing.  

Well, yes, it *is* cold and analytical.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035 
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Time to put in my 2cents worth
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:26:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.045446.24719@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> varney@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Al Varney) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.210437.26699@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.054320.9132@gagme.chi.il.us> phantom@gagme.chi.il.us (Leif Ericksen) writes:
>>>	I have a friend that is an Illinois State Police officer, he teaches
>>>womens self defense an preaches that the women FIGHT AND FIGHT HARD, kick, 
>>>bite, scratch, YELL!!!!, and NEVER NEVER EVER use mace.
>>
>
>   For a somewhat similar viewpoint, I selectively quote a one-page article
>from "The Journal", a twice-weekly Wheaton, IL publication. (8/7/92,
>by Catherine Coerr - staff writer).  The article is a description of
>a presentation on "Street Smart" safety strategies, by Chicago Police Dept.
>Detective J. J. Bittenbinder and a group called Self Empowerment Group.
>Mr. Bittenbinder has been making such presentations for about a decade,
>and is booked through 1994.
>
>   ------------- Quoted text below --------------------
>
>   After 21 years on the force (15 in homicide), Bittenbinder has plenty
>of advice to give.  But "... nothing works 100 percent of the time." ...
>"The most important thing you are ever going to be is NOT SELECTED (as a
>victim)."
>
>   The old rules work -- safety in numbers; use well-lit passageways;
>check stalls in public bathrooms before using(?).

Great. I always have a half dozen people from where I work who live right
next door to me. And there are always bright, well lit, rural areas.
And of course, every town has well lit passageways...

>   Some methods of defense can be ineffective.  "Guns do not work.
>We don't use 'em [in the Street Smart program].  Why?  Because
>intelligent people hesitate.  If guns did work, the police would come
>by in the morning and pick up a bunch of dead bad guys.  Instead, we're
>picking up children."

A lie. Goes against ALL the statistical evidence.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: lizi@soda.berkeley.edu (Cosma Shalizi)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Trivia
Date: 8 Nov 1992 00:44:36 GMT
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu (Berkeley Tentacle)
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <92Nov7.140039est.251337-1@descartes.uwaterloo.ca> ircolman@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca ("\Ian Colman") writes:
>I am hoping somebody could help me with the following question:
>Arrange the following names according to teacher-student relationships:
>Plato, Alexander the Great, Socrates, Aristotle.
>Any help would be appreciated. Please e-mail ircolman@descartes.uwaterloo.ca.
>Thanks in advance.
>Ian Colman
   CTHULHU GIVE ME STRENGTH!!! Does NO ONE learn how to use encyclopedias
any more? One would think some nearly clueless newbie was posting an exam
or homework question to the net, because he could think of no way of discover-
ing the answer that doesn't waste bandwidth. Hint: Look them up in the
_Britannica_ next time. Or a text-book with a title like "History of
Western Philosophy." Or anything else than this.
	Cosma Rohilla Shalizi
	In Real Life: lizi@osda.berkeley.edu
	larval physicist & self-appointed net.moralist

P.S. Socrates taught Plato who taught Aristotle who taught Alexander, who
     killed lots of people.
-- 
"What's the use of being an American citizen if I can't swear when I
damn well want to?" - My mother, while waiting in line in Heathrow
From: ircolman@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca ("\Ian Colman")
Subject: Trivia
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:00:13 GMT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]


I am hoping somebody could help me with the following question:

Arrange the following names according to teacher-student relationships:
Plato, Alexander the Great, Socrates, Aristotle.

Any help would be appreciated. Please e-mail ircolman@descartes.uwaterloo.ca.

Thanks in advance.

Ian Colman
From: linda@unix.SRI.COM (Linda J. Szkoropad)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Work
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:17:54 GMT
Distribution: all
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, California

To those reading this:

Is there an network out there that deals with the politics of work?

          
Topics I'd like to hear discussed:

Reorganization in the workplace:  how it affects morale
Efficiency vs. quality
How to work in a structure with too many chiefs
How interpersonal growth leads to a power stuggle
How to deal with personality conflicts

I can't find a net that deals mainly with work problems,
and I wondered why!!!  Is it because of the privacy thing?

Thanks.

Could you reply using e-mail.

If anybody cares about the topics, I'll post what I find out.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Begging the question
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Nov 92 22:50:07 GMT

In <8ew7s7u00VpON4EEN3@andrew.cmu.edu> Matthew W Cushman <mc7l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>I've always thought that the entire "Freewill" question was irrelevant. 
>What does it mean to not have "Freewill"?  

>I think most people would say that it mean to not be able to control
>your own actions.  Well, then, what does?  

>The only reasonable way to define what one means by "You"  in the
>previous statements is by "The thing that controls your <physical>
>actions."  

I saw the word "Sophomore" up there before I hit the "f" key, and that
is appropriate, because the foregoing statement is truly sophomoric.

"You" is the ego, the thinking Self which Descartes called the "mind",
and there is a whole branch of philosophy, the philosophy of mind,
which grapples with the nature of the mind and its interaction with
the body.  If you define things away the way you just did, you cut
yourself away from this whole field of study.

Peter Nyikos
From: lunatic@diku.dk (Philip Hoelgaard)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Sexual drive
Date: 7 Nov 92 19:47:03 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences


I didn't see anything to differ with in what you posted.  It seems to
me that what people today say they want from other people is abstract
freedom and equality, and the fulfilment of whatever desires they may
happen to have.  So sex roles have to go, because they limit our
ability to do what we happen to feel like doing, and because they are
unequal.

The problem, though, is that if all people look for from each other is
fulfilment of their own desires, and their idea of morality is limited
to the proposition that no-one should have any sort of advantage over
anyone else in the common struggle for what each happens to desire,
then life becomes intolerable.

Man is a social animal.  In the past sex roles and the family connected
man to other people and made a decent life possible.  I don't see
anything that can replace them.

On a less general point -- why do you call yourself "lunatic"?

-- 
Jim Kalb 		"Not drunk is he who from the floor
(jk@panix.com)		 can rise alone and still drink more.
			 But drunk is he who prostrate lies
			 Without the power to drink or rise." (Clough)
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2423 sci.philosophy.tech:4065
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Property Rights (was re: Progress: The New Gr
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:31:01 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <Bx78q5.uv@ccu.umanitoba.ca> feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
...
>Words mean no more than we want them to mean; Humpty Dumpty is the
>authority here.  So, if you, or you and your friends, wish to impose
>an idiocentric meaning on "property", well, God bless! says I.

Really? So if I want "dog" to mean the same thing as "cat", then that furry
guy with whiskers sitting on my feet is an Alsatian? I don't think that the
meaning of words is _that_ elastic. 

>For the rest, consult a good dictionary: legal, philosophical, or
>desk-top, to find all the objectivity the matter admits of.  By
>convention, property is yours to alienate.

Funny, I find dictionaries to be remarkably little help when discussing
philosophical issues.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand
Date: 10 Nov 92 11:10:22 GMT

Ray Mendonsa writes:

>From my readings in Atlas, Fountainhead, and A.R. Lexicon, I gathered the
>point was that nothing observed points to the existence of the supernatural
>in such a way that one can even postulate upon its nature.

As I think I said to someone else, the existence of religion is sufficient
to provide evidence that renders this position untenable.  By no means do I
want to argue that it requires belief in a supernatural, but at least some
refutation is required.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Date: 6 Nov 1992 23:10:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rkrii@cco.caltech.edu (Robert Kim Rickenbrode II) says:

>>The votes should be weighted according to how much income
>>tax the voter pays.
>
>This scheme will not work because it just exacerbates the current power
>bias in our society towards the rich. 

The middle class pays most of the income taxes.

-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
From: friedric@kirk.fmi.uni-passau.de (Carsten Friedrich)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: center of the universe
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:56:06 GMT
Organization: University of Passau, Germany


Hallo,

I have to hold a speech in which I have to claim/prove that I'm the center
of the universe. This means, I'm the most, or better only important thing in it
and it (including everything that is in it) was built for only one reason, me.

No, I'm not believing I am :), it's just a kind of game. So I'm looking for
a philosophic school that contains some similair thoughts, so I can steal some
ideas. If someone knows something about something like that, or has some good
ideas him/herself, please let me know ....
 

thank you for your help,
carsten

friedric@kirk.fmi.uni-passau.de
friedric@forwiss.uni-passau.de
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Re: center of the universe
Reply-To: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 11:25:56 GMT

From what I have heard, Nietzsche had a friend named Paul Ree
who wrote a piece on "Subjectivism" of the kind you are going
to advocate. [This is 2-hand info, though]

Otherwise, Hegel or his corollaries might be of help.

But, if you want a person everyone knows, I suggest Jesus.


Solan
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Being and Time
Reply-To: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:57:15 GMT


Now that we are in a heated discussion of Causality, why not,
upon seeing that by Causality we mean the connection between
Being at one time and Being at another, ask ourselves:

	What is the connection between Being and Time?

Whoever manages an answer that satisfies, has won my respect.


Solan
From: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: DETERMINISM 2: Another `refutation.'
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:52:52 GMT
Organization: University Of Natal (Durban)
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc14.superbowl.und.ac.za

The reply from Shalizi below actually follows my `DETERMINISM 1:' posting, 
in a posting which deals with aspects of that, and `DETERMINISM 2'.

In article <1d9t7nINN24k@agate.berkeley.edu> lizi@soda.berkeley.edu (Cosma Shalizi) writes:

[Stuff deleted, see the `DETERMINISM 1' thread]

>>  Any thoughts?
>	Yes, about your "legal" argument (hit "k" by reflex, so...).
>1. Medieval trials of animals are well-documented. (See Needham and
>   Wang, _Science and Civilisation in China_, sect. 18 or so.) Quite
>   possibly there were trials of natural processes as well - my memory
>   ain't what it used to be.

  You don't seem to have got the point exactly.  I was well aware of the 
fact that medieval courts (and many others) tried animals, but your memory 
is not (as far as I know (certainly no anthropologist/legal historian to 
whom I have spoken has disagreed)) the issue as far as `laws of nature' or 
processes/things thought of as fully mechanical goes.  The issue is simply 
that where there is thought to be no possibility for anything different 
having occured, there is no `trial' as we normally understand it.

[Stuff deleted]

>	Cosma Rohilla Shalizi

Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: fuller@athena.cs.uga.edu (James P. H. Fuller)
Subject: Re: Response to Mr. Wingate (Was Ayn Rand)
Keywords: Rand Religion Wingate
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:52:34 GMT

siphon@momad.UUCP (Stimpson J. Katz) writes:

>I defy Mr. Wingate to demostrate how "greed and incompetence on the part
>of corporate executives plays a large role in the [unspecified] mess
>we are in". A much more defensible claim is "greed, incompetence, and 
>stupidiy on the part of government plays a large role in the economic mess
>we are in." 

     Anyone who would throw such defiance around simply has not been
reading _The Wall Street Journal_ for the last fifteen years.  The evidence
for American corporate idiocy during the period is *fully* equal to the
evidence for government idiocy.  I speak as a right-wing loony of twenty
four carat credentials.


>Any Objectivist will be happy to explain to you why incompetent government
>officials can do much more damage than incompetent corporate officers.
>Corporate officers can only damage what they own and are subject to being
>thrown out if they do not do what the stockholders want. Government officials
>damage anything and everything and are subject to being thrown out if they 
>are caught in an illegal act or lose in an election.

     Both Objectivists and Libertarians need to notice that large corpora-
tions are quasi-governmental.  Even President Eisenhower was aware that big
government, big military and big industry were already largely indistinguish-
able from one another forty years ago.  A number of Fortune 500 multinationals
are larger, richer, more powerful and control more lives than most of the 
national governments on the planet, and (speaking as a stockholder who has met 
many other stockholders) most stockholders pay no more attention to the doings 
of their corporate officers than do voters to the doings of state senators 
from somebody else's district.  

     During the three decades when GM was making outstandingly shoddy cars and
tossing the U.S. car market to foreigners, did the stockholders pay the slight-
est attention?  They did not.  Were any GM officers or directors ever thrown
out because of their pinheaded performance?  They were not.  And did this
example of prolonged corporate idiocy (only one among hundreds that _WSJ_
readers could cite) do government-sized damage to the country?  It did.

     
     I believe *most* strongly in private enterprise, private property and
all the various other privacies.  I also believe that calling large com-
panies (or indeed *any* huge organization of human beings) "private" is to
distort the meaning of the term beyond usefulness.

                                                  -- jphf
From: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Re: OBJECTIVISM
Reply-To: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:03:09 GMT

In article <92315.212245LIB031@uicvm.uic.edu>, <LIB031@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
|> Yes, somebody please create an alt.objectivism or even sci.objectivism
|> group?  Thnak you!

Definitely!

Solan
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc