HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna
Subject: Re: Call It Anything but Peace
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:57:15 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Goran Keserovic (keserovi@latcs1.lat.oz.au) writes:
)I said:
))How would that be possible? It takes two to tango, and the Albanians
))don't have very much to dance with. I have always been very skeptical
))to that Kosovo would become a battle field because of Serbian agression.
))Remember that in difference to Bosnia, Serbia already has Kosovo in
))the vise.
)
)   And I suppose you are going to tell us that Mulsims were preparing for
)   the war ??   I think not.  You seem as brainwashed as the Serbs who
)   beleived the "Croats are going to persecute the Serbs - so lets wipe
)   them out", and the "Muslims are going to create a fundametalist state
)   - so lets wipe them out".
)
)   There is NO difference - The Bosnian Muslims were completely unarmed and
)   completely unprepared for what the serbs had install for them. Just like
)   the Kosovo Albanians.

There is no difference? Do you suggest that the Serbs were already
in power in Bosnia-Hercegovina when they started the war?

*That* is the difference.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna
From: jodar@girtab.usc.edu (Nicholas Jodar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna
Subject: Do You Even Know? (was Re: who was in 'power' in BH)
Summary: Rethink your think....
Keywords: Islamic Rule?  Where?
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:42:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: girtab.1dsnc1INNggh
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu


Assalamu Alaikum....

Auzu Billahi Min Ash-Shaitan Nirajeem.  Bismillah...

In article <1992Nov11.161615.17354@husc3.harvard.edu> stojanov@husc8.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) writes:

> ...  Islamic law applied of Christians, you would like to see that again?

I would....  But I wonder, do you even know what Islamic Law 
is?

The reason Yugoslavia (and other places) are such a mess is 
due to the lack of a ruling system based on truth and justice.
The Islamic form of government is the only one offering peace and
stability and the protection of human rights, but nobody bothers
to practice it.

(Which is especially frustrating within the so-called 'Islamic 
countries'....)

>sigh<

I fear that the world won't get the picture until the U.S.
collapses.  (Probably within the next ten years.)  With the 
failure of Socialism and Democracy, maybe they'll get around to
considering Islam simply because they haven't tried it, yet....

Allah knows best....

-AQ
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:38:16 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <s6ougqc@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov7.140743.24042@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com writes:
>|(raising my hand) Uhm, I don't get it either.  Aren't they
>|both covered under freedom of speech?
>|confused in the back row,
>|Rich Soyack
>
>I suggest you contact your company's human resources people &
>ask them for some information about sexual harassment in the
>workplace.
>
>It really is pathetic that so few people understand it, even
>after all the publicity the issue got last year.
>

I don't even remember what I was making a comment about, but
your reaction reminds me of my Catholic education.  (Were you
holding a ruler in your hand while you typed what you typed)
You, above, obliquely referred to an event last year that
caused a lot of discussion and divided opinion, and demand
that everyone come to the same understanding that you came to.
Interesting technique, but I think the nuns are still better
at it.

Enjoy,
Rich Soyack
Xref: sparky soc.men:18984 soc.women:19212 alt.supermodels:1663 alt.feminism:4088
From: mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.supermodels,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Inequities in scantily clad depictions of humans (Was: Elle...)
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:21:25 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com>
Organization: GE Aircraft Engines


# In message <1992Nov9.225035.15414@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
# mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

rini> If the world was as full of Chippendale's calendars as
rini> it is full of calendars of scantily clad women, I think
rini> it'd be silly to conclude that the sexism has now simply
rini> doubled.  Instead, this would be a convincing indicator
rini> to suggest that isn't a sexist world anymore at all.

Not a refutation, since my sample size is meaningless and my
sampling criterion more than a bit shakey, but here are some
numbers from the local mall last night.  I keep scribbles on
this sort of thing to amuse myself with.  Next time I hit the
mall, I'll do a survey of all the shops there and report back.
Maybe others can do the same...

B. Daltons: Calendars

	Men:		5
	Women:  	7
	Cats:		4
	Horses: 	3
	Cars:		3
	Wildlife:	4
	Landscapes:	8
	Other:	       11	Simpsons, Tolkien, Star Trek, etc.

Spencer Gifts: Posters

	Men:	       19	Mostly half naked rock stars and
				half naked models. One "Pauly"
	Women:	       23	Mostly half naked models, 2
				Paula Abdul, 1 Madonna, 1 Winona
	Cats:		4
	Dogs:		1	Called out so the cats don't
				feel put upon.
	Cars:		4
	Other:		7	Day-glo Unicorns, Mandalas,
				Beers of the World, etc.

rini> rini
                                                        - MM

-- 
passaretti@crd.ge.com           {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!passaret
mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com     {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!michelotti!mrmike
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker)
Subject: Re: Feinsteinism
Organization:  The following is all GERG'S fault!  
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:37:37 GMT

kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain) writes:
>Here in California we elected two new women Senators.  A lot of men helped
>to make their victories possible.  They are Dianne Feinstein and Barbara
>Boxer.  So what do I see on the news last night?  There's both of them
>standing hand-in-hand and Dianne quips "The roosters may crow all night, but
>the hens get the job done."  Thanks, Dianne, sorry us worthless roosters
>voted your ass in.  I guess being a new woman Senator she's entitled to
>certain female Senatorial low blows.

Unfortunately, there's almost no way she could have lost. Anyone that had 
anything even remotely to do with the budget bullshit this summer was a gone
goose. It's just that simple. Herschensohn, Beall, Seymour...I'd be willing 
to bet that pro-choice/pro-life issues aside, the dithering on the budget cost
a few men (and women?) their posts.

Tyger

PS: She's only in there for 2 years....vote her out then...I'm going to vote
    against her again, I can almost guarantee it.

-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:41:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.221516.7355@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <1d9ad0INN32u@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com writes:
>
>> In article <Bx7G3r.2M2@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> 
>> >So you are saying there have been no cases where a judge has told a man 
>> >to pay childbirth expenses, when the man is not married to the woman?
>> 
>> Scuse me, please, but Don I think I indicated before that I was neither
>> blind nor stupid.  Of course there have been a few occasions where a judge
>> told a man he had to pay expenses.  Is that the GENERAL CASE?  No.  Were
>> those orders limited to SPECIFIC situations?  Yes.
>> Adrienne Regard
>
>  Pardon my brief butting in for a question (a highly dangerous practice), but:
>
>  Do either of you feel that a man may, after sex which resulted in an unwanted
>(by both parties) pregnancy, divorce himself from all responsibilities to
>the child and the mother (should the child be brought to term), if he so
>chooses (this includes any visitation, etc. Legally, the child is not his.)?
>I suppose this is the so-called "male-choice" side of the abortion issue.
>
>  I'm not interested in current laws, but how each of you feel it *should* be.

Yes.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:19114 soc.women:19363 alt.abortion.inequity:5040 talk.abortion:47699 alt.feminism:4216
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:47:01 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>>
>>Would you be so quick to trade?

>There is more at stake here than trading comic books. One interesting
>point is that adapted children often go to extreme efforts to find
>out who their real parents were, once they find out that they were
>adapted.

I think you mean adopted..but `adapted' actually works quite well.
My 2 boys were each adopted as infants from Korea. They are now 7 and 9
and obviously know full well that they were adopted. But they have also
adapted quite well. I have told them from early on that I would be
quite willing to help them try to find their blood parents at some
point `if' they want to try to find them for whatever reason. Of course
this would be painful for me, but I feel I owe them that. So far, they
have not shown much interest in finding their blood parents, but time
will tell. I kind of half hope that my willingness and openess to their
freedom to investigate will diffuse the need.

>Another interesting point, if the real parents wanted their child
>back, and you did not want to give it up, you may be guilty of
>kidnapping, or something similar. But at any rate, it would not be
>your sole decision, other parties have a stake in this as well.

That was a scary thought when we were adopting. Kind of made it easier
knowing that the blood mother and father were some 12,000 miles away
and were unlikely to come looking.

>As was pointed out in another post, it would make no difference
>if it were discovered 20 years later, the situation would be irrevocable.
>But if the child were still a baby, the same would not be true.

I am not sure this is true legally. I am sure of one thing though.
I loved them so much from the first week we had them that I would have
gone to extreme lengths to keep them if necessary. The point is, you
get attached to the child, not their bloodlines.

>Afterthought - would not imprinting be a problem?

what does that mean?

al aldrich
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Reply-To: cp7927@oktext.UUCP (Caryn S. Prater)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 21:33:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.134426.20871@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>In article <1dq3b1INNj56@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>>Because I am an adult woman, and I *know* I am more important than
>>an unborn foetus.
>
>And I am a slaveowner, an I know I'm more important than a nigger.  5/3
>as important, to be Constitutionally exact.  And, as a man, of course I
>know I'm more important than any woman.  And, as an Aryan, I'm a LOT
>more important than all the Slavic untermensch scum on the planet.
>
>Gee, wouldn't life be easy if we just sat back and let the oppressor
>define the terms of the discourse?


Gee, I thought that's what you were doing.  If you are able to en-
force the pro-life agenda then don't you become the opressor?  Be-
ing pregnant is like no other experience on earth.  No one can ex-
perience pregnancy but a woman, and not even all women can become
pregnant.  As a woman I become the source for all that the foetus
requires and my body will be depleted in response to the needs of
the foetus.  It should be my decision and mine only as to wether
or not I am able either emotionally or physically to carry this
child.  Unless and until you can come up with alternate plans to
save the " life" of the foetus women will seek abortions regardless
of the legality.  No one wants to kill a baby, but there is the
gray area.  Until that life is viable on it's own then it is my
" life" or not, however I choose to look at it.

Caryn    
     
--
Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum
       Author unknown :-)
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute
Date: Wednesday, 4 Nov 1992 19:53:31 EST
From: Jeffery Swagger <CMSTEST@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU>
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Distribution: na
 <1992Nov3.145708.2748@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <2759@tymix.Tymnet.COM>
 <1992Nov3.223411.23765@adobe.com>

In article <1992Nov3.223411.23765@adobe.com>, kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
says:
>
>Life just isn't fair.  It is extremely difficult to legislate fairness.

Exactly.  Particularly in such nebulous areas as sexual harassment.
When the offense is defined as occurring because the victim *feels*
that it has, then the remedy lays within the Rules of Etiquette; not
the Rule of Law.  A legal system based on the confrontation of adversaries
is just too inefficient and cumbersome to deal with such things.

>
>Just give yourself the time, patience, and trust to find the partner that
>is truly right for you.  Always work at the relationship.  Reward openess
>and honesty with openess and understanding in return (instead of anger and
>judgment).  You will feel less of the need to legislate your partner's
>relationship with you.
>

Couldn't agree more.

Jeff
--
Honk if you love peace and quiet.  -- Seen on rec.humor
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:35:46 GMT
Subject: Feinsteinism
Organization: Outpost 1T
Newsgroups: soc.men

Here in California we elected two new women Senators.  A lot of men helped
to make their victories possible.  They are Dianne Feinstein and Barbara
Boxer.  So what do I see on the news last night?  There's both of them
standing hand-in-hand and Dianne quips "The roosters may crow all night, but
the hens get the job done."  Thanks, Dianne, sorry us worthless roosters
voted your ass in.  I guess being a new woman Senator she's entitled to
certain female Senatorial low blows.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.supermodels,alt.feminism
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:26:15 GMT

In <1992Nov9.024335.10437@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>>fletcher@rtf.bt.co.uk (Catherine Fletcher) writes:

>>>By the way, anyone who has the slightest grasp of what sexism is and doesn't
>>>understand why an Elle calendar is offensive and harmful and a Chippendales
>>>calendar isn't probably has no aptitude for complex thought - therefore I
>>>am resorting to condescending insult rather than reasoned explanation.
> 

>An article I read recently prompts me to take a stab at this.

>The article was about the reaction in Orange County to the LA riots.
>At a public meeting, a white man stood up and said, "If it black officers
>had been acquitted of beating a white man by an all black jury, would
>there be riots of white people now in Orange County???  Would whites 
>be out there turning over cars in protest?"  


>Take the bumper sticker "Die Yuppie Scum."  Lot's of folks think it's 
>funny.  Even some yuppies think it's funny.  Heck, it's even funnier
>when it's on, say, a nice new Volvo.

>Now imagine the bumper sticker "Die Ghetto Scum."  Heck, imagine it
>on a nice new Volvo.  It's just not funny anymore.  No, it's really sad.

>Men and women, similarly, are not value free terms.  Think of all the
>double standards we have in this society.  If I gossip about a woman
>sleeping around, it's generally a mark against her character.  If I
>gossip about a man sleeping around, it's generally a reason to admire
>his prowess.  Same act, different name (male or female) -- totally 
>different implications can follow.  That's the very nature of the sexist
>world we live in.

>But, anyway, yes, I think sexism and racism are two way streets. 
>Women can be prejudiced against men (and women, for that matter). 
>Blacks can be racist against whites too.  But at the same time... 
>if a bunch of black people burn a cross in a white family's yard... 
>it just don't carry the same impact as it does in the KKK organized
>cross-burning scenario (which we all know how to interpret).

You have made a strong case that our reactions are dependent on more than
whether something is right or wrong.  I don't think  anyone would dissagree
with that.  However, in all situations, if people hold one side wrong, then
the other should still be wrong.  This consistency seems to be completely
lacking in Catherine's response.

Ken
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:54:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.223449.25865@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.144951.2536@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>>In article <BwyFDw.LJu@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct30.145703.13722@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore) writes:
>>>>I have some thoughts.  Really.
>>>You forgot a smiley-face.
>>>>And we all know that the next step from notification is consent.
>>>And the next step from the right to bear arms is the right to kill people.
>>>You have a nice slogan that we may all know well.  It's a bit short 
>>>on the "thoughts" side, though.  IMO.
>>Ouch!  Suppose we have a new law that requires notification to buy guns.
>>What relevance is it what your spouse thinks, either it's your right and
>>soley your decision, or it's not.  I don't mind getting hammered on this
>>issue, but let's see some thoughts on the relevance of notification.
>>Either the baby is a part of the woman's body and under her sole control,
>>or it's a separate entity, deserving of rights.
>Or maybe it's not that simple at all.
Legally, that is exactly how simple it should be.
-dave

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:31:54 GMT

In article <92296.48782.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>In <1992Oct22.165058.19530@jetsun.weitek.COM>, Nadja Adolf writes:
>
>>In article <8etKeCS00WB7M2HiIi@andrew.cmu.edu> ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B.
>>>
>>>I simply can't support the killing of the child. It doesn't mean I
>>>want it legislated. Different religions have different beliefs on
>>>when life begins and when the soul enters that life. And in a country
>>>that has the principle of separation of church and state, this is one
>>>issue which I think should be left in the hands of the church.
>>>
>>Excuse me, but in a country with separation of church and state, no
>>church has the right to enforce its beliefs.
>
>Point #1:  We didn't have "separation of church and state" until someone
>referenced a private letter by Thomas Jefferson (written in the 1820s, I think)
>in order to suit their agenda.  In no founding documents is any doctrine like
>"separation of church and state."
>...

The First Amendment, radified 15 Dec 1791, states "Congress (ie, the state)
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (ie, a church)
or the free exercise thereof;..."

IMHO, this is a pretty clear statement of the doctrine of the separation
of church and state.  I would also consider the Bill of Rights to be
among our "founding documents."




-- 
     Jim Lacey  --  my own opinions    
     email:  att!cbnewsl!jlacey  or  jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com
     D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 17:09:48 GMT
Distribution: na


Followups set to talk.abortion.

In article <1992Nov5.194403.26561@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 
>Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>the term of pregnancy.  In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that the states 
>may not prohibit third trimester abortions when the abortion is necessary 
>to preserve the woman's ``health'' or life, but the Court gave a very broad 
>definition to the term ``health'', including emotional and psychological
>health (see the documentation below).  Additional documentation can be 
>provided upon request.
 
Could someone that supports legal restrictions on abortion during the 
third tri-mester, please explain to me why the decision should be left
up to people like the Reverend here and his ilk, rather than medical
professionals.  If you try and define health reasons, legislation will
either have to define it very loosely, or very narrowly.  If you define
it narrowly, you will have DOD and his ilk using the narrow definitions
to prevent as many abortions as possible with little or no consideration
for the woman involved.  If you define it loosely, then you leave it up 
to the medical professional anyway, so what have you accomplished?
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.supermodels,alt.feminism
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 06:12:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.154804.1308@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:

[Snip.  Snip.  Snip.  All of it]

Joe, have you read the decision in RvW?

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When we're free to love, anybody we choose; then we shall be free.  We shall=
=be free" - Garth Brooks, paraphrased. Still a RadikalFeministLesbianBitch....=
Xref: sparky soc.men:18635 soc.women:18806 alt.abortion.inequity:4828 talk.abortion:46579 alt.feminism:3672
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am women?
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:42:10 GMT
	<MARTINC.92Nov8150437@grover.cs.unc.edu>
	<1992Nov9.202710.26265@netcom.com>
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: sheaffer@netcom.com's message of 9 Nov 92 20:27:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.202710.26265@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

	    I didn't write this. The attribution is messed up.

I hate computers.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.supermodels,alt.feminism