HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Lime Jello
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:07:25 GMT

To my horror I am slowly becoming what I want to be, but not quite
the way I want it....ie a stuffy academic.

I must have been studying to hard *chuckle* 

What is the significance of lime jello? *chuckle*

Is it the flavor, color, or texture that makes this a desired substance?
Is it still a desired substance with/without the trampoline only?

Steve Russell
" desert imapaired" *sigh*
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Date: 13 Dec 1992 01:24:48 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:

>  This actually is the best point I've ever seen Robert make.  As
>someone who spent 7 years of his life being beat up on a regular
>basis, it does put something like Barbie into perspective.  However,
>there is the question of the kind of adversary that these things are.
>It could be possible that getting beat up could lead someone to
>venture further into the world of books. 

Firstly, girls *do* get beat up, not just boys.
Secondly, I myself used to hide in the library during recess
to avoid the bullies.  So it's fair to say that getting beat up
*did* lead me to "venture further into the world of books".


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Canada Massacre
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:51:31 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec11102107@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.171421.29022@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec8.093925.9355@ac.dal.ca> egilmour@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>> It is only natural to
>>>individualize a kind of violence when it is so specific.  It is not
>>>to say that other types of violence are not issues.  
>
>>When was the last time that they recieved the same amount of attention?
>
>Umm...right now, on this newsgroup, perhaps?
>
>In any case, Rich, if you're so concerned about violence in general
>getting attention, why are *you* spending time on the issue of violence
>against women?  Why not just ignore it and spend the time working
>against violence?

I'm more concerned with the differential perceptions of violence. This
perception drives our reactions. I honestly feel that violence against
women is a problem, but I do not feel that the current situation and
a solution have anything to do with each other.
 
>It's pretty amazing to me that people spend all this time trying to
>convince *other* people to change the set of issues they choose to focus
>on, rather than just working on those other issues themselves.  Why not
>just let everyone choose the issues they are concerned about?

I did, but you seem to have a problem with my choice. Or are you trying
to tell me that I chose the wrong issue to focus on?
 
>Muffy
>
>Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
>muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
>"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
>not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6252 soc.women:21680 soc.men:21449
From: RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Sophie Germain - Gender Differences
Date: 10 Dec 92 02:21:15 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

Let me explain my response to Lenore Levine's talk about `non-white
mathematics'.  I did NOT take her to be a racist, but I took her argument
to be something like this:

Rohit says that:
A)  A person  with mathematical talent is likely to overcome or at least
might overcome obstacles.

B)  Asians did not produce mathematics till they came into contact with
Europeans.

C) From (A) and (B)  we would be right to conclude tha Asians do not have
mathematical talent.

D)  But in fact Asians have produced good mathematics, hence they do
have talent.

  Hence (A) must be wrong.

  My point was that since (B) is incorrect, the argument fails.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:44:06 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec13.013327.1975@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.170030.3345@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>I just hate to see the misconception that "fat" and "fit" are 
>>non-intersecting sets. 
>
>How about the misconception that fat people are healthy? Most fat people
>that I have known have plenty of problems, their feet always hurt, they seem
>to catch every cold that goes around, some have back problems, etc...

Most thin people I know have plenty of problems, their feet hurt, they seem
to catch every cold that goes around, some have back problems, etc...

It is a LIE that fat people are bad, that fat people are ill, that fat
people are sick, that fat people can't be fit, that fat people's lives
would be perfect if they were thin. Of course, these LIES generate lots
of money for the diet industry. Anorexia and bulimia? Better than being fat.

My feet don't hurt because I live in Reeboks. My lower back hurts when
I have my period. Doesn't hurt if I don't.  My shoulders have hurt ever
since I developed breasts if I wear ill-fitting bras - fat or thin. 

>Perhaps you are confusing 'fat' and 'healthy'. Not all fat people are
>unhealthy, but a greater percentage than normal are.

Perhaps you are confusing 'fat' with 'shit'. Many people in this culture
do. But just because a prejudice exists doesn't mean you have to buy into
it. Furthermore, perhaps you are confusing 'fit' with 'thin'.

>BTW, by fat, I do not mean overweight by some printed scale, but that they have
>a layer of extramuscular fat. Many overweight (by some scale) people have
>little or no fat. I imagine by the same scales, Arnold S (Terminator) is 
>overweight. Muscle weighs more than fat you know.

BTW, by fat, I don't mean bad. I do mean a person who like most of 
their genetic relatives & ancestors is fat, or a person who overeats,
or a person who has a medical condition that results in weight gain,
or a person who is sedetary. Note that those are "or", not necessarily
"and".

>Perhaps you should define what you are talking about?

Perhaps you should think about your bigotry.

-jen

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Proposal for reorganization of gender-issue groups
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:51:02 GMT


I've trimmed the .newsgroups a bit:

In article <1992Dec11.201041.608057@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
)There has been some talk lately of trying to reorganize soc.men into
)some sort of men-only group, and there are perpetually postings
)wondering why there are so many men in soc.women and whether there
)should be a group for only women.  In general, people are upset at the
)amount of cross-posting and flames.

)soc.feminism.d
)
)	soc.feminism.d
)
)	This would replace alt.feminism as an unmoderated place to
)discuss issues raised in soc.feminism and as a place to discuss issues
)relating to feminism in general.

)
)	soc.men
)
)	Posters would encourage a man-friendly atmosphere and refer
)debates and flames and acrimonious discussion of feminism to
)soc.feminism.d or alt.flame.
)
)	soc.women
)
)	Posters would encourage a woman-friendly atmosphere and refer
)debates and flames and acrimonious discussion of feminism to
)soc.feminism.d or alt.flame.

I like some of these ideas - I especially like the idea of an unmoderated
soc.* group for discussions of feminism similar to alt.feminism.  (I
got bogged down with Real Life issues before I could push for a vote on a
group with a similar name - soc.feminism.unmoderated -  and would be just as
happy if someone else did the work anyway.  Besides, .d is probably
a better name according to usenet conventions.)

However, it's not clear where debates and/or acrimonious discussions that are
NOT about feminism should go with this charter.  [Also, debates are not
automatically flames.]

Take the current discussions on pre-sex contracts and related topics.
These discussions aren't going to stop simply because of a reorganization.
They need a home, even though I think some of the current discussion tends
to be more of the flamy quality.  Other similar issues are the common debates
on $.60 on the dollar, domestic violence, etc, which are often a bit
more serious in nature.

These discussions aren't necessarily about feminism, and posters do not take 
a unified man-friendly or woman-friendly stance on the issues.  It would seem
unlikely that they ever will.  Some of this discussion is going on in
alt.feminism right now, but it seems like this may not be the best group
for it.

These discussions often arise when someone makes a comment from a 'man
friendly' and or 'woman friendly' point of view, and someone, often of the
opposite gender, feels that they also have interests which are directly
related to the topic at hand, but being left out of the 'xxx friendly' POV.

I see two major possibilities.  The easiest is to leave soc.men and soc.women
as they are now.

The alternative I see is to creeate a more gender neutral group, soc.gender,
for discussion of the issues.  This would hopefully relieve some of the 'turf
fight' issues.

I really think that 'gender friendly' groups will work best as moderated
ones, though.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us
Subject: Re: Hooray!!
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Organization: Wendy's World
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 15:25:42 GMT

Kristen,

Appologies accepted. I think we should go on to other things. To both you
and ljf, have a joyous Holiday season.

Take care,

Wendy


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko)
Subject: Re: feminist sound bytes
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:44:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.180226.23089@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>

>Oh, I see.  You believe we are all prisoners of our hormones.  *THAT*,
>I do NOT buy.

It've been sold to you already. You just haven't noticed, because it 
comes in package Human_Life(tm)

>
>rini


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: why poor women are obese
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:01:40 GMT

In article <1ge3s3INNm2i@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec9.165938.15284@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>>>Check out the politics that surround this issue--it is more expensive it eat
>>>properly, and to know how to eat properly.  
>
>>This is not true, buy most of your foods at the vegetable counter (the
>>cheapest section in the store) and you will have a low-fat diet high in
>>nutrients. As for cost, I am pretty sure that most can afford a library
>>card.
>
>I suggest that Rich try shopping at an inner-city market and check
>prices at the vegetable counter -- if he can find it.  Inner cities
>are not exactly renown for their full-service grocery emporiums.

So are you saying that there are -no- options whatsoever, the only
store sells only cheap meats? Do you live in the inner cities, are
are you just making something up? (or is it hearsay?)

>Also, how many libraries are in the poor residential neighborhoods?  
>How many are open after work hours, when the working poor can get 
>to them?
 
You tell me. And tell me how this will affect housewives while you
are at it. (as per the subject line)

 
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  

I could see that long ago.


Rich

payner@netcom.com




Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:29:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.174349.26075@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>>>>	How many fat exercise enthusiasts have you seen?
 
[...]
 
>>And once heavy breathing starts, you have probably exceeded your capacity
>>to get oxygen and gone anerobic. Heavy breathing is not a trademark of
>>aerobic exercise.
>
>Hmm.  Gasping for air is not good, but an increased rate of breathing
>is definitely a hallmark of aerobic exercise.

When you are aerobic, you are burning oxygen for energy, when you go
non-aerobic, the oxygen demands of the muscles exceed what you take in
through the lungs. If you are gasping for air and out of breath, then
you have exceeded your areobic capacity, and your muscles will go elsewhere
for energy. Steady breathing is a better sign that you are aerobic.

We seem to be in agreement, perhaps the words are getting in the way?
 
>>>Basketball is *definitely* an aerobic exercise, and, I don't know about
>>>you, but I certainly would not call Kevin Duckworth "thin" or even
>>>"average sized."  He kinda reminds me of Winnie the Pooh, figure-wise.
> 
>>It depends of how fit you are. 
>
>What depends on how fit you are?  Whether or not you can be called 
>"fat"?  Well if you want to argue that no fit person is fat and vice
>versa, no wonder you claim to see no fat exercise enthusiasts.

If a fit person and a fat person go running together, chances are that
the fit person is getting aerobic exercise, and the fat person is not.
If you are very fit, heavy exercise may well be aerobic.
 
>>Weight lifting is anerobic. If you are fat and lift weights, you will
>>gain muscles under tha fat. But you will not get thin.
>
>Right.  Yet it is still exercise.  I never said that exercise will make 
>you thin.  Almost to the contrary, I said that you can like to exercise 
>and still be fat.   Apparently, we agree on that.

Good, perhaps we can stop this verbal jousting and actually do something
like communicate? Could it work???  :^)
 
>>>Fat joggers are often taunted, especially fat, female joggers.  
>>>Ditto an "aerobics".  Ditto on swimming.  Ditto on biking.
> 
>>Fat joggers are rarely exercise enthusiasts. Swimming is good exercise,
>>but does not tend to burn body fat. And if they are really fat, then they
>>probably need to start with walking. For many people, jogging -is-
>>anerobic.
>
>This is all pretty much consistent with what I was saying.

Ladies and gentlemen (and anyone else reading this) we -have- agreement. 
 
>>Methinks you could do with a bit more reading on the subject. You might
>>start with something by Covert Bailey.
>
>Does his info contradict anything I've said here?

Perhaps you should determine that yourself. 
 
>rini 


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Going Down the Mine
Date: 16 Dec 1992 21:22:06 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

DPIROT@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA writes:

[article deleted]

>5. One thing that was not mentioned was how the Unemployment
>Insurance Commission would treat those who refused the retraining
>offer. Recent changes in policy could result in benefits being
>denied those who refuse alternate employment in lieu of
>termination. Would the female office workers be treated differently
>than their male counterparts? The UIC has indicated that persons
>leaving their jobs because of sexual harassment might be given
>special consideration.

I don't see that this is sexual harassment at all.  The company could
have just laid off all the excess office workers.  Instead they're 
giving them (both male and female, equally, I hope) the opportunity
to retrain for a new career that's almost twice as profitable (33K->60K!)
If the office workers (of either gender) decline to take this opportunity
that's their decision.  They're not being forced to go into the mines!

One caveat:  It sounds like the company may need to do some re-training
of it's pre-existing miners to prevent harassment (sexual or otherwise)
of the newly trained miners.

							--  Michal
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:5971 soc.women:21430 soc.men:21114
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Hooray!!
Date: 13 Dec 92 19:24:42 GMT
Organization: The VAX ate my Brain

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.020342.15861@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>>wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>>>Duane Hentrich (baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM) wrote:
>>>Yes, my life experiences are different than a woman born. It is something 
>>>I can never go back and experience. I grieve and cry over that alot.
>>
>>Oh good grief...
>>
>>Look, I've been reading your copy for a couple of weeks now, and you keep 
>>mentioning crying, and being sad and grieving associated with your transition
>>to a woman's body and the almost requisite ill treatment that goes with it. 
>>Why in GOD'S name are you doing it if it's so awful? I know you said in 
>>another post that you have always felt like a woman in a man's body, but if 
>>being a woman carries such a hassle with it, why not just be a champion of 
>>women's causes like, oh, Gordon Fitch (sp?), for instance?
>
>IMO, this shows a severe lack of understanding as to what
>transexualism is.  

Oh now *there's* a revelation! You're right, ljf, I haven't the foggiest what
it's like to feel like I am trapped in the body of the "wrong" sex, but is 
there something wrong with that? It's outside of my experience.

>The transexual person feels that s/he doesn't have
>the right body, that the body s/he was born into is of the wrong sex
>and it was a mistake.  Of course, there's going to be a lot of sadness
>and grief that the transexual wasn't born into the right body to begin
>with.

Wendy, the aforementioned transexual, didn't seem to take nearly as much 
offense from my words as you did. I certainly meant no offense, and I'm glad
that at least the person I was addressing understood that, or seemed to.

>For you to suggest that Wendy should just be a champion of women's
>causes shows ignorance of the fact that to Wendy, it's not _just_ women's
>causes, but first and foremost being a woman that matters to her.

Yes, well I don't know a heck of a lot about the Mormon religion either, but
at least my Mormon friends and Wendy are tolerant of my (fumbling?) attempts
to understand. You could learn something from them, ljf.         

>You're pushing causes when Wendy is concerned with identity.

I'm not pushing anything...you're the only one that has some kind of agenda
here, which seems to be, "How dare you discuss that which you do not 
understand!" Well, you got me dead to rights...I haven't a clue what 
transexualism is all about, but I'm trying to come to an understanding. I'm 
sorry that you seem to think that I ought to just leave what I don't 
understand alone.

Tyger

-- 
      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: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:13:48 GMT

starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

>In article <ByyLB1.HCH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>>And how can a person spending their time in this way
>>perform *any* extraordinary accomplishment? Let's
>>see what women do, when they are free of Martha Stewart
>>and Jenny Craig!

>I wouldn't knock Jenny Craig.  She provides a needed service to the community. 
>The service provided is both therapeutic and educational.  The program is
>desinged for those who are overweight ( an unhealthy condision ) to lose 
>weight over time while learning how to put together a heathy diet for 
>themselves to maintain a healthy body.  Granted that the motivation of 
>people is to look and feel good, but is that so wrong?  Oh, by the way 
>many men are clients of Jenny Craig.

>starbuck

Many physicians now believe, that a person genetically intended to
be a nonstandard weight is better off remaining that way. (There
was a discussion on sci.med; for technical details, I refer you
there.)

I know my intuition about my own body seems to corroborate the
modern results. (I am 43, size 20, look 33 and healthy.) When
I eat healthy food and exercise, moderately, I *do* feel healthier.
When I diet, I most definitely do not!

Studies have also shown that less than 10% of the people who
lose weight on diets, keep any significant portion of this
weight off on a long-term basis. There is no diet program that
produces any better results.

As far as *looking* good, I really wonder at the people, who
call a woman like Fergie "fat"; who like the artificially emaciated 
models in Vanity Fair; who can't see the beauty in a man like Lech
Walesa, or the women in Renaissance paintings. I cannot
understand such esthetic values, at all.

You are very right about one thing. Men are subject to weight
abuse, as well as women. (Although, on the average, not as
much.) My father's untimely death was in part caused by
attempts to achieve a standard weight... 

Lenore Levine

P.S. Muffy, and all my net *friends* -- notice I said artificially
emaciated. The difference between an artificially thin Princess
Diana and a naturally thin Sandra Bernhard, is pretty clear...
Newsgroups: alt.feminism