HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike_r@nic.cerf.net (Mike Roberts)
Newsgroups: alt.surfing
Subject: Re: Where is Hossegor?
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:46:31 GMT
Organization: CERFnet

In article <1992Aug11.144543.27941@gdr.bath.ac.uk> mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes:


(Stuff about hossegor deleted)

>great, but in general it's overated.  It can't handle a big swell,

I beg to differ. I've seen hossegor breaking at 3-4 times overhead.
The only person out was Gary Elkerton. The previous day I surfed it
at double overhead and it scared the shit out of me. Like most 
beachbreak waves the paddling channels shift around and it is hard
to avoid a big clean up set when one comes rolling in. 

I got two amazing barrels. It is a bizzare wave because a wave can
look mellow on take off, then turn into this monster right before
your eyes. You stand there in this spinning barrel trying to avoid 
getting sucked up the face as the volume of water which flows up
is just incredible. My second barrel ( I had a bunch of other waves
that day, too) shut down on me and I was dragged so far underwater
I could not beleive it. No idea how long I was down for, but I was 
long past the "getting ready to breathe water - must resist" stage
when I finally popped out. Then I had to clear away the foam with my 
hands so I could really breathe. Luckily that wave was the last wave
of the set. I forgot to mention that I touch the bottom (sand) on
that wipe out. Other waves are just gnarly to start with. 

It is however, not too hard to avoid the barrel, but straighting 
out is not a good idea, as you get hit by the lip or blown up in
the air by the lip bouncing off the bar.

Beleive me, Blacks has NOTHING on this place.

I think the ability to withstand a big swell is dependent on the sand
bars. This swell was the first biggie of the summer (late august,
1987 ??) and was just the right direction.

There are a number of spots in the general vicinity which I would say 
are better on a big swell, Lafetenia, or Guethary being the examples
which come to mind. Both have good channels so you don't get womped
on. There are a bunch of secret spots around Hossegor which are 
actually better that hossegor on a smaller swell, but of course
I'm not going to tell anyone where they are (and they arn't listed
in the surf report for SW France, either !!)

Mike (A Brit in Yank land)

P.S. It is totally flat here. Perhaps 1ft is you hunt "The height
of my parrot".
From: Axman
Newsgroups: alt.surfing
Subject: alt.waves
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:21:33 GMT
Reply-To: aksurf.caltech.edu (Calif. Inst. Techn.)
Organization: California Institute of Technology

Hi guys,

Can anyone out there tell me what the alt.waves newsgroup is 
all about? There is no information available on it, and 
it seems that no one has ever posted anything on it. At least
not in the area. 

From the name, I would suspect that someone must have had surfing
in mind. But who kows. Maybe it's a new age newsgroup setup to 
discuss cosmic waves.

A-propos waves, how come doesn't anybody post surf reports? 
I mean, after you guys go surfing, why don't you post the conditions 
you found. And I mean, in a format that could be useful to someone 
else, not just stories about dolphins and poetry. This is not to
say that these stories are not nice. On the contrary. But we should
make use of this newsgroup to exchange information on surf
conditions, and surf forcasts. 

Finally, regarding surf forcasts, I thought the information 
posted by various aussies (I forgot who) on surf forcasting was 
quite useful. Only as far as weather maps are concerned, 
the FAX maps off short wave radios are supposed to cover 
the whole world. So these maps, together with the info from
the Aussies, one could really get into it.

So keep posting info on surf forcasting. This stuff is getting
interesting.

                           Axman
From: ludwig@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Ludwig Omachen)
Newsgroups: alt.surfing
Subject: Re: Callin' all Zen Surf Masters
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:26:57 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

In article <1992Aug17.174807.5322@brtph560.bnr.ca> kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920) writes:
>About a month ago I rented "Point Break" and ever since I can't get surfing
>out of my head.  When I stumbled on this group I lurked for a while and
>decided to ask a couple of questions:

It would have been easier to answer the question "what is the meaning
of life", than the 3 questions you ask below :-).

Serioulsy, they are excellent questions, it would be great to see all
the different responses to these from all the net-surfers, could make
a good start to an FAQ list ?
How about adding your comment's below the question's and reposting ?
Here's a couple of quick replies to get started.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Is surfing truly different from other sports?  Is there Something More to it
>than just paddlin' out into the surf and ridin' back in?
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes!, I think some of the attraction has something to do with the fact
that it's different every time, some day's it's really mellow and it's
great to be at one with nature, other day's you're shit scared and
it's a test of your ability to conquer fear and push your limit's, etc etc etc.

Be warned though, once it's in your blood it's very difficult to stop,
I've been surfing since 1964, and still have no intention of
stopping. It's definitely addictive, and as such can put a little, or
a lot of strain on relationship's at times.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Is it possible to dump your sappy eastern US, software designer job, go out
>to surf mecca and live like a native for the rest of you life?
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't speak for USA but in Oz it's definitely possible, the
unemployment benefit's are sufficient for a group to get together,
rent a house and do nothing else but surf, well almost nothing else,
Nigel could probably elaborate on that :-).
But for the bulk of surfer's, they still have a "normal", whatever
that may be :-), life to lead, so you can't alway's surf when you
want, but sometimes you can get what you need, as Mick Jagger would
say :-).

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bottom line.  How does surfing affect the inner man?  Or does it at all?
>
>KimmyD
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll Pass on that question :-).



Cheer's all, keep surfing,
Lud.
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:33:54 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Aug18.022638.5183@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
[ re: jealousy ]
>   Uh, when my sweetie read this, they said "...*all* of us have felt?".
>They say they've just never felt it once. And can't understand it at all.
>(Me, I'm not so enlightened, I was a very jealous 14-year-old. 8->).

I'd *like* to say I've never felt, but I have, at least twice.  Never
wanted to hurt anyone though.  Talked myself out of it pretty quickly, too.

>
>   And "deserves punishment" is perhaps a bit strong. Certainly it shouldn't
>be considered a mitigating circumstance! And I'd like to see more general
>an admission that gnawing jealousy is a pretty disabling state of mind,
>but I'm not about to electroshock someone *just* for feeling jealous. 8->
>


Oh, I don't want to electro-shock anyone either.  It's not their fault;
they just been so immersed in a moral system that practically comes right
out and says "anything goes when you are jealous " that they just don't
even THINK that there might be something inherently crazy about that!

So we work for change.  Given an opportunity, I try to do gentle brain
massage to enlighten the heathens, or at least get them to see that 
Non-Jealousy *is* possible, and (maybe) that Sex is not the problem
our society has, but Violence definitely is.

And always point out the absurdity (and horror) of preaching against
"sex and violence" as though the one (should) have anything to do with the
other.

But when I read of the hundreds if not thousands of women who have
been battered or even killed by beasts whose thought processes I cannot
even imagine, I do get depressed.

What this has to do with polyamory is that IF polyamory were the norm,
or at least had legal status, maybe we would see less of this?  Maybe
just a few of these cretins might have a light bulb click on and say
"Gee, maybe it's ok for her to see other people".

Probably not, but who knows?

		Tony


Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Anonymous post for "Alan Hardy"
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:38:22 GMT

The following is an anonymous post for "Alan Hardy."

----------

> From the incomparable Elf:
>
>    But... I'd like to ask a question.  Is it just me, but what it is
> about bisexuality and polyamory _in men_ that drives women to
> incredible degrees of distraction?  I cannot for the life of me
> understand why it is that, now that I've come out of the closet and
> chosen to look at, examine, and live my bisexual and open life to its
> fullest, that I now have more women interested in me than at any time
> previous?

Gosh, that makes it awful tempting to come out of the closet!
Particularly since all evidence is my soon-to-be-employer is
open-minded enough that I really could just stop worrying about
the danger of hurting my career. 

Of course there's still my brother who used to smash the local fags'
mailboxes with a baseball bat...

I'll answer the question with one back---are you finding that these
women are interested in having sex with both you and a male lover of
yours at the same time?  In which case maybe it's something similar to
the widespread lust for bi women that straight (and bi) guys have,
envisioning themselves in bed with two at once.  

Another possibility would be that they associate some bundle of
desirable characteristics with bi guys: openness to their emotional
side, lack of needing to get all their emotional satisfaction from
women, ability to decorate 50% of rooms really well :-)

Or, maybe they're attracted to your polyness and being able to get
involved with someone where they don't have to worry about where they
are on a trajectory to lifelong monogamy.

All guesswork here.  The main social group I've been hanging out
with since coming out as bi and poly to myself is a bunch of bis,
so there ain't nuthin' unusual about me. 

Alan Hardy

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 09:40:27 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Aug18110957@death.corp.sun.com>
     zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

>  So what does it mean when you say you're a slut?  Does it matter that
>you're using it (apparently) in a polyamorous context?

   Well, as we sluts are fond of pointing out, there were LOTS of girls
in high school who "put out."  It was the ones who wholeheartedly
enjoyed sex that got labeled sluts.  I remember one summer spending the
last couple of days in the completely wonderful company of a young lady
who qualified as a "slut"; our relationship was completely private and
non-sexual, and yet _my_ mere presence in her life made her more of
slut.  Fortunately, she was more willing to be my friend than to deny
it.  I don't often get to play the Wronged White Knight, and she let
me, and I haven't forgotter her for that.

   But... I'd like to ask a question.  Is it just me, but what it is
about bisexuality and polyamory _in men_ that drives women to
incredible degrees of distraction?  I cannot for the life of me
understand why it is that, now that I've come out of the closet and
chosen to look at, examine, and live my bisexual and open life to its
fullest, that I now have more women interested in me than at any time
previous?

   And, under this duress :-), I seem to have the capacity to be "a
slut."  To stand up proudly and say in a loud, clear, voice, "I like to
fuck him, him, her, her, him, and, oh, yeah, er, them, too!  And when I
have nobody around, a couple of 'its' in my toybox, too!"

> -- d

         Elf !!!
-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 16:02:24 GMT

In article <Bt322v.JFn@world.std.com> webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.051922.5107@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>
>>   I remember earlier this year on Bisexu-L, during all the discussions on
>>monogamy, someone wrote about being very disturbed that (for example) a
>>murderer, when asked in court why they did it, replied "because my partner
>>was cheating on me", and that's considered an answer. No-one asks, "so,
>>you have such strong feelings about monogamy that your immediate response
>>was to murder someone" or anything like that. It's not questioned, *everyone*
>>knows what they mean. The jurors nod in agreement - they know how *they'd*
>>feel about it. It's such a dangerous default. I'd like a "jealousy" defense
>>to be considered in the same class as the "Twinkie defense" : ie. a pretty
>>lame legal trick.
>>
>
>I think it's not supposed to be sane, just an understandable insanity.
>Sort of like, "I had to mug that person, I was raised a disadvantaged
>youth."
>
Jealousy as an excuse for violence is simply reprehensible and it astounds 
me that so called "normal" people condone it.  Understandable?  Not by me.  
Sure, Jealousy is an emotion that we all have felt (some of us less than others)
, but to even hurt someone because of it deserves punishment.  Or perhaps
treatment, if it's possible to do that.  But to consider it "normal"
is a terrible.

This country, and this world, is sick, sick, sick.

I was reading this morning that the "Pornography Victims Bill" is
moving along in the legislative process.  This bill allows people
who have been victims of crimes "caused" by pornography to sue
the producers of the material.

Obvious right-wing tactics aside, I just might support this.  And
then I'd want to extend it, so that someone who has been victimized
in a crime of violence could sue, oh, Warner Bros. and NBC for all
the violence they portray.

Wouldn't that be interesting?

		Tony


Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Polyamory and Marriage
Date: 21 Aug 92 10:16:13 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

mshort@minestrone.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Short) writes:
>I'm a new reader here (just getting my net access back this month after being
>without it for two years), and its been a joy to share in the openness and
>respect that's being shown here.

   Michael, had I been in your position I suspect that it would be a joy
simply to have net access again at all! 8-> Two years! However did you
cope?


>Personally, my history of relationships has been strictly monogamous, and
>so a lot of what's posted here is new to me. -Excuse me please- since this 
>group is 'polyamory', 'monoamory' would be the proper opposite; though I've
>read several posts which seem in the 'monogamous vs. polyamorous' vein. Or
>is there any real distinction between these words (topic for another thread!)

   My very first introduction to the term "polyamory" was as a nicer way
of saying "non-monogamy" without defining ourselves in terms of a negative.


>Several of the posters in various threads have mentioned being married. 
>In my own mind, this has nothing to do with the presence/absence of a piece of
>paper, but rather a connectedness in feelings and desires.

   Oh, I get very different connotations from the term. By your definition,
I'm probably married a few times over at the moment. 8->


>Did a state of polyamory happen only after your marriages? Or was it more a 
>recognization of a 'First among equals'? Are all of you polygamist/polyandrous?
>Or something else?

   I was going to say that I don't see any difference, but then I realised
we're talking *marriage* here. Hmm. Still don't see any difference really
between the concepts. (For a start, your model of polygamy and polyandry
fails to account for same-gender groups).

   I'm in a mixed-gender group. I'm involved with more than one partner.
The women are involved with more than one partner. Does this answer the
question I think you were asking?


>Another question: for the few polygamists I've met, polygamy usually meant
>several women being monogamous to the same man. Is that your experience also?
>(I mean outside of novels/fiction.)

   Grrr. My experience is that people often *assume* that's how it is. I
don't think very much of this. The whole point of being Poly for me is that
the choices and freedoms of ones partner(s) not be constrained, so clearly
what's good for the goose must also be good for the gander, as it were. 8->

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: sex and relationships (was Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy)
Date: 17 Aug 1992 23:29:13 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <MUFFY.92Aug14174910@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>  That is, if I'm seeing A and A starts to
>see B, and B tells A not to have sex with me, then B has some control
>over me, since I'd like to have sex with A and now cannot.
---
	Hi Muffy!

	The way I see it, we have two scenarios:
	1) you are in a poly type relationship with A and he starts up
		something w/B, who wants exclusive access.  In network locking,
		someone can't ask for an exlusive lock if non-exclusive access
		has already been granted to the resouce (person A).  In other
		words, if A is really in a poly relation w/you, then logically,
		if B tried to stop your sexual access to A, then they would 
		get 'permission denied' -- unless A breaks their poly relation
		with you.
	2) in this scenario, assume A does give B the power to control
		'him' -- in which case, B, besides denying you sexual access
		to A, may has A to not see you or communicate with you 
		entirely.  If B really has that power over A, you are basically
		screwed -- even if you separate love & sex.  Love is pretty
		empty if you never have contact with the person.

		
>And to answer the original person's question - I don't care how many
>people you are involved with, the only one you can *expect* to satisfy
>you sexually is yourself...*smile*.  Being in a relationship, even a
>monogamous one, does not, in itself, require you to have sex with the
>other person.
----
	Monopolies are state regulated because they have exlusive rights
to provide you with a service.  If they violate regulations, they can
in severe cases be replaced by someone who will provide the necessary
services.  Why should sexual monopolies be treated any differently?
If love & sex are really separate as you indicate (I tend to agree), 
is shouldn't make a difference.


>Muffy

william
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: woodhous@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: FORWARDED : Is Sex easier than Living Together? How About Telepathy?
Date: 16 Aug 92 02:47:53 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Originator: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au


   Hi folks. I'm forwarding this post for Jim Baranski, who is without posting
privileges at the moment. Please direct comments to him at :

   BARANSKI@VEAMF1.NUSC.NAVY.MIL

*************included message begins here**************
Subject: Is Sex easier then Living Together?  How About Telepathy?

Many people have said that SF writers: Heinlien, Varley, etc were instrumental
in their developing polyamorically.  Has anyone mentioned Sturgeon's
*excellent* book, "GodBody"?  What about Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover? 
The closeness of the Circles is what my dream of what Polyamory is!

What I wouldn't give for telepathy!  Yet, I wonder if everyone here in
alt.polyamory feels that way.  Living together is something that is important
to me; many here people seem to be much more inclined to want to not live
together, and just '''date'''.  I have a feeling that most people would not
want telepathy.  What is the differences between the people who would want
telepathy or living together, and those who would not?

Jim.

James Baranski            | It's Not Easy Keeping Vaxen Working ...  Underwater!
Vax Systems Analyst       | BARANSKI@VEAMF1.NUSC.NAVY.MIL 203-440-6510, 889-4968
Lanman Hill, Norwich CT   | Be: Thoughtfull, Honest, Yourself, Happy
**************included message ends here*****************

Hopefully, followups will have their attributions fixed up properly...
(Just teasing, Raul 8->).

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Date: 17 Aug 1992 23:14:38 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <377@asylum.UUCP> vyxter@asylum.UUCP (alice b. toklas) writes:
>>In article jemenake@zeus.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
>>>It seems that, if you're going to ask your mate to be faithful to you, you
>>>should be obligated to put out when they're in the mood.
>
>there are other things that monogamous couples seek only from their
>partners.  one's partner, for example, is often assumed to be one's
>"best friend".  does that mean that whenever one partner wants to,
>say, talk, that the other partner is obligated to listen?
---
	Alice -- big problem with your analogy -- in a monogamous relationship,
talking with others is not usually disallowed.  Sex is.  If I want
to have sex with a living, breathing human being, and my monogamous
partner refuses to put out, I believe a problem exists.  On a
transactional level, if the partner continued to be difficult about
sex, I would say it's time to get my bread buttered elsewhere -- so
to speak.  

-wat-
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.