HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mind the Gap)
Subject: frats and William Muse
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:44:58 GMT

I did a search on LEXIS for (fraternity and (william w/4 muse)).  The 
only articles citing William Muse on the subject of fraternities were
in regards to

1. When he shut down some fraternities at U of Akron for poor behavior,

and

2. When he allowed the Kappa Alpha fraternity at Auburn to hold a racist
   parade, despite complaints from the community at large.

No newspaper or magazine quoted Muse as an expert on fraternities.

On the other hand, the people I mentioned (Peggy Reeves Sanday, Chris
O'Sullivan, Andrew Merton, Bernice Sandler, Towson State Committee for
the Prevention of Campus Violence, American Association of University
Women) are all cited in for their work on fraternities in a number of 
major newspapers (New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, 
Chicago Tribune, Gannett News Services, the Nation, Boston Globe, etc.).  
A search for their names in LEXIS will turn up dozens of articles on 
the problems of fraternities and athletic teams.  (In fact, far more
articles have been written about rape and athletic teams than rape and
fraternities, even though just about all of these articles mention that
athletes have the second-highest rape rate, behind only fraternities.)

Readers are welcome to draw their own conclusions, but apparentally,
journalists in general have a higher opinion of the sources I've cited than 
William Muse, who, as far as I can tell, has only written about the similarities
in running large social organizations that happen to be fraternities, and
in running businesses.  I'm perfectly willing to concede that running
a large-scale social organization is good experience.  I don't see how
that's relevant to whether the large-scale organization in question happens 
to discriminate against women needlessly, has the highest rape rate amongst
all organizations on campus, and has killed dozens of students, which are
the objections I raised against fraternities.  As I've said before, there's
nothing meaningful a fraternity does that can't be done with the reforms I've
suggested.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: being between "Just Friends" and "relationship"
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:26:40 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Nov9.224929.18514@bernina.ethz.ch> zeller@bernina.ethz.ch (Lukas Zeller) writes:
:
:
>
>I'm not asking you if this exists PJit does for me anyway. But it 
>seems to me that many people don't *believe* that it is possible. 
>There's an awful lot of fear and preoccupation around attacking every 
>relationship that doesn't fit into the single/couple scheme, making 
>it sometimes very hard to live it and sometimes even to keep 
>believing in it. Some get misused and this may break their belief, 
>leaving them with the sad and bitter "realisation" that "It was an 
>illusion".
>
>To see that happen (again, just these days) makes me sad, and it's 
>why I'm asking you for your opinions about this. I also think it 
>might be an interesting topic to discuss, as I haven't seen it here 
>in the last few thousand messages I've read :-)
>If I get answers by email, I'll post a summary later.
  
I agree with you, Lukas, that there is alot of emotional discomfort
expressed by people who see/experience relationships which don't fit 
into a comfortable pattern.  It is IMO a measure of maturity to allow
each individual relationship to establish its own comfort level in
intimacy, committment, involvement -- just as every person is different,
every relationship you have with a person is unique to that coupling.
   
  But, you also have to be honest with yourself as to what you can and
cannot handle in terms of sharing, emotionally or physically, with others.
If you are involved with  someone who needs to know that you are the
only one and vice versa, then there is a different comfort level involved
than when you are involved with someone who just isn't that involved -
or someone who really doesn't feel exclusivity when it comes to relationships.
  
  I think it is asking alot to expect most folks, born and raised in
traditional pairings and socialized by media and by culture in traditional 
pairings, to be willing to be open enough, honest enough, and generous
enough to share their emotional bonds with others.  You can see this 
happen between couples when they suddenly have to share love with a child
(that is NOT always a simple thing!), between siblings when they have
to share a parent with another child or another partner (talk to a
10 year old about sharing Mom with a new lover sometime... fun times!),
and happens in partner sharing as well.  None of these situations are
insurmontable - thankfully!!!!!  But that doesn't mean that they are
wrong to come up, or that there is something wrong with the person experiencing
the change as a loss.  It DOES mean that it needs to be resolved, rather
than dismissed or ignored.
  
  My $.02.  other opinions vary... in fact, my opinions have been known
to vary, even unto the hour they are posted  :)
  
--j
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: Strong women in film (was Re: What do you Am men think about Am women?)
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:26:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.050437.20319@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.105051.13498@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> markr@mcil.comm.mot.com writes:
>>
>>Actually, last night I saw 'Basic Instinct' and thought it was an excellent
>>film with very strong female characters.  I consider it one of the top ten
>>for the year. (My SO enjoyed it just as much, and then I got to enjoy again
>>when we got home :-)
>
>Just a coincidence that nearly all the lesbian and bisexual women are
>killers?

No, just part of the story, like I said, they were strong characters.

Mark
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kevin@clsi.COM (Kevin Cameron)
Subject: Re: WHAT DO AMERICAN MEN THINK ABOUT AMERI
Originator: kevin@dubhe
Reply-To: kevin@clsi.com
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 16:04:02 GMT


In article <riaedwards.2.721312688@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au>, riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS) writes:
> 
> 2. Spoke funny, compered to whom? Are you an American, by chance? Surely (in 
> grammatical terms *only*), you mean "spoke in a funny manner". In any event, 
> the English speak beautiful English (and I should know, for I am one! :-) )
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm not sure about that! - but at least they can spell the words properly :-)

Kev.
--
A Scot Abroad.

-- 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: British men
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:07:54 GMT

> In article 25249@sybase.sybase.com, mysti@sybase.com (Mysti) writes:
> >
> >I have found some Canadian men attractive, and some not.

Beyond the shadow of a doubt, I have not found even one Canadian man to
be attractive, or American men, or British men, OR etc. men.
> 
> dreas
> 


Xref: sparky soc.singles:30179 ba.singles:2086
From: bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
Subject: Re: Where to meet women?
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:25:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov9.215104.2308@ads.com> charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>
>On the other hand, guys who show up for the sole purpose of meeting hot
>babes are spotted immediately.

<slapping forehead> Ouch! Is that the problem?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson)
Subject: Re: Smiles, Food, and Other Ways of Seducing Women
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 23:22:14 GMT

In article <74256@apple.apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>
>thinman@netcom.com (Technically Sweet) writes:
>
>>There is a book called, I believe, "Sexual Choices".  It was the
>>result of a survey asking women what made them decide to sleep
>>a man.  The result that startled the researcher was the number
>>of women who said that the man providing food was the key.

Now you see why Kiran, Trygve, and I are always extolling
the virtues of cooking for our dates....

>
>Hey, now I understand why guys always try to pay for my meal on the first
>date, and why they get nervous when I refuse. I never understood it before,
>because being given food doesn't affect my decision whether to sleep
>with a guy. (Unless he is holding an ice cream cone for me to lick. :-)
>
>I usually want to sleep with a guy if he smiles a lot at me. 

:-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  (etc.)

Is it working?
-- 
  Dave Johnson

"You're not too smart, are you?  I like that in a man."
    --Kathleen Turner in Body Heat 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: golovch@prim.rose.utoronto.ca (Gene Golovchinsky)
Subject: Re: That wacky electoral college
Organization: University of Toronto, Department of Industrial Engineering
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:17:57 GMT

mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
>smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes:
>>thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>>>larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
>>>> 4. Line item veto!
>>> 
>>> Sounds good to me, but doesn't this put the president into the budget
>>> process where he isn't constitutionally supposed to be?
>>
>>How?  It seems to me that all the line item veto does is prevent Congress
>>from stringing meaningless or downright bad items along with larger bills.
>>The effect would be that when a bill goes before the president, it would
>>be cohesive, logically. I don't understand how this could be bad.

>But the Democrats aren't the only party submitting pork bills, the
>Republicans do it too (although to a somewhat lesser extent), 

Pork barrel is pork barrel, don't matter whose pork it is!
The idea of tying together radically different pieces of legislation
makes about as much sense as bying a Ferrarri because chicken soup is
good for you.

 2
G

ps: The pork-barrel stuff is usually special-interest stuff that winds
up hurting more people than it helps; the life you save may be your own.
Xref: sparky soc.singles:30361 talk.politics.misc:59551
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Budgets  (Was:Re: el-ecti-ons)
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:42:08 GMT
	<MARTINC.92Nov9172405@grover.cs.unc.edu>
	<1992Nov10.070210.14442@netcom.com>
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: rohwerwd@netcom.com's message of 10 Nov 92 07:02:10 GMT

Wow -- I admire your dedication at typing all that in.

In article <1992Nov10.070210.14442@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:

   In article <MARTINC.92Nov9172405@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
   >In article <BxFDxv.Bso@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
   >
   >   >>Yup.  A little present from Reagan and Bush. 
   >   >Look up who had the last balanced budget.
   >
   >   I don't think it has been balanced in my lifetime, but I thought it
   >   skyrocketed in the Reagan years.  This could be a myth, of course.
   >
   >Depends on when you were born, of course.  Eisenhower had them, and I
   >vaguely recall Nixon having a balanced budget, perhaps in 68 or 69.

	As shown by the following table, Nixon had a profitable budget in 1969.

   >Reagan actually submitted balanced budgets on a couple of occasions, but
   >they didn't pass.

	How could that be when all of the budgets had deficits of at least
   $79 Billion?

Easy: what the real budget is doesn't necessarily correspond to what the
original submitted budget was.
--
		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
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: Response to Hi Ho Silver
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:50:42 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
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 <1992Nov6.140853.25426@b8.b8.ingr.com> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:

>>    In the future, restrict your test postings to test groups such as
>> alt.test or misc.test.

>I was having problems posting to the newsgroups in question, but was able to
>post to other groups so I knew My newsserver was working ok, so to SAVE time
>and money MY reposts (of which I made two or three) consisted of the word
>test.

The handling for each message is substantial, even if the body is empty.
The same is true for the pain-in-the-ass cost for me to read it.  The
"per-word cost" only gets ugly after many lines.  A short thing like,
{"I'm having problems getting news out, and it seems to be limited to
soc.singles.  Could people who see this reply with the message ID?
Thanks."} wouldn't have cost the net much-if-any more, and would have
let people know what you were trying to fix.  Sometimes you can't avoid
test posts in non-test groups, but you'll definitely get flamed unless
it's known that you've already tried other tests.

>PS:  Could you please send me via E-mail or post to the net the OFFICIAL
>unabridged list of acceptable topics for the newsgroup, so I will NEVER
>post anything UNAPPROPIATE again.  I would be so grateful to you.

If you would THINK a little more before you let your postings go,
you'd automatically do better.  Your posts are often good, but they're
also often thoughtless.  You'd also do better to check and marshall
your facts before you weigh in on a topic, as you sometimes just don't
seem to know what you're talking about.  I'm glad you're here, but I'd
applaud a little more effort along these lines.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
"I get so tickled debunking bad personal philosophy." - Milquetoast
From: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:19:48 GMT
Organization: Cal-Nevada Methodist Homes

Inarticle<1992Nov12.112343.23589@1mpsbbs.comm.mot.com>markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
writes:
>This doesn't really belong in soc.singles.
>Mark

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm tired of seeing people
state that a certain topic "...doesn't belong in soc.singles...".
Who are they to decide what belongs and what doesn't?  It's all
open to interpretation of the term "soc.singles".  Some might
interpret it as a group for displaying personal ads; yet, we see
almost none of those.  Others might interpret it as a social
group, whereby singles discuss issues of a social nature.  This
seems to be the prevelant school of thought, as just about
everything seems to be discussed here.  Next thing you know, we
will have to strictly adhere to the title, that being soc.SINGLE.
One will have to prove that they are indeed single before posting
to this group.  8-)  I think this is a great group for discussion
purposes, and I hope everyone else will continue to view it as such
a discussion group.  Probably the only thing that doesn't belong
here is the poster named "Mark"!
--Keith

Xref: sparky soc.singles:30326 soc.men:19054 soc.women:19289
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am women?
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:36:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov11.063611.8635
Organization: Netcom - San Jose, CA

In article <1992Nov9.211454.16906@b8.b8.ingr.com> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.004907.18226@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith) writes:
>> >
>> Rather than a large rant and rave, which is what I had originally intended
>> for this space, let me reserve my observation to this:
>>   
>> Anyone who thinks that what one reads reflects what one desires is in
>> need of a very, very large clue.
>>   
>
>Aren't a large portion also written by women?  If you have ABSOLUTELY no
>interest in something, do you still read it?  Not me.  Most things I read
>about (history, war, science fiction-space travel, science fantacy-swords
>and sorcery, and not to forget Playboy) I have some interest in, if I didn't
>I would not read them.

     [Stuff deleted]

>  As for Playboy I would like to at minimum be the photographer, or the guy
> talking dirty to the girls to get them to smile like that.  :)
>

     You would not want to have sex with the women?

-- 
       +----------------------------------------------------------------+
      /  Keep Abortion Legal and Safe.  Reduce the Deficit.            /
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga       UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |
|  \X/       Go A's!     \X/ 3000UX   Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM      /
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
From: daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel Barclay)
Subject: Re: Where to meet women?
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
	<DANIEL.92Nov11114355@algol.clsi.COM>
	<Nov.11.16.57.43.1992.5519@net.bio.net>
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:05:27

> >Why can't _I_ think of a signature?

> Daniel is one of the millions of American afflicted with signature impairment,
> or SI.

(But I haven't noticed any trouble signing my checks.  (*slap*  Bad! Bad joke!
Down boy!))

> Each year, SI strikes more and more young computer-literate people.
> Each year, we seem further than ever from a cure.  But research takes
> money.

> That's where we come in.  We're the Signature Impaired
> Computer-Literate Young, or SICLY.  We're out there, day after day,
> bringing new hope to those who are unable to coin an original thought
> or steal a witty saying.

> Please give generously, so that little Daniel here can go on to overcome
> signature impairment and lead a full, rewarding life.

> Thank you.

> Charleen

Why, thank you Charleen.  I wasn't satisfied with it when I first picked it,
but I have seen that it _is_ uniquely mine.  Thank you for "validating" it.
(If it were a completely useless, boring, uninteresting signature, I guess you
wouldn't be the second person to comment on it.)
( :-) and seriously! )

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Barclay			CAD Language Systems, Inc.
					Suite 101, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd.
Why can't _I_ think of a signature?	Columbia, MD  21045  USA
From: rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Searching for the Perfect Turkey
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 22:42:20 -0700
Organization: Wild Rose Refugee Camp

martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

>Well, obviously, you can't use last year's turkey.  Fresh turkeys are better.

Darn it anyway, just when I thought I had all the presidential threads
in my kill file!  :-)

-- 
-- Ray
From: mysti@sybase.com (Mysti)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: British men
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:45:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Sybase, Inc.

In article <MARTINC.92Nov2121051@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>
>The questionable nature of the statistics themselves have been widely
>reported. 

I'm sorry if I've missed the postings here or articles in the media,
perhaps you could condescend enough to give a reference or two?  Do you
know the leading cause of injury for women in the US?  

>   And in case you hadn't noticed, there is a bias toward prosecuting
>   women for their part of pre-natal negative behaviors.  I heard on
>   the news (can anbody confirm its accuracy?) that men's genetic
>   material is also damaged after certain activities, yet there is no
>   talk/action to hold them responsible for birth defects.....
>
>Nor have I recently heard of much activity in the way of prosecuting
>women for their pre-conception activities.  By the way, do try to be a
>little more careful here -- pre-natal refers to *post* conception, but
>before birth.

My understanding was that the successful prosecutions were against women
who had engaged in "dangerous" activities while pregnant.  Can you
quote which cases involve pre-conception prosecutions?  That's even
more horrifying...

>However, I agree -- I have yet to hear of a single prosecution of a man
>for taking drugs while he was pregnant.  Shameful.

Ah, well, at least you amused yourself.  Or maybe you didn't know that
men as well as women contribute genetic material in order to create a
fetus.....
--
========================
Mysti Rubert, Oaktown, California

"It't not the men in my life, but the life in my men."  Mae West
Xref: sparky soc.singles:30402 talk.abortion:47700
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: nkill  (Was: Re: KILLING a Poster rather than a Post)
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:25:50 GMT
	<MARTINC.92Nov8152214@grover.cs.unc.edu>
	<1992Nov11.070916.11329@netcom.com>
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: rohwerwd@netcom.com's message of 11 Nov 92 07:09:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.070916.11329@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:

	[lots of explainations deleted]

	[me:]
   >
   >Oh, I'm so glad to see that the spirit of tolerance and the ideal that
   >one ought not be persecuted or killed for differences of opinion is
   >still alive on the net.
   >--

	I do not mind if there are differences of opinion.  Just do not
   make others do what you want them to do against their will.  If you
   do, then you must expect consequences.  Basically, live and let live.

David, I don't think I disagree with any of the positions you took as
explained.  But nkill-ing people whose positions you dislike seems to
display the opposite of "live and let live".  It sounds an awful lot
like "do what I say or I'll kill you."
--
		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.singles
From: daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel Barclay)
Subject: Re: Teasing and other Games of Romance
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
	<BxB93u.7F9@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <lflo6gINN2i6@news.bbn.com>
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:43:53

> it off, but to be blunt, that's why the Goddess gave us hands and an
I missed my mythology clue.  Who's the "Goddess"?  (From this and previous
articles.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Barclay			CAD Language Systems, Inc.
					Suite 101, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd.
Why can't _I_ think of a signature?	Columbia, MD  21045  USA
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson)
Subject: Re: Education and the Single World
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 16:33:27 GMT

In article <cacqncc@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>Any goober with half a brain, perseverence and luck can get a college degree.

You mean there's hope for me yet?
-- 
  Dave Johnson

"You're not too smart, are you?  I like that in a man."
    --Kathleen Turner in Body Heat 
Newsgroups: soc.singles