HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazarus@magna.ksu.ksu.edu (Bart -Laz- Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Hate-Related Grafitti (was Re: X-trian Right Wingers Strike Again)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 01:56:34 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: magna.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <1992Nov15.040205.27218@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>Just to keep things in perspective...
>Recently someone went about the University of Colorado campus spraypainting
>"Clinton-Gore" on everything.  Vandalism, yes.  Hate grafitti, no.  If
>painting "Clinton-Gore" on a "Bush-Quayle" poster is not hate grafitti, then
>neither is writing "Jesus Saves" on a pagan display.

Actually, that COULD be taken as hate-related.  Think about it: Bush's
words and actions during his campaign caused LOTS of people to dislike
the man severely.  Students tend to be a headstrong lot, and if you get
them drunk, they're liable to do anything, especially out of hate.  It's
no secret that many Christians don't like pagans, to say the least, and
some will stop at nothing to express that dislike.  I oughta know... my
sister (a Christian) continued to threaten my ex-girlfriend (a Wiccan)
no matter WHAT I said to convince her my ex was harmless.  Until I told
her to shut up because she didn't even KNOW my ex.  *sigh*  Blind
prejudice.

--
Bart -Laz- Smith
Kansas State University
'Cats - Hell, I can't remember the score.  They just lost to Mizzou.  *sigh*
"I've got the motive which is money, and I've got the body which is DEAD."
	-- In the Heat of the Night
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: ceci@lysator.liu.se (Cecilia Henningsson)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Jungian Tarot
Keywords: tarot, Jung, Wang
Date: 22 Nov 92 14:50:55 GMT
Organization: Lysator Academic Computer Society, Linkoping University, Sweden

Recently I bought a box called The Psychological Tarot, published by
Urania Verlags AG. The artwork was done by Robert Wang. The individual
pictures are based on the Jungian archetypes. In my opinion the
pictures have an appealing quality of a fantasy novel come true in
today's world, which I think comes from the naturalism of the faces
whereas the rest of the pictures are more stylized. Every card also
features a mandala.

I really like the cards, their size, the design on the reverse side,
the pictures themselves and the whole feel of it. And I'm very
interested in and somewhat familiar with Jung's model of psychology,
with the archetypes, the collective unconscious and the mandalas.

What puzzles me though, is my reaction towards the accompanying book.
I've read most of the descriptions of the archetypes of the cards by
now, and what really makes me feel silly is that for each and every
description, I feel like saying: "Hey, you're overdoing it, people
aren't this stereotyped. Every person is different, there are no
clear-cut personality types." Somehow I can't get into my head that
these aren't people, but archetypes, which are *supposed* to be
stereotyped. I'm starting to feel very silly about it.

Other people's reactions to the Jungian tarot would be very welcome,
either in the group or via e-mail.

--Ceci
--
=====ceci@lysator.liu.se===========================================
"But my dear man, reality is only a Rorschach ink-blot, you know."
							Alan Watts
===================================================================
From: russell@Apple.COM (Russell Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Colorado and Amendment 2
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:39:17 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

I think discussion -- and action -- on this point are entirely appropriate.
I grew up in Alabama in the 1960s, and much of the pressure that changed
racist laws there came from concerned people living elsewhere in the
country. Often, these people were motivated by religious conviction
(mostly Christian). Acting from one's religious convictions is not the
same thing as attempting to impose a theocracy.

The issue of anti-gay bigotry certainly seems to me to be relevant to
practitioners of religions that say "an it harm none, do as you will,"
and "all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals". 
-- 
Russell Williams
Not speaking for Apple Computer
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: the US elections...
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 19:44:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.013619.7131@news2.cis.umn.edu> hart0037@student.tc.umn.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.194913.28324@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
>writes: 
>
>>In article <1992Nov16.030038.24360@news2.cis.umn.edu>
>hart0037@student.tc.umn.edu writes: 
>
>  As for the second issue, I still don't want to own a gun.  It's too
>quick and too easy to kill with a gun.  I've fired one before, and even
>though I was targeting popcans, I didn't feel good about it.  I don't want
>that kind of instantaneous life-and-death power in my hands!  Once you've
>pulled the trigger, there is no turning back, and I'd feel unsafe with
>that kind of power in my house.

Do you drive a car? I've heard folks make remarks similar to this after
having accidents with one.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Women and Men Witches
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:30:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <1eaiioINN8sr@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bn566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ward Chanley) writes:
>
>I know you were probably trying to make a joke;
>but it does dredge up the tired stereotype of
>Gay men as mysogynistic.  Trust me, the reality
>is that most of the men who hate women are 
>heterosexual.  Indeed, mysogyny and homophobia 
>often go hand in hand.

Absolutely.  They are both the same thing -- fear of sex and fear of
letting go.  Personally, I think they are psychologically identical in
all respects.

BTW, does the capital G mean te same thing as the capital D in Deaf?
You know, like "deaf" means "unable to hear well," and "Deaf" means "one
who is a member of the deaf cultural community."

Just a-wonderin',
Janis
From: 34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: guns (was the US elections...)
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:23:58 GMT
 <1992Nov15.115410.14348@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> <1992Nov17.232614.1889@radian.uucp>
Distribution: usa

No quoted lines - look up the attributions.

In point of fact, had you visited places like Pakistan during that time,
you would have found that the Afghanis were turning out fully-capable copies
of AK-47s with simple hand tools. As for US support, the *threat* of US support
was used by the US as a lever against the USSR. Actual US weaponry supplied
was rather minimal; most Afghani weapons were captured from defeated or
defecting army units.

Could something like that happen in the US? Only under very specific
circumstances, IMHO. First, the insurgent group would have to be
thoroughly demonized in the media, presuming it to be of any significant
size. This almost mandates the fed casting the conflict in stark
terms on the order of a race war. Not real workable. Mopping up
isolated pockets of "rioters" is one thing. Mounting a full-scale
military operation against the populace at large is quite a different,
and less predictable, scenario. Check the history of Nam for that one.

The fed knows this, and is not going to do anything that adversely
impacts *everyone* at the same time. Most people will let their
neighbor be subjected to *anything*, so long as they are left alone.
The old "then they came for me..." tactic.

Then there are the questions of world opinion, arms support from other
nations (everyone knows how difficult it is to smuggle anything into the US,
right?), economic damage, etc., etc.

If this unlikely scenario should ever come about, IMHO what would come
about, IMHO, would be something akin to the Beirut situation. In such a case
weapon availability would be a very important matter for mere survival.
Whether one classifies that as "personal defense" or "armed insurruction"
depends mostly on what political axe one happens to be grinding at the time.
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: c1741@moncol.monmouth.edu (MICHAEL CARSON)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: the US elections...
Date: 20 Nov 92 01:59:16 GMT
Organization: Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, N.J.  07764

In article <1ea6i4INN15i@magna.ksu.ksu.edu> lazarus@magna.ksu.ksu.edu (Bart -Laz- Smith) writes:
>
>
>Yeah, but at least MY granddad's hunting rifle was made for the hunting of
>animals, not humans.

	Owning a handgn for the purpose of HUNTING humans is in clear violation
of the law in any place in the USA I can think of, and any place I would care to
visit.  
	Handguns are designed for many things, one of the more common being
the defense of humans from other humans.  In theory, at least, I have no moral
qualms with using one for the purpose.  In practice, I'd have to wait until 
after the horrid event to say.

|o|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|o|
|o| Of Course I speak  |      michael carson       | Carpe Diem, Man.        |o|
|o|  only for myself.  | c1741@moncol.monmouth.edu | Carpe Vitam, too.       |o|
|o| Would YOU let me   +---------------------------+-------------------------|o|
|o|  speak for you?!?  |      All flames to: nobody@moncol.monmouth.edu      |o|
|o|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|o|
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: ag055@yfn.ysu.edu (Ward Chanley)
Subject: Re: Women and Men Witches
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:25:53 GMT


Phyllis S. is a great example, but
in my opinion, an example of a woman
who's identified with patriarchal male
conciousness; she talks alot about the 
return to Bible-oriented, male domin-
ated families with women in their 
"rightful" place.

I certainly don't consider her opinions
indicative of the majority of women,
and they are indicative of NONE of the
women I know.

-- 
I thank the Goddess for my life,
I thank the Goddess for my loves,
I thank the Goddess for continued blessings.
     -- Z Budapest
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: weaver@kuttner.sfc.sony.com (Eric Weaver)
Subject: Re: the Deteriorata
Organization: SONY Advanced Video Technology Center San Jose, CA USA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:14:01 GMT


Must give credit on this:  

Narration:  Norman Rose   (pipes second only to Ken Nordine)

Background Vocals:  Maria Muldaur

I think Radio Dinner is out on CD now.  Well worth it.

  "Why is your splash louder than mine?"  "I'm pissing on your briefcase."
-- 
Eric Weaver  Sony AVTC  677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35  SJ CA 95134  408 944-4904
& Chief Engineer, KFJC 89.7 Foothill College, Los Altos Hills CA 94022
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Pagan TV and Radio?
From: kuvamp@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:35:45 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Flipping through the channels yet again, I counted no less than three Christian
cable networks on my service.  Depressed, It got my mind a-workin':
I realize the chances of an entire NETWORK (ala "family channel") is slim to
none, but there surely must be Pagan t.v shows (public access, etc.) and radio
programs.   This may be a waste of space, but does anyone out there have copies
of these things, if they exist? (I.e. videotaped tv spots, audiotaped radio)

I would appreciated seeing such things, and perhaps with an example of how
they're done in other regions, I could talk to the powers that be into
including things like them around here.

				E-mail me to avoid wasted bandwidth, unless
				others want the info, too.....

					Merry meet and merry part
					(and meets is meets and parts is parts)
						:) :) :)

						(triple goddess grinning)

							-----Gareth
From: wce@hogbbs.scol.pa.us (Bill Eichman)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: How the hell can religion and action not be related?
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:27:25 GMT
Organization: The Heart of Gold BBS, Lemont PA

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

> : Way to go Bill, why is that there are so many pagans that have a hate for
> : christians just because they are christian?
> 
> Beats me. I have asked that question here a number of times. Apparently,
> Pagans are as uncapable of forgiving and of tolerance as many Christians.
> It seems to be a part of human nature.
> 
> Bill


No doubt the hiding and little and big attacks that open pagans endure 
from some christians in the day-to-day business of lifee have something 
to do with it....

It's a part of human nature to fear that which attacks.

Later, Bill
Date: Thursday, 19 Nov 1992 12:55:52 EST
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Who are we kidding?

In article <2B0A8245.16232@news.service.uci.edu>, cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis
Maria Cortese) says:
>
[incredible deluge of drivel deleted]
>
>something else have a shot at it.  Right now, all I want to do is find
>some quiet little island or something to live on so I can avoid as much
>of the splat as I can when the shit finally hits the fan.
>
>Janis

An excellent idea in this instance. Preferably one without net access.
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Paul Cass)
Subject: Re: the five stages
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 01:57:18 GMT

In article <fVnGEAb@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Paul Cass) writes:
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>1. Anger
>>>2. Denial
>>>3. Bargaining
>>>4. Depression
>>>5. Acceptance
>>>What do these stages mean?
>>If these five stages are under discussion then (probabley) there is a
>>terminal illness involved.  Cancer, Aids etc....  I believe the book
>>was called "On Death and Dieing" but I'm not positive.
>
>But, don't these stages apply to other things also? Say, for example,
>breaking up or not being able to make the payments or failing a class or
>getting fired and not being able to find a new job or ...

You bet...they even apply to gardening...esp. organic agriculture.
Paul

-- 
                          * * * * * * *
"It is possible to join forces, to identify common goals, and to agree on
 common action." - U.N. World Commission on Development and Environment
		       casspa@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: guns (was the US elections...)
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:26:14 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <1992Nov15.115410.14348@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>: 
>: >They are to PROTECT us FROM the government.
>: 
>: I agree that it was written with the intent to allow a civilian population
>: to arm against a tyranny, but we've long since passed the point where this
>: is possible.
>
>Hardly true. Witness what the very poorly equipt people in Afghanistan are
>doing in their war against the USSR. They have been fighting for over 10
>years, and they still have not been subjugated.
>
Time for a bowl of Reality Chex, guy. The U.S. has been more or less openly
supplying them with weapons almost all that time. They are not exactly poorly
equipped. In fact, most of the revolutions you mentioned in the earlier post
were being supplied by one of the superpowers or another, as well as a nearby
nation *outside* the one in the civil war.

>: Well, you're pretty misled if you think you or any number of your friends
>: can take on the US government in a gunfight. First you'll battle ALL the
>: local police, then the county, then the state police, then the National
>: Guard, then the US army, the Marines, the CIA, the FBI and the NSC. I'm
>: probably leaving out a few. Maybe that's your preferred method of dying,
>: but I doubt many people (especially with families) would agree with you.
>
>See above. If it came to an insurrection - I expect most of the police, as
>well as the national guard, would be on the side of the citizens.

Nope. I doubt *very* much that the National Guard would revolt. Whatever
group was revolting (I am, of course, considering any possible revolutionary
group within this country that might have *some* potential to mount a serious
revolt) would be portrayed as treasonous, etc, and would be considered so
by the armed & uniformed forces. You don't think so? Look at how we were
treated in the 60's, those of us against the War. And *most* of us were
non-violent, or started that way.

>: IMHO, the only reasons for owning a gun in the United States are for home 
>: and personal protection, target and sport shooting, and hunting. Anyone
>: who thinks they can stand up to the might of the entire US police and
>: military establishment is delusionary.
>
That, I agree with.

	mark
From: russell@Apple.COM (Russell Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Scummy behavior of pagan males
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:58:23 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Nov16.102307.44819@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> kumagic@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Stephen R. Figgins) writes:
>I can think of plenty more, these just leapt to mind as examples of
>men's scummy behavior both within and without our community.  I would
>be interested in hearing others examples of men's scummy behavior
>within the pagan community.   Or am I the only one who notices this
>stuff?  It has been said that men within the pagan community were
>different than men outside the community in their relations to women.
>I have said this is not very true.  What do others think?

Certainly there's "scummy" behavior by men toward women within the
Pagan community. But to claim that because the difference isn't
absolute and complete there is *no* significant difference is to make a very
pessimistic and depressing argument. If there aren't more men
who treat women with respect and fewer men who treat women
poorly in the Pagan community, that would seem to argue that the
situation is pretty hopeless. It argues that religions and value
systems that are respectful of women are irrelevant to male behavior.
I disagree with this, and also feel that expecting complete change
is unrealistic, particularly given that the Pagan community exists
within a much larger and broader sexist culture. 

I think this is one of the most important things that should be
taught about living our religion. We have a long way to go,
but I don't think we've been complete failures at it, either.
-- 
Russell Williams
Not speaking for Apple Computer
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: hart0037@student.tc.umn.edu ()
Subject: Re: Who are we kidding?
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:03:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.060227.29534@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com 
(Kenn Barry) writes:

>In article <1992Nov19.234722.6935@leela.cs.orst.edu> 
casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Paul Cass) writes:

>>In article <1992Nov19.062412.19164@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com 
(Kenn Barry) writes:

>>>	Hey, why don't you and Janis get sandwich boards saying
>>>"Repent! The End of the World is Nigh!" Growing very long beards would
>>>add to the total effect, but I guess Janis can skip that part.
>>
>>Hey..what do you know...a cheap shot..I always did enjoy those.
>
>	No cheap shot, Paul. There's no difference between Janis's
>childish post and any other end-of-the-world junk I've seen. I thought
>about a serious reply to her article, but there was no point - nothing
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        So since your reply was not meant to be serious, perhaps nobody
should take your posts very seriously, either? 


>	I've wasted more than enough time on her. Janis hides her own
>sense of personal inadequacy behind a thin shell of arrogance and an
>unfocused anger that dare not recognize its true object. Simply put,
>she is a coward. I may have my differences with ecological extremists,

        If you feel this stongly about it, perhaps you could just put
Janis and this thread in your kill file and stop wasting your time (and
ours)  with a rather pointless flame war?


>	You I don't know. We'll see if you're worth talking to.

           And you call Janis arrogant?

>
>-  Nothing fails like success  -             Kenn Barry
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>ELECTRIC AVENUE:                             barry@netcom.com

        Sometimes it's a lot easier to flame than to express one's views. 
I don't feel that I really know what you think about the issue Janis
raised.  Perhaps all of us could gain if you shared your viewpoint, sans
flames.  IMO, it is always worth considering all sides of an issue--even the
ones you disagree with. 

    --Amy 
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (T. O. Radzykewycz)
Subject: Re: Women and Men Witches
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:35:23 GMT

ag055@yfn.ysu.edu (Ward Chanley) writes:
> Re: Focus on valuing men and women equally...
> 
> But WHAT in men are you going to value?

This is a good example of why I think we should *not* be
pushing for anything called a matriarchy/matrifocal/matri-whatever.

The argument *for* it goes something like:
Well, we have to convince people that the values we associate
women with are good values, and that women are valuable people.
So we have to hit men over the head with this stuff, to get them
out of the current mold.

The problem is this: when we try to push "women's values", then
we're *MAINTAINING* this dichotomy between men and women!  So,
WHAT in men is this "matriarchy" going to value?  How can we get
to the point where those values are associated with both women
and men, instead of being associated with just women?  Or with
just men, for that matter?

Beating people over the head with the differences between men
and women won't make people stop believing in those differences!

Our society has really really serious problems!  Some of these
problems are based on the current bias towards men, which is
based on the (false!) premise that women are inferior.  Will
replacing one false premise (that women are inferior) with a
different false premise (that men are inferior) really change
anything?

> When men have a matriarchal
> conciousness, then, and only then will
> we have a culture that won't revert
> back to the patriarchy the men were
> raised with.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong!  We need to have men with a patriarchal
*and* matriarchal conciousness.  We need to have women with
a matriarchal *and* patriarchal conciousness.  Until we have
all qualities in all people, we'll continue to be fucked!

> You can value men and women equally,
> and I want the culture to do that.
> But we need to radically change the 
> head-space that men are put in before
> we can do that successfully.

Right.  And we need to radically change the head-space that
women are put in before we can do it, too.

Blessings!

			-- radzy