HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ballms@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (BALLMS)
Subject: vampire
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: vampire
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:25:00 GMT


    OH MY GOD < ITS YOUR NEIGHBOR
Here is a another technique that vampires like to use, and also
just conceited jerks in general. You know, the last post I sent on this
matter only lasted one day. I guess the editor thought it
wasnt good enough. Too bad if you missed it. 

The 'guilt-sling' game. In this game, the vampire tries to make you think
they are spiritually above you, and that when you are under their
'spell' or 'influence', you are being 'spiritually elevated' to a 
higher state.  Then, the vampire will psychically seek out a flaw
in your character (everyone has some sort of flaw) and 'amplify'
or 'energize' it and by changing their point of view toward you 
in light of your 'flaw', will attempt to make you feel guilt-ridden
about it, and thus weaken your self confidence. The vampire does this 
in order to sanctimoniously and graciously 'forgive' you, and 
relieve you of 'guilt'. They do this to increase the bond of
depraved intimancy between you and themsevles. Their goal is to
increase your being psychologically dependent on them.  This game
can be easily combined with the 'svadisthana bomb' game, and thus,
bring in the element of sexual desire, and the guilt that is usually
associated with sex. You can counter this game by proper discrimination
and by appealing to certain saints, archangels, gods, goddesses, and
mainly by understanding the techniques they are trying to use
against you. With the psychic vampire 'test' , your discrimination is
analogous to the wooden stake. ( I have to make these damn
tests interesting by comparing them to cheesy movies,there are
way too many serious nitwit pulpit occultists out there),,
Rev. Ganglia.
I do hope this has offended someone, or made someone feel
they already know everything or made someone feel I am a complete nut.












Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:38:46 GMT

In article <Bvs325.DC7@taligent.com> cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus) writes:

)I'm certain that she does.  She also contributed a great deal to the
)legal theory behind modern sexual harrassment law.  However, her
)attempt to use civil lawsuits to control pornography is one of the most
)dangerously wrong-headed ideas that has been sprung in the whole
)sexual-legal arena, and I don't care if she does a concern tour with
)Annie Sprinkle:  It's still a stupid, dangerous idea.

McKinnon's contribution to 'modern sexual harassment' law do not yet seem
to have achieved a widespread bad reputation, but I think they are very bad
laws nonetheless.

They have been used for such trivialities as banning nude Goya paintings from
a college campus.  [The courts were not involved in that case, but I strongly
suspect the existence of these laws was a strong contribution to the
administration making the decision they did.]

I think that too many people overlook the free-speech issues and the other
civil rights issues involved in such *extremely* unclear and vague aspects of
this law such as 'hostile environments'.

The current 'sexual harssment' law, when looked at more closely, is about
a *lot* more than what can reasonably be construed as harassment by any
traditional meaning of the word.  It verges, if not exceeds, the edge of
'doublespeak' (IMO) to call some of the trivial things the law regulates
(such as bikini posters) 'harassment'.

I don't think there is as much difference between McKinnon's sexual harssment
law and her 'anti-pornography' law as you'd like to believe.

I do agree that it is (or should be) possible to criticize some of the
specific  laws she wrote without *necessarily* debating the rest of her
political agenda and/or writings and/or life-history.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: CONDOMS! and AIDS
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:05:16 GMT

In article <6549@grus.cs.nps.navy.mil> shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
(timothy shimeall) writes:

> -- anyone have a
>figure for how often condoms are used "properly" in real life? I'd
>think that stopping to read the instructions might have an inhibitory
>affect.) 

Some of us use them often enough that we don't forget how in between.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky soc.men:17800 soc.women:17797 sci.math:13293
From: RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,sci.math
Subject: Re: Barbie is Right! (was: Mattel on women)
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:54:30 GMT
 <1992Oct10.221821.14169@leland.Stanford.EDU><1992Oct12.225937.17398@netcom.com>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

All this fuss about Barbie reminds me of a story from some years ago.  There
was a movie in which there were two rabbits, one white, one black, one male
and one female.  At the end of the movie, the two get married.  Now this movie
came out at a time when racial intermarriage was still illegal in some southern
states and there was an uproar.  It finally ended when a state senator wryly
remarked:  "this movie will HAVE to be banned.  I don't want my daughter to
grow up and marry a rabbit!"  Probably it IS silly for Mattel to have Barbie
say such a line as "Math is hard".  But isn't the fuss about it also just a bit
silly?

Rohit Parikh
Xref: sparky soc.men:17612 soc.women:17607 soc.singles:27540
From: ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:57:52 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <1b507fINNgvg@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:

>In article <ewillims.718647627@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>>>I must heartily agree with the previous post. After being attacked by 
>>>vampyres on three seperate occaisions, I shall never leave home without
>>>this life saving subterainian biomass.

	Actually, I didn't write that bit, Mark!! :)

>>
>>
>>	Ah!  I see you've met Trygve then! (*GRIN*)

>No Emma.  You are mistaken.

>(*RIPS OFF MASK*)   It is I!!  (*bares fangs*)

>------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.men:17825 soc.women:17819 alt.activism.d:3925
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: LABOR: STUDY: 1 in 3 Semiconductor Workers Suffer Miscarriages
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:34:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1992Oct15.222801.23289@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

>In article <1992Oct15.013153.9647@mont.cs.missouri.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>)Has just been posted to misc.activism.progressive
>)
>)    "For over 10 years, we have been trying to warn people to replace
>)    glycol ethers because of their reproductive hazards," said Amanda
>)    Hawes director of the Santa Clara Center for Occupational Safety
>)    and Health (SC-COSH).  "But the electronics industry has been
>)    stalling until there is a body count.  It is particularly
>)    upsetting, because most of the people at risk are women, and most
>)    of the decision makers are men."

>I don't recall the *exact* figure, but the figure for spontaneous
>miscarriages for everyone was pretty close to the 1 in 3 figure.
>It was not really that uncomon.  The 1 in 3 figure doesn't mean anything
>by itself without the corresponding figure for those who were not exposed
>to chemicals.  I'd check into the figures a lot more closely before hitting
>the panic button on this issue.  (My memory isn't clear enough to be positive
>that there is no problem, but I have very strong doubts that the data
>above indicates a problem).

>(BTW - This was from our company mandated OSHA required training course.  A
>bit of a joke, as the instructor asked what acids we were exposed to, and I
>muttered under my breath 'acetic'.  That Orange Juice in the moringings,

Do you always put vinegar in your orange juice, Bronis?

>don't you know :-).  Also there was not that much info on male reproductive
>hazards in the course.  The biggest concern in our area was to be sure to
>wash your hands after any soldering because of lead, which was known to
>cause problems for both men and women.)

Bob
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Andre Marou
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:59:20 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Oct8.185728.25686@u.washington.edu> zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:
>  I may send email with a post -- suffer.

Why do you do send copies of your postings in email to the previous poster?
If there is a good reason for it I may choose to "suffer" through it.
Otherwise I will complain as loud as I wish.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,sci.physics,sci.math
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Barbie is Right! (was: Mattel on women)
Keywords: Targetting females once again??????
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:59:37 GMT

I don't know what all the fuss is about, folks. I think Barbie is right.
Math class IS hard. And I should be in a position to know, I majored in math.
I had to really "bust ass" once I became an upperclassman.  If there
were any "easy math classes," you sure couldn't graduate in my major by
taking them.

When Ross Perot tells it like it is, everybody praises his candor. But when
Barbie does the same, people have a fit. I say that Barbie deserves
praise for calling a spade a spade, for ending all this facile talk
about "Suzie's gonna be a doctor, Debbie's gonna be an astronaut." Sure,
they CAN be those things, provided they're willing to BUST ASS to do
so, because Barbie is right.

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH & DEADBEAT DADS!!!!!!
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:51:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpfcso.7560131
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:

> Terry "What about the MARROU/LORD ticket?  Why aren't they in the debates?" Wood

  It is odd that Perot can drop out of the race entirely, change his mind,
and immediately find himself in the debates.

  Sunday evening Andre Marrou was scheduled to be on C-SPAN, but the police
blocked off the entire area, so neither he nor the reporter could get into
the building.

  He did appear on "Larry King Live" Monday evening and "Good Morning,
America" Tuesday morning.  (Now, if I could only find out about these
appearances BEFORE they happen . . .)
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: individual men vs. "patriarchy" and individual women vs. "feminism"
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:06:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1992Oct13.210729.16966@Veritas.COM> rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman) writes:
>In an e-mail conversation about how to handle sexual harrassment, Mara
>Chibnik raised a concern about the responsibilities of individual women
>being confused with those of the company, and by extension, the
>feminist movement.  We agreed that her concern might be relevant to
>soc.men, and so I have her permission to qoute from our conversation.
>

My question is why is this relevant to soc.men.  It seems to me that it
would be more relevant elsewhere like soc. or alt.feminism.  Since as you
stated elsewhere in your posting Mara Chibnik doesn't even read soc.men
which from my point of view makes it even less relevant.

It seems to me that most of the subjects on soc.men are either feminist
issues or gender issues.  It is rare indeed when the discussion has to
with issues for and about men.

What I mean by for and about men is the type of subjects the are not 
directly related to relationships with women.  Topics that deal with being 
a man, spritually, physically, and emotionally. 

starbuck
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: We, The Persons
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:46:23 GMT

In article <92283.025100KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>"Persons"? How can this be PC, with the word 'son' in it?  Yikes! Oppressive!
>
>Henceforth, I proclaim we shall read this "We, the Perchildren."  There, all
>better.

Ah, but you have overlooked the fact that "child" is rooted in feminine
origins, related to "kilthei," meaning "womb."

But we can overlook your insensitivity for the moment  :-).

"We, the Peroffspring" would be a more proper choice.

Or my preferred option, "We, the PC."     ;-)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:17469 soc.women:17483
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: CONDOMS! and AIDS
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:55:47 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <6549@grus.cs.nps.navy.mil> shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:

>True, but given that the odds of these are microscopic vs the 15%-40%
>odds of a condom failure, I think that minimizing risk means not
>trusting condoms.

Where on earth did you get these figures? The highest failure rates
I've seen in studies for condoms have been a lot less than 1%, _and_
almost all of the failure rate was due to not wearing the
condom! (Counts as a failure, just like forgetting to take the pill.)
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,sci.physics,sci.math
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Mattel on women
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:03:51 GMT
Keywords: Targetting females once again.

In article <39351@unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes:
)In article <1992Oct7.173414.18001@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)
)>Any ideas for nice things a 'Barbie' _could_ actually say about math?  How
)>about some other dolls - I suppose it could maybe work for an astronaut doll.
)>Seems a bit far-out though.
)
)Are you serious? It's just as easy to think of good things for her
)to say as negative things. Surely she could say "I got an A on my math test"
)or "Geometry is fun, like a puzzle game" 
)or " My math teacher says I'm the best student in her class."

Most people (regardless of gender) don't seem to think math is fun -
unfortunately  (IMO).

Advertisers and toy manufacturers do tend to be fairly sensitive to what
people think, and try to say things that don't annoy anyone or seem
'strange'.  I think there is enough anti-math prejudice in the world that
'Geometry is fun' would be seen as rather strange.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but
I don't think so.

That's why I'm a little surprised at Mattel - though the kids certainly
might like hearing a doll say 'Math is hard', I'm surprised their marketing
department didn't realize that parents might not like it so much.
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Recent Bill Clinton quote regarding child support
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 8 Oct 92 10:06:12 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

In article <92281.080749DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> How about the fact that often marriage involves an implicit contract in
|> which the husband engages in increased training and schooling raising
|> his marginal productivity, while the wife either works at a job with
|> fewer advancement possibilities or takes care of the kids, leaving
|> a huge hole in her resume? 

  This is a two-edged sword. Because the man is constrained to meet 
the general overhead, he may have to take higher paying jobs at the expense
of jobs which would be more suited to his long term career growth.

  In my own case, while waiting for a certain pre-marital obligation to
be met, my ex took four promotions with grand titles in exchange for
4 paycuts in a row. Those pay cuts lowered her salary (and trasferred household
financial burdens to me) by about $12,000 a year.  That was a tactic I,
as responsible earner, could never do. Ultimatly, her lower salary, which 
she accepted voluntarily, was used to justify added financial demands in
the divorce.

  Men expect their careers to support their families. Women expect 
their families to support their careers.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|  "The great masses of people. . .will more easily fall                 |
|  victims to a big lie than to a small one."                            |
|                                          --Adolph Hitler               |
|                                                                        |
|   "All men are potential rapists, and that's _all_ they are!"          |
|                                 -- Susan Brownmiller                   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Xref: sparky soc.men:17655 soc.women:17643
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: CONDOMS! and AIDS
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:02:16 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


I don't understand the mindset that is required to argue that
people should not use any available protection.  
It's easier to understand the denial in the "Hey, it's hard
for het men to get HIV" mindset, as well as the misogyny in
the "I'm sure not wearing a condom to protect my parter"
types.  

Susan
Xref: sparky soc.men:17417 soc.women:17446 soc.singles:27142
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:32:52 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <BRUCE.92Oct6180738@suprenum.uxb.liv.ac.uk> bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
>
>> The four food groups are actually Pizza, Chocolate, Ice Cream, & Barbecue.
>
>WHAT?  No garlic?  Or is that included with chocolate?


You've just hit on the all-time worst food combination after grapefruit
and toothpaste.  Anybody else ever eaten a garlicky dinner, followed by a
chocolate dessert, and then burped all evening?  It boggles the mind.  Not
to mention what it does to your friends.



-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: CONDOMS! and AIDS
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:29:38 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <forbes.718594449@aries> forbes@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Jeff Forbes) writes:
>Yes, but most people don't drive their car into walls to see if the
>seatbelt is going to save them. The analogy is just not there. The condomn
>is designed to prevet commingling of bodily fluids, the possibility of
>which is ever present during intercourse. The seatbelt is meant to reduce the
>chance of ones brain and the tarmak from commingling when the wrong trajectory
>is taken, which hopefully is not an ever present situation.

The point is that people get into their cars and drive, knowing that the 
possibility of somebody running into them or mechanical failure is "ever 
present" during driving.  They take reasonable steps to reduce their risks,
but ultimately it is a balance between the benefits of driving and the risks
of driving.

As a single reasonable precaution, the seat belt is significantly less 
effective in preventing death than the condom relative to the total risk
of death.

-EMP
From: rharriso@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Robert Harrison)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Need Help
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:59:44 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct10.192626.139240@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jj07@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JAMES JACKSON) writes:
   [stuff deleted]

>    marrying. Well they were rigth! I never new that the sweet, caring, loving
>    lady that I knew, would turn out to be well such a b----. Now don't get me
   [stuff deleted]
>    Any words of wisdom????

>    Jack

Join the club.  If it helps any, you're not alone out there.. 
Hang in there.
--
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:51:00 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: We, The Persons
Distribution: usa

"Persons"? How can this be PC, with the word 'son' in it?  Yikes! Oppressive!

Henceforth, I proclaim we shall read this "We, the Perchildren."  There, all
better.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,sci.physics,sci.math
From: ddixon@nyx.cs.du.edu (David Dixon)
Subject: Re: Mattel on women
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: Targetting females once again.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 06:32:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.221821.14169@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1b60kjINNako@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>>It might be more of a public relations than a marketing mistake.
>>I just saw a news report on the story, in which a Jean McKenzie
>>(public relations, Mattel) was interviewed.  She said that only
>>one (1) doll had been returned so far.  She may have been lying, er..
>>misstating, but you'd think from all the outcry that hundreds
>>or maybe a few thousand had been returned.  The loudest critics
>>seem to be the American Association of University Women (dunno if
>>I got the name right), but they haven't hurt the sales any.
>
>Part of that may come from the fact that, if the Barbie is returned,
>the customer receives a non-talking Barbie (of less value).
>

Hi there.  As much as I agree with this thread, it has no place on
sci.physics.  Kindly take it elsewhere.

					Dave
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support
From: martinjp@cs.washington.edu (John Martin)
Subject: Re: Recent Bill Clinton quote regarding child support
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 22:07:44 GMT


In article <1992Oct6.200028.4590@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>Yep, my co-worker Leona's ex is now SEVEN years in arrears on his child
>support.  He makes twice as much as she does.  And she has custody of the
>two kids he willingly participated in adopting.



I have a friend who will soon quit his job to avoid heavy support
payments (alimony and c.s.).  His after tax pay is $ 2700/mo. the
judgement requires him to pay $ 2000/mo. to his ex (plus 2 kids).

note: the ex has a BS in biology, is female, is hispanic (ie. affirmative
       action bait) my friend has no degree.


----
John P. Martin		     
Computer Engineering      &        Los Alamos Nat'l Labs 
University of Washington           P-15, MS D406
Seattle, WA                        Los Alamos, NM  87545
internet: jpm@pinex3.lanl.gov      (505)-665-7757
Newsgroups: soc.men