HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Co-ed?
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:51:55 GMT
Organization: (getting there)



emcmanus@kaa.gr.osf.org (Eamonn McManus) asked:
  >>What is a "co-ed"?  Does it mean a student who is female?  If so, why
  >>is there a special word, and why do you use it?

rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) answers:
 >	Ostensibly it's an undergrad - but in all honesty I can't think of 
 >any time I've heard it used that it didn't refer to specifcally a womon
 >student.
I think it refers specifically to female undergraduates.  I'm not
sure whether or not it's been used to refer to prep school
students. 

 >I suppose it harks back to the days when mixed campuses were sort of
 >new, and in that respect you're right - the term has outlived it's
 >use.  It was the first word that mjumped into my head.  I apologize
 >for any harm done.

It does indeed hark back to then-- such campuses were described as
co-educational.  That only the females were called co-eds suggests
that the term started out at the previously all-male schools.  There
were lots of them.

I never even reacted to it until Eamonn pointed it out.  Which just
goes to show you.  (Exactly what it goes to show you is left as an
exercise for the reader.)

-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.
From: Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: CABAL stuff
Date: Thu,  1 Oct 92 00:53:37 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Sep29.131714.12210@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
  <1992Oct01.032452.27427@microsoft.com>

George Reilly idioticizes:
>Oh, wait, you mean George MADISON.  I think it must be his
>excess of hair.  The poor chap just needs a waxing and a good
>haircut and a shave.

Go boil yourself in sulfuric acid, shithead.

(Absolutely *NO* humor intended.)
 
() If you can't learn to do it well, learn to enjoy doing it
() badly.
()      -- unknown
-----
[> George D. Madison | NBCS: B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv | Just say NO to razors! <]
[> It's a BEAR thing -- you wouldn't understand. <|> furr@cup.portal.com <]
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: balistik@big-brother.nevada.edu (Shawn Hicks)
Subject: Re: New Fortunes
Organization: Not yet, but we're working on it...
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 23:23:51 GMT

In article <BvIIr8.8Bp@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:


>Tut, tut, Jess.  All those quotes from Sargon ... we may have to
>rethink your pod license.

There are no pods.
From: dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: CABAL stuff
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:04:24 GMT
Reply-To: dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: tattoo.mti.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct5.004153.12341@netcom.com>, jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:
 
|> I also think that Arne has a point.  How do you defend eating eggs but not
|> meat?  There are a few small egg raisers who treat their hens decently, but
|> for the most part laying hens are treated worse than just about any food
|> animal other than veal calves. 

I am too much of a food queen to be a vegetarian, but this is an easy
one to answer.  Everyone has to draw the line somewhere.  Though being
an ovo-lacto-vegetarian may not be entirely defensible, it is much closer
to having an "animal kind" diet than eating meat.  One does not have to
carry one's convictions to extremes to have them.  To change the context
on the question, "How can you, as a homosexual, buy products from businesses
which are biased against homosexuals?"  Now, you can avoid the big
violators of this rule, but can you eliminate all of them?  Probably not,
as there are too many.  However, this does not mean that you should buy
products from companies which are openly biased.   

Everyone needs to decide where their convictions end and reality must 
rear its ugly head.  The line is in different places for different people.


FWA
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Re: CABAL stuff
Organization: insert anything here
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:15:04 GMT

Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison) writes:
>For the record, I'm a Lacto-Ovo-Vegetarian [or as a friend of mine
>puts it, I "don't eat Dead Animal Body"].  

	Hmmmm...  I'm a second-order vegetarian.  I only eat animals
that only eat vegetables.

BBC
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: To Bob Sarver
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 10:23:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.001456.28559@microsoft.com>
bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:

]>(rjwill)
]>I admire your missionary zeal, but fear it's wasted here.
]>Cr*m*r's an attention-fetishist, so you're getting him off,
]>and R*nz*n*'s a failed AI project they forgot to unplug.

]You are probably correct.  I will direct the discussion to a more 
]appropriate newsgroup.

Thank you.

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Ah, Fashion.
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:23:21 GMT

In article <BvIEyr.IHo@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>  Oh. There's nothing to fashion at all? A person's desire to look
>>good can only be because of insecurity?
>
>No; however, what looks "good" will stink like rotten liver next week.
>That the standards of "looking good" are so ephemeral suggests that
>people's adherence to them *are* a result of insecurity.

Can we PLEASE ground this in some sort of reality?  This whole
conversation sounds to me like you're discussing the style of the
Emperor's New Clothes.

A desire for novelty and style (in any endeavor) is just plain human
nature.  I don't see what's the matter with that.  Fashion is just one
facet of this.

Just WHO is being a slave to fashion?  Who is throwing out their
wardrobe?  Who really cares?  And why should you?

There are some people who really get into this, and it's a hobby much
like anything else.  It can be fun to see what's at the leading edge
and participate in that with your own aesthetic.  I feel comfortable
viewing that with amused detachment; it's not my interest, but why can't
someone else enjoy it?  You don't have to be a dandy or a fashion plate
to refuse to condemn it.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark)
Subject: Re: Ry Schwark Bytes!
Organization: UNIX System Laboratories, Summit, NJ
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:46:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.013151.13934@microsoft.com> georgere@microsoft.com (George V. Reilly) writes:

>Schweilly?  Gak.

Reirk? Rark? 

Ry
ry@usl.com
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Re: Them New Faces
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:45:44 GMT

jns@elea.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer) writes:

>Jess Anderson (anderson@macc.wisc.edu) wrote:
> 
>> markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey) writes:
>> 
>> >Jess, can I interest you in perhaps an interesting photo or
>> >two of said Thaaang and *The* *Hanky*??

>[Arne, we need to *talk* about your son.]

Pop! Dad! Please don't think it's the way it sounds! They weren't
*dirty* pictures; they were *artistic*. And I only did it because
the proceeds were being donated to the homeless (or so they *told*
me). And Mark seemed like such a *nice* man! I... I think (gulp)
he got me *drunk* so I'd take these pictures! Ick! I think it was
Mad Dog 20/20, and some schnapps, and some vodka and Suze, and
maybe a 6-pack, but I thought it was Kool-Aid! Oh, boo hoo! Boo
hoo hoo! Please don't hate me!

(Mark, where's my roalty check? You promised me 20%!)

--
John Dorrance * Alleged Homosexual/Shameless Hussy * thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu

			Dark. Handsome. 6 feet tall.
		  31 flavors? I believe he's got 'em all!
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: ***APOLOGY*** (kindly read me)
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:05:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Sep28.030506.6642
Organization: insert anything here

Minotaur@cup.portal.com (Frank - Swilling) writes:
>Bob Donahue, who's been this way since his gerbil died, sez:
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Really, unnecessary dear, though I admit now I *do*
see a striking resemblance...

>>Minotaur@cup.portal.com (Frank - Swilling) writes:
>>Lots more insults --- but then again that's his forte.
>>You *really* should take them to alt.flame - that *is* why
>>the newsgroup exists...

>I'm sorry, you seem to have mistaken me for a doormat.
>You appear out of the blue, and rip into me, who hasn't said BOO
>to you, and you actually thought I would just staunch the bleeding
>and shrug it off?  Now you know better.  Please note, however, that
>I have *totally* ignored the clawmarks you left all over two other
>recent postings.

	Um so?  Which part of your net irresponsibility is the 
rest of the group's problem?  I must have missed that page of the
manual... (No, do't answer - it's  rhetorical --- look it up).

>>Now for the part you REALLY aren't expecting.

>>I sit corrected.  I had not placed the manager of the GBLO*
>>Film List as you.  I suppose I figured that the person doing that

>Apology accepted,

>>couldn't possibly be so constantly nasty in all his other affairs.

>bitch.

	Seriously.  The very reason I didn't put the two together
was simply that.  I got e-mail from someone defending you this morning
saying "Now c;mon, of course you've read other stuff...", and I
really couldn't think of anything other than the insults you've 
been spewing forth lately...  I'm glad I have something
positive to tie to you, it gives me hope that at some point you'll
find whatever you need to take away the pain you seem to need to 
share with us.

>>I guess I was wrong about that too.
>>BBC, who only had to admit that error ---
>God, I hope your doctorate isn't in math.
>>Frank on the other hand has lots of
>>insults to explain...

>Oh, that's easy:

>I leave my computer unattended while I'm visiting my therapist.

	Oh, Well, that's something.  At least we have this settled.
And now we can move onto something a lot more interesting for
all of us.  I'll leave it to you - I have every faith that you'll
share something delightful and all the icky stuff will quickly
be forgotten...  

	IF not, then I think I can introduce you to someone
who you'll get along famously with.

BBC
From: ric@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Graffiti 404-972-4999)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: gay science fiction
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:25:52 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

Has anyone read _Chrome_ by George Nader? "In the future, there will be
one one taboo: to love a robot." Only the robots here are just genetically
engineered humans. I was a bit disappointed. :)  Nah, it's a fun read, if
a bit juvenile. Nice imagery and pacing.

I also have two gay & lesbian SF/fantasy anthologies:  _Kindred Spirits_
edited by Jeffrey M. Elliot, and _Worlds Apart_ edited by Camilla
Decarnin, Eric Garber and Lyn Paleo. Not all the stories therein are worth
reading, but there are a couple of gems.

I'm still hunting for the gay equivalent of a rough-tough-shoot-em-up space
warrior novel where the hero gets not the girl, but the guy!

-Ric/ric@gnu.ai.mit.edu

-- 
 -Ric     __                       __                                 __
          \/   ric@gnu.ai.mit.edu  \/   Graffiti BBS  404 972-4999    \/
                 GEnie: GRAFFITI      PO Box 3176, Lithonia GA 30058
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: "Advocate" editor interviewed on CNN
Date: 6 Oct 1992 13:41:04 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <jct.718392391@twink> jct@mips.com (Chris Thomas) writes:

> The only time I really raised my eyebrows was when the anchor turned
> to the subject of outing and asked the editor why the Advocate had done
> it twice even if he was opposed to it.  

Hmmmm.  I've heard through the grapevine (and I trust
the people on this relatively short and *very* clued-
in vine) that the Advocate is mulling over how and when 
to out someone *really* big in the family values cohort.  
Does anyone know about this?  

Arne

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: refson@castle.ed.ac.uk (Keith Refson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Ah, Fashion.
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:12:01 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:


>  Oh. There's nothing to fashion at all?

Of course there is.  It's a device invented by the textile industry
to sell more clothes.
>
 A person's desire to look
>good can only be because of insecurity? It has nothing to do with
>trying to achieve a personal goal of beauty? Shouldn't a person's
>view of beauty factor into how they think they should dress/look
>to give themselves self esteem? What about beards and mustaches?
>If I shave am I "demoralized and dehumanized"? What about cleaning
>my fingernails?
>  Does this fit in with art at all?  Does that mean that an artist
>who discriminates about what they paint based on fashion and beauty
>is "insecure" is "demoralizing" and "dehumanizing"? 
>  If not, what is the difference?

But fashion *isn't* about making yourself look good.  (Did flares
ever enhance a figure?  Yet I'm told they were fashionable once.)
Fasion is about seeking the approval of others, your peer group
etc.  More of a tribal behaviour than anything else, I suspect.



Keith Refson
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: astrology and YOU
Keywords: Astrology, bear shit
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:10:30 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Daniel MacKay (daniel@nstn.ns.ca) writes:

>Y'know, I would have a *lot* more faith in things astrological, if
>sometime during one of my (admittedly few) professional readings,
>the reader had noticed that I was born during a total eclipse.  I
>can't imagine a much more dramatc sky event during a much more
>dramatic time of my life, and while I'm fairly openminded, having
>a professional completely miss that little detail makes me somewhat
>skeptical about the whole science.

Well, it's not a true science if we constrain sciences to follow
the scientific method.

Not to mention that most astrologers today still operate on zodiacal
cycle which has been obsolete since ancient times. Because the Earth's
spin axis precesses like a top with a 26,000 year period, the apparent
place of the sun during the year slowly changes over time. Since there
have traditionally been 12 zodiacal constellations, it follows that
the Sun moves about 1 constellation-width in a little over 2,000 years.
Most of the forecasts today are one full month off (one full constellation
off).

MOTSS Relevance? In my single days, telling men about my profession
(astronomy) was always a conversation starter. Often my interest fizzled
when they replied, "Oh, I just adore astronomy. What's your sign?"

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Surnames (was: TERMS OF ENDEARMENT)
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 19:46:15 GMT


In article <1992Sep24.212925.207@osf.org>, coren@osf.org (Robert Coren) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep24.163242.19955@linus.mitre.org>, jclander@texas.mitre.org (Julian C. Lander) writes:
|> > I dunno.  Why not Cortell?  That's not too bad.  If you want to be
|> > cute, try Cointell.
|> 
|> <Shudder> I do my best to be cute, myself, but my name doesn't.
|> Actually, neither of us is much inclined to give up his name. If
|> people want to invent shortened forms for referring to us behind our
|> backs, that's fine with me.

So what could we do with "Parkinson" and "Ouzts" 
(pronounced "oots")?

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: astrology and accounting and YOU
Keywords: Astrology, bear shit
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 20:18:16 GMT

In article <97240@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>Not to mention that most astrologers today still operate on zodiacal
>cycle which has been obsolete since ancient times.

Aha--but where is your argument that this isn't the way it is supposed
to be?  In effect, you must believe in astrology in the first place for
this argument to make any sense, because it is an attempt to prove that
the present astrology is the wrong kind.

>MOTSS Relevance? In my single days, telling men about my profession
>(astronomy) was always a conversation starter. Often my interest fizzled
>when they replied, "Oh, I just adore astronomy. What's your sign?"

Someone once asked me "mathematics--is that like accounting?"  My reply
to that was "A one, and a two and a three ... that's all I know about
accounting".  For some reason they found this reply and me to be
strange. I suppose it is OK if people avoid you, so long as they are
the right people. That is my consolation.

How come astronomers complain about astrology, but number theorists
never complain about numerology?  Mysteries, mysteries...


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: ro@panix.com (r l reid)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: My Very Own Out List
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:00:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: panix.1992Sep28.150043.9025
Organization: MOTSS CABAL, NO MORE CHINESE FOOD DIVISION

In article <96866@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <dcgzqkb@rpi.edu> buckmr@lib110.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>>timbomb@cs.uq.oz.au (Tim Mansfield) writes:
>>>Camilla Paglia			writer
>>It's Camille. And we don't want her.
>Speak for yourself, Ron. Paglia must be the most misunderstood person
>on Earth today.
>
>Let's put it this way...Paglia and the women who put out "On Our Backs"
>have similar philosophies.

It's been a long time since something here has actually CLARIFIED something
for me.   I used to be a Paglia hater.  Then recently I read something
she wrote (her article in Playboy (usually I hjust look at the pictures))
and I was damned if I didn't agree with about 90% of what she was saying.

Here's where I think the difference lies and why I am still no fan
of Paglia's.  People like Suzie and Fanny are sex-positive, and this
sometimes leads to being critical of people whose feminism is a static
frozen form, not a living, thinking, evolving feminism.  There is
a point, which leads to the criticism withina positive framework.

Paglia does nothing but whine and moan (in a remarkable mirror image
of the people she complains about).  Her whole point is to condemn
feminism - without any positive framework.

So while they may share philosophy, the source, object, and intent
are all so different that the similarity of content is almost
meaningless.

Dian Hanson of Leg Show does the same thing (in fact she just did a spead on 
the former editor of OOB, who is now editing Future Sex), yet while once
again we hear the same words, again, the source, object, and intent are
yet again different - her primary goal seems to be to help the sterotypical
dirty old man get past shame about sex.  OOB is woman-positive, Paglia is
woman-negative, and Hanson is men-positive, with the attitude toward
women determined by that.

-- 
		r l reid	ro@panix.com
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Ah, Fashion.
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 14:02:36 GMT

In article <67145@cup.portal.com> Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison) writes:
|Greg Parkinson observes:
|>There is also a strange phenomenon which is associated
|>with this removal of body hair - a *stunning* increase
|>in nelliness.  Perhaps body hair secretes some sort of
|>butchizing hormone.

|It makes perfect sense to me -- if they look like a
|prepubescent girl on steroids, they start acting like one.

Gee, and all this time we thought George had no sense of
humor.  It's a lousy, offensive one, mind you, but at least
he's making an effort.

The best thing that can be said about George's intolerance
is that it's boring.  I'll save the worst for when I'm not
in such a great mood.
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: emcmanus@gr.osf.org (Eamonn McManus)
Subject: French imperfect subjunctive (was: My Very Own Out List)
Organization: Open Software Foundation Research Institute, Grenoble
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 11:21:54 GMT

idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>><> Being called a poetess brings out the terroristress in me.
>><> -- Audre Lorde
><grin> but why not "assassinessness"?  A much nicer word, methinks.

I am reminded of a French grammar book of mine, which explains that
one of the reasons the imperfect subjunctive is no longer used in
spoken French is that it tends to sound ridiculous.  They give "que
vous assassinassiez" as an example.

Consider this my bid for the soc.motss Thread Mutation of the Year
Award.

,
Eamonn Patrick McManus
unmarks accompaniment
From: Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Ah, Fashion.
Date: Tue,  6 Oct 92 18:53:49 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Oct6.003639.5954@spdcc.com> <mattm-061092094737@mcmelmon.apple.com>
  <1992Oct6.205433.20980@spdcc.com>

BBC writes:
>        Now, I will say this on the idea of suits:  Bears in suits
>drive me crazy.   I mean we're talking Pavlovian.  It's not the suit
>or the make and model of the suit, per se... it's the image. 
>I mean they look like walking Xmas packages waiting to be unwrapped.
>So for the pro-suit category - yeah I can really like suits.
>I would have a LOT of fun (and I mean a LOT) taking their clothes off
>[in some instances, tearing them out might be nice... :-]...
>But let's face it - $2500 is a lot to spend on a fantasy!  :-) :-) :-)

One of the Bears who helps put on the Bear Hug parties in SF
showed up at one of them some time back in a castoff suit with
the seams appropriately weakened; one of the more interesting
not-directly-sexual parts of that evening was helping a couple
other bears literally rip the suit, dress shirt, and underwear
off his fuzzy body.  ;-{)##]
 
() B is for Basil, assaulted by bears.
-----
[> George D. Madison | NBCS: B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv | Just say NO to razors! <]
[> It's a BEAR thing -- you wouldn't understand. <|> furr@cup.portal.com <]
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: CABAL stuff
Date: 4 Oct 1992 03:37:50 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <67097@cup.portal.com> 
Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison) self-justifies:
> For the record, I'm a Lacto-Ovo-Vegetarian [or as a friend of mine
> puts it, I "don't eat Dead Animal Body"].  Any kind of sauce with
> meat in it is *RIGHT* out  [...]

Yes, that's right folks, pen those cows up into those tiny-teeny
little pens and feed 'em that synthetic hay, and hook those cups
up to their udders and milk 'em and milk 'em and milk 'em until
they're dead, but don't you *dare* think about eating them.

Yes, indeed, I just *love* those vegetarians with a conscience.

Arne