HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: james.yaklin@cutting.hou.tx.us (James Yaklin) 
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: college newspapers
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:21:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525
Reply-To: james.yaklin@cutting.hou.tx.us (James Yaklin) 

MS>I'm looking for a directory that lists domestic college newspapers
MS>names/addresses etc. for advertising purposes. If such a directory
MS>exists could you please forward info to me on where or how to obtain
MS>the directory? Or if anyone knows names and locations of major college
MS>newspapers please forward them and I can call the newpaper offices myself.
MS> Or simply forward the name and location of YOUR college newpaper.

Here is two for you:

The Dateline
University of Houston-Downtown Campus
One Main Street
Houston, Texas 77002
713-221-1072

The Daily Cougar
University of Houston-University Park
4800 Calhoun Road
Houston, Texas 77204
713-743-5360

Although, I do not know the name of their publications, there are two
other campuses in the U of H system.

Here are the addresses for those campuses

University of Houston-Clear Lake
2700 Bay Area Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77058

University of Houston-Victoria
2302-C Red River
Victoria, Texas 77901

Hope this helped you.

James Yaklin
---
 . SLMR 2.0 . Poly=many + tics=blood sucking parasites.
                                                                                        
----
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Cutting Edge BBS (cutting.hou.tx.us)    A PCBoard 14.5a system  |
| Houston, Texas, USA    +1 713 466 1525          running uuPCB       |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: garvey@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Heather Garvey)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: Athletics over Academics at CU, surely not.
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:46:34 GMT
Organization: Smith Undergraduate Lab, CWRU, Cleve. OH, 44106, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: marina.scl.cwru.edu

murray@rocky.raleigh.ibm.com (Charlie Murray) writes:
>
>I made a comment that schools like CU could not survive without the football
>program, and I still stand by it.  What do you think draws prospective students
>from the coasts to Boulder (besides the skiing)?  A good percentage (notice
>I didn't say most, or a lot) of them come because they want to get a decent
>education, have some fun, and be associated with a school that has a winning
>image.  Remember, we are talking about high school seniors here.  Some of
>
>Do you think that if you did away with the football program at CU, then you
>would have more money for academics?  I don't think so.  You might even run
>the risk of lower admissions because there is no football.  "Let's see, both
>CU and Bogus U. have very similar academic programs, I could get a good
>education either place.  But, Bogus U. has that top ranked football team, that
>would be fun.  I think I'll go to Bogus U."  Think I'm off the mark?  Maybe,
>and maybe not.

	<blink, blink>  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

	That is *REALLY SAD*. Thank God I go to a school with people
who have more insight into their goals in life than to pick a school
based on their FOOTBALL TEAM. I mean, even in Indiana, where we have
two nifty sporting schools (Purdue and IU), in-state kids pick their 
college based on their *needs*, rather than the team.  And I suspect
CU is like most state colleges: 90% of their students are in-state
kids who could use the tuition break and/or don't have a particular 
academic specialty that would require the bucks and effort of attending
a private school. 

--
						| Heather "Moose" Garvey
	"CHAD BLUNT, the BALL carrier!"		| Biochemistry - CWRU '93
		-- The entire band after 	| <hlg@po.cwru.edu>
		   any given running play	| "Wooooooah, PIZZA!"
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: Comments on fraternities (was Re: Comments on G**** life)
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:21:09 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility

In article <1992Dec10.105742.2783@gacvx2.gac.edu> censtad@nic.gac.edu    writes:
I (Rosemary Waigh) wrote:
>> What would you have done in this situation at home, assuming you lived  
>with
>> a female parent or sibling?
>That's the key words right there... parent and sibling.  NOt someone you  
>hardly know 

You would get to know the women who live with you as well as you know the
men.

>or hardly want to know.  

You assume you hardly want to know half of the human population, people
you haven't met, solely because they are women, and yet you claim you are
not sexist?

>It's a fact of American life that we  
>are not as comfortable with our bodies as say Europeans are, 

Why do you want to maintain this attitude?  Isn't it unnecessarily stressful?
Wouldn't it be great if you could be comfortable with your body?
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:55:56 GMT

Some points to consider in the never-ending discussion:

1. chair is some 50 years older than chairman as the name for the head
of a committee (s.vv., OED)

2. chairwoman has a long history as a stigmatized term

3. the name of the head of a committee (oh, sorry, head is metaphorical,
isn't it?) is frequently determined by statute, by-law, or administrative
fiat.  At my university, all committee chairmen became chairpersons
in 1975, by order of the vice chancellor.  

Legislating language often produces resistance.  This was the case when
chairperson was introduced here in 1975, and it clearly remains the case 
else-where with that term of with chair.

An analogous situation has produced somewhat different results.

Salesperson was introduced at the turn of the century as a useful way
to refer to salesmen and saleswomen.  Saleswoman never had the stigma
that accompanied chairwoman.  Salesperson was welcomed by the business
community, and after some initial resistance from usage critics, they
too accepted the term.  But here acceptance must partly come from the
fact that salesperson was not imposed, but trickled up.  The analogue
is complicated by the existence of and attitudes toward saleslady and
salesgirl.  

All the newer, sex-neutral -person compounds, have met with resistance
and have been treated jocularly.  It is often observed that -person
has become a euphemism for -woman, that the person referred to is
always a woman.  However, *salesperson* has never been subjected to
the same derision, nor does it apply mainly to women.

My university has some departments which are run by heads, others which
are run by chairs (these are statutory titles).  When they meet or send
memos to the group, they often call themselves chairheads.

If you think chair is bad, at least consider that it is older and better
than chairone (not kyrone, the italianate pronunciation which always comes
to mind, but chair-one), or chairmember, a title actually used once at
Tufts University.  What is a chairmember?  To me it signifies the part of
you you put on a chair.  Which may be the most appropriate thing to call
the head of a committee after all.

Cheers.  

--
Dennis



debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:28:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.153732.29471@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.032106.21567@midway.uchicago.edu>
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>> But "freshman student at the University of Pennsylvania, class of 1995"
>> has a couple of dozen or so syllables.  While "first-year" has two.
>> Gee, comparing apples and oranges is fun!

>Of course, just saying 'first-year' doesn't specify which year the
>student will graduate.

Neither does "freshman"... 8-)

>> >I refuse to waste so much energy to change
>> >from using a normal, widely accepted, only considered offensive by people
>> >who have too much time on their hands term to a twice as long one.

>> So you have no objections to replacing "chairman" with "chair"?

>Only if I can sit on the laps of people who replace the word 'chairman'
>with 'chair' -- isn't one supposed to sit on a chair?  :-)

I think Charles Dickens would have objected, unless you're really 
quite cuddly.  The usage is common in _Pickwick Papers_.

>> >Also, what is so inaccurate about "freshman"?  

>> It's infinitely less descriptive than "first-year".  And first-year
>> rhymes with more words, anyway, so it's better suited for Hallmark cards.

>You can use 'freshman' for so many things -- such as the new members of
>Congress, etc.

And you can't say "first-year" or "first-term" there?  

Roger

Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:42:22 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO
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.

From the keyboard of gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener):
:True, but "freshman" indicates that the student is in the first year of his
:or her undergraduate tenure.  

A second-year student could still be a freshman -- they (or do you 
prefer "he, she, or it"?) might not have reached sophomore status 
yet due to insufficient credits.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
Steinbach's Guideline for Systems Programming
        Never test for an error condition you don't know how to
        handle.
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:35:21 GMT

In article <BzBtqy.9tL@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.183908.27702@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>In article <BzABs3.37r@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>>for the thought. 
>>Or is it because words such as "mankind" are the masculine counterparts of
>>words such as "womankind"?
>But they aren't!  

What word do you use to refer to male humans in general?  
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:48:26 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec20.064116.19686@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <BzJoI3.9vx@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec18.222419.18184@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>>If I say "all persons are created equal", I don't have to explain that
>>>"this means women too".
>>But you *do* have to explain that "this means animals and other living 
>>beings too", don't you? After all, animals too have rights, don't they? 
>>The point I am trying to make is : No matter how hard you strive, ambiguity 
>>in the English language is unresolvable.
>
>I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, Mandar.
>"Persons" does *not* include animals.  To include all species of animals,
>use the word "animals" (which includes people too).
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Compare that to the usage of the word "men" (which includes women too)   ;)
Now WHY did you add that, if the meaning of animals is unambiguous?
You cleared up the context, didn't you? That's because some people
don't consider people to be animals. Similarly, there is NOTHING wrong
with clearing up the context when using the word "man".


                                                                Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Xref: sparky soc.college:5784 alt.usage.english:9776
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 20 Dec 92 07:00:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: constell.BzJq56.B95
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <92354.130547HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> HERSCH@auvm.american.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.145019.22343@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) says:
>>
>>But 'history' is considered sexist by some feminists simply because it
>>begins with the letters h-i-s.  Haven't you heard the word 'herstory'?
>
[.....material about the inadequate representation of women in history,
      deleted........]
>
>The term "herstory" is a jocular way of pointing all of this
>out, which it does with rather remarkable concision. I know of
>no one who proposes it seriously as a replacement term for "history".
>Do you?
>

It will surprise you that *some* feminists *do* wish to replace 
history with herstory. Most of them, as you pointed out, use it
as a jocular way of pointing out the unfair treatment meted out
to women in history. But they want to make it gender neutral too.
Itstory???????

       Because a word conveys the image of men more frequently than
women, doesn't justify an attempt to drop it from usage. Consider
the word "manager". This word can be proved to conjure up male
images more frequently than female images. So, should it be dropped?
And yet, manager has nothing to do with "man". It comes from
the Latin "manus". Then again, there are many other words which
do not contain the letters "man", but which convey the male image
more often than the female (the word "technician", for instance),
and the vice-versa.  So should these be dropped too?

       It makes infinitely more sense and is a lot more convenient
to make the context clear. After all, no-one likes to hear "Presidential
Partner" when "First Lady" is intended.

                                                           Mandar.


-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Xref: sparky soc.college:5795 alt.usage.english:9784
From: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: They (was Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language))
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:01:33 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
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.

From the keyboard of mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi):
:In article <1992Dec19.181833.22444@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
:>
:>I know no one my age who rejects the semantically singular "they", except
:>perhaps in extremely formal writing.  

:This is either ignorance or an attempt at being dense. 

Why must you be so insulting, Mandar?  She asked a legit question, and your
response was to question her intelligence.  What a useful and considerate
tactic.

:Rosemary, MANY
:persons on the soc.college newsgroups rejected the use of "they" as
:in "That person isn't late, are they?" and *most* of them are of your
:age. What *is* your age anyway?

Even that last question has an unnecessarily nasty tone on it.  
If you read her sig, you'd probably be able to make a good guess.

The question remains a good one.  Is age a factor?  Social class?
Education level?  

I seriously doubt that any native speaker unschooled in pedantry
will question the following construct:

    Anyone who arrives late must wait until the first movement
    is completed to take their seat.

Notice that this isn't much different from your sentence.  With
the right preamble, your construct is fine.  What are you going to
say, "he" instead?  I think not.  


--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist


		Cloning is the sincerest form of flattery.
Newsgroups: soc.college
From: cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:49:42 GMT

pezzillo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Amy J. Pezzillo) writes:

>>And, as we all know, there's nothing sexist about someone writing "he"
>>in place of "he or she."  People who have to resort to artificial,
>>politically correct non-words like "first-year" and the singular "they"
>>are uneducated malcontents with nothing to do, and they're making up
>>problems where none exist.
>>
>>Right?

>WRONG!!!!!  He *is * sexist when used to denote both genders, because
>it indicates only ONE -- the male.  Seriously, when you hear "he," do
>you EVER  think of a woman?  NO!!!  Consider the following statement:
>"Every person is entitled to his right to have an abortion."  You
>thought that sounded strange, because "he" automatically brought up
>the image of men. 

	I thought it sounded strange because, translating "his"
	to "his or her" makes little sense.  Only half of those
	persons are going to be getting abortions.  It's a
	problem with our lexicon, not a problem with the attitudes
	of 125 million people.

>The only reason that "he" was ever
>accepted as denoting everyone was because males USED to be in charge.


	Yikes!  A bit misandrist, aren't we?  Are you really
	convinced that gender-specific pronouns are part of
	a huge conspiracy?

>Well, no more baby. Women are waking up and realizing that we have a
>right to be included in those non-gender neutral terms.  So we're
>using TRULY gender neutral terms wherever possible, "she or he" where
>appropriate, and just plain old "she" once in a while to shake you all
>up.  And you know what?  I don't CARE if you don't like hearing it.    

	Unlike you, many people aren't disturbed by the use of
	traditionally gender-typed nouns and pronouns in neutral
	situations.  The documentation for PGP, a cryptography
	program written by a *man* uses she and her in gender-
	neutral terms throughout.  Surprised me, but it didn't
	make me all uptight and defensive!  I guess I don't 
	suffer an inferiority complex.  Once I realized that
	I was allowed to use the software, too, even though
	I'm a man, my person-hood was restored. [SARCASM] 

>I never liked hearing about "forefathers" and "mankind" and
>"brotherhood" and feeling totally excluded by these terms either.

	Does "sisterhood" make you spastic, too?  Sorry to bust
	your bubble, but "forefathers" is appropriate because 
	there weren't any women politicians in the 18th century. 
	When speaking about the founders in general, as opposed
	to the organizers of the revolution, "forebears" or   
	"nation's founders" are generally the terms used.   
	The word "man" means human-- it used to have both male
	and female prefixes, but somewhere along the line the
	prefix for the male form was dropped.                   
	And brotherhoods (the Masons, for instance) typically
	admitted only males.

>ajp

	Chris---


Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:01:20 GMT

In article <Bz7nKp.7LM@rice.edu>, conor@owlnet.rice.edu (Conor Frederick Prischmann) writes:
> In article <1992Dec13.032106.21567@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> 
>>>Also, what is so inaccurate about "freshman"?  
>>
>>It's infinitely less descriptive than "first-year".  And first-year
>>rhymes with more words, anyway, so it's better suited for Hallmark cards.
> 
> "Infinitely less descriptive"??  I guess "first-year" must have some other
> meaning for you.  For me, and the rest of the English speaking world, they
> mean exactly the same thing.

Hey, don't drag the rest of the English speaking world into this.
This is purely an American argument.  As far as I know, this
freshman/sycophant/medium rare/etc. business is purely a North
American custom, and is not well understood elsewhere.  The word
"freshman" has an archaic ring to it in Australia - and, I suspect,
in other English-speaking countries.

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:27:48 GMT

In article <BzJpL1.ArF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>Take a spot poll, Tom. Find how many native speakers find the following
>exchange of conversation natural :
>
>         "Is Joan there?"
>         "No, they went to the market."
>
Since "they" has been proposed as an alternative to "he", you had better
also see how many native speakers find this exchange of conversation 
natural:

          "Is Joan there?"
          "No, he went to the market."

-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin