HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.penpals,soc.net-people,soc.couples,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Lancey
Date: 7 Jan 1993 19:37:36 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu

In article <C0HvLF.5A7@fulcrum.co.uk> graeme@fulcrum.co.uk (Graeme Hodgson) writes:
>In article <C0GCxH.8vq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> alyon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (arthur alexander lyon) writes:
>>I am looking for a woman. Her name is Lancey (my spelling may be
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Aren't we all?

No.

OBsearch:  If anyone knows a woman lawyer who may be practicing in the
Novato (Marin County, CA) area with the maiden name of Phyllis Irene
Gatter, please ask her to get in touch.  She was a very good friend at
one time and I'm curious to know how she's doing.  Don't know of she's
still practicing or what her married name might be.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Personally, I don't care whether someone is cool enough to quote Doug
Gwyn--I only care whether Doug Gwyn is cool enough to quote." - Larry Wall
Xref: sparky soc.women:22417 sci.skeptic:22242 alt.sexual.abuse.recovery:9124
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Date: 9 Jan 93 17:45:12 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

joe@dogface.austin.tx.us (Joe Zitt) writes:

> In article <C0Iors.Mp8@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >
> >The lead story on ABC's "Primetime Live" was also on ritual abuse. It
> >was much more skeptical. It pointed out that some psychotherapists
> >were getting rich finding ritual abuse almost everywhere they look.
> >The show also talked to four women who said their psychotherapists had
> >exploited them by feeding them fantasies (while ignoring their
> >truthful accounts of "ordinary" abuse.) Primetime Live also said that
> >an FBI study (dated January 1992?) concluded that there was no
> >evidence of even one ritual-abuse related murder. (Some of the
> >psychotherapists claim that tens or even hundreds of thousands of
> >ritual murders are involved.)

	I watched this segment with Gerry O'Sullivan, one of the co-authors
of ther CSER "Satanism in America" report-- the first comprehensive analysis
of Satanic cult crime claims. It's amusing to note the\at Tom Jarrel, the
ABC correspondent covering the above story, was also the one who promote
Satanic cult crime claims on "20/20" some years back. It's nice to see the
guy trying to make amends.

	I was also glad to see they'd gotten in touch with George Ganaway,
whom I'd spoken to for an article I'd written a few months ago on the same
subject. (I might still be able to repost the text, if anyone wants it.)

> >
> The front page of the latest New York Times Book Review also has an
> article "Beware the Incest Survivor Machine", which casts doubts on the
> subject and brings up a lot of the "false memory" talk.

	The article is by Carol Tavris, a CSICOP Fellow and author of "The
Mismeasure of Woman." Glad to see she's on the side of the angels here.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org

"Do I BELIEVE in the Bible? Hell, man, I've even SEEN one!!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.child-support,talk.abortion
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Feminism is a RELIGION! (eureka!)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:21:43 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
| ...
| But what evidence is there that there are NO inherent mental differences?
| If even ONE inherent difference can be found, no matter how small, then that
| proposition must be wrong... but on the other hand, since any inherent 
| difference that one might posit can be "explained away", then the proposition
| is unfalsifiable.  It becomes a matter of faith.
| 
| "Feminism" is not a set of logical postulates that can be debated, analyzed,
| and resolved.  It's a religion, pure and simple.   ...

You seem to be almost entirely ignorant of feminist theory.
First of all, there _are_ feminists who accept the idea that
there are significant inherent differences between men and
women, although this is not a majority opinion.  Second,
there is a very large body of feminist writing which is at
least as rational as any other kind of writing on the same
subjects (mostly, politics and social issues).  

There's nothing wrong with ignorance -- we all start out
with it -- but on the other hand, it's not really something
to flaunt.  There's already more than enough to go around.
I suggest before making pronouncements on what feminism
consists of, would-be pronouncers read some of the material
listed every three weeks or so in soc.feminism.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.penpals,soc.net-people,soc.couples,soc.singles
From: alyon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (arthur alexander lyon)
Subject: Re: Lancey
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:10:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.042550.1818@g2syd.genasys.com.au> mikep@g2syd.genasys.com.au (Michael Preedy) writes:
>In article <C0GCxH.8vq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> alyon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (arthur alexander lyon) writes:
>>I am looking for a woman. Her name is Lancey (my spelling may be
>>incorrect). That is all I know. This may seem odd, but I am very
>>serious.
>I once knew a women named Lancey but she spelt her name with an "N".
>
>-Mike
>
Hey- THAT'S FUNNY!



Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: 5 Jan 93 03:48:36 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1993Jan03.070026.2282@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan3.034934.11018@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan02.044059.5171@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <1993Jan1.015955.117@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>
>>>>What you contributed, Mark, while perhaps true, is irrelevant to the issue at
>>>>hand.
>>>
>>>Actually, what Mark described is *exactly* what I've been talking about.
>>
>>Then you have done an absymal job of expressing yourself, Larry. In
>><1992Dec28.182701.28515@watson.ibm.com>, you said "...there is no financial
>>obligation prior to birth." Mark Cochran, on the other hand, has said, in
>><1992Dec29.210320.9276@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, "...there most certainly *is*
>>formal billing of pregnancy costs before any child is born". If those two
>>statements are compatible, it's certainly not obvious HOW...
>
>   Gack! What a moron! Look back through the articles of this thread ...
>   We were talking about a billing of the MAN. Sheesh.
>         Kevin Darcy, in <1993Jan3.034211.10923@rotag.mi.org>

Precisely. Any way you look at it, Mark's statements and yours are 
incompatible. This is _contra_ your claim that what Mark said was "*exactly* 
what [you]'ve been talking about".

>There is no financial obligation on the part of the MAN, unless and until
>a child is born.  

Strike the "until", and you've got a deal, Larry. When the "unless" happens,
then the debt is retroactively incurred as of the time the man had sexual
intercourse.

>Expenses are incurred by the WOMAN, for which *she* is
>billed, during the pregnancy, 

Fully billed, but, if a child is subsequently born, only _partially_ incurred
by her. The remainder is incurred by the man.

>...but according to the statute you posted,
>any financial obligation on the part of the MAN (Gack!  You moron!) is the
>result of a paternity suit, which is conditional on the birth of a child.

Conditional, yes. But once that condition is met, then the "incurrence" of
that debt is placed at the time of sexual intercourse, NOT the time of
paternity award.

Just excise the unnecessary chronological language, and everything works, 
Larry. Why are you being so stubborn? We both agree the

	There is no financial obligation unless a child is born

What we disagree on, but which isn't particularly important, is

	There is no financial obligation until a child is born

which, as a legal technicality, is false.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky soc.women:22553 alt.child-support:4365 talk.abortion:55385
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.child-support,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hill
Date: 12 Jan 1993 17:00:34 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <C0pG38.41w@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>sbishop@desire.wright.edu (sbishop@desire.wright.edu) wrote:
>: How about an honest answer from all the divorced people out there, male
>: and female.  How many of you asked (or were asked) to go to counciling
>: with your former mate?  How many went?
>
>My ex made the appointment, we went, he told the counselor that the problem
>was mine and left.  The counselor and I were not successful in saving the 
>marriage.

We went, and the counselor took the view that whatever problems exist, the 
fault must always be divided 50-50.  My ex-wife would fly into a rage at the
drop of a hat, physically assaulted me on numerous occasions, invented the
most fantastic lies about me and told them to anyone who would listen, while
I was bending over backwards trying to accomodate her.  The therapist's 
response was to say that "we both" should be more accomodating.  Whenever
the therapist did say anything even remotely sympathetic to me, my ex would
say that I had conned the therapist.  As far as I can tell it was a total 
waste of time.

- db
    
always be 50% the pro
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: A question about women driving
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:50:11 GMT

sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:

>Sharon O'Neil (oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu) wrote:
>: This is the first year that I've had access to a car and so I learned 
>: how to drive.  But it makes me SO FURIOUS sometimes that I had to wait
>: this long.  I was financially dependent upon them as an undergrad and
>: had no way to get the money to get a car on my own. 

>  ever heard of working?

I did work, for your information.  

>: My (hypothetical) child
>: will learn how to drive as soon as s/he is old enough for a permit to learn.

>  if you couldn't earn the money for a car, how are you going to pay for the
>  incredible insurance cost of having a child drive?

Why would it have cost my folks any money to teach me how to drive, pray 
tell?  As I pointed out, when I was 16 years old, my mother was very, very
opposed to my learning how to drive.  After a while, I gave up even
asking.  This is not something I could have done as a 16 or 17 year old
without my parents permission.  

Hey!  I never said I didn't work.  But the amount of money I made would
never, ever have covered expenses for a car.  Not even when I had my best-
paying job.  I saved the money I earned in order to pay for my student
teaching experience, a year that I was not permitted by my program to work.
Two years worth of earnings went straight into the bank, my friend, so that
I could finish my degree.  I did manage to buy a computer, however, which
was pretty much indispensable for my student teaching.  (Of course, computers
don't have to be registered, licensed, don't require state-mandated insurance
policies, and you don't have to put gas into them once a week.)

Believe me, I'll find the money to pay insurance for my (hypothetical)
child to drive: I believe that it is an important step in an individual's
inddpendence.  It will certainly be worth the investment to build the
self-esteem in my child

Sharon
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:57:50 GMT

>In article <C0Iors.Mp8@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>>The lead story on ABC's "Primetime Live" was also on ritual abuse. It
>>was much more skeptical. It pointed out that some psychotherapists
>>were getting rich finding ritual abuse almost everywhere they look.

And here all along I thought that regularly watching "Primetime Live"
WAS ritual abuse. But now it seems that seeing a psychotherapists is the 
REAL ritual abuse. 


Stan Knight
|Shouldn't "Satanic Ritual Abuse" actually mean ritually abuseing satan?| 
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:05:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.205750.18380@unet.net.com>, stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

|> |Shouldn't "Satanic Ritual Abuse" actually mean ritually abuseing satan?| 

No, it should mean the abuse of satanic rituals.  

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Clinton's wife Hillary?
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:00:52 GMT

In <81183@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>In <1i7rudINNg1p@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:

>|Not that I think that'd necessarily be a bad thing.  I'm not a fan of Tipper,
>|given her PMRC music-labelling stuff, but from what I know about Hillary,
>|she's qualified to do a little more than putter around the White House 
>|waiting for hubby.  She might just turn out to be a valuable resource.  Who
>|knows at this point?


>|>You can lick your political wounds all you like...

>|Gloating doesn't become you.  (And in case you're wondering, I voted for
>|Clinton.)

>I agree with you completely.  Hillary and Tipper, as well all previous first
>and second ladies have a right to speak there minds and to try and infulence
>their hubbies.  Anybody who doesn't think this happens has never been married
>or in a serious relationship.

>What I find interesting is that during the election, when myself and others
>tried to discuss Hillary's views on various topics, we were told, quite
>forcefully at times, that these issues were irrelevant since Bill was on
>the ticket not Hillary.

Where on earth did all this flap originate? Unless we insist that all
Presidential candidates be batchelors, of course they will listen to
their wives. Lord knows who a batchelor might be listening to. Geez,
don't you folks ever talk, discuss, etc. with your mates?

>-- 
>Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
>a government.
>It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.

Tell that to United Way.
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

REB

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Subject: Re: Breast Implant Info Needed
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:45:29 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL7]

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu (dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu) wrote:
: Please note, where the surgery and implants are to correct a situation caused
: by injury or disease, or LEGITIMATE birth defect (small cups don't count), I
: am arguing the law should remain the same.

I stated:
> Why is replacing breasts after injury or disease so different from
> getting them in the first place?  My chest measurment is 6" smaller than my
> hips and my mother is one sided due to disease.  As it turns out, neither
> one of us is considering implants but BOTH would be cosmetic in nature and
> I fail to see why the laws should be different.  

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu (dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu) replies:
: The difference IF YOU HAD READ! was that I am arguing that the liability
: SHOULD BE MADE EASIER WHEN SOMEONE IS DAMAGED BY THE ITEMS.

I did read.  I also read again.  I still see your original post claiming that
there should be a difference in the law depending upon *why* the implants
were done.  I disagree.

: You wanna shove silicone or saline into your chest, I think you got the right.

My post made it quite clear that I do not.

: The position of may paper is that when the procedure is cosmetic in nature, and
: the physician is shoving something in, if it goes wrong, the physician should
: NOT be able to hide behind a law which was designed to help promote the
: research and use of pacemakers, and artificial hearts, and artificial limbs!

My position is that the proceedure is *always* cosmetic.

: To anyone else out there who is a bit more rational than Vicky,

Do you include yourself in this category?  I think it is more rational to
dress around my figure and surround myself with people more interested in
what is between my ears than to stuff my body through surgery to try to
impress Hustler fans -- regardless of the liability of the surgeon.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:18:01 GMT

In article <1iac1dINNqpg@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.200945.12681@news.columbia.edu>, rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>> In article <24660@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>> >In article <1i9ks0INNg5e@transfer.stratus.com> lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>> >>Vicky Hansen writes
>> >>>Rich Payne (payner@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>[deleted]
> 
>> A good example of how statistics can lie. I would say that the major 
>> indicator here is poverty, not the absence of male role models.
>
>If that were the case, why would exposure to male role-models improve their behavior?
>
>> Do you have studies citing:
>> 
>> 1) non-poor female led households
>> 2) poor, single parent, male led households
>> 3) households led by two or more women, be they lesbian or otherwise
>> 
>> Siting statistics without controls is poor technique at best, lying
>> and bigotry at its worst.
>
>Hmmm.  Didn't seem to stop you from offering your pet theory with no more hard
>evidence than his.  By your own criteria, what does that say about you?
>
>> Robert Johnston
>

I made no claim that my "pet theory" is absolute truth.
I did not make an attempt to prove it in any deceptive manner.
Learn to recognise the difference between stating your opinion as your 
opinion, and stating your opinion as if it were fact, with lying
statistics to back it up.

The reasons I hold my opinions were not relevant to the
disputing of the above arguement, so I saw no need to state them.
Perhaps I should not have stated my opinions at all. This was, however,
an error in style at worst, not deliberate misdeception,hypocrisy, or
slandering of others.

Robert Johnston
From: csujr@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Gods)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Make friends
Date: 9 Jan 1993 05:50:16 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
Distribution: world
Reply-To: csujr@csv.warwick.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: yarrow.csv.warwick.ac.uk

Hello

	I am a new comer here. I am appreciated if anyone here would like to make friend with me. If you are the one wanna to do so, please drop me a line or so by email or leave the message here.

	My email address is : csujr@csv.warwick.ac.uk

Gods
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: The Susan B. Anthony Dollar (Was: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean?
Date: 11 Jan 93 01:22:37 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1993Jan06.194654.18171@microsoft.com> lorenmo@microsoft.com (Loren Moore) writes:

  [ deletions ]

>ad nauseum. Even money has no pictures of women on it (except for the Susan
>B. Anthony, which went the way of all flesh).

  [ deletions ]


I've always wondered...

Did they make the silver dollar the size of a quarter to save money - and
then found it only fit for a woman's likeness?

  - Or -

Did they decide to put a woman's likeness on a silver dollar and then size 
it to reflect the equal status of women (i.e., not equal)?

   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

      Don't Panic!  Clinton will be our *42*nd President.
Xref: sparky soc.women:22324 soc.men:22362 alt.feminism:6913
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism As A Religion
Date: 8 Jan 93 02:38:03 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1993Jan6.233653.26906@wam.umd.edu> sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>	There is no std definition for feminism so I cant agree with you.
>	As far as biological differces go, so what if men and women have
>	a biological base for their behaviour? These differnces dont
>	seem to make one sex the lesser of the other.

I don't mind being a maven, so...

If there is no biological or innate base for behavior, then measured 
statistical differences are good evidence for differential environmental
conditions.  If there is a biological or innate base for behavior, then
measured statistical differences are not good evidence for differntial
environmental conditions.  This significantly effects the believability 
of statistical differences used as evidence for specific differential 
environmental conditions, such as discrimination.

-EMP
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 4 Jan 1993 22:00:13 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan4.200945.12681@news.columbia.edu>, rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
> In article <24660@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
> >In article <1i9ks0INNg5e@transfer.stratus.com> lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
> >>Vicky Hansen writes
> >>>Rich Payne (payner@netcom.com) wrote:

[deleted]
 
> A good example of how statistics can lie. I would say that the major 
> indicator here is poverty, not the absence of male role models.

If that were the case, why would exposure to male role-models improve their behavior?

> Do you have studies citing:
> 
> 1) non-poor female led households
> 2) poor, single parent, male led households
> 3) households led by two or more women, be they lesbian or otherwise
> 
> Siting statistics without controls is poor technique at best, lying
> and bigotry at its worst.

Hmmm.  Didn't seem to stop you from offering your pet theory with no more hard
evidence than his.  By your own criteria, what does that say about you?

> Robert Johnston

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.child-support,talk.abortion