HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Phil Stone)
Subject: Re: ANYONE LOOKS GOOD IN JEANS
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr, Calif.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:01:15 GMT

In article <ubq7fhs@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>But the REAL clincher is the bike.  It's
>
>	** SHAFT DRIVE **
>
>			isn't it, Phil?
>---
>c j silverio

Not just any *shaft drive*, my dear denizen...it's a 
<<Throbbing Kryptonian Super-Shaft>>* Drive.


		Phil (gotta go lube my splines, 'xcuse me)


*Pat. Pending, MJD, Inc.
From: billbill@wetware.com (Bill Bill)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre
Subject: Song to Norplant
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:30:42 GMT
Organization: Castle Wetware


I've got you
Under my skin


                              billbill@wetware.com
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre
From: vail@tegra.com (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Short Shameful Boast
Followup-To: *plonk*
Organization: Tegra-Varityper, Inc. Billerica, MA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:20:30 GMT


The project I am currently finishing the firmware for contains a
variable intensity laser and a rotating power knife.


jv <- "and a SCSI interface"
From: gj@prg.oxford.ac.uk (Honour Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre
Subject: a fit of enthusiasm
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:30:13 GMT
Organization: O'Brien's Hair Cutting Rooms, Stryd Dinbych, Llanrwst
X-Mailer: mail-news 2.0.3

I think we were in Crewkerne at the time, not that that is all that relevant.
It had been one of those long lazy summer Saturday afternoons on which nothing
much at all happens.  We were still going to be in Crewkerne on Sunday.  And
it seemed that Sunday afternoon was going to be one of those long lazy summer
Sunday afternoons on which nothing much at all happens.

Then suddenly she sat up and said ``Let's do something.''

So we did.

And it was quite fun.
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre
From: jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll)
Subject: Re: A Jungian Interpretation of Archie Andrews
Originator: jcarroll@ferris
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:52:44 CST


In article <1993Jan5.180207.27681@walter.cray.com>, jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll) writes:
> 
> In article <gj156879.726269832@cunews>, gj156879@alfred.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
> > Archie: central ego.
> > Betty: positive anima.
> > Veronica: negative anima.
> > Jughead: trickster.
> > Reggie: the shadow.
> > Big Ethel: stupid female trickster.
> > 
> > So who the hell is Mr Wetherbee?
> 
> Mr. Wetherbee is the collective subconscious.

Or collective unconscious. Whatever. Left all my Jung back in Ole Virginny.

jkc (so there, dorsey)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre
From: gj156879@alfred.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: Short Shameless Confession
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 09:56:21 GMT

I promised my girlfriend/roommate that I'd change the kitty litter for
a month if she'd come have dinner with my family on christmas.
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre
Subject: arrival
Date: Thu,  7 Jan 93 22:11:35 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

The alien arrived from a distant galaxy this week. God, what
a scifi cliche', everyone thought; but there it was.

Turned out their lot had had as much success at exceeding light speed
as we had - a nice fat zero. So, this alien bod had been on his way
for an awfully long time, salted away - or whatever the hell they used
for life suspension - for a good two million years. It was the lone
representative of its species, a solitary emissary from far, far away.
Poor devil.

Anyway, it spent its first conscious week decoding our language. We
were anxious to communicate, at least because their technology looked
interesting enough to be useful, except for the small detail that it
seemed utterly incomprehensible. We needed the alien to let us into
the secrets all right.
 
Well, it got on its linguistic feet pretty sharpish, and the second
week was spent in the inevitable celebrations, welcoming parades and
interminable speeches and declararations of this, that and the other;
you know, the usual thing. Then it died.

It's a quirky old place, this universe. You gotta love it.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant |  inceptus clamor frustratur hiantes             |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hoppie@nemesis.East.Sun.COM (Tom Hopkins)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: NOT!
Date: 13 Jan 1993 02:25:13 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Billerica, MA. 
Distribution: world
Reply-To: hoppie@nemesis.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: nemesis.east.sun.com

In article 2821@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu, pfinerty@nyx.cs.du.edu (fun fun fun boy) writes:
>In article <1it75jINNmd2@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> hoppie@nemesis.East.Sun.COM writes:
>>In article 122@genco.bungi.com, mhl@genco.bungi.com (Mark Levy) writes:
>>>In article <1ij6ffINNho3@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> operjfw@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
>>
>>A simple solution:  Threaten the life of a U.S. President.  Within
>>hours of performing this act a file of your existence will be created,
>>which in all likelihood will outlive you by hundreds of years.
>>Particularly if you also threaten the life of any dark shadowy figures
>>which may visit your home in the upcoming months.
>>
>
>my dear tom, none of us would ever do such an obviously insane thing. why
>doncha put down the keyboard and go back to thumb sucking.

FILE 535-7091-66412 

--- BEGIN ABSTRACT ---

NAME:  FINERTY PATRICK J
DOB:   051766
HTWT:  5.87FT 172LB
SS:    9 1/2 C
EC:    BROWN

PERS PROF:

GENITAL FIXATION
DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR
STABILITY QUESTIONABLE

DOT:   022393

--- END ABSTRACT ---

-Tom Hopkins <hoppie@turbo.east.sun.com>
Flamed by fun fun fun boy.  At last I exist.




Newsgroups: talk.bizarre
From: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Subject: Rock 'n roll....
Reply-To: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Organization: SCI Systems, Inc., Huntsville, Al.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:09:10 GMT

Right now, the radio station I'm listening to (via a translator, it's
really 150 miles away) is playing a series of KISS songs. The same songs
they were playing when I worked for them back in 1980 (World Tour, Europe,
Australia, and New Zealand; I was a pyrotechnician). In the same order as
the show opened. 

	"Detroit Rock City"
	"You drive us wild, we'll drive you crazy"
	"They call me Dr. Love".

I still remember the firing cues for the leadin of "Detroit Rock City". 

Gad, the human mind accumulates useless trivia....

(I'd never seen the show before I worked the first show, in Vatican City.)

-- 
Gary Heston    SCI Systems, Inc.  gary@sci34hub.sci.com   site admin
The Chairman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
"Data sheet: HSN-3000 Nuclear Event Detector. The [NED] senses the gamma
radiation pulse [from a] nuclear weapon." As if we wouldn't notice...
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Rape as a perspective
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:20:18 GMT

In article <DPJWBZZ@cc.swarthmore.edu> eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver) writes:
>["heightened care"]
>I will try to relocate the paper and present it in full.  It was written
>by Katherine McKinnon (sp) one of the foremost feminist legal theorists,
>if I recall correctly.

	That figures :-). The more I hear of MacKinnon, the more aware I
become that she's nearly as ignorant of American law as she is of
philosophy, psychology and ethics. She was a Yaley, right? Musta been an
AA student :-).

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Rape as a perspective
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:04:24 GMT

In article <DPJWBZZ@cc.swarthmore.edu> eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver) writes:
>Ok, clearly I haven't explained the concept clearly enough or there
>wouldn't be some many stupid examples flying around.
>
>I will try to relocate the paper and present it in full.  It was written
>by Katherine McKinnon (sp) one of the foremost feminist legal theorists,
>if I recall correctly.

    Baaaaahaaahhaaaaahaaahahahah. You won't get much support on usenet for
ideas attributable to KMcK. Although many people support at least some of 
her ideas, I haven't heard anyone call her a formost feminist legal
theorist (on usenet, anyway).
    Her views are in my opinion between paranoid and unsupported. Although
she doesn't to my knowledge suggest that all sex is rape, I think her ideas
are more applicable to a world where that is true.

   In short, I think you probably explained the idea clearly. It is just
a stupid idea.

   Now, if someone could just explain the Pornography Victims Compensation
Act clearly....

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: beelewm@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: I Need Info. for Paper!!
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:10:49 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

 To whom it may concern,

	I am in a Health Education class and we are supposed to be
doing a research paper.  My topic is on child abuse/battered children;
I was hoping that somebody could please inform me about legal aspects
(& other helpful information) of this sensitive subject.  I will be
very grateful for any SERIOUS information!!

	                  Thanks,
	                      Laura A. Byers

Send E-mail to ----- Byersla@wkuvx1.bitnet
			or
		     Beelewm@wkuvx1.bitnet

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Subject: Re: Rape as a perspective
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:54:09 GMT

ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
>I am interested in opinion, I'm more interested in what current law
>in various places says:
>
>Situation:John is of legal age and a smooth talker. He meets Jane 
>also of legal age. John uses his verbal abilities to convince Jane
>to have sex with him on the second date. Jane is a religious girl
>and has never had sex before. She wanted to wait until she was
>married. She is attractive and has been proposition for sex many
>times and has turned all offers down. John did NOT offer to marry
>Jane. He just used a combination of arguments regarding the
>specifics of her belief system and some sweet words to finally get
>her to have sex with him. It is important to note that the girl was
>never under any physical threat. She ALWAYS felt like she could say
>no and no action would be taken against her. John didn't even
>threaten to leave her if she refused. Afterwards she realized that
>he had spun a very complicated lie that she couldn't see through.
>She feels like a complete slut and sees herself forever as
>'unclean'.
>
>Is it rape? What does the law say?
>
>					The Jester

If she is over the age consent, and agrees to have sex with someone,
it was not rape by the law.

My opinion is that though I wish her ignorance wasnt cured in such
a painful manner, she got the result that was probable from her actions.
Meaning that if she decides to date, and play the standard social
games, she did it willingly, albeit ignorantly.  If she is unable
to place and keep her own boundries, they are going to be stepped
over, and that is what happened.

I remember the times I used to walk into my home crying because I
had torn up the skin on my knees and elbows when I feel of my skateboard
yet again.  My mom bandaged me up, but had absolutely no sympathy.
"You know what can happen, so choose for yourself if its worth it."
Ever since then, Ive tried to figure out what can happen *before* I
take the risk.  I have very little sympathy for someone who beats
themselves upside the head voluntarily.

Now I *do* have sympathy for a woman who decides what she wants,
keeps her boundaries, tries to protect herself, and some asshole
comes and violates her.  Although I admit the chances of such a
woman feeling 'unclean' are alot less..  she knows where the blame
belongs.

I respect celebacy, I respect almost any attempt of a person to
define themselves, especially sexually.  I have none for someone
who cops out through ignorance and peer pressure.

....jeff

.....jeff

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: lmbabik@rocdec.roc.wayne.edu (Lisamarie Gemma Babik)
Subject: Re: SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:32:17 GMT


Here at Western Michigan University, they dismissed a professor over the
summer for sexual harrassment.  I don't think any charges were pressed,
but he lost his teaching position here...

Xref: sparky talk.rape:2999 alt.politics.correct:6079
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.politics.correct
From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Subject: Re: Man rapes Man
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
	<1993Jan4.163415.3330@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:33:35 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1993Jan4.163415.3330@midway.uchicago.edu> tb13@ellis.uchicago.edu (leon joel gross) writes:
> [The word "gay" is] offensive for a variety
>of reasons for a variety of people. 

Tell that to the organizers of San Francisco's annual "Gay Pride" parade.

                                Cordially,

                                     -g
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Rape as a perspective
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:56:08 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.

In article <AFHWB0QN@cc.swarthmore.edu> eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver) writes:
>There was a novel leagal suggestion being presented in a paper I read
>recently which argued why this sort of things and many others should
>still be considered rape.  It has to do with the principle which I
>believe wasa termed "heightened care" or something like that, what the
>principle referred to was that concept in common law that someone you
>know has a heightened duty to care about your person.
>
   Proof that all lawyers should be shot? From an point of view other than 
that of a civil lawsuit, this concept of "heightened care" is utter
nonsense. It would allow anyone to sue anyone for almost anything. If I eat
the last jelly roll my co-workers could sue me because I should have known
that they might have wanted it. Maybe they _really_ wanted it.

   Under this idea, could the boyfriend have sued the girl for _not_ having
sex with him? I mean, she was intentionally depriving him of something he
very much wanted.

DanZ


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: andersod@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Questions on rape.
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:55:02 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

To Whom ever reads this;

I was just wondering if rape was an offense that happened to the same person
more than once?  In other words, is there a certain characteristic that
attracts rapist to rape again?  

I know this is a touchy sobject with some, but I was just informed that a 
friend of mine was raped (more than once) and I wanted to know if that was
true.   

I also wanted to know if there is something I can do, as a friend of the 
person who has been raped?   

"Nothing makes you feel more helpless 
 than knowing that the one you love 
 has been in pain." 

Signed,
Douglass
From: ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com 
Subject: Re: Protect Yourself!!!!
Summary: RI police recommend capsin over MACE
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:59:42 GMT


In article <1993Jan9.041713.19249@ncsu.edu>, 
     hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes...
>In article <93008.133505U38134@uicvm.uic.edu> 
     Noel B. Lorenzana <U38134@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>I'm sorry if this may not be appropriate, but last year a friend
>>of mine was selling a self defense spray. He has since given up
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  With only this information it is hard to tell anything about
>the effectiveness of this product.

    [...]

> 
>--henry schaffer



Which reminds me of something I've been meaning to post. 

Last week a local TV station, WPRI, Ch. 12 in Rhode Island, ran a news
story about a demonstraton of self-defense sprays by the Rhode Island
State Police. 

The RISP specifically state that they recommend capisin (sp? red 
pepper) based sprays instead of MACE type sprays because of the 
(quote) "longer lasting" effects of the capsin based sprays. The 
news report said capsin based sprays are available without a permit
in RI.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: mscarce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael Scarce)
Subject: RE: Man Rapes Man
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:07:13 GMT
From: ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Rape as a perspective
Date: 6 Jan 93 08:54:56 GMT
Organization: Republicans for Sanity

I am interested in opinion, I'm more interested in what current law
in various places says:

Situation:John is of legal age and a smooth talker. He meets Jane 
also of legal age. John uses his verbal abilities to convince Jane
to have sex with him on the second date. Jane is a religious girl
and has never had sex before. She wanted to wait until she was
married. She is attractive and has been proposition for sex many
times and has turned all offers down. John did NOT offer to marry
Jane. He just used a combination of arguments regarding the
specifics of her belief system and some sweet words to finally get
her to have sex with him. It is important to note that the girl was
never under any physical threat. She ALWAYS felt like she could say
no and no action would be taken against her. John didn't even
threaten to leave her if she refused. Afterwards she realized that
he had spun a very complicated lie that she couldn't see through.
She feels like a complete slut and sees herself forever as
'unclean'.

Is it rape? What does the law say?

					The Jester
-- 
"Only the blind see in color."
"Any union based upon pigment is foolish ignorance designed to
give power to those few who enjoy power's taste above the common
welfare."
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: mcgeegt@eng.auburn.edu (Gary T. McGee)
Subject: Re: Man rapes Man
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:33:01 GMT

gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi) writes:
>>The act of sexual contact between two men, consensual or not, is by
>>definition homosexual, even if the participants are not. 

>Wrongo.  In our culture/language, "homosexual" refers to people, cultures, and
>lifestyles, not sexual acts.  Look it up in a dictionary.  Or ask your male
>friends if having a single sexual contact with a man makes one homosexual.
>Some will angrily deny it, because they have had sexual contact with men but
>find it very important to think of themselves as straight!

Question:

If sexual acts between two people of the same sex are not called 
homosexual, then how do we distinguish between so-called straight sex
and so-called homosexual sex?

Yes, I am descriminating because there are differences. 
There is oral sex, etc. Also, thousands of positions.

So, what's wrong with distinguishing same sex intercourse as
homosexual? If there is a problem, then let's give it 
another name.

(Personally, I call it disgusting. But, that is merely my opinion;
no matter how unenlightened.)
From: peace@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Date: 06 Jan 93 10:59 PST
Subject: Re: Rape as a perspective
Nf-ID: #R:lee.seas.ucla.edu:9023:cdp:1484100007:000:160
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!peace    Jan  6 10:59:00 1993


That is not rape.  It is ignorance and youth.  She believed
what she wanted to believe and later found out she was mistaken
she just learned a valuable lesson.
From: rll1@kepler.unh.edu (Robert L Lamothe)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Rape as a perspective
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:22:40 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
NNTP-Posting-Host: kepler.unh.edu

In article <AFHWB0QN@cc.swarthmore.edu> eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver) writes:
>There was a novel leagal suggestion being presented in a paper I read
>recently which argued why this sort of things and many others should
>still be considered rape.  It has to do with the principle which I
>believe wasa termed "heightened care" or something like that, what the
>principle referred to was that concept in common law that someone you
>know has a heightened duty to care about your person.
>
>So for example if my best friend were to trick me out of a $100, I might
>argue that becausee of his close relationship with me, he had a
>heightened duty towards me.  (I think this fleshs out the general
>principle, I can try to find the original article if people are
>interested.)
>
>Anyhow, the lawyers making this proposal argue that once you begin
>becomming a none stranger you begin to have heightened responsibilities
>to get active positive consent without tricking the person.
>
>It sounds like in the situation you describe this person knew her
>feelings, ie he was no longer a stranger, and proceded to subtly coerce
>her into sex.  Under this doctrine, which is not trial tested, I would
>say that rape had occured.
>
>-Erik

	I'm sorry but this is rediculous.  If your freind tricks you out
of $100 then you've learned a lesson.  An expensive one, but a lesson all
the same.  Lets face it, the world is not a nice place and people are not
nice creatures, to say that someone has "heightened responsibilities" to
you and should be punishable by law for tricking you is like saying that
once again we are our brothers keepers and must maintain their morality
for them.  There is a difference between being attacked and violated and
having your sense of identity and self robbed from you and another to
be taken advantage of through your own naivety and gullability.  I'm
not about to walk on rose petals or wear kid gloves in order to avoid
breaking my "heightened responsibilities".  You know if such laws came 
into effect then you could end up getting sued because someone who you
like as a friend wants more from you than you want to give and you arne't
living up to your "heightened responsibilities".  A rediculous example?
Sure, but look at how many people are being sued for harrasment for telling
a female co-worker or employee that they look nice that day.  You
don't think it will be much different for this do you?
							-Bob


-- 
---
 Robert L. Lamothe                           University of New Hampshire  
 rll@unh.edu                                 Interoperablity lab room 220  
                                                                             
 Just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.  
---
Newsgroups: talk.rape