HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Homophobia (really not about  Homeschooling)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:38:50 GMT

                               Wednesday, the 6th of January, 1993

Laurie Mann writes:
  While this discussion probably better belongs in
  alt.politics.homosexuality, I would say anyone who
  supported Oregon Measure 9 (or Colorado Measure 2) is a  
  homophobe.  That doesn't mean everyone in Oregon or
  Colorado is a bigot, just the ones who believe some
  minority groups don't deserve equal protection under  
  the law.  And having seen some of the ravings from the
  "Pro-9" and "Pro-2" groups, I'd be curious how people
  can support either of these measures and not be homophobic.  

  I'd be curious to hear a rational argument from someone.

Well, Laurie, being snowed in up here half the time, I'm afraid I
have been abysmally underinformed about both of the measures, but
I'd say that my support or my disagreement with either measure
would depend *crucially* on the exact legal wording of that
measure. (My problem is that I've heard and read representations
to me of what the measures say from different points of view,
and, as I said, the *exact wording* is all important. Anyway,
some facts would be appreciated.)

*If* either measure merely says that no state law shall afford
homosexuals special privileges (i.e. special privileges by
reason of their being homosexual), then I would be in favor
of such a measure.

*If*, on the other hand, either measure says that homosexuals
shall not be afforded equal rights before the law (i.e. that
things that really are rights shall be denied them because
of their homosexuality), then I would be all against such
a measure.

It may help you to understand that, though the law has been sliding
into trying to establish such a right, *I* do not believe that
employment, say, ought to be considered a human right.

I do not believe that homosexuals ought to be given one
jot of special protection by the law. Nor do I believe
that one jot of the law's protection of them (the protection
which ought to come to them by virtue of their being human)
ought to be diminished.

Perhaps you can inform me now (I mean, based on your more precise
knowledge of what the measures are) how it is I would have voted
and whether or not my reasons are homophobic.

            Mike Morris
     (msmorris@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Homeschooling (spp's response to multiple posts)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 6 JAN 93 21:26:01 GMT

I wrote:

>> I don't see why you have the right to "strongly discourage"
>> individuals from homeschooling their own children any more than
>> fundamentalists have a right to harass women who want to
>> have abortions.

Steve Pope writes:

>This isn't a discussion about "rights".

I think it is.  At least, that's why I'm in favor of allowing parents
to homeschool their children: I think it's their right.

>It's a discussion about whether homeschooling is having an undesirable
>effect on society.  If I assess that this is the case, why shouldn't
>I strongly discourage it?

There are a *lot* of people who think that Roe v. Wade has had an
undesirable effect on society.  They're intent on telling other people
how to live their lives.  It seems that you're intent on telling other
people how to educate their children.  Why are you any different from
the fundamentalists who picket abortion clinics?  They, too, feel that
they're doing something meaningful for humanity, saving the next
generation, etc. etc. all that stuff.

>Also, the comparison to abortion rights is spurious.
>Homeschooling is *not* a privacy issue.

Really?  Why isn't it?

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Paglia (was: Cross-Writing)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: Paglia (again!), rape
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:44:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.012031.15616@cheshire.oxy.edu> rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney) writes:

>	How can knuckling under to a purported biological determinism
>ever be empowering to anyone?

Please cite the text in which Paglia suggests "knuckling under" to any
"purported biological determinism." She certainly does not suggest any
such thing in SEX, ART, AND AMERICAN CULTURE.

>Holding that men "just can't help themselves"
>(which is precisely what Paglia's position amounts to) rather gives the
>lie to Heather's putative liberalism (cf. the exchange with Steve Dyer).

Paglia clearly doesn't think men "just can't help themselves"; if she
did, there would be no point to anti-rape laws, yet Paglia
enthusiastically supports punishing those who rape.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: arc2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (AMY CHARLES)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: BOOK TITLE REQUEST
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:40:15 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


    This one's eluded me for almost ten years, now.  It's vaguely SF, set in
    England, protagonist is a boy about thirteen.  A disease resembling
    progeria sweeps the country and he's one of three, I think, left.  One of
    the most striking images was his school enemy, a redhead who wore a
    canary-yellow vest, prematurely aged.  I seem to remember something about
    a charwoman's daughter near the end.  Reads a lot like Christopher
    Whatshisname, the one who wrote the Tripod books (Beyond the Burning
    Lands, etc.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Paul Johnson (was Paglia)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:13:16 GMT

In article <JMC.93Jan8162455@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>It seems to me that when someone writes about how people ought to
>live, how he lives is relevant to evaluating the ideas.  In particular,
>Rousseau's life is relevant to evaluating his work, and Russell's life
>is relevant to evaluating that part of his work which concerns how
>people ought to live.

If it is relevant, that relevance has nothing to do with logic. There is
no logical connection between the truth value of a statement and the
biography of the person who makes it. (There may be a causal connection,
of course, but that does not help us evaluate the worth of the statement.)

As Karl Popper comments in CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS, "Questions of
origin are not questions of validity." For a more poetic articulation of
the same point, see Marko Amnell's selection from "Don Juan."

>Let us assume that the writers were sincere in their advice.  It says
>something if they are incapable of living as they advise others to live.

Does the fact that some priests have been charged with molesting children
prove that Christianity's prescriptions are worthless, since the priests
were unable to live according to the doctrines they preached?


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: shelley@hfrd.dsto.gov.au (Andrew Shellshear)
Subject: Re: Reading as an addiction (Was: 92 in rabreview
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:41:46 GMT


In article <C0pFoq.Ixn@vcd.hp.com>, angelab@vcd.hp.com (Angela Byington) writes:
> Miriam Nadel (nadel@attatash.aero.org) wrote:
> : had a very odd twist on this.  I don't know which of us figured this out
> : but we discovered we were less likely to be caught reading in bed by
> : flashlight if we climbed inside the (zippered) quilt cover to read.
> 
Also very useful in keeping out monsters.

> Ah, see, the trick is not to use a independent, and therefore easily
> noticed light source.  Instead, one must train oneself to use the
> meager supply of reading light from the hall light, or, as in my
> case, a night light.  I always professed to have a fear of the
> dark, and then strategically placed the nightlight as close to
> the head of my bed as humanly possible.
> 
I remember lying on the (wooden) floor reading by the light underneath 
the door.  This way also had the advantage of being able to _feel_ people
walking around.
Bad news if you fell asleep though...

-- 
_/\_ ------ Blue Canary in the outlet by the lightswitch. -------
\`'/   The Earth's magnetic field is particularly strong today.
/~~\ ------------------------- "Salt?" --------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Re: The Wall Street Journal (was: 1992 in Review)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:11:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.044757.28232@zip.eecs.umich.edu> tyg@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Tom Galloway) writes:
>In article <1ib21iINN52h@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
>>The WSJ values persons sufficiently that they are line drawn rather than
>>photographed. It indicates a contempt for hi-tech that I find
>>entirely admirable.
Let's say, "judgment", rather than "contempt".  The *WSJ*
is an interesting organization.  It has been a leader in
many sorts of journalistic technology, but it has always
maintained a particular style (including free hands to 
such top-notch writers as Jonathan Kwitney, Manuela
Hoelterhoff, Raymond Sokolov, Edmund Fuller, ..., the
line drawings, ...), despite fashion.
>
>Of course, people of certain political slants could argue that the reason
>for the line drawings is either that a number of the subjects cannot be
>photographed due to vampiric traits or that there is no soul left for
>the camera to steal.
>
>Objbooks: I'd really like to see a collection of the center column page 1
>stories.
Seek and you shall find.  Such collections exist,
although I don't have the resources at hand to
determine whether they're in print, or even what
the titles were.
			.
			.
			.
-- 

Cameron Laird
claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net)	+1 713 267 7966
claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net)  	+1 713 996 8546
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel)
Subject: Re: Stationery & diaries (was 1992 in Review)
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:29:16 GMT


I said:
>>I do find that it is difficult to go back and reread my general journal.

to which Desiree responded:

>Actually, I find this a really strange experience.  People tend
>to forget how much they can change over a period of time.  When
>in need of a bit of humility, or a boost, I do go back and read
>old entries.  The best bits are where you describe first
>impressions of people that you now know better (this includes,
>naturally, authors).
>
I find it problematic only to reread my general journal, as opposed to
the journals I keep for books, traveling, and other special purposes.  (There
seems to be some family tendency here as I know my brother keeps a shelf
of notebooks for various purposes, though some of his - such as keeping
track of Italian soccer scores - strike me as absurd.)
What I think bothers me is that I tend to write more about the negative
but want to remember more the positive.  I like the notion of editing my
life, as it were.  I'm very involved in storytelling and find that I can
easily drag up all sorts of humorous trivia from my childhood, for example,
though some of the experiences were not necessarily enjoyable at the time.
I don't much want to be confronted with the truth about how I felt when we
got lost rafting on the Delaware River during a summer at camp.


>>There is a theory that nobody keeps a diary without wanting it read 
>>someday but I periodically throw out the old ones.  
>
>I agree with you about not needing to have a journal read by
>others.  I keep one because, first and foremost, the act of
>writing makes you think.  Forcing yourself to consider your
>thoughts and actions periodically is useful to me.  I am not at
>all comfortable with the idea of having others follow my enforced
>thinking.  
>
But diaries do get published and are often intriguing to read and one can't
help but wonder if some of the diarists were conciously editing themselves.
I doubt it of Pepys as he wrote in some sort of shorthand of his own 
invention which must have been awful to decipher.  It's not clear to me
if he kept his diaries because he was forcing himself to think and reflect
or because he was just a compulsive recordkeeper.  That is, the diary as
a substitute for long term (unreliable) memory.  

While I fully believe that Andy Warhol intended his diary to be read.

Miriam Nadel
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,alt.books.reviews
From: jamesd@techbook.com (James Deibele)
Subject: REVIEW: _Jaguar_ by Loup Durand
Followup-To: rec.arts.books
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:46:08 GMT

                          _Jaguar_
                         Loup Durand
                      ISBN: 0-8217-3842-9
                     Zebra Books, 1990 $5.99

You're a Russian shortly after the October Revolution.  You are 
interested in not only surviving this highly dangerous time, but also
carving out your own niche where you have life and death power over many
people.  On a mission in Germany, you come up with the idea of a shadowy
terrorist who travels from country to country, spreading terror and
fertilizing the soil for the revolutions to come in those countries.
This terrorist will be portrayed not as a communist, but as an anarchist,
thus deflecting the blame.

You have found the perfect fall-guy in an innocent young Brazilian.
Accompanied by his American companion who's a "wannabe" --- except her 
idol is Rosa Luxemberg, not Madonna --- you'll chase them around the
world, spreading terror and speeding the pace of the inevitable
revolution.

The plot is intriguing enough that I finished this book in spite of several
unlikely coincidences and a wildly improbable ending.  The characters are 
pencilled in, but I was curious to see what Durand would do with the idea 
of a "Jonah" who is inevitably followed by murders wherever he goes.  Candido,
our young Brazilian, has no control over who dies and must flee when people
are killed to avoid arrest --- the Soviets inevitably notify the
authorities that the "Jaguar" has struck again and intentionally give 
Candido's identity away.

Candido is a character who "lets life happen to him" rather than taking
control of his future, which is reasonable given the setting Durand has 
provided him.  But neither he nor the other major characters are fleshed 
out to the point that we care what happens to them.  And Durand never 
does anything very interesting with the idea of this shadowy figure
travelling to major cities, inevitably followed by multiple killings.

It's almost as if an editor or friend had given the idea to Durand and
he dutifully churned out a manuscript.  Because of the plot, ill-used 
as it is, I give _Jaguar_ a 1 on the 0-5 scale.  

PS for those interested in the publishing industry: Zebra is more noted
as being a publisher of "bodice-rippers", whose covers you see in the 
grocery checkout line with the woman almost falling out of her blouse, a 
tall dark man clutching her to him, and horses in the background.  It's 
interesting that they seem to be expanding their line.

--
jamesd@techbook.COM                   "2516 newsgroups & nothing on ..."  
PDaXs gives free access to news & mail. (503) 220-0636 - 1200/2400, N81  
Full internet (ftp, telnet, irc) access available. Voice: (503) 223-4245
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: hoosiers@carson.u.washington.edu (Mary Loveless)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Cross-Writing (was: Books I Got For Xmas)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 22:20:09 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan7.193331.19047@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes: 
>In article <6JAN93.01143238@vax.clarku.edu> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
writes: 
>>The RABworm writes:
>>Yes: maybe *you* can think of more female authors who have written from
>
>As I recall, genre fiction is being included in this discussion. Here are
>a few from fantasy/sf: Lois McMaster Bujold Miles Vorkosigan stories and
>Ursula LeGuin's _The Disposessed_ and Wizard of Earthsea novels. 
>
>Nancy Lebovitz
>nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>Where is human nature so weak as in the bookstore?

Have any of the men read the 4th book in the Earthsea series?  This is
where the Wizard loses his powers and must, at age 50 or so, undergo
adolescence.  I can't remember the name of the book.  (I should read one
book less each day and *think* about them more.)  At any rate, the character
seemed real enough, and *I* could identify with him, but would a man?

 Mary Loveless  hoosiers@carson.u.washington.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of my opinions are self-righteously my own and **certainly** have
nothing to do with the University of Washington.

*"Too much of a good thing can be *wonderful*."  Mae West
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: Reading as an addiction 
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:04:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.183703.12584@ncar.ucar.edu>, chucks@uars2.acd.ucar.edu (Chuck Smythe) writes:
|> 
|> Now THERE are the makings of an interesting thread.  OK, fellow bookaholics,
|> just why do you read so much?  What does it add to your lives?  
 
 "Why do you read so much?" To me, that seems to fall in the same category as 
"Why do you listen to Bach" or "Why don't you like broccoli". It's part of who
a person _is_. 
 
 I read for information, because of my insatiable curiosity.
 
 I read for escape, because this world doesn't always have what I'm looking for.
 
 I read for experience, because some books shed light on things I'm not 
familiar with from my own life.
 
 I read for entertainment, because I have idle hours to fill.
 
 I read because I am me.
------------------------------------------------------------------
     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
 ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *|          he who refuses to do nonsense  
     \_|          is doomed to talk arithmetic.
      ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Woosterspeak
Date: 8 Jan 93 11:22:47
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1ikdje$ng8@agate.berkeley.edu> <C0Jttz.DMG@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk's message of 8 Jan 93 18:53:59 GMT

In article <C0Jttz.DMG@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:

> A columnist in the New Statesman last year pointed to a passage in one of
> Wodehouse's books ("The Code of the Woosters", I think) that was actually
> anti-Nazi in the only way that fitted in their framework: Hitler is accused
> of having absolutely terrible dress sense.

_The Code of the Woosters_ isn't specifically anti-Nazi, and Hitler is
never mentioned; Woodhouse is making fun of a local British fascist
party.  And, of course, it is marvelously funny.  If I had my copy of
the book with me right now I'd post some of those passages, but then
again, it's probably better that I don't: this way, you'll just have
to read the book, won't you?  And the parts about newts are just as
funny as the parts about fascists, anyway.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Homophobia (really not about  Homeschooling)
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:22:53 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1ihcj5INNd0l@transfer.stratus.com>, lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann) writes:
# #Umm, again, precision is lacking. For one thing, I don't see the slightest
# #thing wrong with discrimination on the basis of religion. I dislike
# #religious fundamentalists particularly. I also claim that this is a very
# #reasoned and reasonable dislike. And of course it all depends
# #on what one means (precisely) by ``discrimination''. I don't advocate
# #that religious fundamentalists should be deprived of, say, their
# #right to life. But I also don't think the laws ought to require me
# #to hire one (to associate with one against my better judgment). And
# #I'll be damned if the laws are ever going to require me not speak ill
# #of them.
# 
# Perhaps that's the crux of the problem.  I think I ought to hire the best  
# people for the job.  As much as I dislike the beliefs of religious  

What if the inability of other co-workers to get along with someone
because they are {fundamentalist, political activist, flaming queen,
militant neo-Nazi} makes it hard for them to be the "best people for
the job"?

# fundamentalists, I don't think I should be permitted to refuse to hire them  
# because of their religious beliefs.  Or fire them if I learn they are
# fundies after I hire them.  That's ridiculous.  It leads towards a society  
# which refuses to protect co-existence and differing opinions.   The point of  
# the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the minorities against the  
# tyranny of the majority.

The tyranny of the majority AS EXPRESSED THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL POWER.
NONE of the protections of the Bill of Rights were intended to limit
the rights of individuals in the manner which liberals now insist
antidiscrimination laws should do.  At most, individuals who acted
as governments were intended to be brought under Federal jurisdiction
by the 14th Amendment.

If you choose to take the opposite tack, remember that next time
you have a party, and skinheads crash your party.  You don't want
them there?  Why, you are DISCRIMINATING!  Once you say that there is
no such thing as "private" clubs, employment, rental properties,
what makes you think you can stop that process anywhere short of
the government telling you who you MUST have sex with?  Slippery
slopes are not advised, unless you are interested in sliding to the
bottom.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Paul Johnson (was Paglia)
Date: 9 Jan 1993 22:50:11 GMT
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
NNTP-Posting-Host: oas.stanford.edu

Keith Morgan writes:

	RABWorm writes:

		At the present time child molestation is a major taboo. 
		I imagine that this was not always so. It is likely that 
		child molestation by priests is encouraged by the Roman 
		Catholic prescription of celibacy and masculinity for
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
		for their clergy.

	A consequence of? or, required?

I thought I had worded this with some care. I am sayiny that enforced celibacy
and and all-male clergy encoureges child molestation. I am not saying that
the Church directly encourages the practise.

						RABworm
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books