HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Exclusive relationships (Re: Morality)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:01:25 GMT

In article <sagBoB4w164w@ailanth.UUCP> ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy) writes:
>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>> 
>> I haven't met many women (two at last count) who feel this way.  Women
>> still have a hard time being independent without having a man attached
>> to them, and since the only alternative to monogamy that most people are
>> familiar with is polygyny, women aren't fond of leaving the prescribed
>> track, on the whole.  The only familiar alternative to monogamy in many
>> women's minds is even worse for them. 
>> 
>this is in error, but janis couldn't know, because radical non-monogamy 
>and such are things of the lesbian community.  for a while, monogamy was 
>a patriarchal tool and destinctly uncool.  i myself am a polygamist by 
>philosophy, as i think having to break up with someone just because you 
>have fallen for someone else is damned silly.  and wasteful.  i believe 
>in adding ties, not subtracting them.  (unless one person is abusive or 
>somethign, that is...)

Many apologies for this.  The image in my mind when I thought about this
was of hetero relationships.  I should have said, "For the majority of
straight women, the only alternative is even worse," though for all I
know radical non-monogamy is just as new in the lesbian community as it
is with the straights. 

>> I should say here that my own opinion is that the best thing nowdays is
>> probably the old group-marriage idea.  There's enough variety to satiate
>> most people (if not, blaze a new trail), and the people involved can get
>> to know one another well.  It also gives a nice, stable emotional cast
>> for any kids growing up.  For myself, though, I'd prefer monogamy now.
>> I greew up in a culture that encourages it, and I also grew up with a
>> very successful example of it -- my parents were deliriously happy with
>> each other; I generally hit the parent lottery jackpot.  Also, it's
>> taken me 25 years to find ONE guy I enjoy being with.  So far, I just
>> don't WANT anyone else in the slightest.
>> 
>yup, that's the one i like too.  requires a big house though.  especially 
>since to be really workable, every adult needs their own bedroom.  and 
>any adult may potentially add another adult to the household.  funfunfun, 
>eh?  i don't think that everyone has to be sexually active or interested 
>in everyone else in the household, tho...  be impossible for the group to 
>grow, and leave people frustrated as the person they are newly attracxted 
>to may not be OKed by the rest of teh family, or interested in the whole 
>rest of the family.  

Especially since you can be celibate by choice and still a wonderful
potential parent. 

>especially important if this group includes bis and 
>lesbians and gay men...  B)
>
>> Oh, well.  One person's opinions.  
>> 
>make that two...
>

Okay -- two it is!

Blessings,
Janis
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Firewalk
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:18:28 GMT
	<1992Jul29.223024.11568@lmt.mn.org> 
	<1992Jul30.170107.21017@burrhus.harvard.edu>

In article <1992Jul30.170107.21017@burrhus.harvard.edu> 
canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson) writes:
>	There is a quote from somewhere which says: "Any sufficiently
>advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".  And _vice_versa_ of
>course ;)

Who said that? I seem to remember an association with the Atomic bomb for
some reason. Was it Einstein or Oppenheimer? Don't tell me it was Sagan?

>	I figure if something works, then there is a scientific
>explanation. Perhaps current science can't explain it - after all, what
>current science can do would be considered magic in the middle ages, or
>even a hundred years ago or so - but sufficientally advanced science could
>explain any actual phenomenon.  And I see nothing wrong with that.

I think the thing to keep in mind is that science should never serve to deny
the experience of life. This is something we do too much of today. We say
things are either true or false, science or myth. Science is a tool to
increase the understanding of life, not to deny the individual experience of
life. The individual experience is always magical, whether there is a
scientific explanation or not. I can ride a bicycle and that is magic
independent of the scientific explanation, of which by the way there is none.
Someone says, "I just went to Paris and I am reborn, for once I am alive". And 
someone says in response, "Oh, we DID Paris five years ago, I'm sure it's 
still the same". That is a denial of the individual experience. That is what 
we tend to do with science. That is not good. Or so it seems to me. She blinded
me with science, a victim of technology. A rose by any other name still smells
as sweet. This is true, even today.
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: stereotypes - and a request
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:32:20 GMT
	<1992Jul28.162734.3575@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <12540@inews.intel.com> 
	<1992Jul28.214518.16237@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>

In article <1992Jul28.214518.16237@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> 
radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Radzykewycz) writes:
>I find it HIGHLY unlikely that women would, in fact, take over all
>positions of power.
>I *DO* think it would be a bad idea if it ever WERE to happen.  You
>were saying that you thought it would be the best thing since sliced
>bread!  I think you're wrong about that.

Good, at least we've straightened that out. Since it's unlikely that women will
take over all positions of power, there's little reason to even consider that
possiblity, is there? And I'm not a fan of sliced bread, so you know where
I stand, at least today. Sorry, I'm just not the standing still type. You
know, it's the whole Changing Woman thing, she was my mother.

>I'm absolutely certain that *some* oppressed people want to
>become oppressors.  *Some* oppressed women talk about how
>men can suffer for the next two thousand years, since women
>have suffered for the last two thousand years.

Oh sure, there are so many people, you find just about every possible 
viewpoint. But nothing to worry about right? It's just not gonna happen. We
have no shortage of problems to work on, there seems little value in worrying
about this one, given what its chances of happening are. Right?

>Paul, where are you coming from?

Oh, back behind the fence in centerfield, just short of a few cards for a
full deck. But did I ever tell you, I can dance!

Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Movies with pagan themes
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:59:35 GMT


Rob D. comments that his neo-pagan friends thought that _The Wicker Man_ was
awful.  I am a Witch, and am one of the motivating forces in getting someone
in my Community to rent and show _The Wicker Man_ before our Beltain event
each year.  Of course, I am not PC--I am Quaker. :-)

BTW, I don't like the fact that they sacrifice the Christian, even though he
was a bad example of my other religion.  But the movie is fun--good music,
some good scenes about the problems with repressive Christianity, and a
Maypole dance.  Not to mention the guys in kilts *slurp*! :)

"I put my hand on her knee..."

              Merry meet, merry part, merry meet again,
                               Br'anArthur

Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
From: krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (D. 'krikket' Krick)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: >suggestion<
Date: 24 Jul 92 11:07:02 GMT
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

In article <1992Jul22.163101.1272@lmt.mn.org>, ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson) writes:

<A long, concise letter was deleted to save bandwidth, and processing time
at my end -- This computer is bogged down at the moment...>

I was the one who stated (maybe not origionally) that the word "Pagan" should
be capitolized, because it's all part of the same religion.  But I ONLY
meant "religion" in the LOOSEST of terminology possible.  In that there is
some sort of common bond between the pagan religions (Not capitolized,
intentionally.)  I did not intend to assert that they all shared the same
beleifs to any extent, or even worshipped the same gods, or...  You get the
picture.

And as a side comment, I was also opposed to the UFP becuase they were
attempting to speak for all "Pagans"...

Krikket               ! krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us ! USnail:3 Danada Square E.
a.k.a Doug Krick      ! Team Star Charter Member   !        Suite 246
Data ph# 708/665-9732 ! #include<std.disclaimers>  !        Wheaton, Il 60187

 'If you are what you eat, then I'm Dead Meat'  -- Timbuk 3 "Grand 'ol Party"
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Firewalk
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:13:20 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

We knocked over the incence braizer in the middle of an intense Full
Moon circle.  Since I was nearest, I bent over quickly, picked up the
live coal, and put it back in.  I was worried about the carpet, and
I also didn't want to disrupt the dance any longer than I had to.

I was in an odd state of mind where I really didn't expect to get
burned.  Rather to my surprise, the coal hurt--I had to drop it, spit on
my fingers, and pick it up again.  No blisters, but my fingers were
sore for the rest of the evening.

I don't know exactly what may be involved in firewalking, but I will
vouch for the fact that one can *know* one won't be burned, and be
wrong.  An interesting experience.

Storm/Mary K. Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: stereotypes - and a request
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:23:01 GMT

In article <ROCKWELL.92Jul26205346@socrates.umd.edu> rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell) writes:
>Krikket [I think]:
>   >>>>      "Well, we don't mind _all_ blacks, just the ones we know
>   >>>>      about."
>
>Janis Cortese:
>   >If you're this incapable of understanding the distinction between
>   >oppressor and oppressed, you have my pity.
>
>Elton Wildermuth:
>   Janis, I've said this to you before, both publicly and in email,
>   but perhaps not bluntly enough; 

Oh, don't worry, honey.  I heard you the first time.  I just think you
don't know what you're talking about.  2 + 2 ~+ 5 no matter HOW
"bluntly" you put it.

>   so here I go again: YOU are the
>   source of most of the "oppression" that happens to you.
>
>Ahem.
>
>What does this statement about responsibility have to do with either
>of the preceeding statements?  Maybe if it's yelled loud enough, about
>how Janis is responsible, she'll stop exercising that responsibility?
>
>Yes, it's true that "god-like individuals" can choose their own
>emotional response to most any situation.  Firstly, that has little or
>no bearing on people who have not chosen this path.  

This sounds to me like someone is abrogating his responsibility for the
effects on other people of his actions.  "If I kick you in the stomach,
well . . . YOU'RE the one who doubled over."  Alternately, "I may have
kicked you in the teeth, but YOU did the bleeding."  He just wants some
kind of censure from the natural universe allowing him, to step on
people's toes and feelings without guilt. 

>Secondly, this
>sort of capability -- real or imagined -- should not be considered an
>excuse to stuff your own emotions onto someone else.

See the above.  I guess that it's the rape or bashing victim's fault for
being hurt psychologically and physically; all the rapist or basher did
was rape or bash.  I guess all those black people who had their loved
ones lynched just felt desolate and angry because they wanted to.  Have
you NO sense of responsibility for how your acts affect others? 

>If someone posts to stating "all oppression I've experienced was
>self-inflicted," that can be a liberating post.  But the above post
>made no such statement and instead was made in opposition.

Again, he's just saying (I think) all life is an illusion, so if you're
having a bad one, it's your fault.  Again, he wants to step on toes
without the guilt.  "If I call you a spearchucker and you get mad, then
it's your fault."

Janis
 



Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Radzykewycz)
Subject: Re: Overthrow "THE MAN" symbolically, was (Who cares)
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:34:19 GMT

ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy) writes:
>>> and ALL of us who are white need to overthrow whatever traces of the
>>> man exist within ourselves...

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) agreed:
>> Yeah, I'll go for that, overthrow "THE MAN" in ourselves.

krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (D. 'krikket' Krick) writes:
> Now personally, I am not ashamed of being a man.  As Dan said this weekend,
> "I don't feel a need to be identified as an exclusivist feminist."  (chuckle)
> I do not apologize for being male, nor do I feel that I need to reject my
> being male.  I am happy with who I am.
> 
> I do not apologize for other men.  I am not perfect, I have faults, just like
> everyone else, but I try to work on those faults.  I try to help those people
> who need and want help.  But I will not apologize for what happened to them,
> if I did not do it.  I will be supportive of the person who needs help, and
> do what I can though.
> 
> But I will not "overthrow 'THE MAN'" in myself.  For I am happy being male.

Well said, Krikket!

Bear Blessings!

------------------------------------------------------------
					|  An it harm none,
	-- radzy			|  do as ye will.
					|
	Tim Omelan Radzykewycz     	|  "Just pray for a
	The Incredible Radical Cabbage	|  tough hide and a
					|  tender heart."
	radzy@icsi.berkeley.edu	        |    -- Ruth Graham
					|
------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: More Crone Images (was re: stereotypes)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 14:58:57 EST
Organization: Ailanthus Project

ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes:

> >Janis Maria Cortese says 
> 
> >>"The Crone usually symbolized death; look up Kali."
> 
> 
> Hmm, to me Kali is the Dark Goddess, not the Crone.  I have the usual Triple
> Goddess:  Maiden (waxing moon), Mother (full moon), and Crone (waning moon); 
> however, I also have the Dark Goddess, who is the Dark Moon.  She is the 
> Morrigan, Kali, Morgana (my usual name for her, since I tend toward Cymraeg).
> She is the one who helps us through struggles, who helps us go into the dark.
> 
> Your mileage is very likely to vary. :-)
> 
yup, i don't know how i missed that.  kali is NOT a crone.  she is 
usually shown as being either grotesquely ugly or young and beautiful.  
but grotesquely ugly does not equal croneliness.  kali is not a celtic, 
or really even an indo-european goddess.  she isn't part of the 
maiden-mother-crone trilogy...

has anyone but me ever thought that the whole crone = death thing is 
wrong?  i'm an anthropology major, and one thing that is considered to 
have the force almost of l;aw am9ong different peoples is the 
cross-generational bond, i.e. a strong affectionate bond between the 
grandparental generation and the grandchild generation.  also, i think 
that older women are more likely to be the experienced midwives.  it 
messes up the nice orderly symbolism, but i think that equating the crone 
with birthing and nurturing and the mother with discipline, limitations 
for your own good, etc., would make more sense.  a mother CAN'T be 
unconditionally loving and accepting.  who would make the kid into a 
decent human being if the mother won't give the child any limitations 
and frustrations?

i think of the archetype of the crone as wise, loving, nurturing, etc.  
just because old peopel are nearer to dying doesn't mean that they should 
be associated with death!  think about it - old people die eventually 
just by waiting, while young people, especially virgins in the pagan 
sense, go out and actively SEEK death oftentimes, believing that they are 
immortal.  look at the hum,ainzed depiction of death in the sandman comic 
book, for exmple - a young beautiful woman.  la belle dame sans merci.  
kali, if one must place her somewhere.  death is a virgin.

                                       -ailsa

                ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com
 
"If it has tires or testicles, you're going to have trouble with it."
                            _Ohio state Senator Linda Furney
From: krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (D. 'krikket' Krick)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: >suggestion<
Date: 28 Jul 92 08:55:23 GMT
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

In article <Bs3xDI.M7t@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A.
Davis-Howe) writes:
>ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson) writes:
>>Susan said;

>>>"Um.  Okay, here we are back to the same semantic thing.  I agree with
>>>you that you're pagan; I just wouldn't call your *religion* paganism,
>>>even though it incorporates paganism into it.  To me that's like
>>>saying a Christian's religion is monotheism."

>>  What religion would you call me then?

>I will call your religion Pagan in writing, since that is what you call it. 
>To make it clear in speaking, I will call it Vaglanism, which is my cutsey
>way of saying "Vaguely Pagan but with no particular allegiance to any one
>pagan religion".

So far the best idea on this issue was made a few posts back (as if that helps
anyone who is on another system) with different definitions for "Paganism"
and "paganism"...

This "Vaglanism" just sounds insulting though.  The version of Paganism I
practice, while it doesn't fall directly into a neat sub-catagory, is more
than just vague paganism.  (Note where I did and did not capitalize!)

Krikket               ! krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us ! USnail:3 Danada Square E.
a.k.a Doug Krick      ! Team Star Charter Member   !        Suite 246
Data ph# 708/665-9732 ! #include<std.disclaimers>  !        Wheaton, Il 60187

 'If you are what you eat, then I'm Dead Meat'  -- Timbuk 3 "Grand 'ol Party"
From: radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Radzykewycz)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Firewalk
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:35:28 GMT
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.

ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson) writes:
> Donal, the Sysop of The Brewer's Witch, in response to Tim Radzykewycz's post;
> 
> >" Tim, I am amazed that you could post something like this!? 
> >sense of the profound effect that the walk had on the poster ...
> 
>   Actually, it was Richard Darsie who wrote the original, and empowering, post.

Richard Darsie wrote the original, empowering post (keep
posting, Richard!) and Tim O'Neill (not Tim Radzykewycz)
responded with an analysis of what is (probably) physically
happening.  Donal's post was in response to Tim O'Neill's.

(Personally, I think it is a little more complicated than what
Tim said.  He certainly has a MAJOR part of it right, but
there's more involved than just physics, some of it is
biological, a lot of it is psychological.)

Um, perhaps this is as good a time as any for me to say it:  I
go by "radzy" instead of "Tim".  (-: If you *didn't* note the
capitalization, I won't mind too much. :-)

BTW: Thanks, Ciaran, for getting "Radzykewycz" spelled right!

Bear Blessings!

		-- radzy

------------------------------------------------------------
					|  An it harm none,
	-- radzy			|  do as ye will.
					|
	Tim Omelan Radzykewycz     	|  "Just pray for a
	The Incredible Radical Cabbage	|  tough hide and a
					|  tender heart."
	radzy@cogsci.berkeley.edu       |    -- Ruth Graham
					|
------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: stereotypes - and a request
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:19:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <1992Jul22.152518.1706@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Radzykewycz) writes:
>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> maybe women do have a vicious side and have just been pretending
>> to be sweet all these years, I just don't see it.
>
>Of course they do, Paul!  They're human, and they have all the same
>qualities that the rest of humanity has: viciousness, greed, lust,
>sympathy, love, honor, and all kinds of other things.

I may not want kids, but if I had one and someone injured it, I'd slit
their throat from ear to ear and drink their blood when I was done.

If I ever see ANYONE threatening my SO, they'd better run fast or else
they'll have a steak knife through their ribs.

You're damned right we can be vicious.  The lioness instinct has just
been diverted into bitchiness for the most part.

Blessings,
Janis
From: ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: soc.religion.pagan (Was: alt.wicca, anyone?)
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:26:58 GMT
Organization: Lysator Academic Computer Club, Linkoping University, Sweden

My suggestion is, that we start a soc.religion.pagan group.

That would give the news group a)more STATUS and b) make it more
widely AVAILABLE.

Status, because most people know that to start an alt-group all you
have to do is decide you want to. Where do all the groups started by
Usanian college brats with more complexes than brain cells get
started? Yes, in the alt-hierarchy. This makes people judge alt groups
before they have even started to read them: "Oh, no another alt group,
a quick press of U and y will take care of that."

Availability, because a lot of sites simply don't take any alt-groups.
The reason they don't, is rather obvious if you are on a site that
does take alt-groups. There are new ones started every day and they
rarely contribute any information to the net.

Now, how does this apply to alt.pagan?

By starting a soc.religion group, pagan would gain some status. It
would play in the same league as the BIG religions, like Islam and
Buddhism.

By starting soc.religion.pagan, information about pagan
religions/belief systems/ideas would be available to many more people
than now. Modern paganity is hardly known to people outside the
English speaking countries. Educated people from, for instance,
Germany and Sweden have never even heard of it. If there is a
soc.religion group for it, many more sites will take it, and
information about modern paganity will spread at a greater speed than
today.

The major drawback of changing the name into soc.religion.pagan, is
the confusion it creates. Some time ago alt.mud and alt.mud.lp went
into the rec.games hierarchy. There are still articles posted in the
alt.mud-groups, but they are rather few. The people who experienced
the renaming, seem to agree that it did cause confusion, but that the
increase in status and availability more than made up for that.

I would be more than happy to take care of the administrivia of votes
and whatever is needed to start a soc.religion.pagan group. (Yes, I am
actually volunteering to *do* something!)
--Ceci
NB:
'rarely' does not mean 'never'
'Usanian college brats with more complexes than brain cells' does not
mean 'all college students in the USA have more complexes than brain
cells'
That I am explicitly stating these obvious facts, does not mean that
*you* need to be told about them. Rather, that I don't want to start
another flame war between the people who do need to be told.
--
=====ceci@lysator.liu.se===========================================
"There is a mysterious tendency for four fingers or toes to look like
five." Claude Harrison: The Portrait Painter's Handbook
===================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.pagan