HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: "A Very Good Opponent."
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:15:42 CDT
Organization: <><><><><><><><><><><>

> think the actual number is about 355 degrees, which makes them a very good
> opponent on the ground.  Traditionally, it's been too easy to get them in
> the air, and especially with repeating shotguns.  When our forefathers

	A "very good opponent" ... wow, if a turkey is a very good opponent,
what's a not-so-good opponent?  A tree?  How about a barn?  Is hunting barns
sport?  I guess they have to be alive to be sport.  Some sport.  Outwitting a
turkey.  Sounds a little too challenging for me.  Those turkeys are cunning
ones, yes sir.  It's a wonder they're not the ones rocketing to the moon, or
theorizing that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared.  I
wonder if Einstein liked to hunt?  Einstein said he would "rather be torn to
shreds" than involve himself in base, violent actions.  The question here is:
was Einstein an unknowledgeable animal-rights fanatic and pacifist who wished
love for all the cuddly little creatures, or a man who is at least slightly
more evolved than they majority of those in his species?  Is someone who likes
to hunt, even though the can acquire meat at the grocery store, more evolved?
... more intelligent?  Or is looking at them like looking into the normally
uncontrolled and aggressive and primal and instinctive man that he was for most
of his evolution?  Is achieving the power of thought over aggressive instincts
the next stage in human evolution? Will mankind ever become more evolved than
it is now?  If everyone eternally accepted that hunting is more rational and
intellectual than it is primal and instintive, would the power of thought ever
become more powerful than the power of instinct?  Should anyone even TRY to
achieve this?  Or is it better not to try?  Should I give in to those who say
I'm full of shit about all of this and redefine the purpose of my existence?
What is the purpose of being alive? 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Caruso II			      "Great minds are the most misunderstood."
dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu						-- DAC2
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Society and Animals Journal
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:20:51 GMT



SOCIETY AND ANIMALS: SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF THE HUMAN
EXPERIENCE OF OTHER SPECIES announces the publication of its
inaugural issue.  It features articles on the symbolic role of
animals in Native American rituals, the effects of labeling on the
differential treatment of animals, the effectiveness of pet-
facilitated therapy, student attitudes towards dissection, and
researcher attitudes towards pain in their animal subjects.
Individual subscriptions are $30 for volume 1 (2 issues), payable
to PSYeta, P.O. Box 1297, Washington Grove, MD 20880. For
information on manuscript submissions inquire at the same address.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:24:50 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Jul27.164521.18139@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:

>When I was up at Oxford there were two words that were anathema -- at least
>with the pack I ran with. One was "student" and the other was "intellectual".
>I think we associated both words with Dangerous High Purpose. They were
>Germanic, and therefore unEnglish.

Well, strictly speaking these two words are not Germanic at all, but
Latinate.

>We associated English intellectuals with
>the Thinking Left; the Wedgie-Benns of this world.

And there was I thinking how sadly had the standards at Oxford fallen!
But this chap is a right-wing anti-intellectual Oxonian, for whom such
ignorance is a badge of honour :-)
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: -=>  NO CONTRACT -- NO VOTE  <=-
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:22:26 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <01GMJFSU1N3O0011SW@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:
>Naturally I've been thinking of Perot. I'm satisfied in my own mind that
>he probably chickened-out due to fears of his family being hurt, which
>if true I can understand -- though I still feel betrayed. I wouldn't be
>surprised though if he had received serious and plausible threats against
>his family which caused him to quit.

   This is truly nutty.   I think the stress of backing Perot and having
   him pull out suddenly has pushed poor Mr. Tice over the edge.

   There is not a shred of decent evidence that Perot pulled out due
   to personal threats.   None.   What's wrong with the more conventional
   explanations -- he decided he couldn't win; the Democrats really are
   "revitalized", his presence in the election would quite likely put
   the election into the House, causing a delay in getting a new team in
   the White House during a critical period in our nation's history, and
   for Mr. Perot, running was, indeed, less fun than it started off to 
   be?    All of these, many from Perot's own mouth, are quite reasonable,
   plausible, and supported by the evidence.  


>So here's the deal, if you want my vote -- put it in writing 

   I'm sure they're falling all over themselves right now to sign the
   contract!   


---peter





Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,rec.arts.books
From: liebman@banana.ithaca.ny.us (david seth liebman)
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Organization: The Banana, a BBS in Ithaca NY (US)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 06:49:47 GMT

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

> 
> In regard to the the remark about "intellectual" being a
> term of high status and social approbation: in many
> quarters it's quite the opposite.  In fact, we had a 
> thread running in alt.postmodern recently discussing why
> "intellectuals" were disliked so much, which is quite
> relevant to this one.  My theory was that intellectuals
> were recognized by working-class and lower-middle-class
> people as servants of the bourgeoisie, that is, the
> people who exploit them, or try to, and to whom they
> generally feel they are in opposition.     

forgive me if i blindly echo something said in that thread which i
had not the stomach for, but...

does the working 'class' truly feel that... 
er, i'm not sure how to deal with your syntax there, gordon.
do members of the working-class experience a desire to oppose?
or do they perceive themselves as constituents of a class interest
which they (falsely) believe to be engaged in active opposition?

in any case, it seems somewhat awkward to propose class interests
as a source of anti-intellectualism.  the working-class of the
u.s., certainly, does not find itself in _economic_ opposition to
the _economic_ elite, as evidenced by its political habits --

if a reaction against intellectualism is anchored in class
division, it would seem as though that reaction is enabled not by
active socioeconomic interests, but by a historical sedimentation
of interests.  their distaste may be directed not towards the
intellectual as the tool/force of exploitation, but towards the
intellectual as the mendacious, autoelected prophet of the
working-class.  the crimson shade that was such the source of
paranoia a few decades ago fell squarely upon the intellectual.

> I say "were" because intellectualism is becoming less
> a profession and more a hobby as the structure of our
> society decays, or at least becomes more confused.

say more about this?  it is certainly true in that the proportion
of academia that feeds back into academia is less than it used to
be --  the college graduate has learned to tack an 'applied' onto
his degree.  but do you suppose that this has been noticed by the
anti-intellectual?

and the second half of your sentance intrigues...

regards,
dave liebman
replies to LBN@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
--
liebman@banana.ithaca.ny.us (david seth liebman)
The Twisted Banana BBS, Ithaca, NY
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:06:24 GMT

In article <doom.712205471@elaine36.Stanford.EDU> doom@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner) writes:

>This seems awfully silly.  McCarthy wasn't bragging, he was
>just being accurate.  He and Finch are both intellectuals. 

Indeed. I'd be suspicious of any definition of "intellectual" that did
not include these two.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher)
Subject: Re: The Bogeyman in Pop Movies
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 15:37:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.212901.2144@cfa.harvard.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul18.215536.17874@Princeton.EDU>
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes: 
>
>>Take, for example, the philosophy expressed in the films of George
>>Lucas and Steven Spielberg, films (including the Star Wars trilogy)
. . .
>>However, Mark Crispin Miller (Miller 1990) crystallized my unease by
>>pointing out that Lucas, Spielberg and other popular filmmakers of
>>the 1980s were far from being the liberals that the populace believes
>>they are.  Spielberg, for example, voted for Reagan, and the Star
>>Wars trilogy, of course, gave its name to the Strategic Defence
>>Initiative.  

The majority of the Americans who voted in two elections (a heavy
majority, in fact) voted for Reagan.  Maybe that makes Spielberg a
conservative, but it hardly makes him a facist.  (Mr. Nilges has
made it seem, in the past, that he views the two terms as synonymous,
so, perhaps, for him it does make Spielberg a fascist.)

Reagan's appropriation of the term "Star Wars" for the Strategic
Defense Initiative was over George Lucas' pummelled body.  Lucas
tried very hard, even investigating a lawsuit, to prevent the
use of the term for the SDI.  It may well be that Lucas was 
concerned with damage to his property by association with a
controversial measure, but it may also be that Lucas did not
want to be associated with it because he disagreed with it.  (Particularly 
since it was slightly reminiscent of the Death Star.)  This point is no 
better than guilt by association, and perhaps worse, since Lucas tried hard 
to break off the association.

I think Mr. Miller and Mr. Nilges are barking up the wrong tree,
here.  It's worth remembering that the Democratic party and causes
commonly regarded as "liberal" (such as abortion rights, free speech,
labor rights, feminism, environmental causes, and disarmament) receive
much heavier support, financial and otherwise, from Hollywood than
Republicans and causes commonly regarded as conservative.

--
		Peter Reiher
		reiher@ashby.cs.ucla.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: jpanusa@sol.UVic.CA (John Panusa)
Subject: Fringe Parties
Originator: jpanusa@sol.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 00:26:26 GMT

I am planning to my BA thesis on the 'Monster Raving Loony Party' and its	effects on British politics.  More specifically, if the popularity of     	parties such as this indicate levels of political efficacy in the general	population.  As well, if fringe parties assist mainstream parties by 		allowing frustrations to be focused in arenas other than elected assemblies.		

In any case, any info/comments on the 'Loony party or this subject would	greatly appreciated.


Thanks,	

Gianpaolo Panusa
jpanusa@sol.UVic.CA



Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3100 misc.legal:15089 alt.postmodern:2227 alt.censorship:6432
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:35:16 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Jul29.110318.1@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu> crywalt@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu (Christopher Rywalt, maladjusted cartoonist) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.031843.4563@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>> First, let's remember, as we should know from the low-Q
>> newsgroups, it is men and not women who are exploited by the
>> likes of Playboy and Hustler.  That is, the male nervous system

Your "exploitation", Gordon, is less a reality than a mysterious object
which has for you become a prize.  A prize cannot be shared, it must be
held by the superior term in a relationship.  The absurdity of making
victimhood a prize or privilege is projected on feminism by antifeminist
writers in a technical sense, for their imagination runs no further than
things like BMWs and bank accounts in a dysfunctionally individualistic
society.  BMWs and bank accounts cannot be shared, so
hyperindividualists subconsciously reason that victimhood must be such a
prize, and they fantasize that it confers advantages (which is logically
self-contradictory, for victimhood is by nature disadvantageous.)

I suggest to you that BOTH men and women are exploited by Playboy, but
women MUCH MORE than men.  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:2967 misc.legal:14623 rec.arts.cinema:105
From: reiher@ficus.CS.UCLA.EDU (Peter Reiher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,rec.arts.cinema
Subject: Re: The Bogeyman in Pop Movies
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:24:40 GMT
Reply-To: reiher@ficus.CS.UCLA.EDU (Peter Reiher)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department

In article <1992Jul27.185337.4754@cfa.harvard.edu>
egnilges@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ed Nilges) writes:

>The Hollywood elite is not specially liberal.  After all, it's the
>dems who'd increase taxes on highly-paid superstars like Costner.
>Makes sense that they should support Reagan (who himself was a
>Hollywood star.)

I suppose it depends on how one defines "Hollywood elite" and
"liberal".  If, by "Hollywood elite", you mean the 100 or so best paid
actors and directors in American film, and, by "liberal", associated
with the core causes of the Democratic party (economic policies
friendly to middle class/lower middle class people, feminism, abortion
rights, environmentalism, anti-censorship, reduction in military
spending, etc.), then the Hollywood elite is indeed "specially
liberal".  The amount of money donated to liberal causes and the
Democratic party by these people is much, much greater than the amount
of money donated by them to conservative causes and the Republican
party.  Similarly, they spend more time attending fundraisers for the
Democrats than the Republicans.

Of course, if by the "Hollywood elite", you mean only the studio
heads, and by "liberal" you mean the most leftist wing of the
Democratic party, or, perhaps, those even to the left of them, then
this statement may be true.  But, since most people wouldn't
understand either of those things from the plain statement, some
clarification may be helpful.

Part of the reason Quayle is bashing Hollywood and its values is that,
by and large, the influential people there aren't on his side, anyway,
and never will be.

--
		Peter Reiher
		reiher@wells.cs.ucla.edu

[Moderator's Note: Please note that this article is cross-posted to
 rec.arts.cinema, which is a moderated newsgroup.  If you intend to
 reply to this posting, please be sure to direct your posting to the
 most appropriate newsgroup(s).  -- Manavendra Thakur, Moderator,
 rec.arts.cinema.]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:43:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Jul23.223918.550@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.144223.26403@Princeton.EDU>
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>>The media consistently ignores and mocks
>           ^^^^(1)^^^^^ ^^(2)^^     ^(3)^
>There's a slight contradiction there.  Or perhaps Ed is redefining
>"consistently".  (I get annoyed when people misuse words for emphasis.
>"Literally" is the most common example.)

When people run out of arguments, they generally descend to stylistic
"flames."  Seth, "consistently" modifies the compound "ignores and
mocks", which expresses of course the activity of alternatively not
attending to and mocking another (with mockery being a way of ignoring
the message, thereby showing a deeper consistency.)  Got it? Good lad.
>
>
>If someone wants you to use words that he understands, how is that
>crypto-racist?

Movements for language "purification", whether English-only movements in
the American Southwest, French attempts to speak only the 2000 words
that Barthes ascribes to Racine, or Balkan movements that presaged
today's bloodletting, are always directed at a disfavored group, whether
Hispanics, French gastarbeiters, or Croats.  This makes them racist.

>  For that matter, what does "crypto-racist" mean?  (I'm

Modern-day racism dares not speak its name in frank and brutal 19th
century terms, so it is generally encoded, whether as a movement for
language purification or anti-Affirmative Action movements.


>quite familiar with cryptography, having published in the area, and I

Oooooh

>can't see how it would apply to racism.  Perhaps burning a
>DES-encryption of a GIF of a cross?)

A feeble but welcome attempt at humor.
>
>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: asp+@cs.cmu.edu (James Aspnes)
Subject: Re: In a libertarian society there would be...
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 01:41:25 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul22.214546.16887@news.clarkson.edu> walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,) writes:
>Could someone define the term "Libertarian" and "Anarchist" for me, and
>explain how they differ?

"Anarchist" is a very old, broad word that has little hard meaning left
to it.  In general, an anarchist is anyone who wants to get rid of the
State, or in less mythological terms, the exercise of power by any one
person or group over another.

Libertarians are people who believe in an absolutist version of
property rights.  Libertarians often appear to a subspecies of
anarchists because they want to get rid of any government power that
interferes with the exercise of property rights, and are opposed to
the initiation of force.  However, a closer analysis of the
libertarian interpretation of "force" reveals that it almost always
takes the form of actions such as murder, theft, or fraud that can be
construed as crimes against property.  Many anarchists feel that this
interpretation is unnecessarily restrictive, and tend to be suspicious
of Libertarians' willingness to justify private power. 

Libertarians are quite common in the computer world for reasons that
are not entirely clear.  They have a specialized vocabulary that is
often confusing to outsiders and leads to useless arguments about the
true meaning of force, violence, power, anarchism, the State, and
other loaded bits of jargon.  Nearly all of the responses to your post
will be written by Libertarians.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 00:01:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.234156.6391@leland.Stanford.EDU> dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.231748.9770@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>>                                             Our experience of real
>>life sex does a good job of modifying this view somewhat, but its
>>amazing how much of written pornography/erotica/whatever centers on
>>the theme of one or more women who are just so desperate for sex that
>>they will have it with *you*, right here, right now. 
>
>You're going to have to do better than this. Like produce
>*one* man who thinks women's sexuality works like you describe.
>This shouldn't be tough since you seem to think that *most*
>men think horny women want sex with anyone or anything.
>
>What you describe is a *fantasy* many men have. And that is
>why it appears in so much pornography.

I stand utterly corrected. I should have referred to this viewpoint as
one held in fantasies. However ...

My hypothesis is not that fantasies reflect their views of real-life
sexuality, but that they *influence* the expectations of sexual
relationships. 

Implicit in the hypothesis is the claim that the magnitude and nature
of the influence is significant. In evidence, I offer myself and every
male friend I have ever talked about this with, from about a dozen
countries, in 2 languages and spread over a 50 year age range.

>That it is a fantasy is a good reason to suspect men actually
>think this way, it is a good reason to be concerned about the
>implications of men who think this way. But if you look around
>you, you will find that men *don't* think this way, at least
>none of the men I've ever met think this way. This should cause
>you to discard your hypothesis that men's fantasies reflect
>their view of real-life sexuality.

I don't quite follow the logic here, in that what I need to look for
as a counter are men who don't have this fantasy (I include myself in
the list of men who don't "think" about female sexuality in this way).
Thats hard to do, and as I said, all the men that I have met and
talked with about this echo the influence of "sex-on-tap" women as a
potent fantasy. Perhaps I just hang out in odd circles.

-- paul


-- 
"Fun" is a word invented by advertising executives to sell soft drinks.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:2971 misc.legal:14655
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:36:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Jul18.215536.17874@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>However, Mark Crispin Miller (Miller 1990) crystallized my unease by
>pointing out that Lucas, Spielberg and other popular filmmakers of the
>1980s were far from being the liberals that the populace believes they
>are.  Spielberg, for example, voted for Reagan, and the Star Wars
>trilogy, of course, gave its name to the Strategic Defence Initiative.

But didn't George Lucas (or Spielberg?) go to court to try to get an
injunction preventing Administration spokesmen referring to the
Strategic Defense Initiative as "Star Wars", because it was bringing
his movie into disrepute?

Marvelous.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
From: clennox@vaxeline.ftp.com (Systems Anarchist)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:06:58 GMT

In article <Bs9CL5.G8u@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  If modern life and modern science can teach us
>  anything it's that we have to learn to live with great subtlety,
>  uncertainty, and equivocation.  

Sure about that?

-- 
Flame me at: clennox@ftp.com
Craig Lennox                                          phone: (617) 224-6222
FTP Software, Wakefield MA                            pager: (617) 597-0683
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal