HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HGERBER@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Hjalmar)
Subject: Re: Violence (was Canada Massacre)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:31:21 GMT

"John R. Beer" <jbct+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes >:

>> There is but one PRIMARY characteristic:  The unique identity of
>>                                           the individual human
>>                                           organism.  The latter is
>>                                           the natural domain of all
>>                                           perception and experience.

>> All else is secondary.

> Uh-huh.  What's the nature of this unique identity?  Can it be
> conceptualized? Expressed in language? or artistic expression? or
> action in general?

 You are John R. Beer.  Your genetic make-up is unique.  Your finger
 prints are unique.  If I use a cattle-prod on you (in the way that
 cattle-prods were designed to be used), only you, John R. Beer, are
 going to perceive and experience the stimuli that a cattle-prod was
 designed to produce.  (Calm down; I don't have a cattle-prod.):-)

 A collection of individuals looking on (to this hypothetical,
 sadistic deed) definitely do not experience or perceive the stimuli
 that the cattle-prod was designed to produce.  This is not to imply
 that they perceive or experience nothing - only that the experience
 of each individual remains unique.

 Each individual organism ends at its epidermis, and even that is but
 a tool under the command of the organism's mind.

 "Secondary" != Irrelevant.  Secondary characteristics are relevant
 in certain social contexts.

> If it's essentially something that one could talk
> about or express in actions understandable by others, it would no
> longer seem to be the fundamental building block upon which social
> activities like language use are built.

 Did I deny "social activities"?  Please explain.

> If it's not, then it starts to look like the wheel which has no
> connection to the rest of the mechanism--that is, it looks completely
> separated from "all perception and experience".

 I am not an inanimate object - like a wheel.  I have the ability to
 choose my (social) "connections".  That I choose to "connect" with
 other social objects (unique individuals) in no way invalidates my
 own unique nature.

Hjalmar - in search of practical atomism
-------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Feminist Censorship in Canada
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: alt
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:42:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.182211.8750@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon
Fitch) writes: 
   (stuff deleted)
>
>I have no objection to people criticizing feminist
>censorship, along with any other form of censorship they
>don't like, but I do object to people characterizing 
>feminism as a movement in favor of censorship, which is
>a false characterization, and to people taking simple-
>minded approaches to limitations on freedom of 
>expression, which has become banal.
>-- 
>
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )

O.k., this is fair.  I could have misread earlier posts of yours.  It
looks right now that you are right Muffy...
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: My Apologies (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:44:51 GMT

levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:

>> And, how do I maintain an
>> erection while I am raping someone?

>...Unfortunately, this is not a problem for all male humans. 

>(Read the rather graphic case reported in today's Chicago Tribune. It
>unmade my whole day. :-( ) 

I am really sorry I did not make it clear, that this question was
asked as part of a joke. My apologies a thousand times over
to Steve Russell, who pointed this out.

(And it wasn't even *his* joke, but another poster's!)

For those who cannot get the Chicago Tribune. The rape story involves
several young men who sexually abused a young woman with a mental
age of about six, promising her they would take her on a "date" if she
submitted to them. The abuse was very graphically described.

After the abuse was done, the woman waited for hours for the young
men to come back and take her on the "date" they had promised. 

The mens' defense was that they were engaging in *consensual* sex. Ugh!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:44:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.165749.27316@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1g2egpINN3dl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cxm7@po.CWRU.Edu (Colin Mclarty) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston) says:
>>
>>>In article <1992Dec8.042359.9391@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
>>>> One more question : how many women complaining about "sexism in math/chemistry/
>>>>physics/etc are working in those fields ? It seems to me that most of
>>>>complaints come from politically active persons from outside. 
>>>
>>>Most of the ones posting to this and related threads, anyway. Of the
>>>email I have received, there's one geophysicist, one biologist, and one
>>>physicist: I am an astronomer. 
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>Helen Johnston       | Astronomye is an harde thynge and yvel forto knowe.
>>>johnston@fys.ruu.nl  |      -- William Langland, Piers the Plowman
>>>
>>
>>	And I know two women active in science and engineering who
>>prefer not to be known as complaining but are very glad that women
>>outside their fields are putting on pressure.
 
Thought I'd checked for errors, <sigh>
>
>I'm surious, why should -anyone- outside a field have any say? Should the
>teamsters have a right to dictate generic research? Should physicists
                                  -genetic-
>be able to arbitrate contracts for the teamsters?
>
>This makes no sense.
		  to me.
> 
>>Colin
>
>
>Rich
   again 
>payner@netcom.com
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: MATH, was (Re: Gender Differences - Sophie Germain)
Date: 12 Dec 92 22:00:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <92344.075902RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>-From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
>-
>-I would also like to remind you, Mr. Parikh, that 100 years
>-ago, almost all scientific research had for centuries been
>-done by Caucasians. And there was, at that time, a theory of
>-"scientific" racism, which stated that the "inferior" people
>-of color were not capable of intellectual achievements
>-as sophisticated as research mathematics. I am sure that,
>-if there had been a net in 1892, it would have been full
>-of self-appointed pundits (like Nietzsche's horrible sister),
>-proclaiming,
>-
>-"White people DO seem to be better at Math and that is how
>things are at the moment!"
>
>Dear Lenore:
>Would you like to tell me the answer to the following question, posed
>in `white', i.e. Roman notation:
>
>How much is CXVIII times XI  ?

Hey, this is the same as the other problem, and 1298.
 
>Or would you rather solve it in non-white notation?
>
>How much is 118 times 11 ?

Ditto...
 
>The second problem is posed in the notation which is known in the
>West as Arabic notation but the notation is actually Indian.  It is
>known in the West as Arabic notation because it was the Arabs who
>brought it to the West from India.
>
>By the way  the answer is 1298   :-)

But what is it in Roman Numerals?
 
>Rohit Parikh
>

I am not trying to be facetious, but I would like to differentiate 
between math and arithmetic. 

Curiously, my advanced calculus teacher (a woman) had a wonderful
clear exposition, but I once heard her lament that one of her students
had a polynomial named after him, and she had no such accomplishment.

BTW, I am not trying to make any sort of supiority/inferiority argument,
just adding another data point. 



Rich 

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:02:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.175825.22868@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>>Oddly, the thread rini started in sci.skeptic (a gender neutral pronoun)
>>>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>is still occasionally getting activity.
>
>>>To correct you for the second time, I did not start a thread in
>>>sci.skeptic.
>
>>I was correct the first time. 
> 
>>I recall you responded to a post which had sci.skeptic in the newsgroups
>>line. It was your response that started the thread. That you did not see
>>this is irrelevant to what happened.
>
>Rich, I *responded* to a thread.  I did not "start" that thread.  I did
>not bring up the topic at all.  This is a *fact*. 

Let me try one more time, YOUR RESPONSE STARTED THE THREAD. Ergo, you
started the thread. That you do not read the group does not change this.
 
>>If you don't like this, edit the newsgroups line.
>>
>>It almost sounds like you feel that since you were not there, you could
>>not possibly have started a thread. 
>
>No, I feel that since I did not initiate the topic, I could not have
>possibly started a thread.

Why not?
 
>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,misc.misc
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:43:49 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>>>>	How many fat exercise enthusiasts have you seen?

>>Hmm.  I guess I tend to think that baseball is pretty lame, but football
>>looks pretty much like aerobic exercise to me.  Wrestling too, though I
>>wouldn't really know, because I haven't done it.  (The trademark of 
>>aerobic exercise is breathing hard.) 
 
>The activity must be sustained -continuously- for at least 10-15 minutes.
>Wrestling is just short bursts of anaroebic activity. Football is similar.

So, let's see.  Sprinters aren't doing aerobic exercise either, right?
And swimmers aren't either (since their continuous swims are generally 
under 10 minutes).

>And once heavy breathing starts, you have probably exceeded your capacity
>to get oxygen and gone anerobic. Heavy breathing is not a trademark of
>aerobic exercise.

Hmm.  Gasping for air is not good, but an increased rate of breathing
is definitely a hallmark of aerobic exercise.

>>Basketball is *definitely* an aerobic exercise, and, I don't know about
>>you, but I certainly would not call Kevin Duckworth "thin" or even
>>"average sized."  He kinda reminds me of Winnie the Pooh, figure-wise.
 
>It depends of how fit you are. 

What depends on how fit you are?  Whether or not you can be called 
"fat"?  Well if you want to argue that no fit person is fat and vice
versa, no wonder you claim to see no fat exercise enthusiasts.

>Weight lifting is anerobic. If you are fat and lift weights, you will
>gain muscles under tha fat. But you will not get thin.

Right.  Yet it is still exercise.  I never said that exercise will make 
you thin.  Almost to the contrary, I said that you can like to exercise 
and still be fat.   Apparently, we agree on that.

>>Fat joggers are often taunted, especially fat, female joggers.  
>>Ditto an "aerobics".  Ditto on swimming.  Ditto on biking.
 
>Fat joggers are rarely exercise enthusiasts. Swimming is good exercise,
>but does not tend to burn body fat. And if they are really fat, then they
>probably need to start with walking. For many people, jogging -is-
>anerobic.

This is all pretty much consistent with what I was saying.

>Methinks you could do with a bit more reading on the subject. You might
>start with something by Covert Bailey.

Does his info contradict anything I've said here?

rini 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Feminist Censorship in Canada
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: alt
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:32:41 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec11100028@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
   (my original article deleted)
>
>Afraid?  I'm not afraid of feminist censors, but I certainly think they
>are wrong.  I don't think Gordon has questioned (although he may have,
>but not in what I have read) why some people object to feminist censors;
>he has simply pointed out that just because some censors are feminists
>does not mean that all feminists are censors.

No, what Gordon has done repeatedly was to say that anyone who worries
about feminist censors was just bringing it up as a smokescreen to
devalue feminism.  I have no problem with most of the ideas of
feminism.  (In the Feb. '92 issue of Commentary, the editor tells me
that I sound like a feminist...)  However, I definitely have a problem
with the idea of censorship...  (I think that you agree with me on
this one BTW...)

>
>Muffy

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
From: Neil.Rodgers@newcastle.ac.uk (Neil Rodgers)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Apologies
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:36:35 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

Well, the last few articles from Andrew.Lodge@newcastle and myself have caused
quite a stir. This is what's known as a WIND-UP!! We didn't realise that so many
people would take offence to it - perhaps it's not the done thing anywhere else
but the North-East of England. In future, we'll keep our wind-ups between
ourselves!


Sorry, again - no harm meant!!

Neil and Andy.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WH
X-To: MICHAEL KAGALENKO
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:44:00 GMT

mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes...
MK> In article <1992Nov28.211011.652@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanfo
MK> DU (ljf) writes:
MK> >In article <1992Nov26.015526.20009@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mkagalen@lynx
MK> .northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
MK> >>In article <1992Nov24.163544.1@hamp.hampshire.edu> awinters@hamp.hampshire
MK>  writes:
MK> >>>              .................................
MK> >>>  .......  but why is this feminism forum dominated by men?  I cannot hel
MK> >>>but notice and be concerned here, when I see more women in the diet suppo
MK> >>                                              ^^^^^^^^^^        ^^^^^^^^^^
MK> >>>news group then I do on the feminism news group.
MK> >> ^^^^^^^^^^                  ^^^^^^^^
MK> >
MK> >Who knows?  Maybe women in the diet support newsgroup know they'll
MK> >receive support, not be called fat bitches who are probably frigid.  I
MK> >suspect the most interesting convos on women and feminism take place
MK> >in the mailing lists.  (If I had a dollar for every woman who says she
MK> >avoids soc.women and alt.feminism like the plague because of the nasty
MK> >atmosphere on these newsgroups, I could pay off my Visa bill...)

MK>  You've forgotten an important factor : sexist UseNet software allows
MK> subscription  to newsgroups only in accordance with gender roles. Only
MK> the most brave womyn can argue with mysoginist newsreaders.


And only the bravest myn can argue with misandrist newsreaders.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * "She's not your type, Jim, she's intelligent"
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6119 soc.men:21250 soc.women:21534
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:00:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: glia.michael.724528853
Organization: University of Washington

In <92350.160218RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>  Incidentally, I suspect that one of the reasons that men do not complain
>about discrimination against males is that men are brought up to feel that
>complaining is not masculine.  There MAY be a biological element here.
>I can whine and complain with the best of them, but I find it almost
>impossible to cry!!  Women seem to find it quite easy.  is that something
>in which you can be influenced?  Or is it quite natural like sneezing?

I feel certain that the biological influence (if any) is small.  Men
are culturally conditioned to what you just described.  However you
*can* overcome this -- I have.  It took a lot of hard work to see
through the illusion of what is masculine, but I've discovered that by
opening up my emotions and accepting them and believing in myself
despite my culture that I'm now stronger than I was before.  Sounds like
a paradox -- I can cry yet I am not weakened by it.  But its true.

>-In other words: oppression of both sexes goes together, and fighting
>-for equality benefits everyone.

I agree.  And women ARE fighting for their equality.  However in this
fight, the men do have one advantage.  Women aren't (at least not to me)
trying to prevent me from overcoming my cultural "training."  If I've
gotten any negative reinforcement, its from my own sex (males).  But
a true measure of what *I* call being a man is that I don't really
care what they think.  I'm true to myself.  I actually feel sorry for
most men who will never realize the denial they live in in rejecting
their emotions to the degree they do.  Oh what they miss in life.

>  It benefits when the inequality is artificial and comes from some
>tradition or scripture which did not take into account the possibilities
>of men and women.  But the inequality could be an INTELLIGENT taking
>into account of the existence of natural differences.  However, I don't
>want to be dogmatic about it - there are many things we don't know yet.

My observations in seeing what men and women can do now compared to what
they could do hundreds of years ago lead me to believe that the opinion
of women hundreds of years ago was sadly mistaken.  As time moves on and
the cultural pressure eases, women continually become stronger and the
distinctions between men and women become more blured.

As yet I see no reason to assume that men and women are not equal.  In
fact to assume they aren't seems to me to be a crime.  Therefore until
I see such proof, I will whole heartedly support such safe measures as
help bring that equality into being as soon as possible.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: feminist sound bytes
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:52:48 GMT

In <1992Dec9.234718.26837@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>In article <1992Dec9.161156.12950@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:

>> BUT, what you left out was 
>>that although 'women hit men as much as the reverse, and strike the first blow
>>about as often', women and men hit differently.  This is where biology comes
>>in.  Obviously, the average woman is physically smaller than the average man. 
>>Most women who strike out physically are more likely to slap than to punch,
>>thus doing less damage than the average male who strikes with his fist. Not to

>Ah, so biology *does* play a role in differences in sex-related behavior! I
>thought everybody "knew" that it couldn't possibly play any role whatsoever. :)

>But if women don't "fight as hard" with their domestic mates, gosh, might
>it not also follow that they don't "fight as hard" in the business realm?
>Granted, the METHODS of fighting are not the same, but if you argue that
>women are LESS aggressive in the one, it becomes difficult to argue that
>they have IDENTICAL degrees of aggressiveness in the other. Having
>admitted this, it then follows that womens' position of relative
>disadvantage in the business world is due not to "discrimination," but
>to a lower level of overall aggressiveness.

Robert, you have completely messed it up again.  Women can be just as 
aggressive; witness the way that they resort to weapons to even out the
balance in domestic disputes.

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.feminism