HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Saturday, 12 Dec 1992 19:41:39 EST
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: MATH, was (Re: Gender Differences - Sophie Germain)
 <1992Dec12.220005.22244@netcom.com>

->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?
-
It COULD be MCCIIC.  I once assigned to an elementary programming class
the exercise of converting from arabic (Indian) notation to Roman and
vice versa and we discovered that Roman notation is ambiguous.  Perhaps
there is a protocol for picking a favored notation but I do not know
what it is.  Would  MCCILIL  be also acceptable?  I just do not know.
Or even MCCLXXXXVIII  ?

->Rohit Parikh
->
-
-I am not trying to be facetious, but I would like to differentiate
-between math and arithmetic.
-
  I have to disagre with you here.  For example, sorting is a mechanical
activity, but INVENTING, say the bubble sort, or the heap sort is a
mathematical activity.  Thus you could publish a new algorithm in a
theory journal but you could not publish an execution of such an algorithm.
The insight in using positional notation, (e.g. in  115, the first 1 stands for
100, and the second for 10) is a very valuable innovation.  In Roman
notation C stands for 100, no matter where it is.
-
-BTW, I am not trying to make any sort of supiority/inferiority argument,
-just adding another data point.
-
It does not matter to me - as a three times Putnam winner, I am not
scared!  :-)
-
-Rich
-
Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Football
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:10:55 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|   [ pro football ] 
| 	Looking at this description, it is what seems the most like
| RS's description of how to get ahead: by being violent and aggressive
| to others. And it also fits what he seems to think about the female
| sex: that women are genetically programmed to find their greatest
| happiness in servicing men and children, with exceptions to this rule
| being irrelevant.

But one doesn't get ahead in pro football simply by being
violent and aggressive to others.  One must be violent and
aggressive in a highly structured way, and one must be
helpful to one's own team.  The kind of solitary verbal
violence Net participants are so fond of is very foreign
to pro football, or any other team sport I can think of.

Of course, I'm speaking of what pro football is for the
participants.  The overwhelming preponderance of the
participants are spectators, either at the area or in
the comfort of their living rooms.  But I take it these
have not been brought into the metaphor.

| 	I don't like football because it seems too gladiatorial for my
| taste; tackles are especially bad. I am especially disappointed that
| those concerned about violence do not take aim at football, despite
| its very violent nature. Boxing may be worse overall, but at least it
| is one versus one, and it doesn't have tackling.

Actually, there hasn't been a lot of physical damage
done in pro football; the participants are heavily
armored.  The armor, and their size, creates an
appearance of gladiatorial combat, but in fact pro
football is a highly intellectualized sport which
can't be followed without considerable study.  I
don't know much about it, but occasionally I've
gotten fans to explain what was going on to me and 
the explanation of a play often takes considerably
longer than the play itself -- unless one is familiar
with a large repertoire of arcane symbols and 
concepts.  It's probably the most intellectual of the
big spectator sports, which is interesting -- the
rules could have been rewritten to exclude this
factor.  I think the intellectual dimension is in 
some way appealing to the spectators.

| 	Those concerned about sexism will also find football
| objectionable, though that might be corrected by setting up all-female
| football leagues.

Maybe.  One of the appearances of pro football is
physical brutality; I don't know how many women want
to get into it, although with humans there's a few of
everything.  A woman who could hold her own on the
field would be quite a draw.  But an all-female foot-
ball league would almost certainly not be taken
seriously, unless there were some change of rules to
emphasize other aspects of the game, because the
brutality aspect would be considered second-rate.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: asgard@plx.com (J.R. Stoner)
Subject: Re: Violence
Keywords: n
Organization: Heironamous Botch's Murk Works
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:22:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.134838.27623@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:

Danger! Danger!

_I was thinking about this net last night and all the arguments about violence 
_that have been flying around.  Many men have been arguing here that men are as
_much victims of violence as women.  Okay, I'll give you that one.  But I ask
_you, since women commit very little crime in general, who do you think is 
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      SOPHIST ALERT!

Men commit very little crime, in general.  And don't you forget it.

_committing the majoritiy of violent acts?  I think the men here have to stop
_directing their anger at feminists who call attention to violence issues, and
_re-direct their anger at the men who are committing these violent acts.

Has it occurred to you that the difference of result might be because guilty
women are _convicted_ less often than guilty men?  The convicted women are
imprisoned less than convicted men?

"Why, that little lady couldn't possibly have been holding that gun in the
bank willingly.  She must have been forced by that evil man next to her in
the photo.  Let us sentence him to 3 years in the pokey.  Let us sentence her
to a stern lecture about associating with bad elements (by definition men,
women are never considered as such).

Basically, misplaced chivalry says that women just are not as _evil_ as men,
dontcha know.
-- 
J.R. Stoner, DWMIT - asgard@plx.com - sun.com!plx!plxsun!asgard
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:15:25 GMT

baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:

>I just know I'm gonna regret this, buuut......

>It sure looked to me like this recent exchange between rini and Heiner was
>all in fun with sarcastic and rather outrageously humorous quips from
>both of them. If this is a joke could I please have, like, one smilie?

Whaaat?  You *doubt* that Heiner is (or rather it now seems "*WAS*")
my honey?  What, pray tell, lead you to that conclusion?  Tell me Duane:
are you always this suspicious of women?????  

>If not take it to email.

Yet another attempt by men to silence women's problems.  Well, Duane,
it's time we all learned: THE PERSONAL *IS* POLITICAL!!!

rini


















And they say us _feminists_ can't take a joke.... ;)
From: wilson4450@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Feminazi
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:28:25 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa


Feminist! Just a bunch of Cum catchers!!!!

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Diane
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 11:58:22 CST

In article <1992Dec11.061814.21252@netcom.com>
payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
 
>Weight lifting is anerobic. If you are fat and lift weights, you will
>gain muscles under tha fat. But you will not get thin.
 
  Rich, can you make the leap of faith and recognize that it takes
*energy* in the form of calories to build muscles?
 
>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.
>Methinks you could do with a bit more reading on the subject. You might
>start with something by Covert Bailey.
 
Rich, I'm really not trying to pick on you, but I think *you're* the one
who has some reading to do. Try sticking to hardline, factual, well-
documented stuff such as basic physiology and excercise physiology texts.
Maybe this will clear up your confusion about how calories are used.
BTW: the very act of living (just lying there, doing nothing but breathing,
pumping blood and maintaining body temperature) takes an average of
of 40 cals/hour.
If the only way to burn calories was through exercise, physicians would
not worry so much about chronically ill, bed-ridden patients getting
enough calories, right?
 
Diane
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: False allegations of abuse / Chesler's book...
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:08:51 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <BzKFHA.Do2@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com sez:
>
>It would be a hard case.  "Soldier of Fortune" magazine beat such a 
>liability claim in what must have been the clearest possible facts:
>Plaintiff was shot by a person hired via an advertisement in SoF,
>offering "gun for hire, all jobs considered" (or words to that effect).
>At no point in the appeals does any court dispute the obvious
>meaning of the ad.  But, after some intermediate losses, SoF finally
>prevailed, and had no liability to the plaintiff.

As I understand it, SoF faced more than one such suit.  According to
an article I read a month or two ago (in NY Law Journal?  Natl Law
Journal?), they recently lost their appeal in a case where they *were*
found liable.

["Cite?  Cite?  I don' have to show you no steenkin' cite!"  There was
a time when Mead Data would have allowed me find the answer for free;
nowadays, it's folks like Terry, Ted, William D., and Tim who will
have to run the dispositive Lexis search.]

-- 
Morally and artistically, Henry Miller had MORE right to free speech than
Walt Disney and [Father] Coughlin because Miller was an honest man whereas
Disney and Coughlin were liars.   - Ed Nilges
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:32:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.220230.25754@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.175825.22868@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
      (stuff deleted)
>> 
>>>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

Can someone tell me why there is a fight over whether rini started a
thread in sci.skeptic or not.  Why is rini so offended by the fact
that she may have started it?  Why is it so important to Rich's life
that he keeps "correcting" rini when she said that she didn't?  Should
any of the rest of us care?  If not, could you take this to e-mail...

-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: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Abuser's Denial
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:50:28 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Candada Massacre



farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

I wonder about the stats, too.  My father was physically abusive to my
mother.  We'd see and hear the punches and then see the resulting
bruises on my mother, but the very few times my sister and I
confronted my father, he'd deny everything.  One time my mother hit
him back, catching her ring on his face and scratching him.  His face
started to bleed and he stopped.  I think he was so shocked that she
had hurt him that he was stopped dead in his tracks.

However, if you asked my father if he ever hit my mother, I bet he'd
say no and really believe it (particularly since he's no longer
abusive).  If you asked my mother if she ever hit my father, she'd
probably start to cry and tell about how she once hit him and made his
face bleed.


	I've had similar experiences in trying to communicate
	with abusers.  The completeness denial can take is
	truly awesome/scary .

Steve R











Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:17:08 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Well, Rini, you got it backwards. Obviously those schoolyard bullies
>are not fighting for anything constructive. It's just their "Resentment
>Against Achievement" that's coming through. And those smart boys
>DO end up in a better position than the bullies. 

Now now Robert.  I think you're just showing resentment against their
acheivement in beating you up... ;)   (Gosh, that's not unlike how some
feminists feel ya know.)

But anyway, Robert, you just agrued a few posts ago that aggression 
was essential to success.  Now you tell us that aggression is an
indicator of failure and resentment.  I'm smelling some post facto
rationalizations here.

rini
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6237 soc.men:21411 soc.women:21653
From: Diane
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:49:17 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri

In article <1992Dec18.210810.24366@netcom.com>
sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
 
>The only reason that feminism has gotten as far as it has is because it
>has been able to badger its critics into stunned silence. We must be
>silent no more.
>
 
Yes! As a matter of fact, the very *first* thing I noticed about you
was your stunned silence. Get real.  Are there any other conspiracy
theories you wish to discuss? What about aliens, Elvis? If you waive
skepticism for your own brand of Manly PC, can you really call yourself
a skeptic? or is this why you're the *past* president?
 
Diane
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:33:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.170030.3345@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>>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.
> 
>>If a fit person and a fat person go running together, chances are that
>>the fit person is getting aerobic exercise, and the fat person is not.
>>If you are very fit, heavy exercise may well be aerobic.
>
>I just hate to see the misconception that "fat" and "fit" are 
>non-intersecting sets. 

How about the misconception that fat people are healthy? Most fat people
that I have known have plenty of problems, their feet always hurt, they seem
to catch every cold that goes around, some have back problems, etc...

Perhaps you are confusing 'fat' and 'healthy'. Not all fat people are
unhealthy, but a greater percentage than normal are.

BTW, by fat, I do not mean overweight by some printed scale, but that they have
a layer of extramuscular fat. Many overweight (by some scale) people have
little or no fat. I imagine by the same scales, Arnold S (Terminator) is 
overweight. Muscle weighs more than fat you know.
 
Perhaps you should define what you are talking about?

>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: a thought on men and
Date: 16 Dec 1992 21:10:36 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>MLP> jhh5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jennifer H. Hwang) writes:

>MLP> >The Wet Heat method....
>MLP> >has been used in India for over 20 years without substantial
>MLP> >adverse side effects.

>MLP> Given the population growth in India over the past 20 years,
>MLP> I find this particular evidence less than compelling.

>Not necessarily... It might be that only a *very small* number of men had
>been using that method, and while it may have worked for *them*, it didn't
>have enough of an effect to change the general population growth.

You are quite correct, of course.  My answer was too pat. 
(I intended it humerously.)


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: feminist sound bytes
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:34:07 GMT

mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>Oh, I see.  You believe we are all prisoners of our hormones.  *THAT*,
>>I do NOT buy.
 
>It've been sold to you already. You just haven't noticed, because it 
>comes in package Human_Life(tm)

So I guess you would accept the PMS defense, eh?  "I didn't *mean* to
cut his dick off, your honor!  It's just that it was the day before
my period, and he just wouldn't stop whistling."

rini
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6316 alt.dads-rights:3038 soc.men:21530 misc.legal:21579
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: False allegations of abuse / Chesler's book...
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:10:49 GMT
Organization: Knapp & Viola, Attys. at Law, San Mateo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.home.vix.com

In a recent missive kpscarr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Karen Pelton Scarr) tells us:

*Couldn't the book possibly be considered solicitation to commit a crime (not
*that I am *advocating* such a view, mind you!)?  Remember the Dr. Spock "burn
*your draft card" case?  (Or did one have to solicit a particular person?)
*
*KP
* 

As I recall, the issue in the Dr. Spock case was that he was on a
mililtary base, or right in front of one, and so there was a vital
element in that case which isn't present here.  Not to say that that
element would be vital here, the point being that they are two cases
where the determinative factors are wholely dissimilar.


-- 
   LOOKING FOR:  Ed Young, Paul Murray, Vinnie Cattaloni, & Lorna Taylor
I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, & founder of the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
Ask me about FREE!  FREE files available via anonymous ftp 128.45.1.1; dir /pub
          sex is a misdemeanor - the more I miss, the meaner I get.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: "Converting" Heterosexual Women...?
X-To: DAVID STEINBERG
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:13:00 GMT

dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes..
DS> In article <1992Dec7.031938.583@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanfor
DS> U (ljf) writes:
DS> >In article <24180@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) write
DS> >>The lesbian influence on feminism is a valid topic.  I believe that
DS> >>much of the anti-male philosopy of femininsm is lesbian based.
DS> >>There is a sexual compitition for women between lesbians and
DS> >>men.  It is there, and to better understand feminism it needs to
DS> >>be looked at.
DS> >
DS> >Starbuck, do you have any idea what sexual orientation is?  How
DS> >can there be a sexual competition for women between lesbians and
DS> >(hetero/bi) men when lesbians want lesbian women?  How do you suggest
DS> >that lesbian women talk hetero women into wanting sex with another
DS> >woman?  That has about as much chance as a hetero man talking a
DS> >lesbian woman into wanting sex with men.

DS> I dunno about this.  I recall reading an article in Ms Magazine about
DS> a year ago called Orchids in the Artic.  Its point was that women who
DS> are in relationships with men should seriously consider getting out of
DS> them, or at least take steps that would put barriers between the two.
DS> I also recall the repsonses in this issue to Naiome Wolf's (sp?)
DS> article on Radical Heterosexuality.  Maybe the attempts of these women
DS> are in vain, but it does seem to be trying to convince heterosexual
DS> women to become lesbians.  (Actually, I tend to agree with most of the
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DS> points in these articles, but that's another story...)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Okay, why?  And what are the points made?

Just curious...

---
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 * Unregistered Evaluation Copy
Newsgroups: alt.feminism