HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: wedding etiquette
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:09:22 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Jul23.181917.5391@ads.com> charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>You might say that your marital status is your own business and in
>some sense that is correct, but if you're going to interact
>socially at all with other people, it does come into play, and if you
>retain your own surnames, there will be occasions when you're making
>people guess.

To this I would only add that if you don't want to follow a convention, which
is your right, and you are going to put people in a position where they have
to guess, they deserve 100% slack if they guess wrong. People appear
to have a lot of trouble with this when it involves their names. I knew
someone by the name of Kathy who decided one day that she wanted to be called
"Kathryn." That's fine, and it's her right to want to be called a certain 
thing, but anybody who had known her previously who messed up and called her 
"Kathy" was treated like some kind of war criminal. That's not fine.

The purpose of conventions is mostly to prevent such kinds of embarrassing
situations. You don't have to follow them if you don't want to, but if you
choose not to do so, you own the choice, and it is your job to smooth over 
any difficulties caused by that choice.

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.couples
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Subject: Re: waiting 'til marriage
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Organization: The Internet
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:34:39 GMT
Followup-To: soc.couples

In article <1992Jul23.164321.16037@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>I would be interested in statistics comparing happiness and
>longevity of marriages where both partners entered as
>virgins against where one or both had had previous sexual
>encounters.

So would I, but don't combine happiness and longevity!  I believe they
can be and are often mutually exclusive.

-- 
Brian Charles Kohn             E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker  (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM)
Poet of "Quality"
    'Hope, not fear, is the most positive advocate of action.' - S.R. Lawhead
                   Stamp Out "SO": "RP" = "Romantic Partner"
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: Need help: avoiding jealousy when making new friends
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:28:41 GMT
Organization: Id Are Us
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

>barks@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
>
>
>]I am in a committed, long term relationship with my SO, and we have
>]pledged exclusivity to each other.  We love each other, and our sex
>]life is pretty exciting (knock on wood).  I'm male, by the way.

<Important Disclaimer>

Now, your relationship with your new friend may be nothing like
what I've just described, but it may be important to get a little
Devil's advocacy here. . .

Okay, Gary, allow the prosecution a little leeway here:

>]Specifically, I just met a woman at a dance that both my SO and I were
>]at.  Not only did we enjoy talking to each other a great deal, but we
>]found each other very attractive.  I let her know about my SO in the

Okay so far.

>]put all the cards on the table, acknowledging that I was attached
>]and that she wouldn't be predatory, yet that we found each other
>]attractive.  In a short space of time, we've made ourselves fairly
>]close confidants...we've told each other quite a bit about our lives,

Start racing heartbeat: bah-BOOM, bah-BOOM. And what's this bit
about SHE wouldn't be predatory. It sounds like you have a deal
and that it is up to HER to keep things kosher. Very Dangerous,
my man. Now you have (nominally) abdicated your responsibility.

The We-agreed-she-wouldn't-attack-me-part also implies: Well-
I-can't-help-it-she-just-attacked-it's-not-my-fault argument.

Also, you must admit: first you say that you agreed she wouldn't
be predatory, then comes that _oh_so_fatal_phrase_:

      "yet ... we found each other attractive"

<Perry Mason music increases in volume>

The "yet" seems to imply a slight refutation of what went before,
the "we-agreed-she-wouldn't-attack-me part".

Hmmmmmmmmm. Very Tricky. It seems to me that you are altogether
too casual in tone, yet revealing in your choice of words as far
as intent.

It's as if you were saying: See! It really is platonic! Isn't
it great that we're so hot for each other and can behave like
civilized adults, and not give into this throbbing passion!

I also agree with Chip:

>If you're attracted - you have already gone to far by being will to maintain
>a secrecy (although slightly thrilling) about this new relationship.

P.S. Please don't ask me how I know so much about this ;-)

Dano
From: fitch@aesc.cs.odu.edu (Master THEspian)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: Need help: avoiding jealousy when making new friends
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:36:59 GMT
Organization: Thespian Enterprises, ltd.

George Dibos writes:
>barks@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
>|> 
>|> Kind of an ethical dilemma here.  SURELY it's not necessary to "put the
>|> blinders on" once you are in a relationship and run away every time you
>|> find an attractive person of the opposite sex in your vicinity, right?
>|> It seems the best thing to do is try to be conscious of attraction and
>|> deal with it in a mature way...but it's no simple trick to negotiate this
>|> between three people!
>|> 
>Sorry, Gary, but what you call "dealing with in a mature way" has a one
>word name:  Rationalization.  Maturity is being aware of the REALITIES of
>human nature--the power of attraction, and all that it leads to--and
>having the strength of character to walk away from it.  At the very least,
>meaning if you two DO manage to keep it at a friendship-only level--you

Excuse me?????  if you two do manage to ....??????  It sounds like someone
has experienced a personal failing and thus expects the whole race to lack
strength of character to avoid it.
>are shooting some real torpedoes into the woman you claim to care about.
>Believe it.  Believe it.  Believe it.  You are (or will be when you tell
>her about it) ripping the guts out of her, no matter WHAT she claims to
>the contrary to please you with her "mature" response. 

Who says you cannot be friends with someone you are attracted to?  It's
the very same people who believe you can't be friends with someone with
whom you once had a romantic relationship of some sort.  Once and for all,
this is bull.  I have many friends to whom I either was or am attracted
but that doesn't mean I am unfaithful to my SO of 19 months whom I love
very much.  I simply accept these people as friends and nothing more.
If you are involved in a relationship with someone who cannot accept your
simple friendships then you really should consider how many times this
is going to negatively affect your life in years to come.  

>
>don't play games.  That's true maturity.  If you examine your feelings
>honestly and decide that you LIKE playing these games (which is a legitimate

I don't see any games.  It sounds to me like someone trying to live an honest
loving life with someone they care for.  I say good for you for acknowledging
it but you might want to think some more on finding the appropriate
circumstances to discuss this with your SO.

      -THEspian

*****************************************************************************
* If all the world's a stage,        Tracy Fitch, AKA  Master THEspian      *  
* I demand to see the script         fitch@xanth.cs.odu.edu                 *
* I want better lighting                 NCSSM c/o 91                       *
* and where the hell's the stage manager when you need him?                 *
*****************************************************************************
           if you see my Firebird, tell her I love her  --tsf
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: waiting 'til marriage
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:53:06 GMT
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Followup-To: soc.couples
Organization: The Internet

In article <92206.184250SEK@psuvm.psu.edu> Sonja Kueppers <SEK@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.133439.6449@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com
>(The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality) says:
>>In article <1992Jul23.164321.16037@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
>>writes:
>[asks if virgins have happier/longer marriages.]
>>So would I, but don't combine happiness and longevity!  I believe they
>>can be and are often mutually exclusive.
>Hmm.  I would think that marriages where both partners entered as virgins
>probably do last longer.  I would theorize this based on the idea that
>the same kind of people who would be virgins at the time of marriage (often
>sincere Christians in our culture) would be people who highly valued
>a lifelong marriage.

Agreed!

>I'm not sure how one would quantify happiness, however.  I would like to
>think that all marriages are happy, though of course this isn't actually
>true.

And here's where I disagree.

>I'm also thoroughly convinced that longevity and happiness often do go
>hand in hand.

I believe that happiness does lead to longevity.  The reverse is not
necessarily true.

>  I don't think I know anyone who has been married in excess
>of 20 years who would not say that they were satisfied with their marriage.

Whao...let's not start switching terms here in the middle...we were
talking about happiness, not satisfaction, which I consider to be a
lesser quality.

I know of many couples who stak together because of religious
considerations or for the children.  They may indeed be satisfied,
especially since they're sacrificing something for their ideals, but
they are not happy.

-- 
Brian Charles Kohn             E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker  (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM)
Poet of "Quality"
    'Hope, not fear, is the most positive advocate of action.' - S.R. Lawhead
                   Stamp Out "SO": "RP" = "Romantic Partner"
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: kja@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (krista.j.anderson)
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:54:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.142719.19934@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
> In article <1992Jul28.111718.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
> >In article <CB.92Jul28110837@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
> 
> >> Lowie's text "Indians of the Plains" gives population estimates for the
> >> various tribes of the Plains, such as the Mandan, Lakota, and Pawnee
> >> tribes.  What's striking, by comparison with modern society, is how
> >> small the numbers are.  A typical tribe had 2000 to 5000 people in its
> >> heyday, including tribes whose names are very familiar to us today.  It
> >> stands to reason that a tribe in the northern plains would be limited in
> >> numbers, since the same land supports relatively few people even today.
> >> But I find it interesting that our intense study of early "cultures" can
> >> be based on such small societies.  Does anyone have any basis for
> >> disputing Lowie's numbers?
> 
> >I'm not sure I get your point.  Almost by definition, all early
> >cultures are going to have a small population (depending on how you
> >define "early").  You've got to start somewhere.  During the time of
> >the Roman Empire, there were few "big" cities.  What was the population of
> >Rome at that time?  20,000?  === Al Sparks
> 
> Yet we constantly see allusions to the 100 million native Americans killed
> by the Europeans in the early 16th century.  Considering that the U.S.
> population was only about 10 million 200 years later makes these kinds of
> numbers difficult to accept.

First of all, please note that "the Americas" are not the same as
"the US".  Populations in the area that is now Mexico and Guatemala
were dense.  Populations in the area that is now the US, Canada and
Alaska were sparse.

     Recent estimates place the hemispheric population at
     100,000,000 in about 1490.  Perhaps two-fifths of that total
     [40M] inhabited North America, include the civilized states in
     Mexico (which contained some 30,000,000 people).  Native
     Americans achieved those densities during prehistoric times
     because they inhabited a relatively disease-free paradise and
     domesticated high-yield cereals and tubers. [1]

As many as 90% of those Native Americans were killed by mainly by
diseases, and to a lesser extent by war, etc.

The population of North America in 1950 was 267 million.
In 1650, Europe had a population of 103 million, Asia 292 million,
Africa 100 million and Oceania 2 million.  Why should the western
hemisphere have been any less dense?

Reference

1. Dobyns, Henry F., _Native American Historical Demography a
Critical Bibliography_, published for the Newberry LIbrary by
Indiana Unviversity PRess, 1976.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul29.142719.19934@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<1992Jul29.110640.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:09:31

The population of Central America and the Andes area of South America
was supported by extensive agriculture rather than by hunting and
gathering.  The population there got fairly large and large losses
occurred after the Conquest.  Many people accept the theory that
the cause was European diseases.  The population of the region that
is now the United States is controversial.  When I was a child in
school the numbers were thought to be between 400,000 and 1,000,000.
Later 4 million was mentioned, and Noam Chomsky has cited some source
that says 16 million, a number more suited to his anti-U.S. propaganda
goals.

Hunting and gathering societies in areas with cold winters are
frequently pruned by starvation.  When these societies encounter
societies with good agriculture, then they tend to become dependent,
either on raiding or on handouts.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.war,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.japan
From: regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
Subject: Britain vs. Italy Was Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor 
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:59:24 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul21150900@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) write
s:
[deletions]
>
>    Note, however, that the British had already declared
>    war on Italy; they were not engaged in "peace" talks.
[deletions]

Minor correction here, which actually strengthens ATAYLOR's contention that
Taranto is not equivalent to Pearl Harbor: Italy declared war on Great
Britain in June 1940, roughly five months before Taranto, not the other way
around (though Britain did declare war on Nazi Germany).  Britain was
certainly not eager to add an extra enemy in the summer of 1940!

Robert George
(speaking only for myself)
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: soc.history, the looney bin
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:55:24 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <visser.711612078@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>
>	I think things are better than they used to be because its really
>	only Multu and his opposition now.  And Multu is so predictable
>	that kill files work well enough for regular readers.
>
>	Maybe what soc.history needs is a weekly posting about how to
>	set up a kill file for Multu specifically.
> 

Someone suggested the following in my kill file and it worked
very well.  I haven't seen a Mutlu posting since I put it in:

/turkish/h:j






-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Date: 24 Jul 1992 17:06:00 GMT

In article <VVIRRANK.92Jul24100451@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, vvirrank@cc.Helsinki.FI (Ville Virrankoski) writes:
> In article <23JUL199214120738@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> smpod@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
> 
> >
> >Why not bomb the factories, rail and shipyards instead of homes, temples and
> >hospitals?
> >
> 
> Destroyed facilities could be repaired with workers, but if You attack
> workers, they wouldn't recover so fast.
> Attacking homes is less risky as attacking military targets. Military targets
> are quite small and so easily defended. There are much more civilian targets
> and if You are supposed to defend them, You'll need a lot of stuff.
> Public, cultural and national need to defend certain places.
> 
> And every man, every plane, every AA gun assigned to these duties are away
> from front line usage!


One other point which has not been mentioned in any of this thread is the fact
the Japanese industry was decentralized so much that a significant portion of 
the war production was done in backyard factories. The only way to totally
disrupt the industrial base was to destroy the cities. There are several
histories of WWII which mention this so you might want to check in a library.
I can't remember the exact reference but I do remember it exists. 














-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:17:18 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <CB.92Jul28110837@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
> 
> Lowie's text "Indians of the Plains" gives population estimates for the
> various tribes of the Plains, such as the Mandan, Lakota, and Pawnee
> tribes.  What's striking, by comparison with modern society, is how
> small the numbers are.  A typical tribe had 2000 to 5000 people in its
> heyday, including tribes whose names are very familiar to us today.  It
> stands to reason that a tribe in the northern plains would be limited in
> numbers, since the same land supports relatively few people even today.
> But I find it interesting that our intense study of early "cultures" can
> be based on such small societies.  Does anyone have any basis for
> disputing Lowie's numbers?
> 
> Chris Brewster
> cb@cray.com

I'm not sure I get your point.  Almost by definition, all early
cultures are going to have a small population (depending on how you
define "early").  You've got to start somewhere.  During the time of
the Roman Empire, there were few "big" cities.  What was the population of
Rome at that time?  20,000?  === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: The history of bathing and baths
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:36:56 +0900

In article <1992Jul28.104149.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca>, wknowling@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
> I am doing research on bathing and the history of baths, saunas, turkish 
> baths, medicinal baths, etc. But I have found that there is almost no 
> information on this subject area. If anyone has a reference or even misc. 
> information about baths, historical events that happened in a bath I would 
> appreciate hearing about it through E-mail or in Soc.history.
> 
> 

Umm - events that happened in the bath...

Archimedes jumping out of one, shouting "Eureka!"
Marat getting stabbed in one.
The Brides in the Bath getting murdered in one.
 
There just have to be some more...

Linden



-- 
Linden Salter-Duke		email: SALTER_DUKE@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Northern Territory University
Darwin, Australia		Snail: Box 40146, Casuarina, NT 0811
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
	<SMITTIE.92Jul27205930@beach.csulb.edu>
	<1992Jul29.150105.1125@island.COM>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:50:13 GMT

>in fact though, the raid was designed to force the US to the bargainning
>table).

And what is your source for this little piece of misinformation?

smittie
-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
GEnie, MCI, AOL:Smittie | If all of us were as smart as we think we are the
smittie@beach.csulb.edu |  current world problems would be yesterday's news.
________________________|___________________________________________________
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: seraphim@ais.org (Henry Hardy)
Subject: Re: Population of Rome
Summary: Rome had large population under the empire, small during Middle Ages
Keywords: Rome,population,demographics
Organization: none
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:59:21 GMT

During the Empire, there were 150,000 persons on the dole. This was a ration
of bread and other basic foods given to heads of poor households. In the 300's,
(ACE) there were 44,000 tenement houses and about 1,000 private residences and 
palaces in the city. During the Gothic Wars in the 500's, the population fell
to about 300 plus the East Roman garrison. During the Middle ages, the entire
city existed in and around the Temple of Hadrian (Castel St. Angelo.) In
1870, the population had risen again to about 200,000. For references, see
Procopius, Gibbon, Mommsen, Lanciani.


Newsgroups: soc.history
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:51:22 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Jul25.182515.19144@nntp.hut.fi> c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen) writes:

+>In article <dusek.711746860@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:
+>>smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
+>>>visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes...
+>>
+>>	It was the British who dropped on civilians first. 

	Just so there is no confusion, the above comment is not mine.  
Even though an empty attribution of mine sits above it.

	The original point I was trying to make was that the attacks on
England such as the fire-bombing of London and the attack on Coventry
were on a scale that made them unique up to that point.  

	I dont think that German actions up to that point in poland 
or france/low countries or the spanish civil war could be compared to
those attacks either in purpose or in scale.


	I see revenge as being one of the motives for the actions of
bomber command (England) later in the war toward German cities and I
can't really fault them for seeking revenge considering German actions
in 1940-41 toward England.  I find fault with some of the raids 
and how they were conducted, but I can't see the whole policy as wrong.

	I mean if you want to go back far enough, I suppose you could
start talking about German Zeppelin raids in the first world war as
"civilian bombing".  I dont see much sense it doing that though.