HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 13 Sep 92 07:04:10 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Sep13.174007.794@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> 
moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:

>> >gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>> >| Communism is bankrupt; there is not communist state where most people
>> >| support it and want to be there.

>what ever happened to Cuba? Ok, it's not economically viable, but then
>neither would a capitalist state in a communist world be...

When was the last time that free election were held in Cuba?

>> Is there any experience, or a serious of experiences, that can 
>> convince you the communism can't work?  You see, I'm interested 
>> in theory only when it can be checked by experiments.

>vis: define `success'. 

Having a society where most people want to keep its basic structure.

>Cuba worked for a number of years. 

Communism may work for a generation or two, especially if it 
comes after a corrupt regime, but it can't survive for too long.

>Village democracy worked for generations in ancient Greece. 

Especially when two third of the population were slaves...
(The biggest success in ancient Greece where Sparta and Athens.)

>Both failed really badly when outside conditions changed. 

Both failed when people could see what happens in other places and 
had the freedom to move.  Brain-drain can destroy every society.

>Is village democracy therefore bad? 

If most people who live there don't want it then the answer is "yes."

>The same thing could be held of the failure of
>Brazil to survive as a democratic capitalist state.

To survive as a democratic capitalist state (or as a communist state)
you need some tools to fight large scale corruption.  The US shows that 
these tools can be a part of capitalist state (remember WaterGate?).

I still wait to see a communist state (or society) that manages
to mix these tools into its structure and gives the brightest 
and the best conditions that can prevent a brain drain.

>*love* & *hugs*
>  ____MOZ___

Hillel                                             gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Intimacy is very important to me, and I take it very seriously;
this is why I detest the current fad of hugging everyone around one." 
                                             --  Clay Bond
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex is sexist? (was Re: Dworkin...)
Date: 7 Sep 92 22:58:01
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: world
	<MUFFY.92Aug29084105@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Sep5.151919.670@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz's message of 5 Sep 92 15:19:18 +1200

In article <1992Sep5.151919.670@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
> Muffy, he might be Bi. (thats a very soc.bi type might be ;-))

Well, I kind of figured he wasn't since he didn't know what a
"monosexual" was, but you're right...*smile*.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: FORGERY ALERT (Was: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency))
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep9.081351.8685@leela.cs.orst.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:01:43 GMT


==========================================================================
   In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep08152113@gray.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Alan Taylor) writes:
==========================================================================

	A forgery has been committed. I absolutely and unconditionally
	deny writing the article with the header above.

	Either someone has forged the posting or there has been
	unauthorized use of my account on gray. 

	This forged posting was *not* on the local newsreader
	as of 08:14 this morning; I suspect it had already
	been cancelled by the person or persons who forged it.

	If anyone has a copy of this posting *with the path*,
	I would very much appreciate having such a copy emailed 
	to me.

	I am deeply and angrily affronted that obscene, sexist
	and hateful garbage has been posted under my name.

	I do not yet know who did this, but I very much want
	to find out.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: NETIQUETTE
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:46:23 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand


please, everybody, take a few pointers from the usenet FAQ.

1: minimise quoted material. summarise. if the author disagrees with
the summary they will undoubtedly post a correction.

2: think BEFORE you post, not after. save articles, then edit, reply
and post at least 10 minutes later.

3: ad homenium attacks are best sent in email, or to alt.flames. (my opinion).
    The group careth not that X thinks Y is a moron.

4: attribute quotes. I am having a hell of a job trying to find the quotes
used, and I have a couple of dictionaries of feminist quotations and a VERY
wide background in feminist works (ie, I have read and taken notes on almost
evry work cited so far, all 4 of them) I recognise much of the argument, but
some of it seems a bit far-fetched. Especially when a quote from a posting
echoes the paragraph above it, but gets it wrong!

5: short, meaningful subject lines. If you must flame, use the subject line
`flame'. Don't be afraid to change a subject line if you feel it is not
appropriate. Face it, most people read every article in the group, and 
this will get you round the kill files.

MOZ


*love* & *hugs*
  ____MOZ___
 /\  _______\   (moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)
 \ \ \____  /             I've been stripped bare and nobody cares
  \ \ \/ / /     all the people I looked up to are no longer there
   \ \/ / /           I've been filled up with useless information
    \  / /                 spewed out by papers and radio stations
     \/_/            I've been waiting for tomorrow all of my life
  excerpted from the album `soulmining', by Matt Johnson (THE THE)
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:776 soc.women:16275
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:15:32 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis) writes:
| ...
| All the women programmers and project leaders I have known have been
| absolutely first rate.  Remember the days in the schoolyard where you
| get two teams by having the team leaders take turns picking from a pool?
| Well if I had to make a programming team, I'd make darn sure I picked
| all the women first.... Capable, and very smart.
| 
| Now, I'm not sure why this is.  Is it because if a woman gets to that
| stage it's because she has to be shit hot (ie, 200% what a man can do),
| or is it that women naturally have a greater affinity for that kind of
| work?

I've observed the same thing, and wondered why it was so.  The
best thing I could come up with was that the women were more
businesslike, and less likely to use the machines for games or
to show off.  That may be cultural, because women don't seem
less playful than men to me, but they do seem less taken with
machines; when it comes to play, they seem to prefer social
games.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:10:44
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<715566430@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1992Sep4.150138.20420@panix.com>
	<ATAYLOR.92Sep8145850@gray.nmsu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ataylor@nmsu.edu's message of Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:58:50 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep8145850@gray.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Alan Taylor) writes:
> Is FITCH aware of this difference?

WI'm just curious about this; I have noticed you calling Gordon Fitch
"Fitch" several times now while attacking.  On the other hand, you call
me (Muffy Barkocy) "Muffy" when flaming.  Is this just random
inconsistency or is there a reason?

This reminded me of the discussion of how women are called by their
first names while men are called by their title and last name and I was
wondering if this was a common thing to do when actually *trying* to
attack/insult/flame people?  Is it somehow more/less insulting to men
to just be called by their last names (particularly with no title)?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pot Calls Kettle "Sooty" (Was: Some examples (Was Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?)))
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:20:21 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Sep9.013016.4946@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>I'm a feminist.  Am I oppressing you?  

I'll give you the full list in some other time,
but for a start you are against "choice for men."
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Star Trek Opening
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 06:01:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.134803.21357@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>>- >>	I LIKED THE STAR TREK OPENING BETTER BEFORE THEY WERE PRESSURED
>>- >>	INTO CHANGING IT! 
>
>I don't believe "they" were pressured.  Roddenberry was very open to
>ideas and suggestions.  If someone were to bring up a good point, he
>would more than likely agree.  For instance, someone pointed out that
>there should be a Russian on board the Enterprise since they were the
>first in space.  The character Chekov was created.

Nothing to do with feminism, but this is alt.feminism.  :)  The one
thing Roddenberry didn't seem open to is including lesbigay people in
the series.  I can understand that for the original, but not ST:TNG.

>More relevant to this group, though, was the original pilot which
>featured Majel Barrett as "Number One," the second in command.  NBC
>would not accept the idea of a woman second in command.  In 1966 it
>was unheard of that a woman would be in a position of power on a
>weekly tv program.
>
>(Then again, in ST II, Saavik (Kirstie Alley) was referred to as Mr.
>Saavik)

I still think ST:TNG could go a long way in having women in more
non-traditional occupations.  Right now we see a female physician and
a female empath--both very nurturing.  The engineers, the security
people, and most of the officers are men.  Most of the aliens they
deal with are male or have male personas.

I guess I should followup to rec.star.trek...
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Forward to the Past: Quote Choice for Men Unquote
Date: 12 Sep 92 15:31:46
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<716320428@lear.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 12 Sep 92 17:53:49 GMT

In article <716320428@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Sep12093709@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>I don't see any difference between a mailing list and a newsgroup, other

>A mailing list is a private forum, and a newsgroup is a public one.

I see.  So, what you don't want is a *publically* "pro-feminist" forum?
Why would that be?  I thought the whole point of, for example, this
group, was to allow people to say whatever they wanted to, publically.
Of course, I know this is really for the anti-feminists, but still...it
only seems fair to give feminists a forum too...

Muffy

--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: a programmer is not an engineer, indeed
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.men
Date: 14 Sep 92 09:35:11
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Sep8.045754.1775@panix.com> <715952301@lear.cs.duke.edu>
	<1992Sep14.022506.9937@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu's message of 14 Sep 92 02:25:06 EST

In article <1992Sep14.022506.9937@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>a programmer is NOT an engineer. we engineers have to take math and
>science courses that the typical programmer couldn't handle on his (or
>her) best day. once a programmer becomes a software engineer, they have 
>to run this gauntlet like all the other engineering professions. it's the 
>fear of these math and science classes that keep women from becoming 
>engineers...not the old boys network.

You're right, a programmer is NOT an engineer, and an engineer is NOT a
programmer.  We programmers have to take programming courses that the
typical engineer couldn't handle on their best day.  Before anyone tries
to flame me for this, I offer anecdotal proof.  I took a Microprocessors
course offered by the Engineering department (I was majoring in CS).
The class was about half CS and half Engineering majors.  When we had to
pair off into teams, the engineers didn't want to work with us inferior
programmers.  I got an A in the course, enjoyed it immensely, and, by
the middle of the semester, was helping the Engineers debug their
assembly language programs - they were a bit faster than me at
*building* their circuits (although I happen to love building circuits)
but they had no concept of how to program, having only had some trivial
intro to FORTRAN class prior to this (junior/senior level) class.

By the way, I also took several math and physics courses, as they were
required by the CS department for a degree in CS.  Math up to Linear
Algebra (plus probability and statistics) and two semesters of physics,
to be specific.  Physics is great...*smile*.

Anyway, where do you think this "fear" of math comes from?  Math is not
dangerous or anything...*grin*.  I sincerely doubt that women are
instinctively "afraid" of math and science.  Rather, it seems that they
get lots of messages from society that a) "women aren't good at math"
and b) "it's not 'feminine' to like science".  Then, of course, you may
say that women should resist these messages, and some of us do.
However, men don't get them at all, which seems a little unfair, yes?
(And yes, men do get other, equally negative messages, but we're talking
about math and science here.)

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:36:28 GMT
 <1992Sep11.222620.25592@ils.nwu.edu> 
 <MUFFY.92Sep11163322@remarque.berkeley.edu>  
 <18rd46INN5t1@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <18rd46INN5t1@agate.berkeley.edu>
spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>          first name          last name         initials
> 
> men      13                  15                8
> women    10                  2                 1

[...]
 
> Ours is a small group.  In an organization large enough you
> need a policy to assign logins, that might tend to make
> them mostly random.

Am I to take it that the absence of a policy means that the above table
is a result of personal preference on the part of those obtaining the
accounts?  If that's the case, then perhaps the question "Why do women
receive account names based on their first names more often than men?"
might be answered by "because women prefer it that way".

I wonder if the large number of women who change their last names upon
marriage has anything to do with this phenomenon?

I'm not trying to make any claims here... just asking questions.
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminists (Was: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: 8 Sep 92 11:18:33
Organization: savage hackers
	<gpln9r+.payner@netcom.com> <1992Sep3.165031.4382@panix.com>
	<ATAYLOR.92Sep4171409@gauss.nmsu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: ataylor@nmsu.edu's message of Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:14:09 GMT


In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep4171409@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> <In article <1992Sep3.165031.4382@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> <By the way, Nosy, if you're out there: why don't you 
> <explain to us why you focus on Dworkin?  You like her
> <stuff?  Find it fascinating?
> Dworkin speaks to thousands of people every year,
> has written several books which seem to sell copies,
> appears on various tv/radio programs and has
> been instrumental in pushing some of her 
> ideas into law...
> [...]
> If David Duke had gotten some of HIS agenda
> made into law, I'd be paying a lot more attention
> to him as well....

  I've got news for you -- many of the laws on the books, far more than
andrea dworkin will ever pass, are from people who were, in essense,
david duke clones.  Duke could have been president when lots of the laws
that are still around were passed.

  BTW, sorry if I missed this -- but what laws did dworkin actually help
pass?  E-mail is fine if it's been posted to death, but I keep hearing
about this without seeing what she actually did.

> Ignoring fanatics whose following
> is growing can be dangerous, as history shows
> to even the most casual reader.

  The problem is that so many fanatics are so firmly entrenched in our
current power structure (e.g. the congress, senate, white house and
judicial system, along with corporate america) that most people don't
even see them.

> Is Fitch asserting that Dworkin is of no
> importance? Is Fitch going to claim that
> he's the "real feminist" and Dworkin isn't?

  Dworkin is important, as I said earlier this morning... but it seems
to me that her import is not as a lucid spokesperson for feminism, but
rather as a tool that anti-feminists can use against feminism.  I think
that you'd find that many more people (myself included) would prefer
fitch's ideas of feminism over dworkin's, since his jibe more along the
lines of mainstream feminist ideologies.  Not that I think that anyone
*can* speak for all feminists, just like no single person can speak for
christians or republicans or whatever -- certainly I disagree with
gordon at times, but there's something to be said for someone who
actually can speak coherently about their ideas and back them up with
facts and references from other reasonable people.  Listening to people
on the net (not mentioning any names, but frequent posters to
alt.feminism would fall in this category...) argue is amazing -- if some
jewish people were complaining about their treatment by the germans
during WWII, I'm sure we'd see some posts that echoed hitler's rhetoric
and wondered why the jews were making such a fuss over it?

 -- d
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Grading papers
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:26:58
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<AWERLING.92Sep8153601@dante.nmsu.edu> <2457@tymix.Tymnet.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: baba@Tymnet.com's message of 8 Sep 92 23:40:48 GMT

In article <2457@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article <AWERLING.92Sep8153601@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>|> Males have "he."  We need a new gender-neutral pronoun.  I prefer
>|> "it," but I figure that would never fly. ;-)

>This subject and this solution to a perceived need has been around for quite
>a while. I contend that if WE NEEDED a gender-neutral pronoun WE would have
>invented it already. After all, Necessity is the Mother of Invention.

Well...actually, there *is* a pair of gender-neutral pronouns (there is
also a possessive form) which has been invented, by those people who saw
a need.  You will find it in frequent use on such newsgroups as
alt.sex.bondage, if you would like to check it out.  The pronouns in
question are "sie" (gender-neutral equivalent to "she" and "he") and
"hir" (gender-neutral equivalent to "her" and "his").

The thing you seem to have overlooked is that not everyone thinks the
same way.  Therefore, some people (such as AWERLING) believe that we
need these pronouns.  Others (such as yourself) do not believe that we
need them.  Therefore, even though they *have* been invented (and maybe
even more than once), you might never hear of them if the people you
know do not use them because they do not think they are necessary.

Now that you know that they have been invented and are being used, do
you think that we need them?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: a programmer is not an engineer, indeed
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:39:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.152837.9951@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> 
>> You're right, a programmer is NOT an engineer, and an engineer is NOT a
>> programmer.  We programmers have to take programming courses that the
>> typical engineer couldn't handle on their best day.  
>
>i doubt it. in my experiece the if you look at most universities, the
>ranks of the business and computer science departments are populated
>with a bunch of engineering "wanna-be's". 

 Not in *my* experience.

>the running joke in most engineering schools is that when people ask
>you your major your freshman (freshperson?) year, you reply...
>"i'm in pre-business" or "i'm in pre-computer science"

 The running joke in *most* engineering schools? I think you have
 a very vivid imagination.

>actually, you are right with respect to the fact that most engineers
>are abyssmal programmers. that's because their classes have IMHO far
>too few classes. but out in the "real world" (where i've been) the
>corporations prefer to hire engineers and teach them to program well
>as opposed to hiring you CS folk and teaching you to be engineers.
>
 This may have been true in the past but not anymore. In *my* experience
 I have indeed seen EE's who were hired to write programs and have spent
 years doing this and nothing remotely related to EE. I have also seen
 managers who have realized how stupid and wastful it is to hire EE's
 and then having to train them as programmers when they could have hired
 CS majors in the first place.

 It is generally not difficult to pick up any additional course work or
 training needed to do what these engineers are hired to do so your
 analysis is flawed. You want to do mathematical modeling, you take a
 minor in aerospace engineering, meteorology or whatever you want to
 model and concentrate on numerical computation parallel computing.
 You want to design computers, operating systems, etc. you take a
 minor in Computer Engineering, EE and so forth.

 Please spare us the CS bashing bullshit.

-kelvin