HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dr@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Posting in Dutch or English (was: Re: Female breast (bosom) experience wanted!)
Summary: Please edit followups
Keywords: femal breast bosom
Organization: Auburn University, AL
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:51:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.094755@cs.utwente.nl>, fijma@cs.utwente.nl (Duco Fijma) writes:
> In article <BvtoDq.LLH@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> 
> [Breasts deleated]
> 
> |> 
> |>   Jezus, Esther (and Marieke, etc) is there some compelling reason why 
> |>   you insist on posting to a worldwide distribution in Dutch?
> |> 
> |>   First of all, your comments appear to be directed at your compatriots
> |>   so a worldwide distribution is inappropriate.
> 
> Bullshit! The two main languages on these group are Dutch and English. The Dutch
> language is one of the main topics of this group. If you aren't interested,
> please unsubscribe.

Please re-check the followup group list on your post, as well as the 
followup list on the many, *many* postings in this thread (which I 
have renamed) The origional post, and the FLOOD of followup posts 
were CROSS-POSTED TO SCI.ANTHROPOLOGY.  

The traffic on soc.culture.netherlands is many times the traffic on 
sci.anthropology, so the disruptive postings have had a greater effect
on sci.anthropology than on soc.culture.netherlands (there have also
been non-disruptive posts).

>|>   Second, unlike, say, French or Spanish or English, Dutch is not very 
>|>   widely spoken outside of the Netherlands... <some deletions>
>
>And for this people, this group was created. Furthermore, believe it or not, there
>are foreigners interested in Dutch language. 

Again, the objection is based on the fact that sci.anthropology has been 
included on the distribution list - you seem to be operating under the
false assumption that *only* soc.culture.netherlands is being posted to.

Closing remarks:  Non-USA perspectives are welcome, even solicted, in 
sci.anthropology, provided the posts have some anthropological merit.
Also, I have *not* changed the followup on this post, since (for example)
the question of which language one would use under given circumstances 
might be of interest to sci.anthropology subscribers.  If anyone wishes 
to followup to this post, please consider your target audience.  Thank you.

	D.R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Roller  |    Bitnet = dr@auducvax            |  "Because we're all
Auburn Univ.  |  Internet = dr@ducvax.auburn.edu   |   in this together."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.anthropology:1142 soc.culture.netherlands:3353
From: s1006420@titan.ucc.umass.edu (If you want peace work for justice)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,soc.culture.netherlands
Subject: Re: Female breast (bosom) experience wanted!
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:05:17 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <101492142504dude@losers.hacktic.nl> dude@losers.hacktic.nl writes:
>In article  <Bvrw41.8Es@nic.umass.edu>, 
>Vera B. writes:
>
> S> I once had a professor who referred to African Americans as niggers
> S> and then he would add, "but I'm not really racist, ha-ha" - and
> S> I would think - Really? either you don't know what you are or you
> S> don't know what racism is. He couldn't see any racism in his 
> S> attitude either. Funny, isn't it? 
> 
> No it's not.

He thought it was. Some people think racism is funny - it doesn't
mean it is and it doesn't change what it is - racism.
In fact, racism can only function as long as you don't think about
it, don't criticize it and co-opt with it. The same for sexism...
 
> 
> S> I've seen these excuses before...racists and sexists will always need
> S> to justify their lack of respect as something else other than what it is.
> S> 
> S> Vera B.
> 
> So I can't make a joke about my black friends ?
> Once, we were in walking in the dark, and I could only hear one of my
> (black) friends, I couln't see him. So I asked him to smile so I could
> at least see his teeth in the dark (no a great joke, but it's an example).
> Was I being a rascist at that time ?
> Or is there a difference between jokes *about* women/blacks/* and jokes
> *against* women/blacks/* ?
> 

If you are implying that jokes are some abnormal absolute form
of social communication that have to be only one thing - that is -
either all jokes are racists or all jokes are not racists 
independently of what they say - then we disagree.
If you are trying to say that it is the same for sexism -
either all jokes are sexists or they all are not - we also
disagree. And if you are saying that jokes do not have various
levels of meanings and purposes in them - and especific social
functions - then we certainly disagree.

Is there a difference between being sexist and non-sexist? Yes.

> S> 'There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see'
>
> 
> 'Don't take yourself too seriously'                 Dan Millman
>

No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.      Smith

Vera B.
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: The Bible In The Context of Its Time
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 08:36:00 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Oct9.192405.21864@midway.uchicago.edu> coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

 >       However, I would argue that the interest in institutions
 > by anthropologists is meerly to gain an understanding of them in 
 > so far as they can advance research on the individual's participation.
 > In other words, the anthropological study of institutions meerly
 > allows the construction of a culture so as to provide background
 > for studies of the individuals.  In sociology, institutions are
 > studied as entities unto themselves.
 >  
 >      Certainly methodologies play a critical role, however I could
 > argue that there exist strong similarites between anthropological
 > and sociological methodologies.
 >  
 >  This is interesting, but I am not certain that what anthropology 
 > does in this case is conduct a study sociologically.
 >  
 >   Yes, and you will find that the questions asked by anthropology of
 > educational institutions still focus on the individual.

What nonsense you write about what other people are doing! How on
earth do you know all this?

If you are proposing here a study of Anthropology as a discipline,
please support your thesis with the facts surrounding the real-life
work of anthropologists. Certainly there is an abundance of material,
and I expect there are plenty of Anthropologists who would not be
too disturbed by your following them around asking silly questions as
they go about their work.

At least you will probably not be chopped up with a machete for not
seeking permission from the village before taking a tape measure to
their land, or shot by the local political opposition. Should be
fairly safe, so please do not hesitate on those grounds.

 >   True enough; however the question still remains critical to 
 > the study of anthropology.

Anthropology is NOT concerned with the truth value of propositions.
We do not give two hoots for your uncertainties and arguments, or what
questions you consider critical, if you cannot present field evidence
to clarify and support them.

Thank you

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: Changes in Methodology
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:09:40 GMT

In article <-1366700118snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct14.004945.2088@midway.uchicago.edu> coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>
>I accept it now that what you meant by "new" is what is generally
>referred to here as "post-modernist" anthropology. Yes, of course
>their works are on my shelves, as they are I expect on those of most
>contemporary practitioners. The remainder are within reach at any of
>our four University libraries here in Perth, or can be readily brought
>in through our suppliers.
>
>You might have simply referred to them right at the start, if for no
>other reason than as a courtesy to your readers . . .

  You might, in fact, be correct in saying that it would be a 
courtesy for any readers.   However, I did not find your method
of asking to be one that was appropriate.  I would also hope that
you would assume a certain degree of academic competence on the
part of those who post here.(I note at this time that not everyone
posts every citation that they draw from).  In short, I do 
not appreciate your attempt to undercut my argumentation meerly
in reference to my supposed lack of academic training, which boardered on
questioning the integrity of the University of Chicago, which only
arose out of your inability to assume that I might actually 
know what I am talking about.  I will admit, however, that I am
not used to the formality that you seek when making discussions
of this nature either with other posters on this and other
Internet forums, among my colleagues, and among my professors--
fortunately for me, most of them assume I do indeed know my material
and would find it superflous to support my argumentation in a 
general conversation.(This, in fact, includes colleagues and
professors who work within the field of Anthropology.)

  I will attempt, when in discourse with you, to provide more
general citations provided that you allow me the liscence of
skipping a few where they are not immediately present at mind
or in my room.  This will, of course, require that you trust
my competency both as a student and as a student of anthropology.

Thank You,

  Charles O. Onstott, III

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School

"Les dieux existent : c'est le diable."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
From: mdouglas@cad067.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Maria Douglas ~)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: homosexuality and evolution
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:53:12 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp.

Ethan writes:

	Homosexuality *might* serve to increase an individual's fitness 
	in some circumstances if it resulted in a general benefit to the
	immediate relatives of the person in question.  For example, 
	a homosexual might give assistance to number of families, without
	having children of his/her own to consider.  A male homosexual
	might form part of an unusually effective combat force (like the 500
	of Thebes).  In this case human homosexuality would be analogous to
	altruistic behavior among other social species, in which behavior
	that decreases the chance of immediate offspring nevertheless
	increases the fitness of the kinship group and thereby acts to
	propagate the altruistic genes.
-- 
I've understood it that homosexuality does not so much increase the individual's
fitness as much as the race as a whole because homosexuality represents the vast *variety*
of sexual behaviors we have as Homo sapiens.  The more different behaviors we have,
the more likely it is that our species will continue...?

If this is dribble, please clue me in--I haven't been in on the whole thread.
--
Maria E. Douglas	(408) 765-4728		    
Intel Corporation	mdouglas@cadev6.intel.com  

"Boy, I don't know what that thar Space Mead is,
	but ahhhhl drink it!"

		Jake Barlow,
		Bounty Hunter and Cthulhoid Investigator

Standard disclaimer applies...
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Just a comment
From: maven@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Jim Baltaxe)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:13:28 GMT
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington

In article <1992Oct8.150923.26343@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> rspear@sookit.jpl.nasa.gov (Richard Spear) writes:
>Jim Baltaxe (maven@kauri.vuw.ac.nz) wrote:
>: In article <Bvs8ry.JtM@acsu.buffalo.edu> v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar) writes:
>: >Hello folks,
>: >
>: >	Ya know, I don't really mind all this hub-bub about breasts -- in
>: >retrospect it might even be funny.  However, what's really starting to annoy
....

>: 
>: BTW why is the net traffic always so bloody PREDICTABLE!?!

>: Jim Baltaxe - jim.baltaxe@vuw.ac.nz
>
>
>
>there was an earlier thread on this topic in this newsgroup - i'm sure 
>that it is available somewhere...
>
>--
>richard
>rspear@sookit.jpl.nasa.gov
>all disclaimers apply

Yeah, And it degenerated in exactly the same way - somebody makes the
obvious adolescent wisecrack, only begging for an equally obvious
response, then they get exactly that. 

Let's accept that some people are embarrassed enough about the topic
that they have to deal with it with some weak jokes and get on with
what we were talking about. The original question was worthy of some
discussion, particularly as it DOES lead in to just this sort of
dangerous territory. Maybe we should all engage in what once upon a
time was called "reflexive anthropology."


-- 
Jim Baltaxe - jim.baltaxe@vuw.ac.nz
Computing Services Centre - Victoria University of Wellington - New Zealand
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Time is such a valuable commodity because they're not making it any more.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Sexism vs. Racism (was Re: Female breast (bosom) expe
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:04:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.214421.2648@kbsw1> chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044) writes:
>Gil Hardwick states that everything in science is context 
>dependent. Is one plus one equalling two context dependent?

YES, ABSOLUTELY. What if our symbol "two" stood for this many objects: x x x

and our symbol "one" stood for this many objects: x

then one plus one would not equal two. However, due to the linguistic
CONTEXT of english, ie "two" stands for this many objects: x x
one plus one does equal two.

-r
From: annius@sif.research.ptt.nl (Annius Groenink)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Female breast (bosom) experience wanted!
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:22:48 GMT
Organization: PTT Research

eric@flab.fujitsu.co.jp (eric) writes:

>In article <101492142504dude@losers.hacktic.nl>,
>dude@losers.hacktic.nl writes:


>In a perfect world, it would be okay to make this kind of joke under
>any circumstance, because it wouldn't imply that you hold a
>prejudice or look down on blacks. In the real world... Ah well, you
>know. Of course, in this particular case, the black guy was your
>friend, and one is of course always free to make jokes about one's
>friends (isn't that what friends are for?). As I see it, you are even

`Some of my best friends are black' :)

-- 
Annius Victor Groenink      Universiteit Utrecht      PTT Research Leidschendam
Mathematics/Comp. Sc.        avgroeni@cs.ruu.nl       +31 70 3325445 (weekdays)
Atari ST/Music          A.V.Groenink@research.ptt.nl  +31 70 3464732 (evenings)
_____________My opinions are my opinions____________  +31 5700 29396 (weekends)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: pound@ruf.rice.edu (Christopher Brian Pound)
Subject: Re: What anthropologists study and how
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:41:58 GMT

In article <-1366783758snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>Which is the fundamental difference between your work and the other
>fellow's; the difference between an Anthropologist and a Theologian,
>or Humanitarian or whatever he is doing . . .

I couldn't tell you.  Maybe this other guy (Charles Onstadt?) is just another
missionary anthropologist, or maybe he's yet another misguided humanist,
straight out of the seventies; but I would hesitate to judge just on the basis
of his being in the Divinity School (is that right?).  Besides, I don't see
anything inherent in being a "Theologian" that could prevent a person from
grasping current anthropological theory.

If his project depends on a humanist perspective (or even on "tactical
humanism"), then that would be a fundamental difference between us.  I
only bother to mention that because humanism is the first thing I would
suspect of a "Theologian."

Of course, there are plenty of anthropologists out there (Lila Abu-Lughod,
for one, who happens to be in the Religion department at Princeton) for whom
this wouldn't be any difference at all . . .

Missionary anthropology *is* pretty troubling; I'll just hope that's not what
this guy is up to.  The fundamental difference there is that missionary
anthropology, like colonialist anthropology, is very far from being counter-
hegemonic (which is a major feature, I think, of cultural critique).

>Thank you, I do sincerely appreciate your contribution.

OK, I'm willing to believe you're sincere; however, if you want more people to
talk with you about anthropology, I'd suggest patience as an alternative to
patronization.

-- 
Christopher Pound	+	I am human by my hands and my feet, my guts,
Anthro Grad Student	+	my meat heart, my stomach whose knots fasten
pound@ruf.rice.edu	+	me to the rot of life.	   -- Antonin Artaud
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,soc.culture.netherlands
From: muts@fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers)
Subject: Re: Female breast (bosom) experience wanted!
Organization: Rijks Universiteit Utrecht
	<1992Oct7.184752.16039@fwi.uva.nl> <BvtoDq.LLH@apollo.hp.com>
	<petek.718633077@vipunen.hut.fi>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:31:54 GMT

On 9 Oct 92 12:17:57 GMT, petek@vipunen.hut.fi (Petri 'Pete' Karha) said:

  P'K> Most of the people here write in Dutch. The reason I can't
  P'K> understand. I mean what interesting can there be talking about
  P'K> Dutch culture only among Dutch speaking people? Looks to me
  P'K> that Dutch people have the same attitude to their language as
  P'K> the French.

If only this were true! Then our language would remain a bit more
better preserved and pure. On the contrary we are alas ont like the
French, but if there is a dutch and an english word for something,
most choose the english one for some reason.

By the way, read s.c.n better. A good number of articles is in
english. However, the dutch are a very much travelling people, and
many dutch live far away. They are happy to be able to have some dutch
conversation in this way, or be informed about developments in the
Netherlands.


  P'K> Or maybe they the Dutch don't have any other Dutch newsgroups? When I
  P'K> was in Eindhoven I could only find two local Dutch newsgroups,
  P'K> nlnet.misc and nlnet.general.

Indeed, those are the only ones, except for even more local
(university) newsgroups.

--
_________________________________________________________________________
Peter Mutsaers.         |================================================ 
muts@fys.ruu.nl         |        Quod licet bovi, non licet Jovi
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Sexism vs. Racism (was Re: Female breast (bosom) expe
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:11:05 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Oct12.214421.2648@kbsw1> chris@kbsw3.UUCP writes:

 > Gil Hardwick states that everything in science is context 
 > dependent. Is one plus one equalling two context dependent?
 > Is the quantization of charge in elementary particles context
 > dependent?

I thought something like this might come up when I made the comment.

One WHAT plus one WHAT-ELSE equals two WHAT-OTHERS? One PIG plus one
COW plainly does not equal two HORSES. The one pig and the one cow
together might very well equal the whole of a poor family's wealth,
but that needs to be specified within the wider context of your
discussion.

What does your one represent? And the other one, for that matter? How
did they originate, and in what context. What are you referring to
specifically, and how does it arise, to which you apply your formula?

The formula 1+1=2 as a thing in itself has its own context in which
it makes sense and becomes useful, and other contexts in which it is
just another load of goobledegook.

I am glad you noted that the charge is IN elementary particles which
provide the context within which it can be quantified, not in something
else. Follow it up, and you will note that the elementary particles
themselves have their own context forming part of our understanding
of the fact that they are indeed elementary particles and not figments
of some demented alchemist's imagination.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: categories -- Repost
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:31:43 GMT
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct15.210003.10905@midway.uchicago.edu> coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>  The first unasked question comes from a notation that would be made
>on page 107, where Frazer in his normal voice of having pity for
>these savages, "The persons in whom a deity is thought to reveal himself
>are by no means always kings...the supposed incarnation may take place
>even in men of the humblest rank.  In India, for example, one human
>god started in life as a cotton-bleacher and another as the son
>_of a carpenter_ (emphasis mine--COO)...Such incarnate gods are
>common in rude society."   The first unasked question is, "What of
>Jesus, the son of a carpenter?"   

  To avoid commiting the same problem that I accuse Frazer of,
I will point out that some further disucsion on "Jesus as the
son of a carpenter" would have to be taken.

  For example, in the bible Jesus is thought to have been born
son of Mary, who is the wife of Joseph.  The above
question is only valid if it is assumed that Jesus was born from
a normal birth involving both Joseph and Mary.  The Bible, however,
reports that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.  The geneology
given by Matthew(the only one in the Bible leading to Jesus) is
patrilineal with the exception that Jesus is born of Mary
who is the wife of Joseph.  Either the geneology is patrilineal
or Jesus was born from God.(This gives doubt to my question)
It might also be noted that Mary is thought
to have been the daughter of a priest.  For an account of Mary's birth,
see _The Gospel of the Birth of Mary_.(Attributed to St. Matthew)




BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School

"Les dieux existent : c'est le diable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology