HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crp5754@erfsys06.ca.boeing.com (chris payne)
Newsgroups: alt.surfing
Subject: Re: North Shore Surf Report
Keywords: surf report
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:19:28 GMT
Organization: Boeing Electromagnetics & RF Systems, Seattle, WA, USA

In article <1992Oct12.210116.8408@news.Hawaii.Edu> dboucher@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Dawn Roxanne Boucher) writes:
>
>Saturday, I didn't get out until about 2pm.  It was nice and pretty
>clean.  The swell had dropped quite a bit.  It was only 2-3 feet.
>I surfed Kammies, which was working pretty well.  
>
>Laterz,
>Dawn

*Sigh* I'm sitting here all depressed about being on the mainland and
you have to go and tell me you went to Kammies?  Wow, sistah, too cruel! :)
Next, you'll go tell me you went to Threes and it was perfect.

                          
              > >         Aloha,
         >      > >         Chris P. crp5754@erfsys01.boeing.com
     >        >   >>        
>             >    >      "Tired and worn, I woke up this morn,
               >           and found that I was confused.
                  >        Spun right around and found that I'd lost
                       >   the things that I couldn't lose."
From: scott@edstar.ucsb.edu (Scott L. Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.surfing
Subject: Re: Florida waves?
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:51:16 GMT
Organization: University of California at Rincon

In <1bi569INN49l@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bz754@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Derek J. Wojciech) writes:

>Just heard from a friend that the Melbourne/Cocoa beach area has been getting
>some pretty good surf (headhigh+) for about 8 straight days.  Any truth to
>this rumor?  Let's hear the surf stories............

Probably not.  For a daily surf report from RC's (which is between Cocoa
Beach and Melbourne) try fingering agw@foobar.mlb.semi.harris.com.  It
sounded pretty good last week.  Good luck.

Scott Thomas
From: u8801863@cs.uow.edu.au (Nigel Brendon Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.surfing
Subject: Re: Please Help
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:11:47 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia

Danny.Clark@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Danny Clark) writes:

>Fellow surfers:  I have formulated the following questionnaire.  I will
>cross-post
>it to talk.abortion,  alt.politics.correct,  soc.feminism,  and any other
>group that has nothing at all to do with surfing.

>              Please answer these 7 questions and return.

Here we go again...

>1.) Do you think equal rights for long and short boards  is generally a
>good idea?
>Yes                  [ ]
>Sometimes            [ ]
>No                   [X] (Who's gonna try and govern surfer's ?)
>Haven't heard enough [ ]
>Only at Wind-n-Sea   [ ]

>2.) Are you a pro surfer?
>Yes                  [ ]
>Sometimes            [ ]
>No                   [X]
>Haven't heard enough [ ]
>Only when I get paid [ ]

>3.) Are you in favor of artificial reefs?
>Yes                  [X] Only to improve a shitty break.
>Sometimes            [ ]
>No                   [ ]
>Haven't heard enough [ ]
>Other                [ ]

>4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
>rights and responsibilities before a good south swell hits?
>Yes                  [X]
>Sometimes            [ ]
>No                   [ ]
>Haven't heard enough [ ]
>Only in the summer   [ ]

>5.) What sex are you?
>Male                 [X]
>Female               [ ]
>Haven't heard enough [ ]
>Other                [ ]

>6.) How old is your board?
>Under 18             [X]
>19 to 65             [ ]
>Over 65              [ ]

>7.) How many years of education have you completed?
>Grade School (rubber mat)       [ ]
>High School    (short board)    [ ]
>College            (longboard)  [X]
>More               (bodyboard)  [ ]


>Thanks for you support.

>Danny
>--
>   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

-- 
Life goes on...and on....   		       * *
			     			| 
 (People come in many different froms)	       ===	
:-) ;-) ;-( :-( 8-) 8-0 8-* B-) :-S B-C D-) :-| *-( >-)  [-]
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Attraction & traits
From: anonymus+570@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (Marky)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:39:27 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) sez:
>   Actually, one last thing - *I* am Bi & Poly, and yet *I* don't get
>any of this constant hassling & harassment. I don't think I'm far wrong
>in thinking that this is because I'm *male*. Ask yourself why should
>that make all the difference, and perhaps it will shed a new light on
>some of what's been said.

Well, here's a reverse view for you to ponder.  I'm Poly and I very open
about it.  What happens to me is that people assume that because I'm Poly
that I'd jump at the chance to hop in the sack with'em.  When I won't (for
whatever reasons) they often make statements similar to: "But you're male
and Poly, doesn't that mean you'll sleep with anyone?"  No, sorry, with me
it doesn't.  I'm actually very picky with whom I have physical relationships
with.  And, BTW, physical attributes play a very small part, if any, in
my decisions.  Usually it has to do with some of the things I've learned
in the (many?) rather painful (in the end) relationships I've had.  Now I'm
always on the lookout for any glimmerings of things that have caused problems
in the past.  If I detect any then I tend to be more reluctant to have a
serious relationship with that person.  But I digress a bit...
Peace and Love,
  Marky

"I never make the same mistake 13 times, that'd be unlucky."  - me
-- 
No test posting.  To use this service, mail to (note misspelling, "anonymus"):
Anonymous posting:	anonymus+<name.of.news.group>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Anonymous mail:		<user's alias>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Test path/get alias:	anonymus+ping@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Assign nickname:	anonymus+nick@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(in Subject:)
Anon administrator:	anonymus+0@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(anonymously)
			anonymus+admin@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(non-anon)
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: The Nature of Rights (was Re: So, you're straight... so far.)
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:16:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Oct12.123008.1@vax.sonoma.edu> connor@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
+Gerard Deckert <ad1x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
+> | (Note:  the following example applies to rational people who are acting
+> | in their own self interest.  In this context, the notion of rights is an
+> | objective absolute)
+ 
+fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
+> Nonsense.  If "rights" are an objective absolute then you ought to be
+> able to generate an algorithm to determine if <x> is a good or a right.
+> Is breathable air a good or a right?  Also, can you make an objective
+> definition of "rational" and "self interest"?
+
+
+I may be off the mark, but Fritz and Gerard seem to be agreeing more than they
+are disagreeing.  Gerard says (paraphrasing) that when taken -in a certain
+context- then rights are objective and absolute.  I take this to mean that you

No, these 'rights' are defined 'relativistically' and hence have no
existence beyond the defining group. The 'abolutist' view is that
there exists 'rights' in vacu, of which we preceive only a mangled
version via our limited understanding, ie. reason. This was 'thrown'
out of science some time ago, that if there is some 'absolute' reference
then we need not concern our selves with it, since it nether adds
nor subtracts from out understanding of the universe.

The 'absolutist' view also leads to a 'best course of action' since
if one knows the absolute truth of a matter, then any deviation is
'error' and hence less than 'best'. This of course leads to 'this is
the correct way to do things and you'd better do it or else suffer
the consequences'. Any other world view, such as 'we exist and we'd
better have a hell of a lot of fun 'cause there aint going to be
another', do not fit in to the 'rational application of the
absolute', since the absolute is 'pure reason' and devoid of any
emotional subjectivity.


Alternatively, the absolute chaos which surrounds us does give us
hope that not all existence is pure sterile reason. There is hope
that there is a hell of a lot of fun to be had by taking part in
emotional subjectivity and letting go of the structures of reason.

But equally as obvious is to much self-preferential fun may infringe on
other's rights to fun, fun being a absolutely irrational right, and hence
must be molifed by 'un-fun' strictures, hence without rhyme or reason,
fun must be controlled to allow maximum fun for all. Otherwise all is
hell, and definately un-fun.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:57:47 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <KAYVAN.92Oct12135034@satyr.Rational.COM> kayvan@satyr.Rational.COM (Kayvan Sylvan) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Sep30081222@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>   I am not at all uncomfortable about being desirable; in fact, I enjoy it
>   quite a lot...when it is *me* that the person desires.  When it is
>   someone like yourself, who will take the first female that holds still
>   long enough, I find it extremely repellent, and I do not feel that they
>   are making any statement about my desirability, but only about their
>   desperation.
>
>I echo Muffy's feelings here.
>...
>I'm really not very flattered or turned on by someone's interest when
>their focus is *only* sexual (or only trait X).
----

	I was leaving this aspect alone, but it's getting emphasized.
	
	I guess I can't help wondering why you _need_ to be flattered.

	If you find someone physically attractive, and they find you physically
attractive and want to bed you, what's wrong with that?  It may not
work for you for whatever reasons you want to state, but that is
your choice.  

	As far as "fucking stereotypes", discussing 'exceptions' does not 
address what is common place.  I too have had the experience, more than
once, of a woman interested in me only for sexual purposes.  In fact,
I've had the experience several times.  There were times I was satisfied
with that, there were times I was not.  Such is life.

		This topic came up in some other newsgroup some time back about
how fewer women were able to have sex for sex's sake than men.  After it
had been hashed out for a while there was general agreement.  Women tend
more often to attach or require other meanings to their sex; men less
often.  In other words men were more often able to enjoy sex for sex's sake
than women.  The fact that you are unable to enjoy sex for sex's sake
and have no other 'strings' attached is your choice.

-wat-
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: thom@access.digex.com (The Elf-Lad)
Subject: Re: none of my business
Organization: Express Access Online Communications Service, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:11:39 GMT

anonymus+791@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu writes:

>I was just wondering if any of the poly people out there in net.land
>were pagan or belonged to some non-mainstream religion.  Its really
>none of my business, but I was just wondering.

Oh yes, quite a few of us, I suspect. Me: alternative sexuality
(gay and poly); alternative religion (agnostic with pantheistic and
polytheistic tendencies); and an elf, to boot. I even drive
an alternative car, the Saturn. :)

-- 
Thom Watson, the Elf-Lad         elf-lad@access.digex.com <-----preferred
                                 elflad0@aol.com         elf-lad@glib.org
                                 GEmail=T.WATSON7
"What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?"--U.K.LeGuin
From: connor@vax.sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: The Nature of Rights (was Re: So, you're straight... so far.)
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:30:08 GMT
 <Uepmu4a00WAvA5GllZ@andrew.cmu.edu> <1992Oct12.162700.21623@microsoft.com>
Organization: Sonoma State University

Gerard Deckert <ad1x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> | (Note:  the following example applies to rational people who are acting
> | in their own self interest.  In this context, the notion of rights is an
> | objective absolute)
 
fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
> Nonsense.  If "rights" are an objective absolute then you ought to be
> able to generate an algorithm to determine if <x> is a good or a right.
> Is breathable air a good or a right?  Also, can you make an objective
> definition of "rational" and "self interest"?


I may be off the mark, but Fritz and Gerard seem to be agreeing more than they
are disagreeing.  Gerard says (paraphrasing) that when taken -in a certain
context- then rights are objective and absolute.  I take this to mean that you
get rights by virtue of your membership in a certain group, and they are the
rights that the members of this group agree you are entitled to.  I don't know
if this fits the definition of 'absolute' since there can be many such groups,
either disjoint or overlapping.  But this fits the pattern for 'objective',
meaning measurable and not based on the observation and experience of just one
individual.  (Maybe 'inter-subjective' would be a better word.)

Thus if the context is defined (like United States Citizens) then the algorithm
for determining if a privelege is a 'right' can be determined (like things that
are NOT illegal in US law and constitution, but which it WOULD be illegal for
someone else to -stop- you from doing.)

Just trying to give a new perspective on the problem.

*hug*
Greg Connor
connor@sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: attire and behaviour? (Was Re: ISO Bi-Fem...)
From: anonymus+570@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (Marky)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:10:20 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) sez:
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) sez:
>>   Even with the two examples you give, the male who was mugged will
>>probably we told that they were pretty stupid, but the trial will not
>>centre on their attire & behaviour. 
>---
>        If the attire and behaviour are relevant to his getting mugged,
>it probably would.  In the case of the woman, if she displays her
>sexual assets, it is relevant.  If the man took no precautions to
>protect himself or his money, he would get little sympathy.  If he
>walked down the street in a G-String, with 100's hanging out of his
>string and got mugged you can be sure the trial *would* center on
>his behaviour -- and he would probably be laughed out of the
>courtroom -- at best the offender would probably get a reduced
>sentence.

First off, this is a bogus comparison.  What you are comparing here is
some pretty outlandish behaviour on the part of the guy in the G-string
to a woman wearing anything other than a potato sack.  To put this in
a better comparison, if a smartly dressed person was mugged because (s)he
"looked" rich do you think (s)he would be questioned as to why (s)he
had to go around "looking" so rich?  That's ludicrous.

Secondly, I doubt that G-string guy would get laughed out of the courtroom.
Are you trying to say that if I leave my windows down in my car, the car thief
would get a lighter sentence because I was inviting him to steal my car?
(Hopefully) Not! :)

Peace and Love,
  Marky

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
                                        -Lazarus Long
-- 
No test posting.  To use this service, mail to (note misspelling, "anonymus"):
Anonymous posting:	anonymus+<name.of.news.group>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Anonymous mail:		<user's alias>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Test path/get alias:	anonymus+ping@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Assign nickname:	anonymus+nick@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(in Subject:)
Anon administrator:	anonymus+0@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(anonymously)
			anonymus+admin@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(non-anon)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber)
Subject: Re: Taking a walk
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:25:44 GMT

In article <Bvr6sG.Kux@world.std.com> Alexx@world.std.com (Alexx S Kay) writes:
>
>"An armed society is a polite society."  I don't rember who said it, but
>there's truth in those words.
>
>Alexx

Tell that to the Bosnians.  Or the Georgians.  Or the Somallians...

Bob


-- 
Bob Webber, webber@world.std.com ===========================================
==========================================================  Laurie Anderson:
Our plan is to drop odd objects onto your country from the air.  And some
of these objects will be useful, and some of them will just be odd.
From: anonymus+1128@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (Phoenix)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: ATTENTION, Ladies!!!
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:14:31 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

Perpetually horny white male in search of any and all fuck-hungry
females for hot, mutually-satisfying, multi-orgasmic sex.  My hot
mouth and talented fingers are guaranteed to please, and I am an
experience and skilled "cocks-man".  I get as much satisfaction
helping a woman get off as I do getting off myself. 

I'm young, health, good-looking and personable; one of the best
lovers you could ever find.  I'm a "no lose" opportunity; you'll
only be disappointed if you don't respond. 

All ages, races, and physical attributes are appealing to me; I
aim to please all.  I reside in southern New Jersey, but will
accommodate a reasonably large area.  Try me out. 

I'm very serious in this offer.  Don't pass it up.  Don't delay;
reply right now.  You won't be sorry!
-- 
No test posting.  To use this service, mail to (note misspelling, "anonymus"):
Anonymous posting:	anonymus+<name.of.news.group>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Anonymous mail:		<user's alias>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Test path/get alias:	anonymus+ping@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Assign nickname:	anonymus+nick@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(in Subject:)
Anon administrator:	anonymus+0@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(anonymously)
			anonymus+admin@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(non-anon)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: anonymus+791@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: none of my business
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:52:43 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

Hi,

I was just wondering if any of the poly people out there in net.land
were pagan or belonged to some non-mainstream religion.  Its really
none of my business, but I was just wondering.


?

If A equals success, then the formula is A = X + Y + Z.  X is work.  Y is play.
 Z is keep your mouth shut.             -- Albert Einstein
--
No test posting.  To use this service, mail to (note misspelling, "anonymus"):
Anonymous posting:	anonymus+<name.of.news.group>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Anonymous mail:		<user's alias>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Test path/get alias:	anonymus+ping@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Assign nickname:	anonymus+nick@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(in Subject:)
Anon administrator:	anonymus+0@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(anonymously)
			anonymus+admin@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(non-anon)
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: attire and behaviour? (Was Re: ISO Bi-Fem...)
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:45:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <Bw29x9.6AF.2@cs.cmu.edu> anonymus+570@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (Marky) writes:
+Secondly, I doubt that G-string guy would get laughed out of the courtroom.
+Are you trying to say that if I leave my windows down in my car, the car thief
+would get a lighter sentence because I was inviting him to steal my car?
+(Hopefully) Not! :)

In California a 'locked' car is equvalent to your 'locked' house and
anyone breaking into the 'locked' car may be found guilty of a
felony, independent of the 'value' of the items stolen. An 'unlocked'
car is different than the house, and the crime may be counted as a
felony, depending on the value of the items stolen,

In other words the law does have a 'degree' factor in how much
caution the owner used in securing his valuables.


-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: So, you're straight... so far. (was Re: Why are you straight?)
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:36:09 GMT
Organization: Eris's Restaurant

In article <whelan.718156583@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu> whelan@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu (John T. whelan) writes:
>williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>	Not that I disagree entirely with your post, but to be honest,
>>one could use the same justification to say -- well you just are not
>>a child molester -- yet, or you just don't like sex with animals --
>>yet.  You can use the same arguments about keeping your mind open
>>toward 'bi' towards other areas.
>	The difference is that I have yet to hear a good reason other
>than personal taste not to have sex with another man, whereas there
>are good arguments about consensuality by which one can rule out
>bestiality and pedophilia in the abstract.

Dangerous argument, John.  All such arguments (pro/anti bisexuality,
bestiality, paedophilia, cannibalism, heterosexuality, and doing the
washing up before someone yells at you to, u.s.w) are grounded in
taste, whether personal (ie, the state hasn't decided to interfere
in your freedom of taste), or social (ie, the state, in a small or
great manifestation, has so decided).  There is no "good" reason
(except that it pleases me, thee, or WeThe People) to entertain
any notion of consensuality - "good", that is, in any positive,
demonstrable, objective sense.  Subjectively, yes; but subjectivity
is just opinion, not fact.

I don't like my argument, but I can't fault it.

				Kay
-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: wa137@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (john e. clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: The Nature of Rights (long)
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:27:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Oct13.203040.28766@microsoft.com> siobhan@microsoft.com (Siobhan Harper) writes:
+
+There are some very interesting experiments in quantum physics that cast
+doubt on this statement. The concept of "determinacy" does not even hold
+at the electron level; I genuinely don't understand how you can argue for
+a determinate universe at a macro level when even an electron "makes de-
+cisions" (a VERY anthropomorphic term, BTW) as to which slit it will go

Althought the details of electon/atomic states can not be absolutely
determined, due to Heisenberg and his uncertainty, the bullet still
killed the victim, beyond a shadow of doubt.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory