HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Misguided Economics
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:22:20 GMT

In article <viking.713599487@vincent1.iastate.edu>
viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
 
              [...]
>        I never said the economy had to be state-run, but you'll note that
>the USSR had the lowest food prices of any nation on Earth.  By your own
>admission this is the best for all concerned.  Yet, it failed.  Could it
 
A couple of silly errors. The USSR in fact had tremendously high costs of
production- so high, that it had to import food. We in the US do not have
this problem- yet. But Congress is working on it.
 
You're also guilty of an ignoratio elenki in your comparison of the costs of
food in the US and the USSR. You're using the example of low food cost in the
USSR to "prove" that cheap food=bad. In fact, your example runs the other way.
Food is cheap in the US because we use efficient technology and havem, where
Congress hasn't interefered yet, markets. The USSR used your preferred system-
heavy taxation and subsidies. As their subsidies and taxes were so much higher,
and as they had a 100% controlled market in agricultural products, they
sufferred much more.
 
Final silly error: While their food looked cheap to you, translating rubles
to dollars, the average Soviet in fact paid far more for food than you or I.
The costs of subsidizing the economy meant that the average soviet probably
paid over 10 times as much for their food in terms of income as does the
average American.
 
That's enough. I never did like teaching intro courses.
 ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The "his", "he" Issue
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:22:10 EDT
 <1992Aug17.171418.16237@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Aug18.012930.23612@news.acns.nwu.edu> <1992Aug19.080456.8111@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Wesleyan University

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

>>As has been stated before, the generic pronoun (e.g. 'he') *does*
>>include the female gender. Therefore saying "he" instead of "he or
>>she" eliminates a superflous elaboration and is, by the quoted
>>defintion, more concise.
> 
> And yet, most Americans speaking English don't think it does.  So,
> what are we to do?

   Are you sure about that?

> .....  I only begin to suspect sexism when I see the
> defense of generic masculines being so strenuous.  (Unless I've managed
> to run across a bunch of anal retentives who get upset when they see
> the word "ain't" used.) 

   If you can present a cogent explanation why someone using the masculine form
as the neutered form, when all the major dictionairies claim that it's proper
English to do so, is inherently sexist, I will be very impressed.

> I once read an article which said something to the effect
> that, "Like all other mammals, man breastfeeds his young."  Now, given
> that the chances of a man breastfeeding his young are very small, is
> this the proper use of the generic masculine?

   I think I have discovered the source of your confusion.  The term you have
chosen is quite revelaing.  "Generic masculine" instead of "neutered pronoun." 
Using the term you have chosen reveals that you cannot see the word "he" as
being gender non-specific -- hence your objections to its neutered use.  Your
objection is valid, given your premise that "man" must imply "male," butI doubt
the language should be changed because you have failed to make the conceptual
leap involved in seeing "man" as a neutered noun.

   So yes, the sentence you quoted is correct, even if it sounds silly.

Max Zener
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 01:50:09 GMT

In article <viking.713596929@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>	Of course you do, but you might want to note that there is no
>such thing as "homophobia."  The implication is that a mental problem,
>akin to an irrational fear, is in effect.  There is nothing irrational
>about a moral opinion, and it is not necessarially unfounded.  This
>might bring you to the point of slander, which is not free speech.  I
>make this minor distinction, but otherwise agree. 

I know homophobia exists every time I read a post by Clayton Cramer
about lesbigays.

 I, for one, think
>the KKK, Black Panthers, Minutemen, and Weather Underground (all of
>whom still exist, BTW) should be able to say what they want.  That
>they might feel intimidated speaking before a bunch of rednecks does
>not mean they are censored.  It merely means they don't have the
>intestinal fortitude to speak their mind in all situations, and hence
>the censorship lies with them, not with the audience, unless an
>explicit threat is given.

I agree.  My point is that many of the anti-PC people I've had
discussions with feel seriously threatened when they're criticised for
their views as being racist, sexist, or homophobic, but don't seem to
think lesbigay people, for example, don't feel seriously threatened
when they speak out in the campus newspaper and get telephoned
threats.

The worst set of discussions I had about this was on a local bb where
one poster was convinced he was being censored every time he posted
something that several other posters thought was sexist or homophobic.
No one sent him nasty email, no one tried to get his account killed,
but he saw every criticism of him as censorship.  Just because he
didn't feel comfortable with the criticism, he was convinced that he
was being censored.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The "his", "he" Issue
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 18 Aug 92 08:52:17 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:

>   Sheheryar: I think it would be refreshing change to have "she" asthe generic
> pronoun.  And the definition of concise is "..the stating of much in few     
> words,  by removing all superfluous elaborations..."  Is including the female 
> gender merely a superfluous elaboration?  I think not.
>  [stuff deleted]
> Sheheryar:  So change it to "she."  By opposing this (which I am sure you do,
> with respect that is)
> who is the nitpicker now?  Strange things happen when tables are turned!
> Hey, maybe the widespread dissatisfation with writing the extra words will
> help this wonderful language "evolve" a little further, and find that precious
> word that stands for "he"/"she"/"his"/"her".

   Using the male form as the neutered form _includes_, not excludes, the
female gender.  Why not change the neutral form to "she?"  Why change it in the
first place?  Our language has evvolved in this way -- let it stand.  There's
no particularly good reason to change it (Sherheryar thinking it would be cute
doesn't qualify as a good reason).

Max Zener
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 02:37:17 GMT

In article <LEE.92Aug14134830@coredump.npac.syr.edu> lee@coredump.npac.syr.edu (Lee C Brink) writes:
>  Can I see the legal definition of harassment?  I've seen some pretty
>flimsy cases put up for harassment, which has led me to believe that there
>is not legal definition of harassment, or that it is so broad that if I say
>hello to the wrong person on the wrong day, I could be brought up on 
>harassment charges.  Some definition of harassment should be hammered out
>for the laws so that real harassment (Eg:Groping, constant verbal abuse)
>is punished but silly things (Saying "Hello babe," Giving someone a leer for 
>example) are not included.  Of course, who gets to make the definition?
>Not an easy question to answer given our polarized society today. 

As I understand it, the laws are switching to sexual harassment being
defined as what a 'rational woman' thinks is sexual harassment.  I
think many women would feel harassed by being leered at and greeted
with, "Hello, babe."

>So we should switch to "it"?  That is the technical neuter form of the 
>pronoun "he" & "she".  I refuse to go through life saying "he or she." "him
>or her," etc.  simply because someone thinks I was refering only to the
>male.

But if you want to communicate with people and most people don't think
masculine pronouns are generic, are you communicating?  What I have
been seeing more and more of lately is that people are deliberately
using plurals or they're using plural pronouns where singular pronouns
technically should be used (e.g., Did anyone forget their book?).
Someone recently made a post to soc.wo/men that showed the use of
plural pronouns where singular ones are correct in English goes back
hundreds of years.  So, perhaps generic masculine isn't such a great
concept?
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:33:57 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

> 
> >What bothers me about this "PC" argument is the assumption that
> >intimidation is censorship.
> 
>DS: 	It is not, unless said intimidation is directly responsible
> for a person not expressing his view. 

SH What is "direct."   And how directly responsible must someone be in order
to censor?


DS:  (note the "his" there.  That's
> the generic term, as well as the masculine)

SH:  You've wasted 11 words.  If you had added "or her" you could have saved
the explanation.  The dictionary defines "his" as "of or belonging to him."
I really don't see this as neutral or generic.  If it were historically
"normal" to use the word "his" for "his or her" then should (and hopefully
will) be corrected.  Again, it is not generic in the least.


DS: ...that they (lesbigay couples) were too afraid to
> speak is not censorship any more than a KKK member in a bar in south
> Chicago (a mainly black area) being afraid to speak out is being censored.

SH:  I think there is a slight difference between the above cases.  Common
sensewise (I really don't want to go into this one).
> 

DS:  I, for one, think
> the KKK, Black Panthers, Minutemen, and Weather Underground (all of
> whom still exist, BTW) should be able to say what they want.  That
> they might feel intimidated speaking before a bunch of rednecks does
> not mean they are censored.  It merely means they don't have the
> intestinal fortitude to speak their mind in all situations, and hence
> the censorship lies with them, not with the audience, unless an
> explicit threat is given.


SH:  Great!  Lets just celebrate the right to verbally abuse the hell out of 
any race,gender or sexual preference with impunity.  
If the KKK wants to have a rally, people of color can have a counter rally.
Fine.  However, if a verbal-type KKK member works with me, I DO NOT have a
"choice" of having to deal with him or not.  I need that "choice." 
I believe that I have a right to a "hostility free" workplace
BEFORE he has the right to his freedom of speech.  If he makes the environment
hostile, he should be fired.  If he can exercise his free speech with impunity,
in all probability, I would be the one leaving.  Thats not my idea of
freedom. 
On the other hand, if a KKK member chooses to throw me an insult on the street,
in a public forum, sure there is little I can do but walk away.  But I HAVE 
that choice.  In the workplace I don't.  And neither do I in school. 
I need that choice to exercise my
freedom.  And since this system is based on rights,
I repeat that my right to a hostilefree work environment comes before his 
(not gender neutral since it probably would be a man/boy) right to make 
my work environment unpleasant.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: The "his", "he" Issue
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:31:02 GMT


> 
> > Sheheryar:  What is actually revealing is that only women need to make that
> > "conceptual leap" while the men are already waiting on the other side!!
> 
>  Max Zener:No, anyone who understands and accepts that the male form is also the
> neutered form has made the leap -- others haven't.  Why do you assume that all
> women haven't and all men have?
> 
> > Sheheryar:  A language is only worth what purpose it serves.  "Convention"
> > and "proper usage" has changed/evolved with social change.  If some people
> > of this society feel that the generic masculine or the neutered pronouns are
> > exclusionary then the "need" for change exists.  Simple.  If it sounds silly
> > change it.  Remember, a system is only so good as what purpose it serves,
> > and not vice versa.
>  
>Max Zener:Actually,word usage changes when one culture starts to seep into another (I
> could use the term "invade," but then you'd have gotten all huffy about
> militarism, so I didn't). 


 
>    By the way, your above statement should read "if MOST people of this society
> feel . . . then the need for change exists."

Sheheryar: What you're implying is that blacks should not have gotten the vote
if "most" people felt that blacks should not vote (just to give an example off
the top of my head).  The sentence stands as 
was originally written.  Remember that "Democracy", like any other system
like socialism etc. has its problems:  this is definitely a big one.  Consensus
does not guarantee justice in the least.  But thats a different issue.

Max Zener: You don't change things because they sound silly, you change things because
> they are incorrect.  The phrase "man nurses his young," is factually and
> gramatically correct, even if it would sound better as "mankind nurses its
> young."  And no, "personkind" isn't a word.

Sheheryar:  Step away from all of the "systems" you follow, Max, and maybe
you'll find that the meaning of "correct" and "incorrect" are as fluid as 
"labour"(what I was taught in Britain) and "labor" (when I got brainwashed by
you Americans :-)).  I think the 
original statement was "man breastfeeds his young" since a man
can "nurse" his child.  Rather than all of this hodgepodge, whats wrong with
"woman breastfeeds her young"?

Max: As to that "system is only so good as the purpose it serves" comment,
> well, that lil' bit of naivity will keep me chuckling all afternoon.
> 
Sheheryar:  What is so naive about someone if she thinks that the system
is only so good as what it does for us and not vice versa. Pray reveal
the joke so all of womankind can laugh along with you!  However, if 
what you mean by naivity is "lack of acceptance of the "correctness"
of human-made systems(even though man-made would be more appropriate in this 
case), then you are probably right in calling me naive.
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The "his", "he" Issue
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:06:38 GMT
 <1992Aug19.203102.12487@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Aug20.162115.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> <1992Aug20.212832.8216@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Wesleyan University

hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:

> She is as much a neutered form as he.  Think about it.  What, to you,
> is the difference between she and he as neutered forms? 

   Since men and women are equals, there is no difference.  Unfortunately for
your point, Sheheryar, there is no neutered definition for the word "she." 
Read the dictionary's definition.  "He" can be neutered, "she" cannot.  I am
not saying that men are superior to women, nor am I saying that there would be
any difference bewteen the two neutered forms, if we had them.  I'm simply
stating that we don't have them.

> And Earlier you completely misunderstood what I meant by correct/incorrect   
> (given that I did not state it incredibly clearly but you did not even       
> attempt the "conceptual leap"!). 

   The very first sentence of the paragraph that responded to your earlier
comment was this:   

	No, the meanings of "correct" and "incorrect" are perfectly 
	clear no matter what the system.  What can change are the 
	things that are so termed.

   In other words, I said that the definition of "correct, "legal," and other
synonyms dosn't change.  The things that are deemed coorert can change, though.
That's what I said.  It's not what _you_ said, even though it is what you
meant.  To avoid squabbles, I'll quote exactly what you said:

	...you'll find that the meaning of "correct" and "incorrect" 
	are as fluid as "labour"...

    Do you see why I responded as I did?

> When I said "she" in the above statement, I was doing no different than      
> saying "he."  However, being male you caught that instantly and commented on 
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the fact that I really meant "a particular woman."

    Like I said above, in the English language, when you say "she" you refer to
a female;  you _did_ do differently.  I caught on to that because I can observe
and decipher what is written before me.  I know the language and can follow
sentence structure.  It has nothing to do with my being male.  I know plenty of
guys who would have played along, and I know plenty of people who are quite
definitely NOT guys who would have found it, too.
    I could ponder on the sexual prejudice your statement displays, but proving
that your posts display prejuidice is too much like shooting fish in a barrel
to be any fun.

Max Zener
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: ccx018@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Leslie Griffiths (Griff))
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: One good reason to keep women out of combat
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:14:59 GMT
Organization: Coventry University

In article <313330001@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> steven@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Steven Croft) writes:
>In my regiment all the female troops were very hardworking and some were
>quite tough.
>Slightly less physical strength was not considered a problem, however there
>was some concern from the officers that if, in a combat situation, a female
>soldier was hurt there would be too much attention given to the wounded female
>by the male soldiers.  More so than would be given if a male soldier was
>wounded.
>This would be the only reason for my objection to including women on a
>battlefield.  I have every confidence in the female soldiers.  It's the male
>soldiers that can create the problem.
>Steve.
>Perhaps we should get rid of the male soldiers?   :-)

Well, you surely shouldn't punish the women for attitudes that men _may_ have.

Having said that, I certainly wouldn't want to be the target of some of the 
women I went to school with!

run away!

Cheers

-- 
Griff				\\         	ccx018@uk.ac.cov
^^^^^		       		 :-=       	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		        	//
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: The "his", "he" Issue
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:14:18 GMT

In article <LEE.92Aug17100933@coredump.npac.syr.edu>, lee@coredump.npac.syr.edu (Lee C Brink) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug16.023717.1174@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>Farthing:But if you want to communicate with people and most people don't think
>    masculine pronouns are generic, are you communicating?  What I have
>    been seeing more and more of lately is that people are deliberately
>    using plurals or they're using plural pronouns where singular pronouns
>    technically should be used (e.g., Did anyone forget their book?).
>    Someone recently made a post to soc.wo/men that showed the use of
>    plural pronouns where singular ones are correct in English goes back
>    hundreds of years.  So, perhaps generic masculine isn't such a great
>    concept?
> 
> 
> Lee:  I guess the real question is "Do we want to evolve the language so that 'he or
> she' is used instead of just 'he' for the generic pronoun?"  IMO, no.  The 
> point of a pronoun is to be more concise.  

  Sheheryar: I think it would be refreshing change to have "she" asthe generic
pronoun.  And the definition of concise is "..the stating of much in few words,
by removing all superfluous elaborations..."  Is including the female gender
merely a superfluous elaboration?  I think not.

Lee:  Technically pronouns never have to
> be used at all, as they're a replacement for previously used nouns.  Why
> would I want to increase the amount of words I have to type just to placate
> nitpickers who take offense to slights such as this?  

Sheheryar:  So change it to "she."  By opposing this (which I am sure you do,
with respect that is)
who is the nitpicker now?  Strange things happen when tables are turned!
Hey, maybe the widespread dissatisfation with writing the extra words will
help this wonderful language "evolve" a little further, and find that precious
word that stands for "he"/"she"/"his"/"her".

Lee:  If minor things such
> as the use of a pronoun is enough for someone to scream "sexist," then
> IMO nothing will satisfy that person.
> 
Sheheryar:  The contrary.  If it is so minor a thing, then why argue about it?
Change the word to "she."  I don't think that any changes will have to be
made in any dictionary, just usage.  I am assuming that you agree since
you're against nitpicking and other minor things!  :-)
Language is an integral part of social communication
and, therefore, relationships.  Dissatisfaction about communication
warrants serious consideration. 




Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct