HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:55:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.144533.17260@infodev.cam.ac.uk> pi101@cus.cam.ac.uk (P.M. Inman) writes:
>In article <1jk3vrINNob7@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:

[...---...]

>|> DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT agree that fewer false accusations of rape will make
>|> the process of demonstrating a true one easier?
>|> 
>|> This is a really important question, because the attitude you have shown in 
>|> your posting does not seem to support this.
>|> 
>|> |Julie
>|> |DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
>|> 
>|> ~THE GREAT NAME
>|> -- 
>|>     Don't worry,
>|>      Its like in the comic books...
>|>       ITS NOT REAL!
>
>Phew!  I'm thinking of setting up as an employment consultant, advising clients
>on the suitability of job applicants, on the basis of their performance on a
>selection of contraversial newsgroups.  

Tell me Philip, what do you think you can tell from net postings? Can you
tell that Muffy is a good programmer? Can you tell how good? It might work
if you had a god-like overview and could compare posted opinions to some
absolute standard. Otherwise, it sounds like the most you could gather would
be a personal opinion based zero% on work performance.

Or did you forget the smiley??
 
>-- 
>Philip Inman.............................e-mail: pi101@cus.cam.ac.uk
>Open Systems Development Programme........JANET: pi101@uk.ac.cam.cus
>Cambridge University Computer Laboratory....tel: [+44 (int); 0 (UK)] 223-335442
>Cambridge, England CB2 3QG..................fax: [+44 (int); 0 (UK)] 223-334679


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:36:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.084035.25495@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>(Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>(Duane Hentrich) writes:
>>
>>>(Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>|>(Duane Hentrich) writes:
>>>|> >(Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>|> >|> Because society deems it worse to fuck someone who's drunk than to be
>>>|> >|> fucked while one is oneself drunk.
>>>|> 
>>>|> >The above statement seems to make grave implications about the subject and 
>>>|> >object of the verb 'to fuck'. I propose that the implications (man fucks,
>>>|> >woman is fucked; man - active, woman - passive) are wrong. Either partner
>>>|> >can be physically passive during coitus and thus conception is not
>>>|> >predicated on men being active and women being passive, no matter the
>>>|> >social norms.
>
>Of course. Where did Michal state that MEN fuck and WOMEN are fucked? As
>I recall, Michal was answering a question which used the verb "to fuck",
>and therfore used it in her reply.
>
>BTW, You seem to be saying that Michal said, "Because society deems
>it worse for a man to fuck a woman who's drunk that for a woman to be 
>fucked while she is herself drunk".  While that is *ONE* reading of what
>she said, it is *ONLY* one. By choosing to use the pronoun "one", she said
>that, AND she said
>
>  Because society deems it worse for a woman to fuck a man who's drunk
>  than for a man to be fucked while he is himself drunk.

Do you not mean NEW YORK, and so far, only New York?
 
>AND 
>
>  Because society deems it worse for a woman to fuck a woman who's drunk
>  than for a woman to be fucked while she is herself drunk.

Do you not mean NEW YORK, and so far, only New York? This might be harder
to prove BTW, strap-ons do not leave seman behind.

>AND
>
>  Because society deems it worse for a man to fuck a man who's drunk
>  than for a man to be fucked while he is himself drunk.

Same thing, society does not deem as you say. Some lawyers in a small
part of the country have so deemed. This has not been tested yet in the
upper courts either, as far as I am aware. If anyone knows different,
please chime in.

[...---...]
 
>I am also, btw, committed to the proposition that most of the cultural
>gender-role differences are CULTURAL and not innate. Men & women ain't
>all that different, folks. And, most importantly,

This sound to me like you have closed your mind, and it would not 
matter if tomorrow valid evidence were presented that there were innate
differences.

>         how any individual acts is not necessarily dictated 
>         by their gender.

Gender is a language construct, so I disagree. Or perhaps you are reffering
to their sex?
 
[...---...]
 
>-jen


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Header-1:    Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice
X-Header-2:    about Oregon, watch out for Ohio, Idaho, Michigan, Maine, and
X-Header-3:    Florida.
X-Header-5:    Beware lunatic actuaries in the night!
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:59:08 GMT

daniel@lclark.edu (Daniel Snodgrass) writes:

[Daniel: This isn't a response to you per se....just random ranting and
 raving for which your article serves as a nice springboard....]

>As a fellow believer, you certainly must agree that Matthew 18 demands that
>Christians hold each other accountable for their actions.  If you know that
>I am living in sin, it is your responsiblity to confront me and admonish me
>to turn from it and seek to live in obedience with scripture.  This whole
>process must take place through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Oy, vey!  Why do I have the sudden image of "teams" of Christians
trying to show the others that their team is the only one that 
is following the Trvth.

Hmmm...that hits a little close to the truth, doesn't it?

From where I'm standing, many of the issues that are dividing the
Church today and are setting many non-Christians against what
they perceive as being the Church, are really *trivial* in the
whole scheme of things.

Does it really matter what a person, Christian or no, does in his/her
private life so long as he/she is treating others like he/she would
want to be treated?

--
Michael D. Adams	| Since when do you have to agree with people to defend
University of Illinois  | them from injustice?	-- Lillian Hellman
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	| Religion has done love a great service by making it a
Standard Disclaimers    | sin.			-- Anatole France
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Different Point
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:14:52 GMT

sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
] In article <4682.97.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us> laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arb
] or.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)  writes:
] >
] >Great. We should prohibit abortion so that women can be breeder reactors
] >for childless couples? "I want a baby, so you should be forced to have
] >one for me!"
] 
] 
] Nobody forces anyone to get pregnant.


RAPE

] -- 
]            Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
]      Dept. of Chemical Engineering
]       Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
]              Win Twins!


Hum....

one word follow ups are not really appropriate.

ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Flash! Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes
Summary: Yes, the earth has warmed since the last ice-age.
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:15:56 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1993Jan15.160906.11052@rchland.ibm.com>
jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
|In article <1212@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
||> In article <1992Dec21.192901.24076@rchland.ibm.com>
||> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
||> >The debate in the scientific community is over what is causing 
||> >global warming, not whether it is happening or not.
||> 
||> You are wrong.  There is indeed such a debate.  In any case, no legitimate
||> scientist could say that there is no doubt about global warming, because
||> that data isn't good enough to say for certain that there is, i.e. the rise
||> is inside the error band.  The "scientist" who says there is no doubt that
||> the earth has warmed (over the last one hundred years), is either gravely
||> mistaken or is serving a master other than science.
|
|Excuse me.  Would you like to explain how the earth came out of it's last
|Ice Age that ended 18,000 years ago.  If the earth hasn't WARMED, then what
|has it done?

Yes, of course the earth has warmed since the last Ice Age.  If you want to
make this trivial point, then I gladly concede it to you.  But that isn't
what anyone else is talking about when they say "Global Warming" and don't
qualify it further.  They are talking about the average annual global
temperature over the last 100 years or less (as I explicitly said above --
but why let clear meaning get in the way of a good flame, eh?), and/or what
it will do in the next 50 years or so.

|Also, since when is 100 years the standard measure of geologic time?  That
|time span is way too narrow to make predictions about climate on a planet
|that has been around for 4.5 billion years.

Good point.  I would tend to agree.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & the Press
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:20:14 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

tendico@hubcap.clemson.edu (Todd Endicott) writes:
=Hi there. I'm just curious about how the conservatives view the recent
=ragging of Clinton in the press; seems to me this kind of weakens their
=standby complaint about the "liberal media". Comments anyone?

Well they still are. It all depends on how liberal Clinton really gets.
Otherwise, you'll hear complaints from the newscasters about how a
problem will become a brand of shame on the "uncaring" Clinton
administration/U.S. government.

The other point was, why didn't this happen during the campaign? Some
people said they were quite shocked to learn he was going to renege on
his middle class tax cut; others could've guessed at least for the first
six months of Clinton's administration, that he'd blame
Reagan-Bush-Quayle for all the problems he'd inherit, whether it's the
deficit or SadDamn.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Broken Promises/Anti-Clinton sentiment growing
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:16:39 GMT

tonnison@FNALO.FNAL.GOV wrote:
:      From what I understand you feel that Americans were undertaxed during the
: Reagan-Bush administrations. Perhaps you can fill us in on how much extra
: in taxes you payed during these 12 years to ensure you payed your fair
: share. If not, why are you better for taking the freebies than these
: guys were for giving them?
: 
: 				Just wanna know.
: 				James

Heard this on the news last night (local news).  A man decided he wanted
to pay extra taxes (state, property), but he was given one heck of a time
trying to pay that extra tax.  Seems the state is not set up to handle
those who would choose to pay the extra tax.  The taxpayer in this case
wanted to have his extra money used to pay for educational scholarships
for the needy, but the government finally took the money and put it in
the general treasury.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 05:14:55 GMT

StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams) writes:

>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>>[Wonderful tirade by Drieux deleted]

>>Is your [shift] key acting up or something?  You did a remarkably
>>explosive job of failing to understand my point.  This is in part my
>>fault for not being more clear, but I suggest you find yourself
>>a sugar substitute and some decaf coffee tomorrow.

>For those of you who haven't already figured it out....

>drieux is a rather interesting net.figure.  Sie frequently posts
>messages vaguely related to some heated discussion on a newsgroup,
>that usually comes out as either irrelevant to the thread, nonsense,
>or surreal, depending on your own interpretations.

>I consider them surreal, myself.  ;)

Sure, I'll buy that.  

>Only the net.newbies or the net.clueless take drieux' postings (too)
>seriously.

>Oh, Edward?  Did you know that flaming a person because of hir
>spelling, hir grammer, and/or hir use of the old standard of typing
>completely in lowercase is bad form and another sign of a 
>net.clueless person?

>--
>Michael D. Adams	      | Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not


Actually I was aware of this... but that doesn't mean I have to conform.
I thought non-conformism was something liberals respected...  

My problem was not with Drieux's lack of uppercase letters, but rather 
with his inability to KEEP FROM USING THEM ON EVERY strange WORD he DEEMED
was IMPORTANT even though THE rest Of Us Couldn't Stand Reading iT.  


BTW, what's this "hir" stuff?  [Editor's note: Edward is asking
to point out the innate silliness of this new grammatical convention]


Have a nice day,



E. S.- standard disclaimers  

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:48:29 GMT

In article <1jpabsINNaj4@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams) writes:
: The point that Evelyn is bringing up is that those people who
: claim to adhere to the *literal* word of the Bible (i.e. most
: of the Fundy Christian activists) are essentially hypocrites
: unless they also avoid diapering their granddaughters, wearing
: blended clothing, eating pork, shaving, etc.
 
>If the person doing this were Jewish, she'd have a point.  But
>Christians don't follow the Mosaic Law. ... Then the Ten Commandments
(the first of that long list of OT laws, and not pointed out as such
in the Bible) are about as relevant for Christianity as the Buddha's
Five Moral Rules (do not kill any living being, do not take what is
not given to you, do not speak falsely, do not drink anything
intoxicating, and do not be "unchaste")?
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: nstowfis@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Nicholas J Stowfis)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: SCREW Les Aspin!
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:07:51 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


What I want to know is, can CLINTON pronounce "nuclear", or is he going
to follow in the footsteps of Jimmy Carter, the "nukilla physicist"?
(Should've stuck to peanuts...)
From: aj234@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Woolard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Larry King is coming to Day Time Radio (he he)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 06:21:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


Does Larry really think he has the heart (he he) to compete head to head
with RUSH. I think not, but I bet the main stream press will give some
serious coverage to this competition. In the end we will see who the 
real king is. Stay tuned, Febuary 1, 1993, Larry King goes head to head
with RUSH. Can you believe Larry is giving up his comfortable throne to
Jim Bohanan in the late nite market. While I sure he will have a formitable
market share, he won't touch Rush. 

Reply on this board and E-mail since I can't log into here often....

-- 
Don't blame me     O   O   I voted Republican !!!!!!!!!!
                     ^
                   \___/
Jack Kemp in '96 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Quota Violation
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:23:02 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

**************************** IMPORTANT *********************************

I am deeply disturbed by the statistics that I just made up that shows
that the ratio of posts regarding sex, homosexuality or abortion to 
posts regarding every other type of relavent material has dropped
below the quota level of 99 to 1.  Therefore as a concerned net poster
I have devised a solution to this discriminatory dilemma which I will
share with you now.


HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG!
ABORTION IS WRONG!
ANAL SEX PROPAGATES AIDS!
SEXUAL PREFERENCE IS A VALID REASON TO DISCRIMINATE!


Hopefully the responses to the above will bring the sex ratio back
up to its proper quota level because as we all know:  SEX IS OBVIOUSLY
THE MOST IMPORTANT TOPIC OF CONVERSATION AND THE BIGGEST PROBLEM FACING
HUMANITY TODAY!


PS:  Anyone who cares to doubt my statistics or who doesn't agree with
the last sentence is a CONVERSATIVE, FASCIST, BIGOT, WASP who doesn't
know his/her (PC!) left from right!  Thank you.


**************************** IMPORTANT *********************************
-- 
RULE #1:  At all costs, we must make society fair.
RULE #2:  At all costs, we must make people be nice.
RULE #3:  Rules #1 and #2 are impossible to achieve.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15264 alt.sex:43304 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13950 alt.politics.correct:6384 alt.politics.equality:175 alt.politics.homosexuality:10351 talk.abortion:58164 alt.politics.clinton:21336
From: mdiehl@triton.unm.edu (J. Michael Diehl)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:25:07 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: triton.unm.edu

In article <C1E7xA.2s5@fang.att.com> bcd@fang.att.com (Brendan Dwyer) writes:
>From article <jhansen.727720299@convex.convex.com>, by jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen):
>> In <1993Jan21.060221.18670@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:
>> 
>>>	It should be handled like a murder.  All murders are *hate* crimes.
>>>The fact that he was gay should not make any more important or any less
>>>important.  When sentencing time comes for the culprits, the sentence
>>>should reflect what they did, not who they did it to..
>> 
>> Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen.  Case in point being Judge
>> Hampton's sentencing a man to a lesser degree because the victim was
>> gay.  This occurred two or so years ago in Dallas.  The bastard was just
>> re-elected this November.
>> 

>This is a good point.  I don't believe in hate crimes, but when the murder 
>of a homosexual is treated as something less than the murder of a 
>heterosexual then I have a major problem and I stand shoulder to shoulder 

Come on folks, their only people.  Homosexuallity makes me sick to my gut,
but they are still (sick?) people.

>with the gay community.  Murder is murder.
>

That was the point of the original post!  You don't have to stand "shoulder to
shoulder" with the gay community in support of hate-crime legislation.........
We allready have it; it's called homocide! (sp?)


+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|  J. Michael Diehl  ;-]  |  I thought I was wrong once.  But, I was mistaken. |
|                         +----------------------------------------------------+
|  mdiehl@hydra.unm.edu   | "I'm just looking for the opportunity to be        |
|  Thunder@forum          |            Politically Incorrect!                  |
|  Thunder@Tiny*          |                               <me>                 |
|  (505) 272-HaHa         |                                                    |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15167 alt.sex:43163 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13837 alt.politics.correct:6372 alt.politics.equality:166 alt.politics.homosexuality:10297 talk.abortion:57916 alt.politics.clinton:21238
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Motive, Crime, & Punishment (Re: GayKilling question)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:58 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan25.032536.18806@netcom.com>, cjk@netcom.com writes...
|In article <21JAN199321415827@zeus.tamu.edu> gadson@zeus.tamu.edu writes:

|>	However, once we determine that the motive was not valid, then
|>the action of killing is called "murder".  Once it is murder, then if we
|>make further arbitrations as to the motive of the killing, we would be
|>prosecuting for a crime beyond murder.
| 
|	The suspect is on trial because of the crime they committed, not
|because of the motive, or the method, or the opportunity.  But in some
|instances, method is a seperate crime.  I.E, Use a blow-dryer, go to
|prison. :-)

	Technically, the suspect is on trial to determine if she committed
a crime.  Crime is a legal matter, and the suspect cannot be said to have
committed a crime until it is proven in a court of law... right?

	We have legal definitions of crimes like murder.  And they
deal with intent, motive, or lack thereof.  For instance, if someone
attacked me, and I killed him, my act of killing would be motivated
by self-defence, and would not be termed as murder.  The court would
view my motive as a justifiable one.  I'd then probably be charged with
something else, and/or possibly even be granted clemency.


|The whole problem I have with "hate" crimes, is what is the protection
|for the _alledged (innocent til proven guilty).  It is way to easy
|to charge somebody with an unsubstantiated hate crime.

	Yes, that's an undesirble side effect... to be weighed with
the rest of the costs and benefits.


|How can you have a crime against an emotion?  Sure, we recognize hate as
|a negative emotion, but an emotion it is.  Are we now going to legislate 
|how people feel?  rather than react?  Or along with how they react?

	No, not to legislate how people feel.  That's not the issue.
But we have already been legislating on how people may /act/ in response 
to certain emotions, opinions, and ideas for thousands of years, and we
have also weighed the motive in determining the punishment.  This is
nothing new.


|Laws are passed to restrict peoples behaviors to those behaviors which 
|are acceptable to the common sense of society.  Are we now  looking
|to pass laws that restrict peoples attitudes as measured against *the what*?

	Let's hope not.  But I trust you can see the difference between
what you are suggesting and what I have said.  If not, I'll be glad to
expound.

Gadson
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15180 talk.abortion:57967