HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Reality of imaginary events
Date: 11 Jan 1993 21:50:09 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Reply-To: ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de

In article <JMC.92Dec14224313@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Indeed there is a similarity between imaginary events and real ones.
>However, I would imagine that treating them in exactly the same way
>in psychotherapy would lead greater and greater fantasies.

As a matter of fact, had our ancestors treated real and imaginary events
exactly the same way, they would have been eaten by saber - toothed
tigers rather more often.
-- 
Thomas Koenig, ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25@dkauni2.bitnet
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic
diagram.
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Paglia
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:20:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1993Jan9.002002.11556
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1993Jan8.234504.20824@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>>I'd claim that in Mailer's case, claims of extravagance as much represent
>>wonderment and mild amusement as any negative evaluation.  There's something
>>about pride and self-promotion which is viewed affectionately when it comes
>>from a male--"that's my boy", yet is imbued with negative overtones when
>>such behavior is observed in women.
>
>By whom? I'm just as amused by it in Paglia as I am in Mailer.

OK, not by you or me.  This is a general observation applied to a particular.

>But, really, do we need to develop some unfalsifiable theory about how
>arrogance is taken in one gender as distinguished from the other? 

I hope not.  Save that for sci.sci.books or something like this.

>I've seen lots of criticism of Paglia since I first started recommending
>her book, and most of the criticism of her self-presentation has come from
>women who see her as an enemy of feminism. If it seems that more men are
>saying so here, consider the relative numbers of men and women on Usenet.

It might well be.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox)
Subject: Re: SF + PC
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:25:07 GMT

In article <JMC.93Jan7230311@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.061941.2532@netcom.com> tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox) writes:
>
>   In article <JMC.93Jan4235352@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU [Scrooge 
>   McDuck] writes:
>
>   >Bah, humbug.  Science graduates write as well as graduates in English,
>   >and include far less nonsense in what they write.
>
>   >The literacy level
>   >of the PMLA isn't as high as that of _Science_ or _Nature_.
>
>	   I find myself wondering what the esteemed Prof. McDuck means by this.
>   Surely the literacy level among (a) editors, (b) writers, and (c) readers 
>   of all three magazines is *very* close to one hundred per cent.  

>Perhaps "literary level" would have been more precise than "literacy
>level", although there are literacy levels above those required to
>read magazine articles.

	"Literary level," eh?  Murkier and murkier, Prof. McDuck.  Do you 
mean something like, "acquaintance with world literature past and present,"
which would seem a reasonable use of the phrase?  If so, I really doubt 
that _Science_ or _Nature_ excels _PMLA_.

	Otherwise, I find myself at a loss to guess at the meaning you 
consider "more precise."


-- 
				Tom Maddox
		    	    tmaddox@netcom.com
	"That's a bird bone chair, Bob.  I don't know if I should sit there."
				Tom Waits
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: sheilah@wam.umd.edu (Danny-Boy)
Subject: fictional or not, women, cross-dressing
Summary: query
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:59:57 GMT



Someone send me suggestions for readings with cross dressing woman,
fictional or non, perhaps even a reference to a journal study. 

I am working on thinking about writing a book. Don't want to be too
fanciful.


-- 
I am always wrong. Don't believe me ever.
stark raving sane  sheilah@wam.umd.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams)
Subject: Re: Legal theory, Homophobia, and the Bible
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, California
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:51:22 GMT

> engelson-sean@cs.yale.edu writes:
>> lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann) writes:

>|> I'd be curious to hear a rational argument from someone.
>
>Well, what exactly did the measures say?  I happen to be of the belief
>that it's generally better not to single out certain groups for a
>special "do not discriminate" status, both because this implicitly
>encourages discrimination against other groups not so listed, and
>because it affords certain sorts of grouping legal (hence, objective)
>status, some of which groupings I may not believe should have such...

None of the so-called "gay rights" laws that I've ever heard
of actually single out any group for "special" protection.  The
laws merely state that it is illegal to discriminate -- usually
in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations --
on the irrelevant basis of a person's sexual orientation.  The
laws apply equally to all people -- gay, straight and bisexual.
If, in reality, most of the discrimination that does occur is
aimed against gays and lesbians, Justice is blind to it, but
offers equal protection to all.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san ramon, ca -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu (michael bruce mcdonald)
Subject: Re: Paglia (again)
Reply-To: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:24:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.053652.15480@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <C0oAI6.A7I@news.iastate.edu> s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
>>On "Later with Bob Costas," Paglia said that once a woman consents to go
>>into a man's room in the course of a date, she basically has no business
>>accusing him of rape if he forces himself on her.
>
>Paglia has not said any such thing.
>
>> Given the nature of
>>male sexuality, Paglia said, the woman's agreement to enter the man's room
>>is tantamount to consenting to sex.
>
>What she has said, time and again, is that, when you're on a date, and you
>end the date by going to your date's room, with both parties' consent,
>there is a reasonable expectation that something sexual is in the air.
>A woman who does this is taking the risk of date rape.
>
>It does not take a rocket scientist to distinguish between this
>proposition and an actual *defense* of date rape.
>
>>While watching the show and reflecting on it later, it wasn't just the
>>viewpoint Paglia expressed that I found reprehensible, but the smirking,
>>no-room-for-disagreement attitude which attended her articulation of these
>>views.
>
>The irony is how smirking you are in this posting condemning Paglia's
>smirking.
>
>>I wonder how Mike and Heather will dance around *this* post.
>
>It's easy to dance around a misrepresentation that borders on outright
>falsehood.
>
>>I would have
>>more respect for you folks if you weren't so avid to defend, seemingly,
>>*everything* Paglia has to say.
>
>There's plenty not to defend about Paglia. But you've been so busy in
>willful misreadings of what she's said on one subject that we're not
>likely to get to the issues where I disagree with her. (For example, I
>disagree with her about the extent to which biology limits or dictates
>achievement, and I think she elides the distinction between statistical
>tendencies and individual potentials.)
>
>
>--Mike
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
>mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
>(617) 864-0665  |                           
>EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 

Mike, it's obviously important to you to insist that my post misrepresents
her views.  In fact, however, my post is a very faithful representation of
what she did say on that particular show.

michael mcdonald
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: Het Boys (was: Homophobia)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 8 JAN 93 19:33:10 GMT

Steve Dyer writes:

>  No, it just means he's a clueless "I've got mine" white Protestant het boy

Het Boys.  Hmmm.  Manny, Moe, and Jack?

Listen, if you're gay/black/Chinese/whatever and expect white Protestant
het boys and girls to treat you civilly, you ought to treat them civilly
too.

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams)
Subject: Re: Homophobia (really not about  Homeschooling)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, California
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:47:17 GMT

> msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris) writes:
>
>             ...You see, if ``equal treatment before the law'' means
>government shall treat people equally (i.e. 1 individual =
>another individual) then it would seem to me one oughtn't be
>able to single out inclusion in any minority group for any special
>treatment by any law that one makes...

But the good citizens of Colorado, with whom you've expressed
agreement, voted to single out inclusion in a particular
minority group for special *exclusion* from the provisions of
existing and future civil rights laws.

>                                               ...I would not
>be willing legally to punish a business which refused to hire
>blacks, say. Personally, I would boycott the products of such a
>company, and I would suspect such a company would not long remain
>in business...

I don't know what leads you to believe this, given ample
historical evidence that such discrimination has flourished
in the past -- the very reason civil rights laws were
passed -- and is pervasive today, despite its illegality.

>           ...In any event, you can understand why I would not be happy
>to add yet another protected minority group to the list, when I
>disagree with the principle of having such a list in the first place.

Your position is certainly consistent, but it betrays a
streak of smug Social Darwinism, or perhaps merely a
foolish misunderstanding of human nature.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san ramon, ca -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: fictional or not, women, cross-dressing
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:47:13 GMT

In article <C0IMHJ.G2v@panix.com> mtaranto@panix.com (Mark Taranto) writes:

>But what about Shakespeare!  Nearly ALL of his women dress as men (presumably
>because they were played by men).

Strictly speaking, they were played by boys. Except perhaps for Juliet's
Nurse.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Homophobia (really not about  Homeschooling)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:38:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.230134.19209@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>>>roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>>>msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris) writes:

>MM:
>>>>>What is so wrong about letting the employment contract be freely negotiable
>>>>>between both parties? 

>RL:
>>>>Can you say "horse and rabbit stew"?  When the employer has thousands of
>>>>times more resources, the freedom in the negotiations is entirely his/hers.

>MZ:
>>>Pardon me for insinuating myself into this exceedingly polite discussion,
>>>but hasn't the ever-so-aptly named Roger ever heard about unions?

>RL:
>>I sure have.

>Then, perhaps, you would be kind enough to retract your utterly
>groundless claim that, "[w]hen the employer has thousands of times
>more resources, the freedom in the [labor] negotiations is entirely
>his/hers"?

Why?  The If-Then statement holds whether unions exist or not!  

Now, if there is a union in play, then the ratio is not 1000-1 or
whatever, but this is not always the case.

Speaking of begged questions, how did unions come about?  That's right,
through government intervention.  Until the government recognized the
right to organize, workers did so at the risk of losing their jobs or
worse.  See under "Pinkerton."  Or "Anaconda."  Or even "UAW."

>RL:
>>	      I also know that, in times past, private armies were 
>>raised to put them down, that just twenty years before I was born
>>major violent battles were fought by organizers, and that it took
>>a fair amount of governmental intervention to stop this.  Recently
>>the government has again taken up the cause of union-busting.

>All the more reason to emphasize the merits of unions in contractual
>negotiations of employment terms.

No kidding!  But remember that the establishment of unions has historically
occurred only under circumstances which Mike disapproves of.

Roger
From: rachel@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us (Rachel M. Kadel)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Walker
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 15:32:14 EST
Organization: Princeton High School, Princeton, New Jersey

Did Alice Walker write another sequel to _The Color Purple_ and _The 
Temple of My Familiar_?  

Please mail, as my system only keeps 50 messages per group, so I might 
miss a post.  Thank you.

                           Rachel Meredith Kadel

There's an infinite number of monkeys at the door wanting to show us the 
script to Hamlet they've worked out...The school won't even LISTEN to me 
, much less let me speak for it...rachel@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: dstein@oak.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Subject: _Halo_: a question and a remark.
Organization: UCLA Department of Hell
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 04:53:53 GMT

  One of Dave's last acts before he dropped dead of hunger was to check 
once more at the university bookstore for Mr. Maddox's book.  And voila,
or whatever, there it was, lost among twenty Wild Cards excretions.

  For a moment I saw Dave hesitate.  His life savings for the book?
He read the incomprehensibly hip Gibson blurb, then the informative one
by Sterling.  But it was Chuq's eloquent quote that forced Dave's hand.

  Personally, I would just read the book right there in the store.  But
that's me.  Now Dave's caput and I got the book.


  And the question is ...

  In the book, on page 33, we are told the following about the mathematical
sign _Aleph null_: 

     In Cantor's notation, it represents the first of the transfinite 
     numbers--denoting the infinite set of integers and fractions, or 
     natural numbers.

  First, it is not altogether clear to me if this is an error and you meant
to say "rational" numbers instead of "natural" numbers.

  Second, I would like to note that when you say "the first of the transfinite 
numbers", I would think of _omega_ rather then of _Aleph_null_, since the first
is an ordinal (and is almost always defined as the set of all natural numbers)
while the second is a cardinal, denoting the cardinality of sets like the
integers, rationals, natural numbers (but not the reals), etc., but is not
necessarily identified with _omega_ or any other set (it may be a proper 
class).

  So a statement like

  In Cantor's notation, it represents the first of the infinite cardinals--
denoting the cardinality of infinite sets like the integers or the rationals.

  would seem more correct.

Anyway, maybe I'm not telling you anything new and for some reason Cantor
did indeed identify _Aleph null_ with rationals.  In that case I would 
like to know about it.  Otherwise, please drop a hint about the extent to
which you understand the matter, and what motivated you to chose the name.

I do not want to pick on you--I have seen some horrible examples of math 
misuse by quite established writers--but I do wonder about the process 
through which math stuff enters the lit territory.


  Now the remark:

  Maxwell's equations are not beautiful.  That's an absolute aesthetic truth
contradicted only by Physics majors, Applied Mathematicians and other misfits.

 - David

p.s.

  I'm also tempted to ask you to enumerate the 10 000 principles of common 
sense, but I suspect you would name only one of them.

--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Debil, on the shores of Bohemia.
################################
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Shouting at robots
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:11:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <JMC.93Jan2141039@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
# I hear my 7 year old son shouting "Stop! Stop!" at his robot.  You
# might consider shouting at a toy robot a singularly futile exercise.
# However, the robot, manufactured in China for a Japanese company and
# sold at Radio Shack, uses voice recognition technology licensed from an
# American company.
# 
# It just isn't very obedient when shouted at.
# 
# A $25 prize is offered for the best posting in the next week viewing
# this development with alarm, i.e. children shouting at robots.
# --
# John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305

Alarm?  Why should I be alarmed?  Didn't you watch _The Terminator_?
I suggest that you train your son in the use of appropriate antitank
weapons, so that he will be ready for the future, when the robots
won't be so harmless. :-)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Woosterspeak
Date: 8 Jan 1993 20:01:46 GMT
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
NNTP-Posting-Host: oas.stanford.edu

Matt Austern writes:

	_The Code of the Woosters_ isn't specifically anti-Nazi, and 
	Hitler is never mentioned; Woodhouse is making fun of a local 
	British fascist party.  And, of course, it is marvelously funny.  
	If I had my copy of the book with me right now I'd post some of 
	those passages, but then again, it's probably better that I 
	don't: this way, you'll just have to read the book, won't you?  
	And the parts about newts are just as funny as the parts about 
	fascists, anyway.

Whatever Plum intended, most would have taken it as a dig at Sir Oswald
Mosley and the Cliveden Set. You know, those two darlings and Hitler's pals,
Diana and Unity Mitford.

							RABworm
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Homophobia (really not about  Homeschooling)
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:32:13 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <C0Hto0.z2@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca>, msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris) writes:
> I think we are *almost* at the crux of the problem, Laurie. The crux
> is that you seem to think the ``rights of the minority'' are something
> rather different than I do. I think rights are things like free speech,
> free press, due process, free association, free exercise of religion, 
> the right to keep and bear arms. These things I think are rights because
> they are grounded in the only moral philosophy I will allow is
> reasonable. I think they come from God, or, rather, since I'm
> atheist, from some source transfinitely more powerful than cultural
> agreement, or the good wishes of a democratic majority of my fellow citizens.

Wow!  Remarkable intellectual honesty.  Most atheists who assert
an absolute theory of human rights take the views of Locke expressed
in the Declaration of Independence, then ascribe them to "natural
law", biology, or pull them quickly from their sleeve.  Mr. Morris
is prepared to admit that he deriving his ideology from a particular
source, while denying the underlying premise of that ideology.

>                       Mike Morris



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: pedersen@seas.smu.edu (Ted Pedersen)
Subject: inquiry - frida kahlo letters and/or diary
Keywords: Kahlo
Organization: SMU - School of Engineering & Applied Science - Dallas
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:12:22 GMT

I am trying to see if the collected letters and/or diary of Frida
Kahlo (Mexican painter and wife of Diego Rivera) have been published.

I have the biography "Frida" by Hayden Herrera which does have some
letters and diary entries but I'd really like to have a more complete
collection.

Any hints on this would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Ted Pedersen
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Het Boys (was: Homophobia)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 9 JAN 93 03:01:36 GMT

Steve Dyer wrote of Mike Morris:

>>  No, it just means he's a clueless "I've got mine" white Protestant het
>>  boy 

I wrote:

>Het Boys.  Hmmm.  Manny, Moe, and Jack? 
>Listen, if you're gay/black/Chinese/whatever and expect white Protestant 
>het boys and girls to treat you civilly, you ought to treat them civilly
too. 

Steve wrote:

>Heather, if you are a straight white Protestant het girl 

I am a straight white Protestant het girl.

>there should only be more like you.  

Thank you, but I'm not sure that scenario is either possible or desirable.

>Yet you distort my very argument: first, I think it's unwise to identify
>yourself, even for the purposes of gaining points, as someone in solidarity
>with Morris. This is clearly not the case.  

What I see happening is: Mike is expressing his opinion reasonably.  You and
others disagree with his opinion, which is fine, but instead of disagreeing
with him on an equally reasonable basis, you're resorting to namecalling and
stereotyping.  Do what Evelyn recommended: replace "white Protestant het boy"
with something like "black homo" and see how acceptable your comment becomes.

>Second, I expect white Protestant het girls 
>to have more on the ball than their white Protestant het boyfriends, simply 
>by virtue of being raised female in a sexist society.  This is usually, 
>but not always the case.  That's why I was not uncivil with them. 

So the more you're oppressed, the more right-minded you are?  I don't happen
to believe that.

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Cross-Writing (was: Books I Got For Xmas)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:59:11 GMT

In article <1ib2qaINN5hb@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:

>I suppose there are many who share my view that Jane Austen is the
>type novelist par excellence. And yet, her men are totally absurd
>creatures.

This suggests to me that she got her portrayals right.

>Likewise, the Shagger Pagger
>wins no prizes for his women qua women.

I think Rosalind and Beatrice win a prize or two.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books