HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cleslie@ho11.eng.ua.edu (Charles J. Leslie)
Subject: help
Organization: The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 00:08:25 GMT

Hello,
    
     I'm having a hard time finding a friend's e-mail address.
                                   ^^^-couple of

One is at St. Louis University  His name is Tim Jones and he's an 
AE major.  This is his fourth or maybe his fifth year.

The other person is Ron Willie and he's somewhere in Southern California.
I believe USC <not 100% sure> and he's a Computer Science major.

They have to have an E-mail account, because everybody in those field
need a system's account.

Thanks
-- 
----------------====<<<<< Charles J. Leslie >>>>>====----------------------
                       cleslie@buster.eng.ua.edu
                           Computer Science 
Newsgroups: soc.net-people
From: sjouw@sirius.ru.ac.za (WAYNE JOUBERT)
Subject: People at School of Natural Resources, University if Michigan
Organization: St Andrew's College
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 10:29:11 GMT

I am looking for the e-mail address of people at the school of natural 
resources , University of Michigan. I am particularly keen in linking up 
with somebody attached to the GREEN Project. Anybody know Arjen Wals.

Thanks (-:
Wayne Joubert
e-mail address sjouw@sirius.ru.ac.za.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 13 Nov 1992 10:12:34 CST
From: <U61618@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.net-people
Subject:    Looking for Kenny Santos of University of Washington Huskies

If any one from U.O.W knows him, can you please tell him that Gary G.
from Park City, Illinois is looking for him (email: u61618@uicvm.uic.edu)
University of Illinois, Chicago.

Doble G.
Newsgroups: soc.net-people
From: planger@rtsg.mot.com (Paul A. Langer)
Subject: Any University of Colorado Alumni Out There?
Organization: Oompa Loompa Preservation Society, INC.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:35:42 GMT




  Greetings! I would like to hear from anyone who attended
or does attend CU. I am trying to find out if anyone knows
of an alumni 'e-mail mailing list' for CU.

Thanks,


===============================================================================
|Paul Langer     e-mail: planger@mcdmail1.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com                  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| 
|    CU Buff Fan in Texas...1989 Alumni-->     Email me if you are an Alumni! |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|    Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer.      |
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.net-people
From: baier@forwiss.uni-passau.de (Joern Baier)
Subject: Email of Cochabamba
Organization: Multikulturelle Gesellschaft n.e.V.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:45:20 GMT

I'm looking for the Email-Address of the University of Cochabamba, Bolivia.
-- 
* Joern Baier     (baier@forwiss.uni-passau.de) __o   *
* Jesuitengasse 9, D-W8390 Passau             _`\<,_  *
* Tel +49/851/35239                          (_)/ (_) *
Xref: sparky soc.women:19374 soc.men:19122
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:18:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: ils.1992Nov13.001840.8043
Distribution: na
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <F3XSB2HQ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.180831.20166@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>None of this reflects on "spousal notification" as noted
>>previously.  Marriage is a contract; everyone should read
>>the rules before they get into it.  
>
>I find myself with Gordon on this issue.  I only regret having wavered slightly
>on the issue.  Father's notification would involve a lot of unnecessary
>diagnostic procedures being performed upon pregnant women and/or newly born
>children.  Having sex does not imply a contractual relationship.  There is
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>no criminalization of the father here.  I knew I was right all along.  I hate
>logic; it can be so discouraging in its misapplication.
>
>I am not so sure I even like spousal notification.  If it is part of a marriage
>contract, certainly this clause should be respected.  If it were to be part of
>every marriage contract, that would be another thing.

Oh?

Try telling that to the people who are screaming about "deadbeat dads" who
are *including* fathers not married to the mother!!!
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: penises
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 04:05:34 GMT

In article <7966@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:

(I've taken the liberty of changing your line length.)

>Oh well!  The great and powerful (not to mention sarcastic and
obnoxious) net god ljf has >spoken, so I guess that ends this thread!

Not at all.  You just know now what I think of the thread and your
remarks criticising the way a couple of female posters responded to it.

>Followups to alt.flame, since that seems to be where ljf started from.

No, I've never posted to alt.flame.

>Oh, by the way?  Weren't you one of the women who was complaining how
if she asked a >question which some men considered
stupid/inappropriate/naive/whatever, how she got >deluged with hate
mail/posts?  Hypocritical twit.

No, I'm not a women who did this.

Maybe you can explain again what gives you the right to call someone
snide, but doesn't give me the right to do something very similar in a
response to your post?  Oh, I forget, you're communicating, I'm just
flaming...

Xref: sparky soc.women:18856 soc.men:18686
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 02:55:16 GMT

In article <92309.205408CMSTEST@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU> Jeffery Swagger <CMSTEST@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU> writes:
>My feelings on this are strongly on the side of Kenneth's.  I will
>simply never understand why people like Janice take offense at
>such things.  

Well, yes and no.  I can't understand why a couple of men were annoyed
when a friend and I talked about cock piercings, but...  I've learned
to keep such discussions fairly private now.

But, be that as it may, we simply must be able to work
>together.  So is it really too much to ask that "adult entertainment",
>or for that matter religious material, not be brought into the workplace?
>Or, before engaging in "Eddie Murphy" type humor, ensuring that all the
>people around have the same taste in humor? 

I agree.  I'm surprised that for a group (I'll clump heteros together
to make a broad generalization) that makes much of how queers proclaim
our sexuality, so many hetero men seem compelled to let everyone know
that they like pussy.

 Notice here I am not
>talking about "rights";  just simple consideration for other peoples
>feelings and sensibilities.  I would also suggest that there are many
>people out there who could do with a healthy injection of tolerance.

How tolerant is tolerant?  Would you like Mapplethorpe's more "exotic"
photos hanging in my office if you had to report to me everyday?
("Geez, what _is_ he doing with that whip?!")

>The workplace is becoming increasingly diversified with respect to
>race, creed, gender, ethnic backgrounds, religion, etc.  IMHO, we
>must all become more considerate and tolerant of each other if
>we wish to avoid having the workplace turned into a battle ground.

Yes, and instead of the constant harping on how women who complain
about photos of half-naked women are being "anti-male", listen to what
they're saying.

I'm next expecting a defense of calling women cunts as "fighting
political correctness."

Xref: sparky soc.women:18816 alt.abortion.inequity:4833 talk.abortion:46607 alt.feminism:3698 soc.men:18646
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:02:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov3.132252.29571@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.212103.12012@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
RP>The legislation was for -spousal- notification. And if my wife was pregnant,
RP>and it was not my child, I would think that I would have a right to know.

L>Great post. You did a good job of putting down all those ridiculous
L>examples he came up with.

I was responding to father's notification.  Spousal notification is more
sensible.

L>One question. Why would you have a right to know that the child your
L>wife was carrying was not yours? Doesn't she control her own body?

I agree with this line of questioning under the question of spousal notifica-
tion.  Arguing against father's notification is easier.

-dave
Xref: sparky soc.women:18890 alt.abortion.inequity:4869 talk.abortion:46791 alt.feminism:3768 soc.men:18706
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 1992 23:19:02 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>Uncertain parentage should be made certain.

How???

>No, after sufficient soul-searching I still believe father notification should
>be the norm.

No one is disputing that.  The question is, should it be the *law*.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:01:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.155055.28256@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>It seems to me that one of the largest deciding factors, along with the
>economy, in pushing Clinton past the finish line was abortion. It seems
>that few voted 'for'  WClinton (or even 'for' Perot) but did this as a 
>vote *against* Bush.
>
>I'm curious to hear what you all think about the issue of abortion and its
>effects on the presidency and other implications such as the dangling
>supreme court.

I'd have to agree with you.
Basically, they spent all the debates talking about economic theory:

Each of them can line up X "experts" to say theirs is right.
Each of them can line up Y "experts" to say their opponent's is wrong.
Each of them can give historical examples of the failure of their opponent's
theory.
Neither of them can give historical evidence of the success of their theory,
except in extremely small advances, which the other always points out is more
than offset by other losses.


So they spent three debates at about 2 hours each so they could look exactly
alike.  :-(  :-(  :-(


I really wish they had gotten into abortion and humanitarian issues!


Anyway, not only did I vote for Clinton because of his pro-choice and pro-
LesBiGay stance, but I voted for the first time since I was 18 [when it was a
novelty] because I could actually tell a difference between candidates.

PS:  I think Perot also spiced stuff up, so that may have had an effect.

ObAdmission: I -registered- only because Duke was in the race, and there was no
way I was gonna let him get on the ballot and not vote agin him.  I think I
would have registered and voted once I heard more about Clinton and Bush, but
maybe not.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky soc.women:18886 alt.abortion.inequity:4867 talk.abortion:46777 alt.feminism:3760 soc.men:18704
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:38:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1d80jsINN746@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov3.132252.29571@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov2.212103.12012@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>>The legislation was for -spousal- notification. And if my wife was pregnant,
>>>>and it was not my child, I would think that I would have a right to know.
>
>>>One question. Why would you have a right to know that the child your
>>>wife was carrying was not yours? Does she not control her own body?
>
>>Just a wild guess:  Maybe he actually believed that bit in the wedding
>>ceremony about "forsaking all others".  Maybe he feels that breaking that
>>"archaic" vow is reason to end the marriage.  Maybe he doesn't want to be
>>deceived into thinking it's his child if it's not.  Maybe he doesn't want
>>to raise another man's child as his own.  Maybe if/when the marriage ends,
>>he doesn't want to financially support another man's child for 18 years.
>>Maybe he wants to father children of his own.  Maybe he doesn't want them
>>to suffer because he's supporting another man's child.  Could it be?  Nah,
>>who could possibly be so outdated?
>
>>Sure, she controls her own body...but certain choices should not grant her
>>control over his wallet.  If she chooses to carry another man's child, she
>>should accept the possible consequences and the full responsiblity for her
>>choice.  I didn't notice Rich saying he would force her to take any given
>>course of action.  But, since her actions have an impact on him, I agree
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>that he has a right to know that it's not his child.
>
>That's nice.  You've gien us lots of reasons why you'd *like* to know.
>But you havent given us any justification for your belief that you have
>a *right* to know.

Looks like he gave a perfectly valid justification for a right to know to me.


-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky soc.women:18814 alt.abortion.inequity:4832 talk.abortion:46592 alt.feminism:3686 soc.men:18644
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:47:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <forb0004.37.720666120@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
>In article <5QLSBSV1@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
>>Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
>>Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 22:47:36 GMT
>>In article <1992Oct29.140348.23940@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
JL>The penny analogy is good but not complete.
JL>If, through her "investments" the women runs into trouble and ends up owing
JL>money, many would feel that the man must also share in the cost of her
JL>"legal" troubles.  Why?  Because without that extra "penny", she never
JL>could have gotten into trouble.

DSA>I like the penny analogy better than mine.  Perhaps to complete the analogy
DSA>one should add to it a statute providing that either the woman or the both
DSA>investment partners are bound to the investment for a nine-month period.  The
DSA>caveat here is that the responsibility of the woman is enforceable while the
DSA>responsibility of the man is practically unenforceable, allowing the man to
DSA>default whether or not the investment is profitable.

DSA>Father's consent would in effect allow the father to enforce upon the woman
DSA>unfavorable rates and still allow the father to default nonetheless.

EF>The issue is father's notification, not consent. 

I suppose the analogy is doomed to break down here as babies are not money.  My
analogy was better suited to parental consent.  Notification over the success
or failure of money is not so emotional as notification of conception.

Anyone see a remedy?

-dave
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:10:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.194006.22702@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:

>PS: Since when is a Margin of 35 Million votes to 30 million votes a ROUT or
>    a LANDSLIDE?

The only time I have seen LANDSLIDE mentioned is with regards to the 
electoral votes, where Clinton got more than three times the number that
Bush did.  Perot got none.

With regards to a mandate, everything I've read and seen (mostly the 
non-media C-SPAN) suggests the single most important issue of this 
campaign was -- trickle-down-economics: keep it or lose it?

Both Clinton and Perot campaigned HARD against trickle-down-economics.
The popular vote went: ~40% for trickle-down-economics (the status quo 
vote) and ~60% against trickle-down-economics (the change vote).  I 
guess the people were simply tired of being trickled-down on.  I think 
Clinton has a clear mandate to end trickle-down-economics.

Here at Halloween, we tried trickle-down-trick-or-treating...
We gave all our candy to the biggest kids in the neighborhood and 
then trusted them to distribute the candy to the other kids.
Didn't work here, either!!   :-)



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Article:  Wife takes husband hostage
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:20:24 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <7550027@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode) writes:
>	For those who remember the K-Mart incident . . .
>	(One wonders if the restraining order was granted.)
>
>	Fort Collins _Coloradoan_			Oct 23, 1992
>
>	    Woman surrenders after two-hour siege at Glenwood court
>
>By The Associated Press
>
>  GLENWOOD SPRINGS -- An armed woman who was distraught about her divorce
>held authorities at bay for more than two hours Thursday morning at the
>Garfield County Courthouse before she surrendered.

Oh, but remember the defenses by several men on the net when men kill
wives over divorce and/or child custody hearings?  "This just shows
what a rotten deal men get!  The poor man was pushed beyond his
breaking point."

So, in the interest of fairness:

"This just shows what a rotten deal women get!  The poor woman was
pushed beyond her breaking point."

Yeah...
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 05:18:20 GMT

In article <BxErIq.E6L@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
>When a member of what is sometimes called the "weaker" sex is surrounded by
>calendars depicting scantily-clad women, she can get the impression that her
>male coworkers don't take her seriously as a person and coworker, but only
>think about her in terms of how she looks.  Whether or not that is true, it
>makes (some) women uncomfortable with the work environment.  That can make it
>harder for them to work smoothly and is "hostile".
>
>Companies have an interest in ensuring that their workers feel comfortable at
>work and can work smoothly, and should have a policy against such displays.
>(The other alternative is to kick out women who complain about it or whose
>job performance suffers; and *that* is sexual discrimination and/or outright
>harrassment.)

Well, heck no, it isn't.  If those women aren't men (ahem) enough to
take photos of half naked women on calendars, computers that have
sound effects of orgasmic moans, and a few raunchy jokes, they should
just go back to the kitchen.
From: asgard@plx.com (J.R. Stoner)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Keywords: n
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:01:01 GMT
Organization: Heironamous Botch's Murk Works

In article <1992Nov4.200216.26250@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
_ I am asking men to consider whether it is more important for them to be 
_ able to stare at "T&A" during work hours or if it is more important that 
_ they give consideration to the feelings and comfort of their co-workers?

I am asking jews to consider whether it is more improtant for them to be
able to stare at aryan women during work hours or if it is more important
that they give consideration to the feelings of fear about the purity of their
co-workers?

-- 
J.R. Stoner, DWMIT - asgard@plx.com - sun.com!plx!plxsun!asgard
Xref: sparky soc.women:19431 alt.feminism:4268 soc.men:19168
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 19:46:11 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1dsdniINNef3@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com>
teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:

>>Let's see....how about, say, 50 independent, controlled
>>psychological studies over the last 20 or so years, 90%
>>of which came to the conclusion that the psychological
>>positive well-being of women is equal to or slightly
>>greater than that of men?
>
>It's an interesting point; I wonder if you can be disadvantaged but
>yet resigned and perhaps satisfied to make the most of one's situation.

Yes you certainly can.  But the more disadvantaged you are, the more 
'resigned' etc. you're likely to be, and the lower your overall well-
being, or inner contentment with your life, don't you think?  Certainly 
there will be exceptions, but we should see a probabilistic 
relationship, no?

>I'm not convinced yet.

And I'm asking what it would take to convince you.  It's hard to imagine 
what sort of evidence would be more convincing than the above; if that 
wouldn't sway you, is there anything at all that would?  Or is your 
belief that women are more oppressed simply not subject to any sort of 
empirical check?

>I suppose the whole women's lib thing is just
>an exercise in futility to you, then?

Not at all; there are many in the 'equality' movement who don't see the 
need to believe that either gender 'has it worse' in some encompassing 
sense.  One certainly doesn't need to believe that in order to work for, 
say, gender equality in law, courts, and enforcement.  One can be 
motivated by the idea of individual justice instead (for example).

>I don't think oppression (we need a different word, it's much too
>politically charged) = unhappiness, necessarily.  It's more brainwashing
>in a way, which can leave you feeling you're doing the right thing when
>you may not be.

Are you implying that a 'brainwashed' person is just as likely to be 
fundamentally content and happy with her life as a non-'brainwashed' 
person?  What if I were to supply you with a list of peer-reviewed 
references to the contrary?

You seem to be saying that how well-off a person is in society has 
nothing to do with their overall psychological well-being, not even 
probabilistically, which seems absurd to me.  Am I misreading you?

I get the feeling that if these studies showed instead that women had a 
significantly lower well-being, you wouldn't hesitate to use this as 
evidence for your claim about oppression.  Are you equally willing to 
use this sort of data as evidence against?

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: soc.women