HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:27:02 GMT

In article <2352@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.024529.1581@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>In article <C07Kqz.H65@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>| Yep, and those false accusations ought to be a Class "X" (as in just as bad
>>| as selling cocaine to a 5-year old) felony.
>>
>>Lying under oath if proven is called perjury and is a
>>felony.  News to you guys?
>
>Just try and PROVE that an allegation of sexual abuse is false.  I have talked
>to several experts in the field who have told me that there is nothing that
>would even be considered to be EVIDENCE that sexual abuse did not occur.
>
>Yes, you read that right.  There is no fact whatsoever that could be cited
>that would be considered to be evidence against an allegation of sexual 
>abuse, for the experts have an alternative explanation that would still 
>allow the possibility of abuse.  Thus an accusation of abuse is unfalsifiable,
>even though in rare cases the courts might not believe it.
>
>-db

This doesn't sound right to me, though I'm no expert.
I can think of several ways that you can provide evidence FOR sexual abuse 
- Doctor's exams, bruises, witnesses, etc.  While lack of such evidence 
dosn't automatically DISPROVE an accusation of abuse, it certainly would 
seem to favor the defendent's case rather than the accuser's.  I question 
your suggestion that the courts "rarely" favor the accused in these cases. 

Another example would be where the mother claims the father sexually abused 
the child, but the child's testimony claims no abuse.  Does this not provide 
evidence which could be thought of as falsifying the mother's accusations?


-- 
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*
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:50:27 CST

In article <1993Jan6.185235.21660@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.163239.28595@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.155059.26851@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>>Until recently, standard medical knowledge was that women were at 
>>>extremely low risk for heart attacks and heart disease.  This is now 
>>>known to be untrue.  
>>
>>I think it might me more accurate to say 'this has changed' than to
>>say "This is now known to be untrue".
>
>Well if the first theory was that women were at low risk for heart
>disease and the current theory, backed up with much more research,
>is that woman are at risk for heart disease, I would say that 
>theory #1 is untrue.  To make a comparison that will surely get
>me flamed:  we know that the planets orbit the sun.  Do we say
>that the earthcentric solar system model is incorrect or "has changed"?
>

	Bad analogy. As for the solar system, the early theory was
	never true while the earlier risk factor theory was true at
	one time. 
	I would say that the early risk factor theory is "no longer
	true" and that the early solar system theory is "false".
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: moses@netcom.com (Lamont Cranston)
Subject: Re: Why men live 10% less?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:10:11 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>>>>Stress is primarily tied to lack of control over your job.  
>>>>In most offices, the employee under the highest stress is the secretary.  

>>>I think that lack of control over what important to you is what
>>>really causes stress.  Quite a few secretaries take their work
>>>quite easy, you know.

>>That's not a contradiction.  

>My point is that men tend to take their work more seriously because
>of social pressures/norms, and those pressures help to kill us.
>I think that it is more socially acceptable for a woman not to sweat
>too much over her job; do you accept or reject my claim?

I just love this kind of argument.  "Women live longer because society
tells them not to give a shit about their jobs."  Whoa dude, where the
hell have you been since 1961?  Women who DO manage to work outside the
home are under far more pressure to succeed with far less opportunity
to do so.  While this may not have been true in 1953 is certainly is in
1993.

Oh and PS: the REAL reason for Women's longevity is that Women who are dying
now were of working age in the 50's and before when "Women didn't work".
Arguments about current work demographics are completely specious since
people working now won't be affecting the expected lifespan for some time.

Monty

-- 
Lamont Cranston                        "I once had a plan, but it seems to
moses@netcom.com                        to have gone missing"
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (sounds like an English pub...)
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:50:27 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1993Jan4.164754.6557@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>person refuses to help his own child, the flesh of his own flesh, when
>that child is too young to care for itself, is there really anything

	I believe that what is so objectionable is the idea of being
forced to beggar one's self to support an estranged family in relative
comfort.  How much does the government pay a foster family to support
their foster children?  How much can an unemployed mother of two get in 
welfare, food stamps, and AFDC ?   Now, why is _this_ sufficient to 
support children unless there happens to be a man to soak for an order
of magnitude more?  Why isn't the _government_ required to support children
at some substantial fraction of its income?  Don't _those_ children
deserve the same comfort as the children of some _man_ who had the bad grace
to get his girlfriend pregnant?  I have a mental picture of thousands of
orphans suing Uncle Sam for overdue child support...

	There's no law that will force a married man to spend N dollars
on his children.  Why should a parent-in-legality-only be forced to spend
more than what is required to feed and clothe them?  

	When it came time to go to college my father said that if he
was to pay for the experience I would have to do X, and Y, and Z.  I
refused, and he refused to pay.  It's too bad that my parents were still
married, I suppose, or I'd have been able to force the unquestioning kindness
that all children deserve, hmmm?

>Is there some demonstration of amoral selfishness which is stronger or more 
>definite than this? 

	How about "Hurt that fellow as much as you can, since your action
does not hurt me at all." ?

	Now, what's really happening here is that our society is twisted. 
She shouldn't _need_ a man to support her (nor should he be reduced to
slavery to support her) because her own family should help where her own
resources might fail.  Of their own will.  Out of love.  Out of duty.  How-
ever much they want, or can.  Not at the point of a gun.
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Interrelating processes
Date: 4 Jan 1993 16:30:50 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

This course should be offered in conjunction with a course on English
grammar.  The course description reads as if it were dictated by a 
12-stepper who had just ingested a megadose of LSD.
 
Xref: sparky soc.men:22239 soc.women:22222
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Now That is Funny....
Followup-To:  alt.sex,soc.singles
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:16:33 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

] bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker) writes...
] >In article <1992Dec18.063654.9388@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle M
] >nster) writes:
] >>     Here is some more arguments for my point of view.
] 
] >GET A CLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
] 
] I am starting to notice something of a flaming rivalry among the folks at
] Netcom... If so, could you people please keep your flames in the local
] newsgroups?
] 
] Thanks.


would asking you too keep it inside guild.org be any more effective?

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

"lets get linear, I want to get linear, linear"
				Olivia Newton Algegra
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:59:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.155357.22287@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.213435.29314@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com
>(Robert Sheaffer) writes: 
>
>>
>>Don't worry. This was one of the "predictions" for 1993 made by one of the
>>"psychics" in the _National Enquirer_: Bill and Hillary to split!!!
>>
>>And since the track record of these "predictions" is essentially zero,
>>we can be reasonably sure that it WON'T happen. Like that "George
>>Bush landslide" predicted last year!
>
> No we can't Robert.  I don't see how the fact that a psychic predicts
>something makes it less likely to happen.  

If most of their predictions do not, in fact, happen, then I suspect that
it would follow. And their hit rate is not anything to brag about. No
psychic powers needed, reality is far too complex for random guesses to
work most of the time.

>                                                Unless of course you
>actually DO believe in psychic powers.  After all, if your above
>paragraph was true, all we'd have to do is ask the National Enquirer
>to print stock market predictions.  Do the opposite, and we'd get
>rich...

It has already been pointed out that this was either a joke or sarcasm.
 
>-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
>       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky soc.men:22419 alt.feminism:6949
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Reverse" Discrimination (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:18:55 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <C0Iwru.nI@cs.mcgill.ca> chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J. Savoie) writes:

>1) Somewhere in the average person's head is a pattern of synapses which
>   equates: SEXISM = BAD.  Put "reverse" in front of it and you get:
>   		reverse(SEXISM) = reverse(BAD)
>				= GOOD
>   I'm not suggesting that people actually think this way... but I'm
>   almost certain that by putting "reverse" in front of a Bad Thing(tm),
>   you make the "reverse" thing seem at least "not as bad", perhaps
>   on a subconscious level...  Just a thought.

Interesting thought, but there is an error in the math.

	 Let SEXISM = BAD
	 Note the fact that: reverse(SEXISM) = SEXISM
	      so:  reverse(SEXISM) = SEXISM
				   = BAD

The only problem is that if one applies affirmative action to combat
discrimination, it must be noted that this is a long term solution.
In the short term some reverse discrimination could happen.  However
if we look at the discrimination occurring for both sexes, and the
total is reduced, then I can live with it.  Also if it leads to a
future with less sexual discrimination, then I'm even satisfied with
it.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Xref: sparky soc.men:22550 alt.feminism:7063
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Double standards (Was Re: Living in a State of Siege)
Date: 4 Jan 93 07:49:13 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men,alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1993Jan3.235640.24543@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>it back and forth.  As I said, in the first place, and
>could repeat ad nauseam but won't, it hasn't been shown
>that male longevity is reduced by social factors, much
>less what those factors might exactly be.  

Tell me Gordon, do you ever question feminists who claim that 
women can be as good as men in profession X?  (E.g. doing math.)

Can you re-post an article where you asked such claims?

If you care so much about *hard* proofs, then why don't
you ask everybody to supply such proofs?
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: an4207@anon.penet.fi
Subject: FOR SM ESPECIALLY IN INDIANAPOLIS AREA
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: soc.men
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:01:06 GMT




Tired of posting personal ads and receiving no reply? Well, maybe

because this is a wrong place for it!



Then, where is the right place? The answer is NIGHT CLUBS. Indianapolis

has some finest clubs in the country, such as Shooters (Yes, just like

the one seen on Melrose Place), PepperMint Twist, the Hop. Great dance

floor, inexpensive beer, plenty of women, loads of fun.



So if you live in Indy area, and want to hang out with other SM's

(mostly professionals between 20 and 30) in Indianapolis's hottest

spots, please drop me a note. 



Well, even if you are not from this area, you may still drop me a note

so that you may contact me when you visit here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Xref: sparky soc.men:22147 alt.abortion.inequity:6304 alt.feminism:6819
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 15:53:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.213435.29314@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com
(Robert Sheaffer) writes: 

>
>Don't worry. This was one of the "predictions" for 1993 made by one of the
>"psychics" in the _National Enquirer_: Bill and Hillary to split!!!
>
>And since the track record of these "predictions" is essentially zero,
>we can be reasonably sure that it WON'T happen. Like that "George
>Bush landslide" predicted last year!

 No we can't Robert.  I don't see how the fact that a psychic predicts
something makes it less likely to happen.  Unless of course you
actually DO believe in psychic powers.  After all, if your above
paragraph was true, all we'd have to do is ask the National Enquirer
to print stock market predictions.  Do the opposite, and we'd get
rich...

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************


Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards
From: lile@netcom.com (Lile Elam)
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:22:07 GMT

pcrayne@halcyon.com (Peter C. Crayne) writes:

>Ah, you mean the Star-bellied Sneeches! In the book, a salesman came
>around with a machine that could add or remove stars from sneeches'
>bellies. The non-starred sneeches all had stars added. The Original
>starred sneeches then had thiers removed in order to distinguish them
>from the lowly sneeches. This goes on and on until none of them remember
>what they started out as.
>This seems a tad unlikely for circumcisions. :-)

>-Pete

Good point. I hadn't considered this unfortunate point. 

:(

-lile



-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lile Elam	    |  "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are."
lile@netcom.com     |		
Un*x Admin / Artist |			 Buckaroo Banzai
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Wash DC area Men's Groups
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:06:42 GMT

Does anyone have any information about men's/men's movement groups in
the Wash DC area.  Im on a low budget and am less interested in the
drum banging/ war paint set.

Please email me with info at : sfjr@wam.umd.edu
thanks

Steve R
Xref: sparky soc.men:22182 alt.feminism:6832
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:49:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.164848.10692@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>In article <C0GHwp.48w@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.135027.1400@hemlock.cray.com> acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan6.185235.21660@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan6.163239.28595@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>>In article <1993Jan5.155059.26851@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>>>>>Until recently, standard medical knowledge was that women were at 
>>>>>>extremely low risk for heart attacks and heart disease.  This is now 
>>>>>>known to be untrue.  
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it might me more accurate to say 'this has changed' than to
>>>>>say "This is now known to be untrue".
>>>>
>>>>Well if the first theory was that women were at low risk for heart
>>>>disease and the current theory, backed up with much more research,
>>>>is that woman are at risk for heart disease, I would say that 
>>>>theory #1 is untrue.  To make a comparison that will surely get
>>>>me flamed:  we know that the planets orbit the sun.  Do we say
>>>>that the earthcentric solar system model is incorrect or "has changed"?
>>>
>>>	Bad analogy. As for the solar system, the early theory was
>>>	never true while the earlier risk factor theory was true at
>>>	one time. 
>>
>>The point is that because of lousy diagnosis and lack of studies
>>it is not clear whether the belief that women were at one time at
>>very low risk for heart disease had a basis in fact or not. 

What data supports the claim of "lousy diagnosis"? Is this not begging
the question? This is what needs to be demonstrated.

>>                                                            Current
>>studies indicate that doctors are not diagnosing (or at least not
>>treating) heart ailments as agressively in women as in men. 

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, this is -one- (single) study.
It's validity is not written in stone. My observation is the most
initial studies have some flaws or problems, sometimes they are completely
wrong. It is wise (IMHO) to get some sort if independant validation.
If you doubt this, look at the cholesterol issue. And I would not be
surprised if todays understanding were not subject to change.

>>                                                                 If
>>we extrapolate that information to the past, it means that historical
>>figures for the incidence of heart disease in women are questionable.

As are the claims of misdiagnosis and any claims of actual incidence of
heart disease.
 
>I wish I had said it half as good as this.  This is exactly the
>point I was trying to make.  

Your point was understood Julie, we were trying ot establish it's validity.
 
>Julie
>DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards
From: adam@wam.umd.edu (Adam L. Greenberg)
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Summary: What Jewish Women are Commanded to Do 
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:13:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.171618.6085@nynexst.com> clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu) writes:
>
>  I do believe that somewhere in the Bible, Jewish women were instructed
>  to not sleep with a man who was not circumcised.  So they were supposed
>  to go around inspecting penises.  So circumcision was a mark of membership
>  in the community.

Lemme get this straight...I can go down to the local bar, find a woman that
would make me and my grandmother happy and she'll probably be looking around
at my doodads?  Oh this is too cool...

Had to be said.     --Campus Celebrity and Nice Jewish Boy Gary Allen

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 19:21:34 GMT

In article <1ijcomINNr3a@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <1i7uatINN7ph@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>>If she wants 18 years of child support, then the father should be notified
>>>>of the pregnancy. Otherwise the man has no say. After birth, all she has to
>          ^^^^^^^^^
>>>>do is to take hime to court, it is too late a joint decision. 
>
>>>The father has no say whether or not he is notified of the pregnancy.
>>>As the law currently stands, one conception has occurred he is obligated
>>>to support the child if it is born (unless he and the mother *both*
>>>agree to put the child up for adoption.)
>
>>>>If she wants to raise the child herself, she need not
>>>>notify the father at all. If she wants child support, then the father has 
>>>>a need and a right to know about the pregnancy.
>
>>>No, he has a need and a right to know about the birth.
>                                                  ^^^^^
>>By what twisted logic does the women have some moral right to keep the
>>pregnany secret, then claim financial compensation for the birth of the
>>baby (the -result- of the pregnanct)?
>
>This is my logic (the reader may judge for him/herself upon it's twistedness):
>It is the birth (rather than the pregnancy -- which may be miscarried or 
>aborted) that triggers the man's financial obligation.  

I disagree, and it seems that many others do as well. Perhaps we should just
agree to disagree on this.

>                                                         Therefore, it is of
>the birth (rather than the pregnancy) of which he needs to be aware.  

See above.

>(Although I still feel that father "notification" is redundant.  If he's 
>being sued for child support then he already knows, and if he's not then
>he can easily find out about the birth because it's in the public record.) 

Easily, do you have any idea how many hospitals and counties that there
are? Your startement about the ease of finding out non-general information
is, quite simply, wrong. If you claim different, demonstrate how easy it
is by finding the record of my birth. You have about as much information
as the prospective father might have. BTW, my last name is rather uncommon,
which should help, imagine if the name was Smith.

And I completely disagree with your notions of financial responsibility.
 
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.couples,soc.singles