HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman)
Subject: Re: Pet peeve of the day.
Keywords: Grumble Moan Complain
Reply-To: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 03:58:46 GMT

In article <8c52p8=@rpi.edu> safarj@aix.rpi.edu (Jonah Emanuel Safar) writes:
> Just a random peeve of the day... I hate when people think you are
>ignoring them when you don't just hop up and answer a page, or a  
>message, email, talk request, post or whatever immeandiately.  Did
>it ever occur to these people that I might be busy, or away...
>or that my machine here on campus has done one of its usual crashes?

Yeah, I hate that, too. I especially hate it when I'm in the middle of 
something, and I get a talk request from a userid I don't recognize. Being
a generally friendly person, I sometimes pause what I'm doing and try to 
figure out who's trying to talk to me. Nine times out of ten, repeatedly 
seeing the userid, fingering the userid, etc don't tell me how I'm talking 
to, and the twit who wants to chat keeps flooding my screen... Usually I go 
back to what I was trying to do before I was interupted. I really, really, 
really wish people would get a clue when their fifth talk request isn't 
answered and send email explaining what they want to talk about. It's like 
someone tapping insistently on an office door and refusing to go leave a 
message, despite copious evidence that the person they want to talk to 
doesn't have time or energy to deal with a stranger walking up out of nowhere.
If you want to talk to someone you've never 'met' before, send a note of
introduction, for crying out loud...

>Does a grumpy dragon get any hugs for asking?

Of course. *hug* *hug*

-jenneke, who tends to assume that people sending talk requests for no
	reason are idjits who decided to bug someone with an obviously
	female 'In Real Life' name. 

   Only Boys Accepting Feminism Get Kissed Meaningfully  -- Geoff Marcy
The only unnatural sexual act is that which you cannot perform. - Alfred Kinsey
		jenneke is: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
From: s882916@otto (Vikki POLLARD)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Is personality visible through email
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:27:29 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: otto.bf.rmit.oz.au


From my , oh so subjective experience, and in my opinion, which I'm sure will be sneered at, net communications is a terrible way to communicate personality.
On the basis of one posting, one that was hard to write and that I wasn't sure I wnated to send in the first place, I have been called a prude, priggish,
anti-porn and a seperatist. ALl my friends laughed at this description of me,

I've also noticed one woman sigend off saying, "a feminst
who doesn't agree with Vikki Pollard" This woman has never meet me & worse 
yet, knows my views on one issue. So how the hell does she know if she agrees with me or not.

Nope, the net is too easily mis-read, mis-interpreted and people lay 
their own opinions on those of the writer. NOBODY on this net really know my personality. And I'm sure no one would really care too. After all I'm just a prude!!!

Vikki
From: kay@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Kay Dekker)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Lurkers
Date: 21 Dec 92 12:05:48 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1h3itpINNa8b@agate.berkeley.edu> rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
>Egad ... I suppose I am.  Then again, I"m not a woman, thank God.  So I'm
>not hot, just sick :)

Yeah... but you're *my* kind of sick... :)

>I think I also don't particularly convey some of the things others in this
>group (Mike and Kay, for example) convey which could lead to getting
>doozymail ...  (thankfully? I'm not sure).  I'm not sexy.  I'm blunt and
>(sometimes) controversial, etc etc etc ... 

Do WHAT?  I don't think I've ever had any nasty-lurker email from posts
on soc.bi; all my email from non-visible people here has been friendly.
And, all being well, there's a couple of really lovely muffins just
waiting to go *pop* - one can't post news yet, one isn't ready to - but
when they start posting, it'll be wonderful.

<laughs> Having me, Mike, and sexy mentioned in the same para makes me
grin.  Mike is sexy; I'm just a tart.  No, forget that: I'm not a tart!
I'm not! I'm not! [ObEdinburghPartyRef]  Just ask Mike :)

		Kay (in his other incarnation)
-- 
the Crisco Kid: nasty pinko faggot agnostic pervert punk.  idx009@uk.ac.cov.cck
Xref: sparky soc.bi:17359 soc.motss:53899
From: orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Pet peeve of the day.
Keywords: Grumble Moan Complain
Organization: Department of Atomic Text Units
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:12:41 GMT

In article <8c52p8=@rpi.edu> safarj@aix.rpi.edu (Jonah Emanuel Safar) writes:
| Just a random peeve of the day... I hate when people think you are
|ignoring them when you don't just hop up and answer a page, or a  
|message, email, talk request, post or whatever immeandiately.  Did
|it ever occur to these people that I might be busy, or away...

   Well, the best way to deal with this is to say "well, yes, I
*am* an antisocial bastard (or pick your own insult), and I live to
ignore email/pages/messages/talk requests.  Everybody has their own
niche, and I'm filling the vital need for the one in the gutter."

   Works wonders for me!
                 ____
   david parsons \bi/ compulsive liar
                  \/
From: angi@castle.ed.ac.uk (Angi Lamb)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Introduction, or De-Muffining
Date: 22 Dec 92 11:30:23 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <BzH541.9ny@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
|...it's like when I tell people I come from York.  "Oh, how nice," they
|say, "I'd really like to live there."  That's because they never have.
|They can just wander over, admire, and don't have to live with the
|reality of something that survives only by going back to 70AD, having
|walls you can walk around, and being chokka with o-so-cute Ye Olde
|Nintendoe shops.  I'm talking about York, not my hair, you understand...

Mmm.  York was not a bi-positive experience for me when i lived there
84-86.  I got an oh-so-helpful comment along the lines of "If you're
sleeping with a woman you're a dyke, and if you're sleeping with a man
you're straight." when i starting talking about maybe being bisexual. 
Perhaps it's better now. Can't say i've been back to check. 

Angi
Xref: sparky soc.bi:17094 soc.motss:53319
From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:41:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <1992Dec19.011050.24078@microsoft.com>
leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker) writes:

>[...] Nature can be cruel, and libertarians respect the
>basic facts of nature that humans have to work to live, fight to
>defend themselves, and compete for resources.  We just want to move
>the competition from warfare to free enterprise.

Somehow, it's not what you say, but what you don't say, that bothers
me. I personally would not choose to lay such emphasis on this side
of life. (Yes, I know I lean too much the other way; I don't call
myself a "wimp" -- or "cissy", thanks Roy -- for nothing.) I get a
sense of an artificially narrowed perspective; blinkers; tunnel vision.
(This criticism is aimed at you personally, but at Libertarians generally;
absolutely no offence is intended, and I can only hope, none taken.)

Anyone else get the same feeling?
--
Gus Rodgers,  Dept. of Computer Science, |  [Profound thought for 1993]
Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End |     "Philishave is about
Road, London, England.   +44 71 975 5241 |      personal choice" 
E-mail (JANET):   arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk |             -- TV advert
Xref: sparky soc.bi:17424 alt.sex.bondage:24987
From: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: I'm Back! (was Re: So you want to email me, eh?)
Date: 2 Jan 1993 05:41:49 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


Ha! I'm back! They did something right for once and fixed the damned
machine!!

Hahahaha!

(and I won't even bore you with the last extremely cool two days ... )


-roy, the ecstatic.

-- 
Roy S. Rapoport     internet: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu      bitnet: rsrsoda@ucbocf
anonymous mail: wi.5836@n7kbt.rain.com        androphile, gynophile, kerryphile
"What I used to think is me / is just a faded memory." -NIN
DISCLAIMER:  I speak for the University of California at Berkeley.  Rrrright.
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: daz@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Darren Primm)
Subject: Re: Australians (was Re: accidently out)
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 05:12:00 GMT

nsn@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Nick Nicholas) writes:

>Let me modify my initial assertion to "what is it with bisexuals liking
>all the Mahler I don't?!" :) His First and Seventh are IMVHO his least
>successful works...

His First and Eighth are IMHO his BEST works.

>About as much as the Kinsey 1 writing this? *smile*
Only Kinsey 1? Hmm.. Different from Kinsey 5.

Daz.
--
  Darren (Dazza) Primm, Dept EE Eng, Melb Uni, Parkville, 3052, Australia
 "There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish, sometimes."
   Internet: daz@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au  [dazza@ecr.mu.oz.au]  IRC: Family

Xref: sparky soc.bi:17221 soc.motss:53545
From: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Imitating Turing (was: Liberty (was: (never mind)))
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:18:31 GMT
Reply-To: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Organization: Quantime Ltd, London (software for market research)

In article <BzoA4p.7yv@cck.coventry.ac.uk>,
idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
> "ignoramus" is a first-person plural verb form: "we do not know".
> It can't be pluralised.

Oh, Kay, you terrorist!
You'll have all the ignoramuses believing you.
-- 
Roger Phillips                            roger@quantime.co.uk
"He was formed for the ruin of our sex."
-- Tobias Smollett, _Roderick Random_
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Understanding
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:14:24
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec20.192301.1250@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
	<1992Dec21.152115.510@dsg.cs.tcd.ie>
	<1992Dec22.141030.16600@thelema.uucp>
	<92357.110706SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
	<1992Dec23.144201.6988@dsg.cs.tcd.ie>
	<1992Dec23.173348.22146@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk's message of 23 Dec 92 17:33:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.173348.22146@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers) writes:
   I'm convinced that this sort of attitude can only be understood in
   terms of the phenomenon of psychological [as contrasted with
   political] repression -- in Freud's sense, that is, but making all
   due allowances for Freud's mistakes, obscurities, and pioneering
   dogmatism.

Speaking of "understanding," I sometimes misread words as my eyes sort
of flip quickly over all the letters before actually settling down to
read.  I was quite confused at you reference to "Freud's prarie dogs"...
*GRIN*...

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: safarj@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Jonah Emanuel Safar)
Subject: Re: Pointy Fluff
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:13:37 GMT

rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:

>In article <msr2_++@rpi.edu> safarj@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Jonah Emanuel Safar) writes:

>->This could be accomplished through my re-education plan, which consists of
>->a series of lessons over a period of time.. First lesson, get on the bed
>->please, thank you....

><gets on the bed>
><sits down in a semi-lotus position>
><smiles>

>Yes, Sir.  Anything else, Sir?

First things first, I'm not a fluff.  Write that out one hundred times,
'Points is not a fluff.'  Then we'll move on to other things, I'll get
ready while you write...
<Starts laying out various ropes, cuffs, three pineapples...>
Stop staring at the pineapples, they're my lunch.

>-roy

>-- 
>Roy S. Rapoport     internet: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu      bitnet: rsrsoda@ucbocf
>anonymous mail: wi.5836@n7kbt.rain.com        androphile, gynophile, kerryphile
>"What I used to think is me / is just a faded memory." -NIN
>DISCLAIMER:  I speak for the University of California at Berkeley.  Rrrright.

-Points (Yes I'm going to _eat_ them!)
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
 If the President won't do it to his wife, he'll do it to his Country. -Unknown
________________________________________________________________________________
Jonah E. Safar             R.P.I., Troy, NY              EMail to:safarj@rpi.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Organization: UNIX System Laboratories, Summit, NJ
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:36:43 GMT

In article <BzM9up.17rp@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.175602.12196@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec20.113945.26727@panix.com> mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> >Secondly, you're absolutely correct about one thing:  I don't
>>> >think this is a very big priority, in my life.  No, I'm not
>>> >insensitive or boorish or stooopid --> 
>>>I guess you're just a pretty good actor, then.  You sure had me
>>>fooled.
>>
>>Me too.  Why is it these idiots always stand up and say:
>
>
>Considering the fact that you commented on NOTHING in particular,
>j'accuse, Ry.
>

Which shows that you've only been in motss about 20 minutes, since
you're repeating what dozens of others before you have done.

>
>>1) Not me!  However....
>>
>>2) I don't understand why you think this is a big deal and I
>>don't think about it much but....
>
>A question:  is this a BIG DEAL for society?  Clearly not.
>Do you want to MAKE it a big deal (i.e. move it to the forefront
>of people's consciousness)?  Because, folks, most people out
>there don't consider this a big fucking deal.

Not so clear to me.
>
>This is what I'm getting from you right now:  "I don't like your
>style."  Because, sure as hell you didn't critique the contents
>of what I said.  Neither did Melinda, and neither did Mara.
>As such, you're wasting bandwidth.

What the hell's wrong with criticizing someone who jumps out of nowhere
and says that sexism is a non-issue and obviously if they want to make
men care then they should be smoochy smoochy with them, and then they'll
listen.

>
>
>>4) Why are you mad?  I'm really on your side!  Gosh, how rude of you
>>to reject my great wisdom on this subject, if you'd just shut up and
>>listen to clueless me, you'd realize how smart I am! Pout! scream!
>>whine!
>
>Not me, bub.  I never pout, I never whine, and I only scream
>when Mara screams first.  Yeah, hey, maybe I came off too
>heavy-handed.  So shoot me.  
>

bang.

>No one ASKED you to "listen" (actually "read").  You CHOSE to
>do so.  And this, too, is wasting bandwidth.

Unfortunately, nobody's created a good content filter yet.  I
can always hope.


Ry Schwark
ry@usl.com
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans)
Subject: Re: Introduction, or De-Muffining
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:56:14 GMT

In article <BznyLA.548@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.160820.16498@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet) writes:
>>In article <BzH541.9ny@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:

Hey, look, I'm in the middle!!  *big grin*

>What is Aussie Moist (apart from Joe, that is :))?  I hope it isn't
>something that means I'd have to "do things" to my hair.  I haven't
>the time, nor the energy (I'm afraid I'm a bit of a non-groomer).

Couldn't be simpler.  They market quite a line of hair-grooming
products, but I was just talking about their shampoo.  And conditioner.
Truly an Instant Miracle.  I even own their mousse and hairspray,
and have been known to apply some for truly froufrou evenings.  But
then, I do live in Jersey now.  I have some standards to live up to.
(I'm a serious non-groomer myself.)

With luck, I'll be able to verify the Joe part in person.....:-).

>Can it also be used as a sextoy? that might get my interest up...

Um.  Not recommended.  Unless you're sextoying in the bath, in which
case, feel free.  Or whatever else comes to hand.

>Yes, yes, but you wouldn't want to live there.  It's just like a
>brothel; totally devoted to pandering to the customers.  Actually,
>I wrote a one-pager about York, for an APA that I belonged to.  I
>may post it, if I can find it.  Sums my feelings up nicely.

That would be spiffy.

>>Piglet, fluffing her brown tresses....
>
>		Kay (considering nuzzling Piglet's tresses)


Piglet, leaning in towards the keyboard to get her hair closer
        (what a concept--a hair close-up!)...
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Understanding
Date: 23 Dec 92 13:06:35 GMT
	<Bzoq6n.24ut@austin.ibm.com>
	<MUFFY.92Dec22164023@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<BzpwpK.24xG@austin.ibm.com>
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com's message of Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:08:08 GMT

In article <BzpwpK.24xG@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec22164023@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>You deleted my text, which explained this, but I'll try again.  Are you
>>saying, then, that I should a) LIE to them and b) disavow any connection
>>with that EVIL feminism, even though I am, in fact, a feminist?  It is
>>not a quesiton of "my own language" or "their language," any more than
>>saying I am female, bisexual, brown-haired, or whatever.

>No, not really.  If gender-neutral language is encouraged, and becomes
>a sign of intelligence, strength-of-character, or some other positive
>set of attributes, then the probability of acceptance is increased
>(or so I say - and have been saying for megabytes/clock cycles :-)

What does this have to do with anything?  Last I heard, we were talking
about feminism.  Now you suddenly pull in gender-neutral language.  What
does that have to do with people accepting someone calling themselves a
feminist?

>Feminism isn't evil - but, IMHO and the opinion of many others (including
>noted feminists), it has become the worst of all possible worlds -
>non-essential.  Out of touch with the common womyn.  Elitist, at times.
>Like most philosophies, it has evolved, and like most large constructs
>its lost touch with its constituents.

You mean that it is elitist to think that women should be given the
opportunity to make their own choices, rather than being coerced and
impeded by society?  This is the first I have heard of that.  Could you
please explain to me how this is elitist?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: bp@cs.brown.edu (Boris Putanec)
Subject: Re: AS long as we are hugging...
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Brown University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:17:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.021922.24009@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> barlow@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Rebel) writes:

   Well I thought that if Roy could ask for a hug then I could to...God knows I
   need one today....SO how about it, can a muffin get a hug?

Of course! *hug*

If there is one certainty on Usenet...

   :-) Jen

:)

*hug*hug*hug*hug*

boris
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Subject: Re: Het males & bi-femmes
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:41:32 GMT

robear@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jay Michael) writes:
>Bi-related material:
>	I've noticed in the heterosexual male world an occasional fascination 
>with the bisexual woman (forgive the longhand, but the abbreviations are so
>commonplace as to make the written out versions refreshing), ranging from 
>'not having a problem with', to extreme interest or desireability.  I've seen
>evidence of such just a few days ago, from an anonymous posting, on this
>very newsgroup, and also in highly praised literature.  I read a lot of SF,
>and occasionally bisexuality becomes part of the plot.  Take for example
>Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land", in which a sexual liberation
>occurs through all the main characters.  Oddly enough, though all the female
>characters don't have much of a problem with the new communal sex structure,
>there is a noticeable reaction and avoidance of any M-M sex in the book,
>almost as if, in the process of writing a radical book for his time, Heinlein
>wasn't willing to go beyond the more 'socially acceptical aberation' of 
>bi-fems explicitly.

actually, this is a pretty bad example, and wrong to boot.  In SIASL,
there is an avoidance of all homosexual activities, and this was
done on purpose, in order to be sellable.  There is no F-F sex in it,
in fact there are places where it is frowned upon.  And the men kiss
the men in the nest.  So pretty much there is no fascination with bi
females.  In fact, there are portions where mike seriously considered
having sex with a male brother, and decided he would not refuse one.
That was alot more open than Jill's tentitive internal probings.

In RAH's later works, when he was so well established that anything
he wrote sold incredibly well, he went further and explored communal
relationships that were pretty much bi through and through.  Although
keep in mind, please, that Heinlein is a product of his times, comparing
him to the explicitness of mondern writers is going to produce obvious
results. (maybe i should have said 'recent'..  heinlein is pretty
modern).

but you are correct, there is a fascination in our culture with bi
women..  I once was offered to join a friend and one of her female
friends for some 'experimentation'..  and when I declined was amazed,
saying 'You are the only guy Ive met that doesnt have a fantasy of
making it with two women.'  I dont really..  but give me someone
I care about and something sweet and ill spin fanta..  nah..  Ill
just jump into things and have fun.  <grin>

I sometimes think it has to do with the power games in our culture,
how man is supposed to dominate the woman, and the more women the
better..  kinda like how a man is seen as virile if he has many
women lovers, and how its not true of women.

oh well, then again if I could figure these things out I wouldnt
be so confused.  <chuckle>

....jeff