HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kamorgan@athena.mit.edu (Keith Morgan)
Subject: Re: Paul Johnson (was Paglia)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:13:55 GMT


	Roger Lustig on Rousseau's abandoning his children:

	I suspect that, if confronted with this contradiction, he would have 
	admitted that he had acted imporperly, even vilely, or at least pointed
	out that circumstance can make people do things other than the optimum.

Tim Starr:

Wrong.  He blamed society for not taking responsibility for his misconduct.


	Where was this Tim? In the _Confesssions_ he takes up the
abandonment of his children several times, admitting that it was not
an easy decision for him, and elaborating on the reasons he did it. He
certainly doesn't blame society. See - _Confessions_, books, 7, 8, and
9. Rousseau's actions may seem inconsistent and inexplicable to us but
he did not undertake this action in any blase sense.

	 And, it seems, parenthetically, that Rousseau is a good
example of someone whom it would be absurd to dismiss based on their
actions alone. 

	Keith

--

Keith Morgan kamorgan@athena.mit.edu
In the end nothing could be said of his work except that it was
preposterous and true and totally unacceptable. Edward Whittemore
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Paglia (was: Cross-Writing)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:20:30

I learned a lot from _Sexual Personae_.  It made me decide to read
some Emily Dickinson and Swinburne.  I was not convinced about
androgynes, which is one of the major themes of the book.  While the
book was a bit repetitious in places, it was readable.  I wish Paglia
would publish an anthology of the writing she relies on as evidence.
Almost no-one has read as much as she has.

In general, I prefer discussion of the ideas of a book to discussion
of the personality or skill of the author.  At least discussion of
the ideas should come first.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: heidi@wales.net.com (Heidi Wolf)
Subject: Re: Cross-Writing (was: Books I Got For Xmas)
Keywords: women writers
Organization: N.E.T., Redwood City, CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:40:08 GMT

In article <5JAN93.17043154@vax.clarku.edu> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>In the essay I quoted in my original posting, Joyce Carol
>Oates discusses the situation faced by women who are writers.
>To summarize what she says: while male writers are viewed
>simply as "writers", women writers can never escape being
>tagged with their gender.
>
>Critics have, in the past, treated "femaleness" in writers
>with condescension, as though one needed to be a man in order
>to be capable of creating anything important. [Reminder of
>article deleted for brevity.]



A very thought-provoking article from hhenderson.  I don't, myself,
want to get into a discussion (charitable euphemism for the shouting
match that is bound to ensue) on this topic.  Instead, I should
like to recommend a book by Joanna Russ entitled HOW TO SUPPRESS
WOMEN'S WRITING.  It covers the topics mentioned above, and some
others, with insight, scholarship, and humour.  There is also
an extensive bibliography in the back, for those interested
in further study of women's writing and writings about women.

Russ's book was published five years ago or more, so if you want
to read it, try the library before trying the bookstore.


Heidi Wolf, who is sure she's recommended this book before
 and apologises for the repetition
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Homeschooling
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:09:11 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <C07n87.L05@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca>, msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris) writes:
# Steve Pope writes:
#   As for "harassment", I'm unfamiliar with this topic being
#   injected into the public schools.  
# 
# I included it only because just a couple of weeks ago, I
# found myself at the dentist's office on an emergency (the rest
# of a tooth they had done root canal on had come loose) when we
# were trying to get out of town, and I found myself...without a book.
# Usually I bring one, and usually I just about open it and I get called
# in and I don't get to read. Anyway, this time (it figures) they kept
# me waiting for about an hour after they said they wanted me. Well,
# I fidgeted for a while, and played with the Rubik's Cube, but then
# I (gasp) broke down and picked up the Newsweek. I remember reading
# the column by George Will (about 80% of the time Will irks me) that
# I quite agreed with. He was decrying the fact that a 7-year-old
# girl was suing the Board of Education of ________ (someone

A small town in Minnesota.

# else who's more in touch please insert facts) for ``sexual harassment''.
# Apparently this is because the school was failing to keep boys
# from teasing her. I remember rolling my eyes (in my best
# Claytonesque manner) and thinking that this has got to be the final
# straw. Anyway, it convinced me that ``sexual harassment'' laws have got
# to go. Then I read on and read that apparently this school board
# had implemented a Sexual Harassment Awareness Curriculum or somesuch,
# and I thought to myself ``Serves them right''. Then I wondered if the
# parents of the 7-year-old weren't civil libertarians who were suing
# exactly in order to serve them right. I know I would. Anyway, it was
# my memory of the only George Will column I've read in the past
# 3 years that prompted my allusion.

1. It should NEVER have gone to court.  The school board should
have required the parents to either make their little savages
behave, or find alternate transport to school.  That any school
board would fight such a suit -- and parents would feel compelled
to file such a suit -- shows how litigious this society has become.

2. You shouldn't be too surprised at this sort of behavior in a
society where second graders are watching movies like _Basic
Instinct_ with their parents.  Low morality parents frequently
raise low morality kids.

#                  Mike Morris


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Paul Johnson (was Paglia)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:22:42 GMT

In article <C0LEtD.L58@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>It's true that people who live very badly sometimes give excellent
>advice, and that people sometimes say really stupid things about 
>activities (painting pictures, say) that they're very good at.

Right. And this very fact undermines Paul Johnson's thesis, doesn't it?

>But it
>does seem rational to pay more attention to what people say about
>activities at which they excel than about activities they habitually
>bungle.

True, but this doesn't say much about Paul Johnson's INTELLECTUALS.


--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
From: mworley@mathcs.emory.edu (Meg Worley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Confirmed Biblioholics
Date: 4 Jan 1993 12:10:46 -0500
Organization: Emory University, Dept of Math and CS
NNTP-Posting-Host: emory.mathcs.emory.edu


In all this discussion of biblioholics' bedrooms, I don't
recall having seen anyone admitting to incorporating books
and/or reading creatively into their sexlives.  Although
I decline to give details, my beamish boy and I must plead
GUILTY.

Rage away,

meg

-- 

 Meg Worley 				Internet:  mworley@mathcs.emory.edu		
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery,alt.books.reviews
From: fuller@athena.cs.uga.edu (James P. H. Fuller)
Subject: Re: Reading as an addiction (Was: 92 in rabreview)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:29:32 GMT

dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:

>>22. When a stranger walks into your house or apartment, are his or her
>>first words usually a comment about your books?
>
>This is frequently a source of embarrassment to me -- on their behalf.
>Most of my books are upstairs, so strangers who walk in just see three
>relatively small bookcases.  So "Boy, you sure have a lot of books!"
>from them means "I don't often see a house with over a hundred books".
>How does one answer such a comment?


     "Oh yeah, we read a bunch" is usually the end of that conversation.
Such comments don't normally come from people who were invited over as
actual or potential friends.  And when they occasionally do, as in the
case of very young SCA friends who are presumed to have an imagination 
but who are just plain ignorant, one doesn't even try to explain or justify.
One simply starts pulling out volumes to *show* the wealth that is there
to be mined.

                                                    -- jf

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Homophobia (really not about  Homeschooling)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:31:07 GMT

                                   Saturday, the 9th of January, 1993

Roger Lustig writes:
  So they have the right to punish employees for freedom of association, 
  punishment that, if carried out generally enough, leads to starvation.

Yes, and musicology, if carried out generally enough, leads to starvation,
too. There is precisely zero reason to believe that either will, in fact,
be carried out generally enough at all. I do not accept your premise that
those legions of Reaganite Republican employers are zombie-eyed closet-KKKers
just itching to lynch members of all minority groups. Or that even a sizable
number of them are out to fire gay nightwatchmen. As we have
agreed (I think), that would be stupid and wrong. I think that it's exactly
your brand of liberalism that is driving a whole bunch of decent
people into alliance with the Pat Buchanons.

What is so wrong about letting the employment contract be freely negotiable
between both parties? If it's in the contract the employer can't fire
the nightwatchman for gayness, then if he fires the nightwatchman on that
ground, he can certainly be sued for breach of contract.

Oh yeah, ``economic coercion''. You seem to prefer the police kind.

  Sieg heil to you too, pal.

I believe you owe me for that one, Roger.


                      Mike Morris
              (msmorris@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Homeschooling (spp's response to multiple posts)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1ifh2cINNnku@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:08:01

What precisely does Steve Pope mean by "strongly discourage"?

Here is one way to "strongly discourage" home schooling.  Pass some
laws about making sure that every child has a good education.  Allow
two ways of verifying this.  One way is to have a complete program,
including testing, approved by the authorities.  This involves paying
for an investigation by suitable, Steve Pope approved, committees.
After the program is approved, the educational program can proceed
in its own way.  The other way of making sure a child is getting
a good education is to have him take Steve Pope approved progress
examinations every year - examination fee $200.  If enforceable, it
would surely "strongly discourage" home education.

If that is too authoritarian even for Steve Pope, what would he
allow as a way of "strong discouragement"?

From past experience with people who advocate "tough regulations",
we are well advised to fear the worst.  What if Hillary Clinton
reads Steve Pope's postings and considers them infallible?

Will Steve Pope relieve our fears or confirm them?  Anything vague
will confirm them.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox)
Subject: Re: The 10,000 nights of Mike Morris
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 09:16:45 GMT

	I once heard eternity defined as two people and a ham.  Perhaps we
can now redefine it as Mike Morris and a controversy.


-- 
				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: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Re: Homeschooling (spp's response to multiple posts)
Followup-To: rec.arts.books
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:10:39 GMT
X-Posted-From: iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1ifcplINNmm8@agate.berkeley.edu>, spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu
(Steve Pope) wrote:
[...]
> You are correct, of course.  My point is that it's an equally
> ludicrous generalization to accuse educators of having
> a liberal social agenda.
[...]
> So to sum up my view of homeschooling:
> 
> (1) For the parents who practice it, it's pretty much a 
> religion.  (a red flag goes up right there...)

But why do you believe that?  And in your terms, is it any less of a
religion of believe that sending your kids to public school is the right
thing to do?

> (3) Pulling the strings are the far-right conservative
> leaders, who take advantage of the vulnerability of those
> caught up in "homeschooling fever" to promote their
> sexist, anti-environment, and anti-gay agendas.

Nobody pulls my strings, especially not far-right conservative leaders.  I
can see without any help that the schools leave a lot to be desired.  I
know myself and my capabilities well enough to know that I can provide a
better education to my children than the schools provided to me.

I am anti-sexist.  I hope my kids will be too.  I am pro-environment (but
anti-chicken little).  I hope my kids will be too.  I am not anti-gay.  I
hope my kids won't be either.

> (4) Given the above, the potential educational benefits
> of homeschooling do not come close to outweighing the
> social cost.  Homeschooling therefore should be strongly
> discouraged.

There is no social cost to my homeschooling my own children.  None.

What I find astonishing is that somebody who is so adept at seeing the
ridiculousness of theories of liberal social conspiracies among educators,
could so readily postulate conservative social conspiracies controlling
homeschoolers.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written
From: msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: SF + PC
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:44:51 GMT

                                     Monday, the 4th of January, 1993

Curtis Yarvin writes:
  Exactly - better for what?  "Better" is an absolute; when
  you say one book is better than another, you are making
  a statement which is logically clear and extremely powerful.

Again, I asked: Better for what? As I recall, the original challenge
was to offer a definition of literary merit which is not circular. I
think I have given such a definition: Objective literary merit is to be
found in the possible agreement of people who are well-read (well-read=have
read alot so that they have a large base from whence to make comparisons +
have demonstrated that they read well, in that their concrete critical
observations on what they have read are accurate, perceptive or insightful,
and perhaps they notice things that other readers don't). My claim has not
been that you, Curtis, or that all possible readers would hear mermaids
singing or Mahler symphonies every single time you cracked open one of
the meritorious books. *I* haven't been claiming transcendence or
universality for the literary merit I gave you a definition for.
Transcendence and/or universality would require more argument. In
regards to my definition, ``better'' ought to mean simply better at
pleasing the literary tastes of literary experts. Of course, Dani has
already listed all kinds of other, different ``betters'', and I'd be
happy to discuss any such one you like. What I would not be happy to discuss
is some sort of abstract, vacuous ``better'' that you can define at
random. After all, *expert* literary judgments are seldom so crude
as to limit themselves to a simple thumbs up or thumbs down.

  Basing such on the opinions of Messrs. Rexroth et al is
  like mounting an 18-inch naval canon on a rowboat.

I would have said rather more like mounting an 18-inch naval cannon on
an 18-inch naval cannon mount.

                   Mike Morris
          (msmorris@watsci.uwaterloo.ca) 


Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,misc.kids
From: riggle@adobe.com (Kathleen Riggle)
Subject: DECEMBER KIDS'S BOOK QUIZ-Scores
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:21:23 GMT

Scores for the December Book Quiz:

High Score: Mimi Wellington - 16
2nd place: the team of Margaret Gibbs and June Lewis - 8
3rd place: (tied) Ephraim Vishniac  and Carolyn Peterson - 6.5

Low score - 2
Average score - 6.5 (pretty useless, huh?  I suppose I should post
the median score instead of average.  It was around 5-6.)

I wanted to mention again that Mimi disqualifies herself from
getting points on books that were sent to her and she wouldn't have
known otherwise; she just knows a lot of books!

Kathie
From: mworley@mathcs.emory.edu (Meg Worley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Shouting at robots
Date: 6 Jan 1993 14:56:21 -0500
Organization: Emory University, Dept of Math and CS
NNTP-Posting-Host: emory.mathcs.emory.edu

In article <1ifbmnINN9gu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bh419@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ted B Samsel) writes:
 
>   The fellow who did the Lewis Carrol/R.U.R transposition
> should get the dinero....
> -- 
> Ted....

Yes, yes!  Besides, how do we really know that DS is hungry?
:-)

Rage away,

meg


-- 

 Meg Worley 				Internet:  mworley@mathcs.emory.edu		
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mtaranto@panix.com (Mark Taranto)
Subject: Eternity and Infinite Loops (was Re: The 10,000 nights of Mike Morris
Organization: The Inner Clique
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:22:54 GMT


tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox) writes:

> I once heard eternity defined as two people and a ham.  Perhaps we
> can now redefine it as Mike Morris and a controversy.


And given the inability of Heather Henderson, Mike Godwin and Steve Dyer
to allow a Camille Paglia article to go uncommented upon, we can also 
redefine the phrase "Infinite Loop."

Mark


Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: sterbenc@ivhs.mot.com (Joe Sterbenc)
Subject: Re: Homeschooling
Organization: MOTOROLA 
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:18:53 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.books

In article <1iervfINNf5v@morrow.stanford.edu>, francis@oas.stanford.edu
(Francis Muir) wrote:
> 
> John Scott writes:
> 
> 	Making such generalizations about homeschoolers is as ludicrous 
> 	as claiming that all Oregonians are homophobes because some of
> 	them supported Measure 9.
> 
> Which is itself as ludicrous as claiming that all those Oregonians who 
> supported Measure 9 are homophobes.
> 
> 							RABworm

Not quite as ludicrous.

=====
Joe Sterbenc - Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems - Motorola
All opinions are my own, but can be rented for reasonable rates
sterbenc@ivhs.mot.com
=====
From: dougm@hal.com (Doug Moran)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: SF + PC
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:17:16 GMT
Reply-To: dougm@hal.com (Doug Moran)
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.; Campbell, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gizmo.hal.com
In-reply-to: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)

In article <JMC.93Jan4235352@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL (John McCarthy) 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_.

A few observations:

o) The vast preponderance of Technical Writers have degrees in English,
   Literature, or some other writing-intensive field of study.  (Tech
   Writers with "Science" degrees are an extreme rarity -- I don't think
   that I have met *any*.)
o) Most, if not all, of the engineers I know would agree that letting
   engineers write their own documentation is a dangerous thing.
o) Many engineers would agree that they can't write very well.
o) As far as "nonsense," in my experience, no one includes more
   obstufication, extraneous information, obscure acronyms, and
   excessive verbiage than an engineer writing about his or her own
   work.  Most of my job consists in cutting extraneous material.

And, to conclude, a rhetorical question: if Science graduates (and
therefore Engineers) write as well as English graduates, why do
companies not cease hiring technical writers at all, and include a
several-week period at the end of every development cycle for the
engineers to write their own doc?  It would be much cheaper and -- if
your statement is correct -- the doc would be just as well written, and
almost certainly more accurate.
-- 
    Doug Moran        |  You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch;
   dougm@hal.com      |  you're a nasty, wasty skunk.
 {...}!hal.com!dougm  |  Your heart is full of unwashed socks,
 HaL Computer Systems |  your soul is full of gunk, Mr. Grinch.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu (michael bruce mcdonald)
Subject: Re: Paglia
Reply-To: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:00:35 GMT

In article <1ikikiINN9do@aludra.usc.edu>, rhogan@aludra.usc.edu (Ron Hogan) writes:
>Heather writes:
>>Michael McDonald writes:
>
>>>Having seen her on several
>>>TV programs, I must say that I find her less than impressive.
>>>Her public discourse is so intractably narcissistic that the only *subject*
>>>she strikes me as being in any way articulate about is that of  . . .
>>>Camille Paglia.
>
>>I continually find it interesting to see terms like "narcissistic" applied
I 
>>to Paglia.  Also, words like "boastful", "arrogant", and "egomaniacal".
>>She is, of course.  But so what?  Male writers, critics, and academics
>>have been narcissistic, boastful, arrogant, and egomaniacal for ages.
>>Why is it a constant source of comment in Paglia's case?  Ask yourself if
>>you'd be so quick to characterize her that way if she were a man.


I call anyone who prattles on at such length, and to the exclusion of almost
all other topics, a narcissist, and firmly believe that I would have been
just as quick to call *Mr.* Paglia one, too.  You admire her, Heather, that
comes through quite clearly; I do not.  I guess we just see very, very
different qualities in her.

>
>I beleive the word you're looking for is "Oliver Stone".

What he said.


michael mcdonald



>Oh, you want authors?  "Harlan Ellison"
>(I actually disagree with a lot of the negative portrayal
>of Ellison, but the fact remains that it's there)
>
>Ron Hogan
>
>PErsonally, I blame TV talk shows.
>