3.337 DOS hypertext; missing heart; misandry (102)

Mon, 7 Aug 89 22:45:10 EDT

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 337. Monday, 7 Aug 1989.

(1) Date: Sat, 5 Aug 89 22:10 CDT (18 lines)
From: Michael Ossar <MLO@KSUVM>
Subject: hypertext for DOS

(2) Date: 06 Aug 89 05:36 -0330 (11 lines)
From: hans@leif.mun.ca
Subject: RE: 3.328 displaced heart? (43)

(3) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 89 18:41:20 EDT (48 lines)
Subject: Misandry: A P.S. and an aside

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 89 22:10 CDT
From: Michael Ossar <MLO@KSUVM>
Subject: hypertext for DOS

Regarding Leslie Morgan's inquiry on hypertext programs for DOS, I know of
two programs that can be obtained from Public Domain Software, P.O. Box
51315, Indianapolis, IN 46251. Hypertext gets two stars (out of four) on
PDS's rating system. It is described as "a cross between an expert system, an
outliner, and a database management system that handles text. . . . Presents
windowed dialog and allows the reader to select where the discussion is going
by transversing 'threads' of thought built into the text. This stuff has real
potential." The other is called Black Magic, and gets four stars. It comes on
three disks and requires *lots* of memory. PBS comments: "Black Magic smoothly
handles chains of items, whether text or graphics. Link types include: note,
replace, reference (traverse), and special graphics links with full pointing
capabilities with either a mouse or the keyboard. . . . Added to the standard
hypertext display capabilities are: limited text find, document print, use of
EMS if available, saving bookmarks, and a TSR interface. . . . A major work."
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------16----
Date: 06 Aug 89 05:36 -0330
From: hans@leif.mun.ca
Subject: RE: 3.328 displaced heart? (43)

Re: Heart-less monarchs
From: Hans Rollmann
I don't know the exact dates, but many members of the House of Habsburg
are buried in two places in Vienna: their bodies lie in the
Kaisergruft but their hearts are in a different church in the "heart
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------51----
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 89 18:41:20 EDT
Subject: Misandry: A P.S. and an aside

Let's set up a semantic class whose contents consist of words for
people hating people. The following have been submitted: misanthrope,
(person who hates all other persons), homophobe (person who hates
homosexuals), misogyne (person who hates women) and the newly coined
misandrist (person who hates men). The thing that strikes me about
this list is that while the object of the hate can vary from the
global (all but self) to the particular (homosexuals/women/men) the subject
(the person doing the hating) is generally perceived to be male.
I suppose one could have females in the subject position, but
my personal perception of general usage is that it is unlikely.
Which raises a question: why is there no term where the subject
is most likely female and the object male, i.e., a term for
women who hate men?
Where terms are missing from paradigms, sociolinguistics tends
to posit that the absence is as significative as the presence of
the other terms. If `misandrist' does not exist, nor a more
specific word for women hating men (although someone suggested
that women don't hate men, they just devour them...so *that*s where
males disappear to at the end of a relationship! Always wondered
about that...) could we possibly
be dealing with the issue of a male-dominated language? If
the language is male-dominant, then it is unlikely that the
`owner' of the language will have words to hate himself or
fellow men who do not deviate from his norm. Deviants, on the
other hand, could easily be named for hating: sexual deviants, gender
deviants, racial deviants, physically deformed deviants. Since
the deviants do not own the language, they would have a hard
time having their hate words accepted, i.e., homosexuals who
hate straight males; women who hate men; minorities who hate
the majority, etc.
It's a sad thought that the subject of hating is such a rich
one semantically... would it that, like those languages which
do not have a term for `snow' because that phenomenon does not
occur locally, our language were lacking in terms for hate...
I think it's time for me to duck and run for shelter...
P.S. Why are there no `female' chauvinist pigs??