Today's Topics:
Terrorism in the Clench?
Why do we trust Bob?
Report on research in progress
where student reformer dung comes from
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 00:34:37 EST
From: drw@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU
Message-Id: <9001190534.AA15028@borel.mit.edu>
Subject: Terrorism in the Clench?
Can anybody clue me in to what in the hell this is all about? (And,
please, don't say "read it" -- in SubG circles, the difference between
humor, libel, and total insanity is to be minimized.)
Dale
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 12:39:37 est
From: "Timothy F. O'Connor" <toc@wisdom.graphics.cornell.edu>
Message-Id: <9001191739.AA16763@wisdom.graphics.cornell.edu>
Subject: Why do we trust Bob?
Why do we trust Bob? After all, isn't he the Ultimate Salesman?
Can you think of one other salesperson you trust?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 15:09:39 EST
From: Steve Strassmann <straz@media-lab.media.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <9001192009.AA07441@media-lab>
Subject: Report on research in progress
From: gary@Think.COM
I sent this off the end of last month, after the Schick customer
service people were stumped on the phone.
Product Manager
Schick Hot Lather
Warner-Lambert
201 Tabor Road
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
Dear Product Manager:
Recently while looking at the ingredients in Schick Hot Lather, I noticed
that it contains ``Nonoxynol-9,'' a spermicide that is usually found only
in contraceptives. This raises a number of questions. In particular, can
you tell me why a spermicide is included in Schick Hot Lather? Is Schick
Hot Lather interchangeable with spermicidal creams or jellies? Conversely,
if spermicidal cream is used in a Schick Hot Lather dispenser, will you get
a close shave? Finally, does spreading a spermicide on your face each
morning have any undesirable side effects, such as a reduced sperm motility
factor?
Sincerely,
Gary Sabot
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 15:28 EST
From: Michael Travers <mt@media-lab.media.mit.edu>
Subject: where student reformer dung comes from
Message-Id: <19900119202814.1.MT@OUROBOROS.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
12/14/89 -- United Press International
(Boston Globe, p. 2)
B E I J I N G - Students in an elementary school class, fired up but
confused by the government's anti- pornography, turned in their nude
baby pictures to their teacher, a letter in a state-run newspaper said
yesterday.
In one case, the letter said, primary school pupils asked their
teacher the definition of a "nude picture" and were told "anything naked
from the waist up." They responded by dutifully bringing in their own
baby pictures for confiscation.
Big Wa, the state-run news agency, issued a clarifying statement
yesterday concerning nudity from the waist down. "The government's
position concerning toe to tummy nudeness is most excellent." The
statement further indicated that nudity from the waist down was a
worker's right in the People's Republic.
Chinese Communist Party chief Feng Pong issued a denunciation
yesterday of the student leaders of the New Democracy movement,
responsible, he said for the killings in Tienamen Square last June. He
explained that the army massacre was part of a nation-wide crackdown on
kiddie porn.
Pointing to a "Luvs" advertisement from the New York Post, Feng said
"The dung of the student reformers comes from the intestinal tract of
the American exploiters of the people."
Disgraced former party leader Xiao Don appeared yesterday in a Beijing
courtroom and confessed to over 4000 acts of pedophilia during his
three-year stint as China's top communist. "I am covered with the offal
of my own shame," Xiao said in his four-hour confession. Xiao also
admitted to blowing up three Chinese gunboats and to drinking illegal
liquor on four occasions during 1985.
The "pornographer students" have received a variety of sentences
ranging from death to several years in reeducation camps for possession
of their baby photographs. One student who turned in a picture of
herself in a wet, clinging diaper was acquitted on the grounds that the
picture was "out of focus" and thus did not reveal her infantile
features. The photograph, however, was confiscated by authorities to
avoid "the temptations of bourgeois liberalism."
------------------------------
End of SubGenius Digest
***********************
