HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Waiting for an appology from Peter Ny
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Is against my religion, apparently.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 17:36:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan01.095853.29086@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>Larry Margolis (margoli@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
>: In <1992Dec28.032026.15533@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark
>A. Cochran) writes:
>: >Disinformation from me? Petey, I insist. Either provide some proof of
>: >this "disinformation" or appologise. I'll stand in line behind
>: >Adrienne waiting.
>:
>: Don't hold your breath - you're also behind me.  I asked him to provide
>: some evidence for untrue claims he made about me a while ago.  Naturally,
>: he was unable to do so, so he ignored my post.
>:
>: >I hope your newsserver is stable...
>:
>: Or maybe his newsserver went down again.  Yeah, that's the ticket...
>
>On alt.atheism Peter Nyikos also insulted me without justification.  I too am 
>waiting for an appology.

I think we need to develop a new net.service. We need to form some
sort of database to track the number and priority of all the apologies
PHoney owes people. I suspect the task is too monumental to ever
accomplish by manual tabulation...

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Bare-Fased misrepresentation in same sentence by DODIE: Points?
Date: 24 Dec 92 18:25:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


I say, 10 points for Mr. Mezias.  


In article <34625@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
#In article <1992Dec24.033906.16829@ncsu.edu>
#dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes the perfect
#sentence to capture the full essence of why he is regarded as a prime
#net liar.  I have difficulty understanding such behavior because it is
#so clearly revealing of an ends-justifies-the-means mentality as to be
#uncomfortably manipulative to read:
#
##I have stated numerous times I am undecided on the issue of 
##legislation, but that I do oppose Roe v. Wade and the FOCA.
#
#In the context of talk.abortion, it is incomprehensible to me that one
#could claim to be undecided on legislative issues and opposed to FOCA.
#Your mention of your opposition of RvW suggests that you would
#probably make the broader claim that you are undecided about state
#intervention to compel pregnancy while being opposed to RvW.
#
##My arguments against abortion often revolve around moral
##issues, and they should not be confused with arguments in 
##favor of legal restrictions.  
#
#Last time I checked deliberate misrepresentation and lying were
#generally considered immoral.  Is that a clue about how to
#characterize your side of the issue?


Now, let's watch DODie ignore Mezias' post.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:48:10 GMT

In <1086@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <1992Dec22.153207.4729@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com
>( Steve Novak) writes to Petey Honey:  
>[text deleted]
>>It's gonna be fun watching Sue Garvin embarrassing you again.  Welcome 
>>back..."Professor".

Susan Garvin, glad to be off the hook:

>Actually, I think that it's going to be Mark Cochran who gets to be
>the leader in embarassing PHoney for a while - Nyikos is posting a
>lot of medical misinformation in his latest incarnation.
>I'd also guess that Steve Adams, Eric Rescorla, and drieux will have
>their turns, too, since Nyikos has decided to branch out into
>theology.  

>I'll add that there's plenty of material already available - these
>guys can have fun even if PHoney runs for cover, er, his rewsreader
>breaks down again.

What's a rewsreader, Susan?

But seriously, folks, since Susan was never known to give a sucker
an even break, why should she spare a clueless newbie who can't even
reboot his newsreader all by himself?  

Contact my sysadmin, Susan:
even he couldn't do it for a day, after passing the buck to a student
who was all that remained of departmental help after our chief
trouble-shooter left for a new job in Colorado.  She tried for several
days, then tried for at least one more day to find him in the hope 
that he would take the problem more seriously.

Watch Susan Garvin pass up what may well be the first *request*
from a pro-lifer to contact his sysadmin.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:35:57 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <BzMAvL.D2t@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.105022.6279@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>>But what on earth does support for anti-abortion have to do with either of
>>these?  Men who want reproductive rights should be supporting abortion on
>>demand.  If they don't then they are just fighting themselves, not women.
>>Because if abortion is totally outlawed, then you can BET the number of
>>men required to pay support will increase dramaticly.
>
>I don't see your reasoning.
>
>1.  Perhaps the number of pregnancies would go down (or extranational
>abortions increase), if abortion were illegal.

Perhaps.  But probably *not* by the number of abortions that are currently
being performed.  So I, too, would bet that the number of unwanted
pregnancies carried to term would increase.

Also, note that a number of people have trouble scraping up the money
to get the abortion; there's no way that these people would be able to
travel outside the country to get an abortion.

>2.  Perhaps the consequences of feminism would give men equal custody
>(especially the younger generations) hence reducing the number of men
>paying support (and the number of women willing to risk pregnancy).

(Couldn't hazard a guess.)

>3.  Accurate paternity tests make things different from pre-Roe
>days, and the effects aren't predictable on the face of the matter:
>perhaps more fathers would be identified, or perhaps more potential
>victims would be able to prove they weren't the father.

This is addressing wrongful identication, which seems to have nothing
to do with the number of men required to pay child support.  (The wrong
man won't be, but the right one will; the net stays the same.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 16:59:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.094941.7852@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[Lots of deletions]

>UNRETRACTED LIE
>---------------
>
>"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
>				    Susie Garvin
>				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
>				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

Kevin, this is not a lie. Whether you see yourself as arguing in favor
of restrictions, or against the lack of them is irrelevant. A large
number of people here interpret your remarks asbeing in favor of
restrictions, and you *have* been consistently criticized for
labelling yourself pro-choice while posting these arguments.
You may not agree with those who criticize you, (we hardly expect you
will agree with anybody) but that doesn't make this a lie.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:12:48 GMT

>   = forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>  = From article by eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley):
>>> = forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Since fetuses are children, abortion kills children. q.e.d.

>> Since fetuses aren't children, abortion does not kill children.
>> 
>> Now if you'd writen "babies", I would have had to grant that the
>> statement was literally true.

>Since you are granting that fetuses are babies, are you denying that babies
>are children?
>
>Abortion kills fetuses.
>Abortion kills babies.
>Abortion kills children.
>
>Take yer pick.  All of these are true.

Hasn't this pointless little semantic game been discredited enough times 
already?  Shall we invent new phrases to replace the ones that have been 
redefined into uselessness?

EG. if you insist on defining "children" as including unfertilized eggs,
then you can run around proclaiming "ovulation kills children".  Of course
you've seriously trivialized the notion of "killing children".
Likewise, since you've chosen to use a definition of "children" that
fails to acknowledge any difference between zygotes and three-year-olds,
you get to use the phrase you like so well, "abortion kills children", 
at the expense of rendering the phrase virtually meaningless.

Congratulations.  You've repeated a tired old semantic game that has 
absolutely zero content -- a complete waste of bandwidth -- except that
it serves to further establish your credibility level.

-Brian
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52797 soc.men:21730 alt.dads-rights:3098
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: legislative solutions?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:27:44 GMT

In article <1h410nINNn5i@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Precisely my point. It is you and your ilk who are proposing legislative
>>solutions to the "problem". 
>
>Hmmm.  I'm pretty sure that I've not proposed any "legislative solutions"
>to the problem of child support.  

You've defended the alleged legislative "solution" that already exists, 
however. So your position is essentially pro-legislation, whereas mine is 
essentially anti-legislation.

>I agree that the implementation of the laws is often
>unfair, but the that requires executive (or judicial?  what a mess!) 
>solutions, rather than legislative.  We need the appointment of judges
>that are free from gender bias, and social service agencies that are 
>gender-blind.  

That may help the men who want custody, Michal, but how does it help the
men who are my main concern, i.e. the ones who have no interest whatsoever 
in being fathers?

>I don't see that more legislation would solve the problem!

Agreed. Furthermore, I propose that there be LESS legislation than 
currently, in order to remove the inequity.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:57:09 GMT

In article <3366@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) 
writes:
> In article <C015F4.IMK@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
writes:
> >In article <1992Dec28.200350.23162@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com 
(Brian 
> >Kendig) writes:
> >> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
> 
> >> >and "Pro-Life" for the euphemisms they are and use the more accurate 
> >labels
> >> >"pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" instead.
> 
> >> Yeah, let's do away with euphemisms!  Tell me, are you
> >> "pro-open-heart-surgery" or "anti-open-heart-surgery"? ...
> 
> >John - You've called a spade a spade.
> 
> No, he has called someone who thinks a woman should be allowed to choose
> for herself whether not she will carry a pregnancy to term 
"pro-abortion."
> This makes as much sense as calling someone who thinks swimming should
> be legal "pro-drowning".  Or calling a free-speech advocate "pro-nazi".

To borrow from a pro-abort in this group who seems to love the 
heart-surgery analogy: a pregnant woman being pro-abortion is no different 
than a heart patient being pro-heart surgery.  What's the problem?  Most 
would gladly accept that label.  Unless, of course, you're just a wee bit 
uneasy with the concept of abortion.  A hint of concsience maybe?

> I'm going to find it difficult to give any credence to any future posts 
from you.
> 
> Joe

I'm sorry you shy away from the tough questions.  I take what you say very 
seriously, Joe.  My credence, however,  is not a dependent upon your 
approval.
- Paul

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Organization: Phoney's Favorite University, of course!
	<nyikos.725142175@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
	<1992Dec28.032026.15533@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<1992Dec28.204506.33939@watson.ibm.com>
	<nyikos.725749252@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:16:52 GMT

In article <nyikos.725749252@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

   In <1992Dec28.204506.33939@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

   >In <1992Dec28.032026.15533@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
   >>Disinformation from me? Petey, I insist. Either provide some proof of
   >>this "disinformation" or appologise. I'll stand in line behind
   >>Adrienne waiting.

   >Don't hold your breath - you're also behind me.  I asked him to provide
   >some evidence for untrue claims he made about me a while ago.  Naturally,
   >he was unable to do so, so he ignored my post.

   >>I hope your newsserver is stable...

   >Or maybe his newsserver went down again.  Yeah, that's the ticket...

   Or I only read a small fraction of posts, even those following up to
   me.  Y'see, my account does not include `trn' or `rn', only what
   Humphrey calls "(eech) nn".  

   Go ahead and accuse me of whining, see if I care.

Sure, Phoney.  You obviously care enough to insist that we read every one of
your idiotic posts, and then bitch and moan because we don't.  If you can't
figure out your own news software, that's not our problem -- and in the past
three days we've seen how you like to blame everyone but yourself for your
own shortcomings...

--PLH, I may make mistakes, but at least they're MY mistakes...


--
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:58:17 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <sfBIDYy00Uh_02YUhM@andrew.cmu.edu> ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Michael Loomis) writes a long piece about infanticide.  While the
anthropological perspective he suggests is quite relevant to a debate
about the historical morality of infanticide, it has little to do with
the thread in question.  A pro-choice position that argues that the BA
of a persons protects that person from undesired occupation by another
entity does not condone infanticide.  I have no idea why Michael
Loomis thinks protecting a person from such undesired occupation of
their bodies is `making too much' of the fact that a /z/e/f/ is in a
person's body and an infant is not.  However, I do know that as far as
I am concerned, this is a *crucial* difference.  It is the involuntary
use of bodily resources of the mother that makes abortion a compelling
right as far as I am concerned.  

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Peter shows his ignorance, once again.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 01:59:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.192421.12706@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.010745.13877@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.724963465@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>[Slash & Burn City, Dude!]
>
>[Peter doesn't believe Mark that only 1/2 to 1/3 of all z/e/f actually make
>it the whole nine months...]
>
>>Since you are disputing my facts, care to post your medical
>>credentials? Or at least, post a source that contradicts me?
>>I doubt it...
>
>Now you've done it, Mark.  Peter will now start babbling about his SAT scores,
>his GRE scores, how he's a Phd in math, is one of the "leading set theory and
>topology" mathmeticians around...

I know, I rather hope he does. I haven't had a really good laugh all
day. :)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Date: 24 Dec 92 13:40:22 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec24.014033.13747@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 

>Here's a portion of a fascinating article on the makings
>of the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.  The article
>reveals that Justice Blackmun, who is the principle 
>architect behind Roe, wrote in a private memo that any
>dividing line is ``equally arbitrary''.  Justice Stewart,
>who joined Blackmun in the majority opinion, criticized 
>parts of the decision as being ``legislative''.

All rights are socially constructed.  Well-established socially
constructed principles may seem like part of the order of the
universe, e.g., traditional mothering roles for women.  However, the
seeming permanence of such perceptions of objectivity should not belie
the inherent exercise of social power by one group, state actors, over
another group, citizens.  Generally, we do not give state actors the
power to restrict medical procedures for reasons other than the public
health.  In particular, there is no precedent for a government
intervention that forces one group of citizens to sacrifice their
bodies to support other *citizens*.  Forced pregnancy laws go beyond
this: They would legally compel one group of citizens to use their
bodies to support *potential citizens*.  

Also generally, I believe that state actions that restrict individual
liberty should be held to strict standards of justification.  I
believe this is doubly true for actions that would impose costs
disproportionately on traditionally disenfranchised groups.  With
specific respect to abortion, I would add that the right of women to
protection from the public health risk of illegal abortions and forced
pregnancy far outweighs any right to state protection for the
*potential citizens*.  State resources are scarce, and I find it
impossible to justify using them to force one citizen to donate bodily
resources to save another citizen.  The fact that the affected
citizens would be uniquely women also raises concerns regarding equal
protection under the law.  In addition, absent a precedent for such
restrictions on citizens for the sake of other *citizens*, I find it
hard to advocate policies to `save' *potential* citizens with the
bodily servitude of citizens.

SJM
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 2 Jan 93 05:08:43 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
|If Patricia Ireland wants to abort her own body, I would not care, nor would
|I do anything to stop her. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
|certainly agree that she should be allowed to abort herself if she wishes.
|You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
|difference between what you do to your *own* body, and what is done to
|*another persons* body.

What other person is involved in an abortion, other than the
pregnant woman?  Well, her doctor, I guess, but we can assume
that he/she is consenting to be involved.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Most people are [idiots]," said Wimsey, gravely, "but it isn't kind to 
tell them so.  I expect you do tell them so."
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:20:05 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Dec30.191914.2274@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <3373@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, by joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays):

>> Applying the term "pro-abortion" is an attempt to cast your opponents
>> as advocating abortion as *the choice of preference*.  It's a lie,
>> and it's perpetrated only for cheap grandstanding.

>Applying the term "pro-force" is an attempt to cast one's opponent as
>advocating abolition of abortion as *the option of preference*.  It's
>(at least sometimes) a lie, and it's perpetrated only for cheap
>grandstanding and to avoid dangerous intellectual dicussions.

I agree which is why I have never used the term.  I have never even
referred to people who insist on calling me "pro-abort" as "pro-force".
I'm glad we can agree on this, anyway.

Joe


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:21:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.010225.29075@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <PATRICK.93Jan3183146@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan3.221447.8469@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>   In article <1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>   [Entire totally non-abortion related article deleted]
>>
>>   DODie, what the hell is this crap?
>>   Why do you find it necessary to bring your religious arguments from
>>   soc.singles to t.a? Neither of them is appropriate, but if that
>>   concept is beyond the ability of your feeble mind to grasp, then at
>>   least leave the dammed thing in the group where it started.
>>   Do you practice being this stooopid, or were you born this way?
>>
>>I'd say he puts in quite a bit of practice at it -- for a good example, try
>>fingering his account at eceyv some time.  Really cute .plan, if you ask me.
>>(Not quite the artwork of Chaney's, but you can tell he exercised his single
>>neuron to the limits in producing it...:-)
>>
>Well, I'm sure he practices, but don't you think it takes a certain
>inborn (or more correctly, inbred) trait to be capable of such
>astounding feats of stupidity?
>

Or, even more correctly, crossbred.

Robert Johnston



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53192 talk.religion.misc:24658 alt.atheism:24376