HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Nyikos, Apologies and Humble Pie
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:20:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.205437.15431@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
>>> Btw, your apology to Ms. Regard is long overdue.
>
>> I don't apologize for things I don't do.
>
>
>Perhaps you should reconsider.
>
>Did you not write the following Subject: line ?
>
>*** Subject: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..)
                                          ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Questions are not the same as declarations.

>And did you not write the following?
>
>*** I mean, your forgery, if it could be called that, ...
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Again, Nyikos implicitly raises the QUESTION of whether what Adrienne 
committed could be called a "forgery".

At no point did he come out and say "Adrienne committed forgery", although,
as I have previously noted, he was extremely loose with his language. He
shouldn't have invoked the term "forgery" at all unless that was within the
realm of possibility. I think he should apologize for his insinuations and
innuendoes of forgery, but not for a "charge" or "accusation" of forgery,
which he never made.

Simultaneously, I think Adrienne should also apologize for her gross 
overreaction to Nyikos' original, innocent misattribution, and the highly-
questionable editing of the quotes and attributions in the article in which 
she overreacted. Her loss of self-control contributed at least as much to 
this whole mess as Nyikos' loose language did.

								- Kevin

UNRETRACTED LIES
----------------

"We've just seen Steve Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on 
 this issue:  they don't want women to have the right to abort."
				Adrienne Regard
				16 Nov 1992 12:04:09 -0800
				<1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>

"Well, I asked Don, on this net.  And he said he'd be perfectly happy to use
 his vote as blackmail."
				Adrienne Regard
				20 Nov 1992 08:22:30 -0800
				<1ej3c6INNib1@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:02:39 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:


>In article <v77tln8@zola.esd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>All the quotes you have are from the Old Testament and as I have stated 
>earlier that the Old Testament is Old history and no longer valid....
>Although it is useful for studying history all the laws are not valid...
>Before Jesus came the OT was what counted and If I am correct still counts
>taoday for Jews but Christian follow the NT as the Law....

Huh?  Jesus certainly didn't hold this position!  Remember what he said?
Not one iota of the Law (Torah) and Prophets would pass away.  What Christ 
did was move away from doctrinaire following of the law and ask for following 
the spirit.  Christ went BEYOND the literal requirements of the OT.  Read the
passages in Matthew 5.  Christ goes BEYOND murder, to hate.  BEYOND adultery 
to lust, BEYOND an 'eye for an eye' to turn the other cheek.

The OT was extremely important to Christ.  To quote Him in Matthew 5:

[Matthew 5, NIV]

  "(17)Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I 
   have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.  (18)I tell you 
   the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter,
   not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the
   Law until everything is accomplished.  (19)Anyone who breaks one of
   the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same
   will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices
   and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of
   heaven.  (20)For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses
   that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly
   not enter the kingdom of heaven."

There are verses where Christ modifies the law somewhat, but they are when
he goes to the spirit of the issue (eg Matthew 12:1-14, 15:1-16).  He goes
to the issue of the heart not of empty action.

All of Jesus teaching is grounded in the OT.  To ignore the OT is to ignore
the framework that Christ used to build the new covenant.  Without the OT,
there can be no claim that Christ was the Messiah...how could there be?

Try studying the Bible a bit...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 26 Jan 1993 20:02:27 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

Doug Holtsinger:
>>>You should also _question_ people more thoroughly about their
>>>alleged expertise in a field and the "facts" they present.  Don't
>>>accept anything at face value, even it appears to be common sense.

me, earlier this week:
>>Well said, Doug.  I'll remember that.  To start, I will invite Mark
>>to defend himself against your claims.  If he doesn't wish to reply,
>>I will simply treat this as a typical case with evidence for one side.
>>
>>Paul Brinkley
>>brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
>>Pro-Thought Advocate

Robert Johnston:
>Sorry to say this Paul, but if you take anything Doug says as the truth,
>your thought has just flown out the window. Doug's rantings about Mark
>are merely the results of his slighted ego, and have no basis in fact.
>Both Doug, and Nyikos, who Doug sites, have credibility ratings of zero.
>Their rantings are merely those of children upset that the rest of the
>world does not share their delusional fantasies.

If nothing Doug said was the truth, and he happened to get wind of it, he
could control our minds by just saying the opposite of what he meant!  Now
this may indeed sound silly, so I'll rephrase.  Some of what Doug says is
false, some true, and some is debatable.  This is true of everyone who makes
a post here, at least so far.  (I challenge you to disprove this by showing
me a completely false article.  And even if you do, Doug still has some good
points.)

He IS right; one should question the source if one has reason to believe
the information to be faulty.  (I didn't question Mark, because he appeared
to know what he was talking about.)

Now, I'm aware of the ranting going back and forth, and that everyone thinks
that everybody on the OTHER side is full o'crap.  To tell the truth, I
didn't take Doug's first paragraph at face value, just as you might not have.
That's why I wait for Mark's rebuttal (if any) before I draw conclusions.
But I feel this attitude that the other side is having "delusional fantasies"
is unfounded.  I think both sides have something worthwhile to offer, even in
their ranting.  Otherwise they wouldn't believe in it so vehemently.

And that's why I gave (and will probably continue to give) Doug, and everyone
else, the benefit of the doubt.

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58062 misc.test:15875
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.test
Subject: Re: CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
Keywords: Clinton has endorsed genocide, he is the Anti-Christ
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:16:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>Copied without permission from:
>The Los Angeles Times, January 22, 1993

>CLINTON DISMANTLES BUSH AND REAGAN RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION

>By Karen Tumulty and Marlene Cimons

> "Our vision is an America where the murder of unborn children is
>legal and widespread," Clinton said as he fulfilled a campaign promise to
>child-murder advocates and medical research organizations. 

Its one thing to "re-interpret" an event to suit your own agenda, but
it is another thing altogether to lie about what President Clinton
said.  This totally blows the credibility of these women out of the
water and exposes them as irrational, ranting, self-absorbed, lunatics.


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Janus I: HERE I STAND, Part 1
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: viability, double standards, party line
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 17:50:56 GMT

In article <nyikos.727660549@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Maybe you expect more of my camp.  I can show you lots of things by
>pro-choicers, especially Mark Cochran, Humphrey, and Novak that beat
>anything I've seen from any of the above.

Gee, why don't you?

>
>Can you show something worse than Humphrey threatening to hit Suzanne
>with a baseball bat?

You _will_ be posting your documentation for this, won't you?  Or is this
just another lie, like your claim that Adrienne was engaging in forgery?

>
>Can you show something worse than Cochran holding "mucus brain" Suzanne
>responsible for the death of four children?

Superb lack of reading comphrension there, "Dr".  One has to wonder how your
grade the papers your students hand in...

>
>Can you show something worse than Novak calling me a "bigoted piece of
>shit" for mentioning that the author of an article on a Roman Catholic,
>Mario Cuomo, was Jewish?

No, PHoney, he called you a "bigoted piece of shit" because you're a bigoted
piece of shit.

>
>[Funny how mentioning that Mario Cuomo was Catholic did not elicit
>any such response.]

Why should it?

>
>Additional examples on request, but I would like to see some examples
>you can display in answer to the above.

<Sniff>.  And you didn't even mention the fisting offers.

>
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker the one TrueGoddess[tm], Muriel.  Space Still Reserved... =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:58:52 GMT

In article <1k922dINN80a@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.075023.3495@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>#Anyone who asserts that genes make each person unique is operating in
>#a state of extreme ignorance and/or naivite.  To claim that anyone is
>#solely the product of their genes is easily refuted by pointing out
>#that one's knowledge of set theory, quantum physics, or LR(1) parsers
>#is NOT instinctual and is, in fact, learned.
>Which in turn is easily refuted by pointing out that some people choose
>to learn about QM while others choose set theory.  Sooner or later we reach 
>some choice which cannot be attributed to learning, but only to a unique
>individual. Therefore uniqueness is prior to learning, and learning is
>not required for uniqueness.
Oh relax, both of you.
Ray, Frank's right that you can attribute what one learns to
prior uniqueness.
Frank, you aren't going to be able to prove that individual uniqueness
predates learning, because we all have a period of several years in
which we receive all sorts of stimulation that is to a great extent unaffected
by any uniqueness we might have.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:48:50 GMT

In <1993Jan19.004526.25747@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

>In article <1993Jan18.230432.20379@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
>sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

>>From article <1993Jan17.085933.8172@Princeton.EDU>,
>>by datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper):
>>> I finally found the article I was looking for: _The_New_Republic_,
>>> Dec. 7, 1992 issue. There's a story about the use of RU-486 as a
>>> "morning-after" pill. It seems that the egg, up until 14 days or so
>>> after conception, has nothing that can confer even numerical
>>> identity on it. I'm butchering the article badly, of course, but
>>> do read the article.
>>Your humble confession of butchering is insufficient punishment
>>for the atrocity.  The sentence "It seems that the egg ... can
>>confer even numerical identity on it" is such mind-boggling
>>gibberish that I must request a reasonable clarification.

><blushes, mumbles something about exams> Caught me, Steve. Mark Cochran
>let me know that you were a pro-lifer with genuine arguments. It seems
>the least I can do is reciprocate.

>Okay, the gist of the article: Let's say there is an egg that splits
>into two, forming what will become two identical twins. The question
>is, what happened to the original egg?

>a) The egg is dead. If this were true, the mother should not only
>be rejoicing that she has two healthy children, but mourning the
>loss of the original egg. Nonsense.

>b) One of the twins is the "real" original egg; the other twin is
>only a copy. Yet both twins have an equal claim to be that original
>egg. How can one differentiate which one is the original egg? Scrap
>this one.

>c) The egg is split up among the two new twins. While true as far as
>this goes, this means that at the two-cell stage, half of each twin
>is the original egg, and the other half is material gathered from
>"outside" the original. Which leads to saying that neither is the
>"real" egg.

>The article goes on to note that there is nothing in the genome that
>codes for identical twinning -- instead, it is caused by environmental
>factors, e.g. a temporary cutoff of oxygen. Since twinning can occur
>up until about 14 days after conception, until that point there is
>no reason to believe that the egg even has "numerical identity". 

Which doesn't disprove the argument that the zygote is a person; it
suggests to me that the zygote is one OR MORE persons. :-)

>Tep
>-- 
>Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:40:52 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 <1993Jan25.000639.27048@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.080314.12430@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>
>>>       Proposition A: According to Keegan's stated opinion, anyone who asks
>>>                      whether Elizabeth is pro-choice is a fool
>>
>>        Proposition B: You asked if Ms. Bartley is pro-choice
>>
>>        Conclusion 1: You are, as much as can be discerned of Keegan's opinion
>>                      of you, from the above declarations, a fool
>
>Correct.

That's all I was attempting to point out, so we can delete most of the rest
of your attempts at saving face.

>But Keegan's opinions of me are just worthless vendetta-speak.

Be that as it may, it was a general statement which was reposted by *you*,
in regards to a question asked by you, so in this instance, you made
*yourself* out to be the fool.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:55:19 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Distribution: na
Organization: The Village Waterbed
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In <1993Jan25.010941.27047@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.234010.22096@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>>> Why?  Don't you support mandatory (forced) reversable pregnancy?
>
>>> No,
>
>> Funny, I thought you had stated that you are in favor of forcing women
>> to remain pregnant.
>
>I don't know of anyone who favors forcing women to remain pregnant.

Thanks for the correction.  You *support* forcing women to remain
pregnant, but you don't *favor* it.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Carol Everett
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:14:17 GMT

In article <81401@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>Corrections.
>|How so, Mr. Rescorla - I said I didn't have the numbers on how many 
>|abortions her clinics provided.  If you use the other persons numbers,
>|you'd get your numbers, but I can't confirm the 35,000 number.  I
>|remembered and used the 1 death, 35 maimed, and the 1 in 500 Hs and Cs.
>
>Ok, I missed remembered and I'm admitting it.  I heard the radio clip
>again on the way home and the numbers Everett used were one (1) death
>and nineteen (19) maimed at her clinics.  There were 35,000 (thirty-five
>thousand) abortions performed at her clincs and during the last eighteen (18) 
>months there was an average of one (1) historectomy or colostomy per five 
>hundred (500) abortions.  [Total number of abortions during the last 18 
>months was not given.]
Don't you consider having a hysterectomy or colostomy being maimed?
If so, when you divide 35,000 by 500, you get 70 maimed. Did the
rate suddenly go up in the last 18 months or are the numbers just
inconsistent?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:56:06 GMT

In <1993Jan26.002031.13994@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>The label "anti-choice" is not a correct characterization of
>the pro-life position.  The label implies that pro-lifers are
>opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy", which is false.
>They are opposed to an action which results in the death of an
>innocent human being.  If it were possible to transfer the child
>to another person's care without killing the child, then few
>pro-lifers would be opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy".

>The label "pro-abortion" is a correct characterization of the
>pro-choice position.  Pro-choicers not only want the right to
>choose to "terminate a pregnancy", but also the right to choose 
>to have the child executed in the womb if the child happens to be
>mentally retarded or physically handicapped or of the wrong sex. 

Your opinion, since I have some personal knowledge of 'physically
handicapped', my opinion is that anyone who *knowingly* brings a
physically handicapped child into this world should be publicly
horse-whipped. But then, if you have no first hand experience,
I suppose it is easy to think that such a life is a worthwhile
experience - it builds character don't you know.

The Grouch.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58063 can.politics:11714
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:27:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:

>In article <1993Jan25.143139.21172@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.030628.21585@julian.uwo.ca> larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:

>>>2. Go through with it and dump the baby at the door of some "anti-choice"
>>>activist or an impotent family who would kill for a baby.
>>
>>You are neglecting the impact on the woman's life of having to go through
>>an entire unwanted pregnancy.

>  Oh, boo-hoo.  Better to go through with what many would consider murder?
                                                ^^^^

Many may consider it murder, but if the woman, herself, does not consider
it murder, then what others think has no effect on her experience.  
Therefore, it is better to go through with what many would consider murder
as long a she, herself, considers it a wise decision.

I would prefer to have an abortion, which is a safe and legal medical
solution to an unwanted pregnancy, than to be forced by law to carry
it to term. 

How others interpret this procedure has no bearing on the matter.  It
seems to be a theme with "pro-life" advocates that people should 
consider society's opinions to be more important than their own.  On
the other hand, pro-choice advocates believe that ones own personal 
philosophy is what a decision should be based on.

>  Unless the woman was raped, she is partially responsible for being pregnant.

So if she's raped, the rapist should pay for the entire cost of the abortion.
But if she isn't, then she and her partner should split if 50/50 and he
should give her a ride to the clinic and hold her hand while she's there.

>Eventually, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions.

Of course you do. Noone ever said that a woman should be absolved from
responsiblity.  However, you don't seem to understand that claiming
responsiblity for a pregnancy does not mean that you have to remain
pregnant.  You can take care of your responsibility by terminating the
pregnancy also.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: talk.abortion