HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dirigible Boy Logic (was Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all thing) )apparently
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:43:44 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

Stephen A Chaney writes
> In article <1992Aug12.172719.23531@u.washington.edu>  
darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann) writes:
> 
> [proof deleted] 
> 
> Oh, and before you weasel out of it, I was referring to the
> adult/minor sexual relations portion of statutory rape laws. 
> 
> >This is all very nice, and you may even have it right (though I am doubtful,  
> >based on past performances).  I haven't read any coverage of the case.  You  
> >still have not proven that a Pro-Choice position advocates sex between  
adults  
> >and minors.  
> 
> No, but the premise that holds up the Pro-Choice position, holds up
> legalization of sex between minors and adults. With the minors'
> consent, of course. 

So, you agree that a Pro-Choice position does not have anything to do with  
legalizing sex between adults and minors.  Having agreed, you have to withdraw  
your "Pro-Choice = Pro Adult/Child Sex" statement, since you can't show any  
support for it.   

> 
> Have you ever heard of the French saying, "You gotta want not only
> what you want, but what it leads to?" 

Can't say as I have.  How does it go?

> 
> Well, you're facing the "what it leads to" right now. Whether or not
> Pro-Choice _wants_ to advocate the Florida ruling or not, is
> irrelevant as far as the judges seem to be concerned. 

I think you are the only person who has connected the two together.  One more  
time: can you say "Legal Precedent"?  One more time: a judge can apply a legal  
precedent from one decision to a case before her.  

> Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
> scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...

Have you ever wondered why you have so many aliases, Mr. Hall?  
--

Alden F.M. Hackmann                             University of Washington
darkstar@u.washington.edu                       Department of Pathology

"You can know, even for a moment, that it's your turn, 
 that you can walk with the power of a thousand generations"  - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 12:39:32 GMT


   Here we have another example of someone trying to skirt around
the main issue, which is CHOICE.  What about the right of a woman
to choose, PRIOR to vetal viability, and paind for by herself, an
abortion?  What about the core of the FOCA?  Why don't you try to
deal with the heart of the issue?  Do you realize that every time
you focus on on of these secondary aspects of abortion, you admit
that there is a right of a grown woman to choose?  The whining on
these related issues means nothing unless a woman's right to pick
when she will or will not endure the dangers of pregnancy is hers
to decide.  But keep whining about the petty shit.  Because every
time you do, you are saying that there exists a right of women to
choose, but the details have to be worked out. 
-- 
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished by the blood
of tyrants and of patriots."                    Thomas Jefferson
"Hello? Information?  Would you please give me the home phone of
Pat Buchanan?...Yes.  His address as well, thank you very much."
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:03:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.142040.13003@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

> The polls show that the majority of Republicans favor choice.  

Do you have a source for this claim, or is this just more of your bullshit?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Subject: Re: BUSH FACTSHEET: Abortion
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:48:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.171403.20769@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.013526.33493@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>
>>Mr. Grundner should update his fact sheet.  Note that it's from before
>>President Bush expressed support for the Republican platform, which
>>contains *no* rape or incest exceptions.
>
>Actually, Bush did say on Tuesday, I believe, in an interview with Tom
>Brokaw, that he *would* allow exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or
>threat to the life of the mother. And it was after the Republican platform
>was passed.  It was weird; he said "that's just one thing I don't agree
>with the platform on."  I was thinking "whose platform IS it?  Aren't YOU
>the one running for President?"
>
>It was also strange how Bush tossed it off. Brokaw said (I'm paraphrasing),
>"do you agree with the platform calling for the banning of abortion under
>any circumstances?"  And Bush says something like "I've made my position
>on that clear."  So Brokaw says "so there are circumstances in which you would
>allow an abortion?  What circumstances?"  And Bush says (direct quote):
>"Rape, incest, and life of the mother."  That was it.  Next subject..

and don't forget: members of his family

>
>>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
>
>-Kristy

Sarah McCabe
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NEA, my money, & abortion
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:45:10 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <92227.21264832WENPW@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> <32WENPW@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> writes:
>   The National Education Association claims to (1) represent me (as my faculty
> union) &  (2) spend my money (which I am forced to pay) to ONLY support issues
> important for my job.  They will deny, when pressed, that they ever spend my m
>oney to support "abortion rights".
>   But the following is from the NEA's newsletter "Higher Education Advocate" (
>Aug 13, 1992):
>
>      SCROLL FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS DELIVERED TO CAPITAL HILL
>        NEA Secretary-Treasurer Marilyn Monahan led a representative group of
>      NEA convention delegates to Capitol Hill July 8 -- the final day of
>
>      MEA's Representative Assembly in Washington, DC -- to deliver a 40-foot
>
>      long scroll covered with thousands of delegate signatures urging
>      Congress to combat recent erosions of women's rights.
>         Monahan presented the scroll to House Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.)
>         "The more than two million members of NEA are appalled by the recent
>      Supreme Court decision that significantly erodes a women's right to
>      reproductive freedom", Monahan noted.  "We strongly urge the Congress
>      to enact the Freedom of Choice Act, which would protect this
>      fundamental right."
>
>   Why doesn't my union stick to education and stay out of this controversial
>issue?
>
>                                Ken
>
>(Ken W. Smith, Math Dept.
>Central Mich Univ., Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859
>... of course my opinions are my own!..)

Just use the Freedom of Religion clause. You can force a case to court
claiming that by the First Amendment, you should not as a union
member, have to pay to advocate political issues that your religion
opposes. 

I mean, the pro-aborts want religious freedom, why take it only in
_their_ defined context? Perhaps we might not just want a freedom of
religion _for_ abortion, but also, to _not_ be made to support it.

But of course the pro-aborts are, as Franklin said, pro-choice /
anti-anything that doesn't agree with them. Or, in this case, I add,
pro-choice / anti-anything that doesn't force people to fund their
agenda...  


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 22 Aug 1992 19:17:36 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug21.122726.2141@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>> In article <16ujc6INNm80@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>Mike, let me guess.
>>>You are a *young* man, right?  Probably not a man with a long standing
>>>relationship, and probably not with 4 kids already, right?  
>
>BTW, I'm young, I don't think my relationship is really all that long
>standing in the lifetime sense, and I don't have four kids already,
>so does that make me any more or less of a thinker?

Sort of depends upon what you are thinking about.

I find it very odd when adult people, with long standing relationships and
kids, and all that, figure *sex* is something filthy that must be hidden
beneath the couch, where there just isn't a whole lot of room.  Many 
religions, for that matter, acknowledge the 'bonding' aspects of sex in
the construct of a marriage -- i.e., you are specifically NOT supposed to
reject your partners overtures for sex within a marriage, in any long standing
way, because it's considered normal and beneficial for adult married peole
to be expressing their closeness in that manner.  So, for someone to pop up
spouting "If you are don't having kids, stop having sex" seems to me to be
a little...well, actually, it seems to me to be a lot of strange things, so
I'll settle for amusing, here.

>Anyone know the origin of marriage?


There are about a zillion theories, in differing cultures, and with differing
levels of evolution, but you can't find a single attorney in the state of
California who can tell you *all* the laws pertaining to marriage (mostly
because they change with case law, but what the heck.)

Marriage is mostly an economic institution, in the legal sense.  It's about
where the money goes.  Spouses usually override children, though marriage
certainly has an impact upon children, too.

What did you want to know about marriage?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:20:16 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <Bszr9M.My7@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com writes:

> In article <1992Aug14.134746.29912@menudo.uh.edu> 
> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >Luke 14:26 "If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and 
> >            wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own 
> >	    life also, he cannot be my disciple.
> >  I read it thusly:  One could not become a disciple without first being
> >prepared to give up all that he had, "counting the cost."  It is not a
> >simple command to "hate your parents." It was a very honest observation
> >that following him was not going to be any kind of cakewalk.
> 
> Yes, but one should question whether it is such a good idea to follow such
> a HATE monger. This image is quite a bit different than the popular image of
> one who taught only love. After all, these could be the words of the Christian 
> Devil, couldn't they? Luke 14:26 is only one of many tests, like: Follow
> me and be Free. It is not easy being a free individual. And it is not easy
> allowing others to also be free.

  Tis rather easy to continue in the "hate monger" vein after deleting the 
supporting text, which makes my interp a lot more clear and reasonable.
I'm sure if we were to quote him out of context, we could make even Hitler
look like a wonderful humanitarian.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31945 alt.birthright:404
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:58:50 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Aug15.232244.14853@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
#In article <yd6mlza.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
##<1992Aug12.215027.1814@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :

[text deleted]
###Susan Garvin? 
##
##I see a name.  I don't see any *proof*.
#
#She tried to complain about my having posted and twisted her name and
#substituting it with mine, as a joke. Even as though my system admins
#tossed it out and went on with business as usual. 

Again, Chaney/Hall is lying.   I have never written to his sysadmins.

CMU wrote and asked them to "handle the problem."  I've been asked
if Chaney/Hall quit forging, and as far as I know he has.  POC
seems incapable of understanding the difference between "not
forging" and "losing access."  That certainly says something about
him.

[lies about Scott Roby deleted - Scott has told what happened,
Dick Smith (Chaney's sysadmin) has verified Scott's story, and
POC continues to lie]

[Dennis's "whoopity-do" response to the problem of child
molesting priests deleted.  Dennis, Darcy, and Franklin 
share more than a pro-force stance, it seems.]

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31977 alt.birthright:406
From: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Date: 16 Aug 92 21:28:02 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> Did anyone save the letter from Kodak?

the header and address list is attached.

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 08:49:17 EST
From: barrett@kodak.com (Chris Barrett (x37253))
Message-Id: <9112101349.AA00943@clpd.KODAK.COM>
To: ADMN8647@ryerson.ca, AMITCHELL@macalstr.edu,
        ELLINGTON@frodo.mgh.harvard.edu, J5J@psuvm.psu.edu,
        Susan.Garvin@satan.cimds.ri.cmu.edu, U19807@uicvm.uic.edu,
        alison@meaddata.com, bagchi@sparky.eecs.umich.edu,
        bc744@cleveland.freenet.edu, boyiny@bourbaki.mit.edu,
        celit!dreamit.fps.com!ps@ucsd.edu, cookc@aix.rpi.edu,
        cs35a216@athena.ecs.csus.edu, dbk@mtfme.att.com,
        eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu, goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu,
        jbrindle@bb35c.mdd.comm.mot.com, jgarrard@ramanujan.unm.edu,
        keegan@crd.Ge.Com, lamoran@utcs.utoronto.ca, lkk@panix.com,
        metze%uimrlm.dnet@uimrl7.mrl.uiuc.edu, patrick@is.rice.edu,
        regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com, rwilliam@netcom.com,
        scott%mccall.uucp@deimos.cis.ksu.edu, tekbspa!burke@uunet.uu.net,
        usenet@csusac.ecs.csus.edu, wombat@outback.abo.dec.com,
        wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com
Subject: RE: Your mail regarding Dan Bredy
Cc: barrett@serum.kodak.com
Status: ORr
-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:03:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.204031.11038@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Aug15.203216.8998@csus.edu>,
>by chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney):
>> In article <1992Aug12.224500.25686@noao.du
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>>No, Linda.  They've been talking the talk, but they haven't been
>>>walking the walk.   Walk into ANY, and I mean ANY abortion alternative
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>organization ANYWHERE, and you will not find even one pro-"choicer" among
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>them.  It always has been and always will be the pro-lifers who provide any
   ^^^^
>>>non-abortive help to pregnant women in trouble.

>> I beg to differ. The Nurturing Network, run by Mary Cunningham ??? (I
>> forgot her last name), which supplied a diligent and accomodating
>> program to help women with crisis pregnancies (and which is dominated
>> vastly by female workers), according to several sources, included
>> pro-choice people.                                       ^^^^^^^^
   ^^^^^^^^^^
>> Since she's gotten directly involved in pro-life rallies and such,
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> since then, I'm not sure if there are any left in TNN anymore. 

>Let me make it clear, Steve.  Mary Cunningham is pro-life.  She contributes

He seems to understand that she's pro-life, Suzanne.  He said that her
organization "included pro-choice people".

>to the pro-life movement by providing non-abortive CHOICES for women.  There
>are hundreds of things an organization can provide a woman so that she will
>not feel cornered into aborting.  Mrs. Cunningham's modus operandi is to shame
>universities, corporations, and other organizations, who like to call them-
>selves "pro-choice", into providing MORE than that one choice.   Under the
>banner of choices for women, she convinces them to actually PROVIDE choices.

>Don'tcha get it, Steve?  Most self proclaimed pro-choicers, say like
>Rocker/Cathi Cook, are pro-"choice" in name only.   They do NOTHING to
>provide women with any choice BUT abortion.   Mary Cunningham is truly
>pro-life/pro-choice.  She has always been anti-abortion, but she was
>galvanized into action by the miscarriage of her own child.

>It was that simple.

You said that there were no pro-choice people in any abortion
alternative organization anywhere.  Steve provided you with a
counter-example, and it only takes one counter-example to prove a
universal statement (which yours was) false.

--
"Best to err on the side of caution.  Someone out there may actually give a
damn what we say."                                      - Jammer Jim Miller
               Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Pro-Choice                    Anti-Roe               - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:45:44 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug20.185320.21941@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> In  <1992Aug19.174332.2123@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>> In article <1992Aug13.165127.39789@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@wats

[...]

>> > Actually, I pointed out that it's "Truth by Blatant Assertion" *because*
>> > I believe it to not be true.  You're welcome to try to prove otherwise.
>>
>> I can't prove otherwise,
> 
> OK, TbBA it is.

Excuse my ignorance, but what does TbBA stand for?  A stuttered version
of To Be Anounced (just a wild guess of course)?
 
>> You say it's ok to pick the arbitrary point of birth to abort.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> ie abortions before birth are ok, but infanticide is wrong.
> 
> No.  See, I didn't say that abortions immediately before birth (or any time,
> for that matter) are *OK*, just that drawing the line at birth was OK.

I'm only using "ok" in an informal sense, so don't think that I'd think that
you think (whew!) any abortions are "ok" in the strict sense of the term.
BUT, let me try this again...

You picked birth as the point, even drew a line there, but the line is
really meaningless since you wouldn't want an abortion to occur just before
birth?  Why did you draw the line?  I'm confused.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Thank You Lord -- For Ending the Cold War"
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:15:37 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <1992Aug22.002225.3820@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>The mind boggles at the possiblities.  Think of the rallies, the
>campaign ads, the speeches!  Jesus on Larry King!  Bush accusing
>Jesus of negative campaigning!  Wow!

Jesus would be even better than Perot at running the uncampaign,
with refusal to discuss the issues and campaign slogans such as
"Just trust Me" and "Who are you to judge Me?".

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40424 talk.politics.theory:3720 alt.politics.elections:10827 alt.politics.marrou:826 alt.politics.bush:2001
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 13 Aug 1992 18:38:56 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

|> Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
|> >
|> >> It was interesting listening to the conservative whackos like Mary
|> >> Matalin protest the New York Post article on George's alleged affair
|> >> with a staff aide.  I wonder why the same indignation was not present
|> >> when the Clinton allegations surfaced.
|> >
|> >Because the allegations concerning Bush come third-hand -- supposedly
|> >from the mouth of a dead man -- with no other supporting evidence,
|> 
So the fact that he died, makes his earlier statements unreliable?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:19:46 GMT

>
>I asked these questions of a guy I work with who is both a practicing
>doctor, and a research professor. He said that yes, malpractice costs
>are huge, but they pretty much stopped growing by the early eighties.
>Meanwhile healthcare costs have continued to rise. He said some of the
>cost growth is in fancy new procedures (e.g. CAT scans, MRI scans) and
>a significant part is in insurance *overhead*. He said that *over 30%*
>of your insurance payments go to administrative costs. I assume that
>includes the cost of the MD's office filling out the reporting forms.
>
>So any attempt to control healthcare costs is going to have to work on
>both malpractice costs and administrative costs. That is why both Bush
>and Clinton have proposals in both these areas.
>							- Lee Campbell

If Bush has a proposal, he is not doing a very good job of publicizing it.
Whenever I have heard him talk about health care lately it has been to run
down Clinton's proposal with childish gibes.  He did, at one stage, propose
tax credits for low and moderate income families (of at least 4 who made
at least 10K).  But this made no provisions for controlling administrative
costs.

Peter Lauren.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41130 talk.politics.theory:3778 soc.culture.usa:6758 alt.conspiracy:10195