HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0)
Subject: Pro-Life Company needs help!
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:42:44 GMT


Okay, off of the bombing raids, here is some more good news for pro-lifers:


Save money on Long Distance!

Save unborn babies by helping support Feminists for Life
(816) 753-2130

There is a long distance phone company called Coast International, INC.,
that makes donations to FFL.

* You can expect savings off your current long distance bills.
* FFL will receive a percentage of the income on all participant's
bills monthly.
* You do not change your method of dialing.
* You do not change any local telephone service.
* 100% fiber optics lines are used, the most advanced telecommunications
  system in the world.
* You will receive calling cards free.
* You may change your service at any time at no charge. 

Coast International has proven itself through similar arrangements with
over a dozen other pro-life groups, and it comes highly recommended. Your
first bill will arrive from Coast International, in about 60 days. (Local
telephone companies may assess a switch charge of $5.00; CII will offset
this with 30 minutes free evening calling on your third month's bill.)

Write for more details to:
Coast International, INC.
10975 Benson Drive, Suite 250
Overland Park, KS 66210-9765.

=============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
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. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 21:37:55 GMT

In <Bu50BE.7qx.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


>#You are just trying to gross me out, and as I said to Keith, it cannot
>#be done in talk.abortion without getting so explicit as to bring the
>#wrath of network censors down on your head, and bringing pressure to
>#make ALL talk.abortion moderated, something none of us wants.

>Nyikos, there are no "network censors." 

I was being satirical.  

> There are people who 
>would like to have the authority to censor the net as a whole,
>and certainly your site can decide what newsgroups it will
>carry, but there is no group that can bring "pressure to make
>ALL talk.abortion moderated."

Well, isolated individuals, like the ones you've just named, could, 
although I have no idea how strong that pressure could be.

>If you are offended by something someone writes on the net,
>you can complain to that person.  You can also complain to
>their sysadmins, if you like, but in most cases those
>sysadmins will tell you to quit reading that person's 
>articles if they offend you.  

Right.  I was mildly offended, but my point was that these people are
basically wasting their time.

>#Back in Wollongong I saw a newsgroup with a name like alt.sex.kinky
>#but there's nothing like it here.  So you can't gross me out by
>#posting there either.

>Again, your site can carry any groups it chooses, and not carry
>any groups it doesn't choose to.  After all, they're paying
>for it.

>#But as I said to Keith, I can't stop you from e-mailing me.

>In fact, you can usually complain about harassing mail and
>get results. 

But I would not.  I would not even repeat their obscenities to
anyone else.
 My "ulterior motive" was to smoke out who the
real weirdos in this newsgroup are.  

>Susan
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Peter, do you even know how to READ? (Was: 3 docs in a 3-way).
Date: 10 Sep 1992 08:18:23 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In article <nyikos.716076849@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Now that the post has been repeated on the "FOCA : and I quote" thread
>by Dan King, no thanks to you, you get to read my opinion about it.
>Enjoy.

I did.  I notice you spend considerable keyboardtime coming up with specula-
tive defenses for this 'poor fellow' who swore to God or Allah that he'd
kill a woman who didn't have enough respect for him.

Kinda makes me *glad* you have decided I'm not on your list of 'compassionate'
people, because I wouldn't like the company, or the definition.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 03:58:11 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.715899124@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep6.225636.17167@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt
>
> >So, tell us if Mr. Margolis's guess is really wrong -- what percent of
> >abortion providers have been spared punishment under this law because
> >it wasn't enforced?
>
> I'm just starting to find out about this stuff, and the people I am
> trying to get information from are incredibly busy, so the answers
> may be a long time coming.
>
> I do not know of a single case of an abortionist reporting an incest
> case.
>
> I do not know of a single case of an abortionist disciplined for
> refusing to report an incest case.

Now for the $64,000 question - do you know of a single case of an
abortionist learning of an incest case?  If not, can you think of
a better expression to describe what you're engaged in than
"baseless speculation"?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Sep 92 22:18:00 GMT

In <Bu14nJ.LK.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <1992Sep02.233517.35825@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

>[massive deletions]

>#Larry Margolis, wondering why Dishonest Doug relies on the description
>#of a "pro-abort" regarding the organization, but then questions the
>#veracity of the organization's facts on the grounds that it's a
>#"pro-abortion organization".

>DOD never answered this, did he?

>I wonder why.

>Susan

I don't know why, but seeing as how you've dismissed every single one
of my sources (even pro-choice ones like Janice Raymond and Luhra Tivis)
as propaganda, you certainly have no cause for complaint.

Peter Nyikos
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 12 Sep 92 07:01:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep04.122912.38742@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
|> 
|> >I used to be pro-abort, in fact,
|> 
|> *Were* you?  Or were you pro-choice?  What term did you use then?
|> And if you didn't describe yourself then as "pro-abort", why are
|> you using the term now to describe those holding the exact same views?

	Now that the subject comes up, I was once pro-legal-abortion.  At the
time I really didn't think much about the issue.  I would have called myself
"pro-choice" out of an impulse to make myself look good even though I was dead
wrong.  Now I call pro-choicers either "pro-choicers," or if I've got an
attitude, "pro-legal-abortion," since (after all) that's exactly what they are.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Are you trying to threaten me, little man? (Was: Badges...)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Sep 92 21:16:49 GMT

In <1992Sep8.234357.2424@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715902274@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Sep3.233740.12447@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>In <1992Sep1.020959.10514@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>I'll volunteer to be the "doer" to Peter's body.  If you'd like some of my
>>>>>qualifications, see if you can find a post titled "You Asked For It!", where
>>>>>I describe some of the slight correlations between fisting and giving birth.
>>>>
>>>>If you are trying to gross me out, you'll have to try a lot harder than
>>>>this.  In fact, I don't think it can be done on talk.abortion without
>>>>calling the wrath of network censors on your head and bringing on pressure
>>
>>>Are you trying to threaten me, little man? 
>>
>>Threaten? who? me? Not on your life.  If anyone brings pressure to bear,
>>it sure won't be me.  My motives for saying the above were utterly
>>different.
>>
>>And while we're on the subject of threats, my comment was in response
>>to a very explicit threat on your part, or have you forgotten?

>Reading comprehension time, Peter.  Keith never threatened you at all.
>I made an offer to you (which, although you are perfectly free to 
>decline, you have not even offered me the courtesy of a response).  

Since you insist on me taking your response on face value instead
of as an attempted gross-out, I'll do you the courtesy.  But don't
count on me doing it all the time.

>Keith in return made an offer to *me* which I was also free to
>decline.

Not only did you not decline it, you repeated it and asked me to
respond to it yet again, since you'd missed my first response.
I inferred that you therefore approved of his offer.

>  Now by some weird stretch of the imagination, you might 
>say that *I* had threatened you by making the offer in the first place
>but I think most people would laugh in your face if you tried to make
>such a ludicrous claim.

So I'm not claiming it, I'm just claiming that you consider his
offer a reasonable one. 
 
>Sarah McCabe

And since you can't seem to tell the difference between an innocent
babe in your womb and various objects up your intestinal tract, I
hereby make a counteroffer.

I will provide you with all the free enemas you desire in return
for a pledge not to have an abortion unless your very life is 
threatened by continuing the pregnancy.

Peter Nyikos





Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:40:10 GMT

In <pt7y9jg@rpi.edu> : keegan@acm.acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
In article <1992Sep11.151857.21525@acd4.acd.com>
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep11.003611.14506@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

>>>> I understand.  It's not easy to convince people that
>>>> your motives are honest.  
>
>>> i don't think your motives were dishonest bill. i think
>>> you honestly hold the same view of all the people who
>>> have suggested that DODie, or chaney, et. al. could
>>> benefit from therapy. 
> 
>> Then you think incorrectly, Jim.  
>
> ok. i accept your admission that your motives were
> dishonest then.

Perhaps this demonstration of your tendency to misinterpret
the statements of others is key to your poor analysis of 
Doug Holtsinger's mental status.  To clarify: I honestly
do not "hold the same view of all the people who have 
suggested that DODie, or chaney, el. al. could benefit
from therapy." 

>> And as I've indicated,
>> many people can "benefit from therapy".  That, however,
>> should not be interpreted as an indication of pathology,
>> which was the basis of your implication.
>
> no it wasn't, bill. since i've commented on this previously,
> i'm curious as to why you continue to post the basis for my
> comments.

Sorry, Jim.  In the context of therapy, "denial" implies a
form of pathology.  So perhaps you're ready to retract your
inference of denial?

> haven't you recently asked that someone post an apology
> for misrepresenting you?

Yes, but it hasn't happened yet.

Bill
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:42:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep8.153658.10289@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:
> 
> What makes me laugh the most, is that Rush Limbaugh has succeeded despite
> the fact that when people take that Susan Garvin/Rocker attitude and scream
> "Abortion is strictly a FEMALE issue!"...

That's not Rocker's or Susan's attitude.  To say so is to lie.

Chahallney, noted for his attempts to deceive more than
for his reasoning skills, lies yet again.

I am delighted by his latest rants.  They speak eloquently
in favor of the pro-choice side of the argument.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sex Selective Impregnation
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:23:57 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep11.021055.637@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1992Sep6.151616.2236@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
> 
>>      In reference to the "aborting females" thread, I saw on the
>> news the other night that a doctor was opening up a clinic in Toronto
>> and a clinic in Vancouver for sex-selective pregnancies.  They said
>> his method was 80% effective (no guarantees I guess, eh?).
> 
> He is probably one of those doctors who puts the contribution from
> the husband in a centrifuge, to sort the sperm into male and female,
> and then artificially inseminates the wife.  This method takes
> advantage of the different masses of the two types of sperm.

But is this bad?  I can't see what's morally unjust here.
 
>> Is it ok to "play God?"
> 
> I think it is a waste of time, since NFP can be used to sway the
> odds with the same 80% effectiveness.   It's all in the timing -
> exploiting the facts that boy sperm swim faster but girl sperm
> live longer.   

Yeah, I know about that method too, but how is it exploitation?
who/what is exploited?  I don't get it.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Arrogant Indians and Susan Forgach
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:02:59 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


pn>In article <nyikos.716329885@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
sg>In <BuD0vr.10x.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

sg>Wrong again, Nyikos.  Steve Chaney has recently called for
sg>just such punishment

pn>Given your dismal track record as far as the `anti-Semitism' of
pn>Doug&Chaney's .sig, and the dismal track record of lots of 
pn>pro-choicers as to Will Steeves's `threat', I'll believe this
pn>when I see it. 

Fraid not.  More like your dismal interpretation of Will Steeves
threat is the problem.  

If anyone still has Chaney's use of the N.Y. times article to
show "The Hostility of the Jews of Manhattan", could they repost
it.  I'm real curious how Nyikos would justify that.
 
sg>Now I see that Nyikos is willing to be purposefully dishonest.
sg>Shirley Wheeler was found guilty of abortion-manslaughter
sg>in such a case.   

pn>Susan, when you wrote about the Shirley Wheeler case, you wrote
pn>that she was given two years' probation for refusing to divulge
pn>the name of an abortionist who did a saline abortion on her.
pn>This is the first time I have seen anything about 
 
I could be wrong, but my understanding of the case was she was
prosecuted for procuring an abortion.  As far as I know it still
is not illegal to withhold information from the authoritys.
My understanding is that Ms. Wheeler was prosecuted for 
procuring an abortion because she bravely refused to assist
in prosecuting the doctor.

sg>Shirley Wheeler was found guilty of abortion-manslaughter

pn>So if either of us is purposefully dishonest, it is you.

At least in this case, I'd be more inclined to chock it up
to your reading comprehension problem.  But then you have
proven to be purposefully dishonest in the past.
 
Dan King
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 5 Sep 92 10:44:45 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

>Nyikos
>> rocker

>However, beyond viability, I would still insist that just as much care
>be taken to preserve the life of the unborn child as would be with a
>"wanted" child at the same stage of development.  And the abortion should
>be postponed as long as possible if there is a good chance it can be
>postponed to viability without incurring this one-kidney deficit.

1.  To what extreme would you go to "insist" onn this?
2.  What is "just as much care"?  What is the minimum standard?
3.  What would you do to those womenn who do not meet this minimum standard?
4.  What have you DONE BEFORE NOW to HELP those women meet your arbitrary
    minnimum standard of care?
5.  Would MEN be required to do ANYTHING, or can they just "come and go"?

You have failed at every turn to mandate one single SHRED of
responsibility on the part of the MAN who had an equal or greater role in
the pregnnancy startinng inn the first place, misogynist.  Are you going
to finally get around to correcting that "oversight"?

>I am also aware of a French saying, "Qui s'excuse, s'accuse": he who
>defends himself, accuses himself.  To post a message with the title,
>"Don't call me a misogynist," as some might have done, would merely
>have drawn others' attention to the fact that I was accused of misogyny.
>To merely defend myself is also self-defeating in the long run, because
>of another saying: "If enough shit is thrown at a wall, some of it is
>bound to stick."

This is not France, the accusation is well-founded and widely believed,
and you'd better start defending yourself.

-- 
"We have seen pictures, where there are canals, we believe, and water.  If 
there's water, that means there's oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can 
breathe." - Dan Quayle, talking about Mars.
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:41:09 GMT

Actually, one more note:

In article <1992Sep8.151356.9274@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu
(Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

>Who was there for Conrad Vincent? Besides me, that is.

Just because a pro-lifer is under attack does *not* mean they deserve
defense -- it depends on what caused the attack.

In Cinder aka Conrad Vincent's case, it was:

--- --- ---

In article <1992May12.214647.28512@hubcap.clemson.edu>
conradv@joule.eng.clemson.edu () writes:

> 	Abortion is worse than the holocaust because,
>1) The holocaust removed just a few million Jews. Abortion is a 
>continuing process in which millions of innocent kids are killed
>annually.

>2) The way the Zionists of this group pour vitriol on Catholicism
>one might be tempted to extrapolate that the Jews asked for it

>(just kidding, no flames please).

--- --- ---

Don't expect many people to see virtue in defending someone who talks
about the Holocaust (which is supposed to be capitalized) having
"removed just a few million Jews" versus abortion being something "in
which millions of innocent kids are killed".  Simply the referrence to
the Holocaust having "removed" Jews compared to "killed" wrt abortion
is flameworthy.  Compounding that with a description of the 'kids'
that abortion kills being "innocent" and a 'joke' that the Jews"asked
for it" means that Cinder earned every last little flame that came his
way.

Personally, I don't see any merit whatsoever in defending someone
currently engaged in active anti-Semitism.  Quite the contrary; I was
flaming the little <censored> for all I was worth.  Cinder's one of
only three posters to talk.abortion (none currently posting) that I
have flamed for the express purpose of trying to drive them away, and
it takes a lot to bring me to that.  The fact that Cinder was pro-life
was largely irrelevant, too; I flame people for being offensive, not
for disagreeing with me.  World would be boring without disagreement.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:51:40 GMT

In article <Sep12.074253.38224@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> 
sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:

}	Yeah, and what if the hang glider did something to cause the guy to be
}hooked up in it?  If the hang glider swooped down and grabbed the guy, for
}instance (still assuming the hang glider is a person), then it seems to me that
}the hang glider wouldn't have a right to just let him go in mid-air, would it?

What a concept!  I think I see why people might shoot hang gliders on 
sight.  I'm not sure if a hang glider would have the right to let someone
go in mid-air, but if they had that capability, who knows, it might even 
be a right.  I sure doubt that I would support legislation making that
illegal, however...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion