HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: DOD: Dense as a Black Hole (WAS Another good reason to vote for Bush)
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:08:30 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = lj farthing:
>>> = Doug Holtsinger:

>>> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
>>> and incest, and for the life of the mother.   

>> And exceptions for his daughters and granddaughters.  They get to
>> decide, it's their choice.  The rest of American women don't.

>I think you should be ashamed of yourself for insinuating that
>all women think alike.  

He never said all women think alike, you goddamned liar. It's you that's
doing the insinuating and further exposing your incredible inability to
answer someone rationally.

Don't they have English, Debating, and Logic classes at your university?
I'd suggest taking something a little more educational then Asshole 101.

>Many women are pro-life.  

So what?  Who said they weren't?  Just because they have the choice
doesn't mean they have to exercise any one option.  Unlike so-called
pro-lifers, NO ONE is forced to do anything.

>Only a sexist would mistakenly believe that all women are pro-choice. 

Only a low-class misanthrope could possibly take Farthing's statement and
twist it into something unrecognizable.  

Trying engaging your brain when you read posts.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another great reason to vote for Bush
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:30:11 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.181305.3176@news.columbia.edu> 
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:

>>> I suppose if we withheld food and water from a newborn it
>>> wouldn't be murder either, hmmm.

>> A newborn is independent of its mother the way a fetus is not.

>So in situations where a newborn is dependent on a single person
>for survival, should that person be allowed to kill the newborn? 

Doug, let me try small words.

The above statement says that a newborn is independent in a way that the 
fetus is not.  Find me a situation where a newborn is dependent on any one
person as intimately as the fetus is.  Then we'll talk.  Until then, you're
just typing to hear the bullshit fly.

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:36:20 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug19.210947.26366@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
> How can you call a pregnancy that occured as a direct result of the 
> animal desires of a man and a woman "forced pregnancy".  When will YOU 
> understand that YOU must take responsibility for YOUR actions.  If you 
> are not willing or able to take a pregnancy to term then maybe you should 
> not be having sex.  

These morals seem fine and dandy (well at least the ones in this particular
post I guess), but the world doesn't work that way.  Everybody except
virgins has sex once in awhile.  There's a *lot* of non-virgins in
the world, and I would venture to say that the majority of them are
*not* ready to have children.  Your ideals are simply too idealistic
to have any effect in the real world. 

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is "abortion on demand"
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:33:30 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

Susan, do you see how much _control_ you have over Holtsmussen?  Ten seconds
after you reply to me and mention that he's finally dropped the thread,
ol' Neurotic Neurons revives his goofiness.  This is _great_!  (Maybe he has 
the hots for you? :)

> = (Doug Holtsinger) whines like a turbine:
>> = (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>> = DOD earlier:

>I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your accusation Ms. Garvin. 
>In case you forgot, here it is again:

>>> I have more sources which I shall post shortly. 

>> (As soon as he makes them up.)

>Substantiate this accusation or retract it.

How can she, twit?  You haven't posted your "sources" yet.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:29:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.033037.30154@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

>>> Given that there are only 3 doctors in the US that perform 3rd trimester
>>> abortions, and then only for medical reasons, it seems obvious to any
>>> reasonably intelligent observer that "abortion-on-demand throughout
>>> the term of pregnancy" is simply a myth.

>> I'm still waiting for Mr. Margolis or Mr. Anderson to tell me where
>> 60 minutes got these so-called facts.

> The same information has been posted on the net previously.  I have no
> reason to doubt it.  If you do, feel free to contact 60 Minutes and inquire
> as to their sources.

I don't know the date of the 60 minutes broadcast.  I need the date 
to get a transcript.  Also, it wouldn't hurt for you or Mr. Anderson
to tell me where 60 minutes got these so-called facts.

>> And these so-called facts do nothing to refute the evidence showing
>> that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout the term
>> of pregnancy.

> What there is is paranoid speculation - anti-abortionists are using scare
> tactics, trying to raise the specter of women in their ninth month of
> pregnancy obtaining abortions because they want to fit into a swimsuit.

I've never raised the "specter" of women obtaining late-term abortions
because they want to fit into a swimsuit.  You must have me confused 
with someone else. 

>I note that you cut out:
>> > For you to claim otherwise, you'd have to document for us some
>> > third-trimester abortions for other than medical reasons.

I don't have to prove anything like that.  All I have to do is
show that it's legally possible. 

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


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level (was Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:59:05 GMT

In article <lefty-120892143620@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.184217.26374@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
>(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
>> 
>> ...I train on pro-abortion arguments presented here; I have never
>> considered any argument of mine "strong enough" and am always testing
>> it for any holes through which pro-aborts can possibly weasel their
>> way out of. 
>
>Arguments?  You say you have _arguments_?

I'm known for them. That is, when I'm not fighting an artillery war
(this has gotten way beyond flaming) with Patrick Humphrey and co.
When your people decide it's time to flame Steve Chaney, I stop
discussing and start shelling ass all over USENET. Of course, I follow
the law of self-preservation. Long-gone pacifists like Chris Dicely
advocated letting them flame you and you not responding. He was a
pro-lifer who admonished me for standing up to you guys.  
 
Which is probably why Chris Dicely's no longer on USENET; they
probably flamed him to death and he could no longer stand the heat.  

>You ought to post a few.  They've got to be more interesting than the
>nonsense you usually come up with.

You're right. I will pull myself up from the level of mentality that
consumes you and the Pat Ira Roby gang in general. There's only one
problem: there aren't any pro-lifers, save Steve Franklin, who have
the courage to flame you folks the way you flame us. (Of course, I
could be proven wrong. I hope.)  

>--
>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

===============================================================================
			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: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:00:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Aug13.224746.15878@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>	"Dennis Hall" was reportedly sexist and arrogant? I guess that
>being sexist did not endear him to the abundance of female
>pro-choicers here.

And to top it off, he posted Suzanne Forgach's private email without any 
justification whatsoever. (She's pro-life.)

Steve designed him to be an irritant and at least succeeded at that level.  
Now, if only he could have made him believable, we would not be having 
this discussion.   :-)

>	I wonder if us pro-choicers can start a boycott of Steve
>Chaney, just as we had done of David J. Rasmussen.

Never!!  He's worth his weight in entertainment value!  
(I forgot to tell you how we tried to get "Dennis Hall - pro-choice" 
to publicly debate Steve Chaney - pro-life;  without success, in spite 
of "their" expressed "hatred" for each other, but oh what a fun debate that 
would have been!!  :-)

>	Say, what's happened to DJR? I haven't seen him post in an
>awful long time.


Don't know.  That's before my time.  Unless that's the guy who 
visited Patrick in person this summer...  If so, ask Patrick H.


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:10:22 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  <1992Aug17.174732.2761@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Aug16.025424.40033@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <1992Aug15.202225.8681@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chan
> >> 3) Women are sometimes going to terminate unwanted pregnancies,
> >> whether abortion is safe & legal or not.
> >>      Hungry people are sometimes going to terminate hunger, which
> >>      is deadlier than pregnancy, whether their methods of doing it
> >>      are safe & legal or not.
> >> 4) Do these women deserve injury & death?
> >>      Do these hungry people deserve injury & death?
> >
> >The hungry people can have their hunger terminated for free, either
> >by the state or through private organizations.  (Food stamps and soup
> >kitchens.)
>
> Well, pregnancies terminate with childbirth. Still 99% non-lethal,
> 95%+ non-injurious. And harmless to the baby to boot.

Abortion can also terminate the pregnancy, and it's even safer, and
no baby results.

> Childbirth ought to be free, along with prenatal care.

If someone's hungry that doesn't want to be, we don't make them wait 9 months.

> Wow, that old "inhabiting" defense sure acts like dust when I'm
> slamming through it with a logic.tank..

It's comments like this that make people consider you a (bad) joke.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:00:41 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (C J Silverio) writes:


[To Eric Rescorla, in Chaney's honor...]

>It flails and wails
>And writes bad email
>And acts like it's in a fog
>It's log, log, log!
>
>Log, log,
>it's big, it's heavy, it's wood.
>Log, log,
>it's better than bad, it's good.
>Everyone knows it's log--
>Steve's brain is a log.
>	(from Blammo!)
>
>Oops.  Oh dear.  Like Alice Liddell, I must complain that the
>words seem to have come out all wrong.

I'd like to add a second verse, from a Dave Barry book:

Wonder Dog - Wonder Do-o-o-o-g
Kinda big
Kinda strong
Stupid as a log


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
Date: 22 Aug 92 02:04:08 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug22.001019.17734@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
@ In article ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:

@ [Loren and Ilana discussing various forms of what they call
@  "non-contact sex", the details of which I just can't bear to repeat.]

	If we are going to consider the various possible kinds of
sexual activity, then we have to be more comprehensive than
considering simply penis-in-vagina sex.

>My gosh.  I've never heard such a ridiculous term in all my life as
>"non-contact sex".  What a hoot!  Tain't sex if it's "non-contact", 
>now is it.

	Does masturbation qualify?

	I like to think of it as "solo sex".

>Why don't y'all just buy yourselves trashy novels and be done with it.

	Any suggestions? :-):-)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Congress puts FOCA on the shelf
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:47:51 GMT

Democrats Fail to Make Good on Freedom of Choice Act
The Congressional Quarterly, August 9, 1992
----

After months of declarations that they would pass abortion rights
legislation this summer, Democratic leaders in both houses have shelved
plans to move their cornerstone bill, the so-called Freedom of Choice
Act.

Leaders had planned to act on the bills (S 25, HR 25), which would bar
most state abortion restrictions, before the Republican National
Convention begins Aug. 17 in Houston.  They hoped to highlight
disagreement within the GOP over abortion rights, and they perceived
that President Bush's opposition to abortion rights would help
Democratic candidates in the Fall elections.

But disarray within Democratic ranks, combined with a lack of public
outcry over the Supreme Court's recent decision upholding restrictions
in Pennsylvania, ultimately derailed the effort.  Democratic vote-
counters in both houses said they could produce margins for passage
but doubted they could fend off amendments adding Pennsylvania-type
restrictions.  While the Democrats knew all along that they never had
the votes to override an eventual Bush veto, they had hoped outrage
over the court's decision would propel the bill to passage.

On Aug. 5, Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell, D-Maine, 
announced: ``After giving the matter careful consideration, I have
decided ... not to try to pursue this matter during this legislative
period.''

Mitchell and House Speaker Thomas S. Foley, D- Wash., took pains not
to close the door on possible floor action when members return for
their final legislative push in September.  But those closest to 
the measure say they doubt floor action is any more likely after
the August recess.

``My guess is it will be next year,'' said Rep. Don Edwards, D-Calif.,
lead sponsor of HR 25.

And abortion opponents, who have been working feverishly against the
bill, declared success.  Not bringing up the bill before the convention
``is clearly a defeat for them,'' said Rep. Christopher H. Smith, 
R-N.J., co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus.  ``They were so
arrogant saying they couldn't wait to bring it up.''

----

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.english.usage,talk.bizarre
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Minor Literary Corrections
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:05:25 GMT

cj at times suffers from 'RevisionistIdeologicalDeviationalIsm'
and therefore this minor correction to her posting is mandatory.

cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
] ---
] moses@convex.com (John Moses) writes:
] |    If you drive a car, you run the risk of hitting someone and suffering
] |the consequences.  If you have sex and end up creating a child by accident,
] |you suffer the consequences.  
] 
] Ayup, dammit.  We all know that drivers who get into car
] accidents have NO RIGHT to seek medical treatment for their
] injuries.  Only wimp liberals would attempt to treat their

'wimp liberal' is a NonOperablePharaseology, and needs to 
be replaced with:

KneeJerkBleedingHeartWimpLiberalStoogesOfTheirInternationalEuroDisneyKonspirakii.

] lacerations, broken bones, etc., and try to weasel out of
] their GOD-imposed responsibility to take care of the injuries

'GOD-imposed responsibility' is a theologically ambiguous phrase
and should be replaced, to denote the correct relationship with:

GodGivenWholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValuedResponsibility.

] they CHOSE to create, through their WILLFUL, CONSENSUAL driving.

'WILLFUL, CONSENSUAL' is a morally Ambiguous phrase and
MUST be replaced with:

HideousHeinousHeteroSexuallyKonspiratorialMoralDegeneracy.

] 
] Amen, brother.
 
Amen, brother.

Now Your posting is KorreKt.

ciao
drieux

"Better Living through KorreKt Word Usage."


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32508 alt.flame:12191
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:23:16 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Aug17.161409.27989@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.020044.22759@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>>the chaney/hall person posting as
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes to patrick:
>>-> 1) FACT: YOU SAID YOU HAD DOCUMENTATION THAT "CHANEY
>>->    POSTS AS HALL."

>>evidence confirming this fact has been posted
>>repeatedly dennis. do you think repeated denials will
>>make people forget?

>No such evidence exists, Roby. 

You forgot about my phone call and Dean's phone call already?

OK, Let's see...
Chaney's beating a dead horse...
Keegan's defending Patrick's old (and quickly corrected) terminology error 
by ignoring the terminology altogether...
Chaney is endlessly confused as to who is who here...

I think it's time for a dandelion break...

-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: More lies 
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:46:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.015202.24618@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <28732@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> 
> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
> 
> > DOD is pursuing the strategy of repeating a lie more frequently as it
> > is challenged.  
> 
> Pro-aborts are pursuing the strategy of character assassination. 
> 

When you lie, quote out of context, or edit quotes in a deceptive
fashion it is entirely correct to point out that you have done
these things and to state that you are a liar.  That is not
character assassination, that is correction.  The hope is that
you will begin to realize that people will see through such
actions and that such strategies are ineffective.  The hope is
that you will attempt to use more honest means to argue your
point.  I don't think people want you to stop posting, just to
display integrity when you do.  I actually hope you continue
posting as you do, because it is amusing to see you caught so
often and easily.

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32570 talk.religion.misc:14297
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: More yelping from Clefty (was Re: More Bleating From the Borg
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:54:09 GMT

In article <Bt9E4M.C3C@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> In article <1992Aug19.233832.7895@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> >BZZZZTTT !!! 
> 
> Where's that fly swatter?
> 
> >I _never_ run from conflicts on this newsgroup or anywhere else. 
> 
That must be the reason he announced all the numerous
people, including myself, he killfiled because we would
catch him out in his nonsense and make him look foolish.

He wasn't running away.  He was, uh, winning gloriously
by using the oft-successful strategy of pretending that if
he didn't answer we didn't exist.  Yes.  That's it.  Rommel
used it brilliantly.  I think it's in a text on military
strategy under the heading "The Peek-a-boo Campaign."

Since Chahallney is so fond of pretending he's an airplane
or something, I think Ostrich is a better nickname for
him than Propellor Boy and such.  He's more a flightless
bird with a brain the size of a peanut who believes if he
hides his head then whatever is out there won't see him.

Dean Kaflowitz