HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: More GooseSteppingForJesus
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:42:40 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
] In article <16094@umd5.umd.edu> spinoza@next08wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:
] >In article <1992Oct13.212921.13547@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com
] >(drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
] >> ]
] >> ] And no, I'm not talking about "police" of any kind.

Question #1:

] >> Isn't this the same Gentleman who's vision of America
] >> is that in the Future the Police will be trencheoning
] >> down Pro_Choicers?????

Question #2:

] >> So How do you plan to 'enforce' your AntiAbortion laws?
] >>
] >No, no,no. Come the Revolution, drieux, there won't BE a NEED for
] >ENFORCEMENT, 'cause everyone will WANT what The Grand Inquisitor, His
] >Eminenence Simon Booth wants for America. Of course, this means that lots
] >o' folks will have already competed for the honor of being
] >FirstUpAgainstTheWallWhentheRevolutionComes, 

The expression: FirstUpAgainstTheWallWhentheRevolutionComes,
is Not really new....

] What revolution?? 

the One the AntiAbortionists are Seeking to Perpetrate by
rewriting american history, and in particular what it is
that they are alledgining they wish a return to....

NONE OF WHICH has its place in american history.

] My story is to illustrate the threat of fascism as a
] backlash against liberals.  I am not a fascist of any kind.


Now do feel free to adress the above two Questions,
rather than hope that we will forget that you avoided
them in your hopes that by saying time and again that
you are NOT a fascist, that this will change the
nature that you presented your story as a 'Good.'


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

ME? engage in Hyperbole?
I have rarely been more than a first Order Function!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:30:15 GMT

In article <1bk0euINN4lg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

[Don]
>>>>Before participating in sex, a man has a full right to decide
>>>>issues of "personal or family privacy."  That is, if he doesn't
>>>>want to be a parent, he has the power and right not to become a parent.
[Adrienne]
>>>Ah.  I see.  An *excellent* argument for not leaving one's personal property
>>>(one's sperm) lying about outside of the realm of one's control.


As I said, I don't find this approach productive, and though I don't
agree with your deductions or conclusions, I'll let you carry it on 
with someone else.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:59:21 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Oct12.195053.13962@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
 
>You're WAY off--I'm 22--one must be 35 to be President, so I'd be eligible
>to run in the November 2008 election.
>Now lets watch all of you panic at that prospect.......
 
If J. Danforth can get as close as he has to the presidency, 
it would hardly surprise me if you could.  It would not surprise
me if you ran for president any more than you actually finding
a publisher for your novel.  Good luck on both counts.  Neither
would hardly be cause for panic. 
 
>Simon
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.singles
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this Picture....
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 07:47:23 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <PETRI.WESSMAN.92Oct4225923@hydroman.hut.fi> Petri.Wessman@hut.fi writes:
>On Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:41:57 GMT, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) said:
>drieux> Some how I don't think Ellen Really Understands the
>drieux> True nature of the Discussion....
>
>Boy, am I Confused! And I though That She was making a Humorous point
>and you were Talking gibberish. Silly of Me. I never Was much good at
>Understanding the True nature of anything.
>
They were both making humorous posts.  drieux takes a little getting used to,
is all.
>
>drieux> I hate these ClosetHetro's who are so easily confused....
>
>Hmmmm. Now *I'm* confused. Exactly *what* is a ClosetHetro? Anything
>related to LivingRoomMunchkins or KitchenBoogers?
>
ClosetHetro is the Heterosexual equivalent of ClosetHomo.
>
>drieux> -- 
>drieux> Modern Day Problems
>
>drieux> Does that 'answer' your question,
>drieux> or should I be a little more vague.
>
>The mind boggles at the possibility.

Actually he's not being vague, he's just talking in metaphor.  Like I said,
he just takes a little getting used to.

Big Al.  Who is instantly understood by everybody.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:52:18 GMT

In article <4+2zwkq@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->Suzannee-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>->>Gee, Rescorla, don't *I* get the option of substantiating them
>->>instead? Or do you just like C.J. better?
>->Is it that you just can't read, Suzanne?
>
>you look really stupis saying something like this when
>it turns out that you're the one with the reading
>problem,

>who was it you were saying couldn't read, eric?
Jim, you don't look so bright yourself, criticizing me for a typographical
error, seeing as you just called me "stupis"
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:02:43 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Oct8.184819.14048@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>  krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
> p.s. This summer I posted a four-page, annotated report which showed
> that the many sex-ed programs are not teaching anything like what
> most people think they are.  They are teaching deviance like sex with
> animals and legal, honorable prostitution.  Are those the things that
> you want taught in public schools?

1.  I assume you mean "teaching that they exist", not that they're
    porking Porky in the classroom.
2.  Even that's going too far, since I don't believe that "legal,
    honorable prostitution" exists in this country.  (It's legal in
    one place, and I don't think it's generally considered "honorable"
    anywhere.)
3.  Yes, I certainly think that it should be taught that prostitution
    *should* be legal.  If it's legal it can be regulated, and we can
    try to put a stop to the abuse of the girls, and require medical
    checkups to help check the spread of venereal diseases.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: When did human life begin??? Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:08:16 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
->>I've rarely seen an anti-choice person ...

->I hope you don't really think you're denoting ME in that, do you, Cathi? 
->Here's a clue: I'm pro-choice.

you're the first person who would force a woman to
abort to refer to themself as pro-choice that i've
seen. of course, there is at least one who wants to
legislate against abortion and imprison the women who
have them.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:09:31 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

> The being that exists at conception is exactly the same being that turns
> out to be a forty year old musician, a seven year old child prodigee or
> whatever.  

That old, shop-worn argument?  My God, I thought that stuff died out in the
1970s.  Guess what Marvin: there is nothing in human DNA that specifically
relates to human individuality or higher brain function.  The following
excerpt from "DNA FINGERPRINTING" AND ABORTION, A HIGH TECH FOG by Professor
Edward Manier of Notre Dame might shed some light.  Caps emphasis mine:


	Why would the religious right put forth such a shoddy case to
	buttress their claim that human life begins at conception?
	Genes do not determine human individuality.  The phenotypic
	(structural, functional, behavioral) variance in human
	populations is explained by genes and two crucially significant
	additional classes of variables:  environment, and interaction
	of genes and environment.  DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT OCCUR UNLESS
	GENES AND ENVIRONMENT INTERACT: read beyond the warning labels
	on alcoholic beverages or the latest news about smoking and
	fetal development.  Human chromosomes specifically lack 
	information necessary for the development of the human brain.
	INFERENCE OF THE PRESENCE OF A SPECIFIC AND UNIQUE HUMAN BEING
	FROM EVIDENCE THAT THE FERTILIZED HUMAN EGG HAS A FULL COMPLEMENT
	OF HUMAN CHROMOSOMES (PREFORMATIONISM) HAS UTTERLY NO INFLUENCE
	IN CURRENT BIOLOGICAL THOUGHT.


It seems that nurturance plays a more significant role in human development
than many pro-lifers are willing to admit.  And if a woman feels she lacks
the resources and support to give the child the necessary nurturing to help
it realize its potential, who are we to say she should have the baby anyway?

> You are special.  Peter Nyikos is special.  Adrienne Regard is special.

There you go, redefining terms again.  Two redefinitions in a single line! :-)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: About Parental Consent and Funding too:
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:40:33 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct12.230659.1191@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

[text deleted]

#Abortion is classified as ELECTIVE surgery. Read your medical
#textbooks on that: when it does not have to do with saving the woman's
#life, her seeking an abortion is called elective surgery. That means
#it is no more necessary than face lifts, liposuction, or nose jobs -
#stuff that is NOT considered vital health care by its classification.

Eight years ago, I had an intense pain in my abdomen.  Several doctors
performed all sorts of tests trying to determine what was causing
the pain.  Finally, my g.p. asked me if I were willing to consent
to exploratory surgery.  This was classified as elective surgery
ex ante, since there was no indication that such surgery was
needed to save my life or preserve my health.

I signed the consent form and had the operation.  During the
surgery, the doctor found a malignant tumor on my right ovary.
Since there was no way to diagnose ovarian cancer other than
by surgery at that time (and since the "miracle of ultrasound"
failed completely in discovering a 15 cm. tumor), this operation
saved my life.  Because I had elective surgery, doctors were able
to remove other primary tumors and metastases in time to give
me a chance to survive.

Dennis, of course, would argue that this life-saving operation
should not have been covered under my insurance since it
was elective surgery.  

[Other blathering about elective surgery and excuses for his
beahvior deleted]

Susan
Sutt/2
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Persons only after birth? (was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:28:28 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Oct8.035505.23247@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <Bvrnnx.3vu@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>>
>>In some religions "personhood" isn't optained until after 3 months
>>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>of gestation.  For these religions that is when a soul is bestowed.  
>>For these religions abortion in the first trimester is fine as the   
>>z/e/f is still a non-human.
>
>
>Which, if true, tells us that perhaps the pro-life, pro-choice debate
>isn't necessarily a religious issue.


I however, am not Christian, and I am of course referring to my
religion.

Pro-Lifers are saying that <human> life BEGINS at conception, using the
Bible to back up their positon.  They, then have made it a religious
issue.

CRS
From: walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 7 Oct 1992 21:41:36 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu


>> Hey Bruce...I don't give a damn about what's in any dictionary except a law]
>> dictionary.  When you're talking about taking away people's rights, you're
>> talking about a legal issue and the only thing I care about is legalities.
>> Murder is a legal term, and no matter what YOU choose to call it, when
>> you decide to leglislate away women's rights, you HAVE to use legal terms.
>> A fetus is NOT a person, check up on the law.  A child is a BORNED person,
>> check up on the law.  You will have to change all of these to have it 
>> your way.  Until you do, the legal definition--the only one I care about--
>> stands.
>> 
>> Jennifer
>
>this argument rings of "it's the law, so you have to (not) do it anyway".
>perfect for the unthinking clone brain betas and epsilon morons.
>
>do you ever exercise any of your own free thought, jennifer, or do you rely 
>on whatever authority presides to guide you? do you know what a thought is?

The law aint shit.  What asshole would actually listen to a guy in a blue suit
with a gun.  I don't understand her either.  Law, waht a joke, only weak losers
pay any attenteion to the law.  I think rape is great don't you
Hey its against the law so it has to be good.  Besides I like jail, Its the
only place i can get my hemroids scratched by some one else.  This cuntry
should ditch this democracy shit and we should have anarcracy.  Much better.
But then no one woudl scratch my hemroids. 

That was sarcasm if you hadn't guessed already.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Holtsmussen starts to fall apart
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:30:27 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct14.004032.22361@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

#The various remains of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims were once persons.
#And so are the remains of aborted fetuses.  That's what makes them
#horrifying. 

I think that Eric scared him.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,soc.women
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Challenging Mental Exercise Time
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:38:51 GMT

PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
] In article <1992Oct10.210023.6502@wetware.com>
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] >Defending the constitutional right to bear arms,
] >and arguing against a womans right to an abortion
] >exports meaning?
] 
]      Why have you linked these together?  Do you, for some reason,
] believe that the necessitate each other?


Hum....

does the phrase:

whittling on our rights

bring anything to mind?


NAH.....

Couldn't be a Connection....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42346 talk.politics.guns:22078 alt.conspiracy:11231 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5316 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6776 talk.bizarre:33984
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:07:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <1992Oct12.195328.571@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

>In article <1992Oct11.015308.25586@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes ...
>>>In article <BD.92Oct7104850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>stalled under Bush?  Clinton is promising to run it in reverse. Has Bush gotten
>us involved in a war?  Clinton wants to get involved in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  

You must not have watched the first debate.  Clinton specifically said he
wants to reduce troops in Europe.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth's *Great* American Novel (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 17:35:08 GMT

In <1992Oct14.005553.23460@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.182343.23647@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:

>[...]
>
>Well, actually the attacks on pro-choice people are a part of the larger
>overall picture.  My aim is to demonstrate that extremeism only breeds extreme-
>ism from the other side.  Like I said, extreme liberalism runs rampart, there's
>the prospect of the people electing anyone out of desparation, without thinking
>about what that candidate represents. Remember Germany 1933?? I am not a Nazi!

OK, I see now. In your novel, there is such a thing as a "pro-choice
extremist". That's almost an oxymoron, but I think I can picture it.
Presumably, these pro-choice extremists kidnapped pregnant women,
and forced them to decide for themselves whether they wanted to
carry their pregnancies to term or not. If a woman refused to decide
for herself, and demanded that someone tell her what to think,
then she would be tortured to death. Angered at these terroristic
techniques, pro-lifers countered with equally extreme measures,
culminating in the use of white phosphorus by police officers.

Now, I've met plenty of pro-life extremists, who think that women 
should be forced to carry pregnancies to term whether they want to 
or not.  I've heard about pro-abortion extremists, who think that women
should be forced to have abortions whether they want to or not. But
I can't say that I know any pro-choice extremists. It sounds a bit
silly, don't you think?

I don't think that the abortion issue makes a good centerpiece for
your proposed novel. Perhaps you should pick a different issue...one
that liberals really do have extreme positions on. Perhaps racism
or sexism? I think we can agree that the world would be a better
place if there were fewer racists (and fewer abortions), but 
extremists can propose half-baked legislation that does more
harm than good. Abominations like the Michigan "Hate Speech" law, 
recently overturned on 1st Amendment grounds, could potentially lead
to the kind of violent scenario you describe. There are better ways 
to deal with racism.

Returning to abortion: Now that you've clarified your position,
I understand that you don't support using white phosphorus to
limit the number of abortions. So, what legislation do you propose,
and why do you think that your legislation would make the world a
better place to live (i.e., "provide the greatest good for the
greatest number")?
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: More on Chickens
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 9 Oct 92 11:59:20 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

I was watching a rerun of Casper and Friends the other day, and noticed
something which I thought everyone would be interested in.

There was this train with different animal people on it, and one of
the passengers was a chicken.  The conductor came along (I think he
was a dog, but it doesn't matter) asking for tickets, and the
chicken handed hers over.  All of a sudden, the chicken laid an
egg on her seat!

The conductor says "Hey!  Half fare for children!"

Isn't that ridiculous?  I laughed!

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Biblical Authority for Law
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:13:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.185331.16658@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.181733.15406@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> 
> >>> And Jesus said:
> 
> >> And here's yet another data point to support the observation
> >> that the pro-aborts are usually the first ones to raise the
> >> issue of religion.
> 
> > [...]  this in response to the latest
> > wave of biblical exegesis from the pro-life forces.
> 
> The only "wave of biblical exegesis" which I've seen recently
> is coming from a single person -- "The Rink" -- who is responding
> to Steve Adam's claims that the bible supports abortion.  So once
> again, it is the pro-aborts who are the first to raise the issue
> of religion. 

Not true.  And I think one can safely claim that the religion
card is played when one sees a .sig full of biblical quotes
and hallelujahs.  But Douglas, take a walk down to your nearest
anti-abortion protest and check the placards, then do please
come back and tell me how religion is not a major portion of
the anti-abortion agenda.  The only other political agenda
that is equally as full of religious appeals by the antis is
the anti-homosexual agenda (saw a protest on the telly the
other day where one of the placards read "God Hates Fags;"
the one thing that surprised me was that the words were
spelled correctly and the thing that didn't surprise me was
the impression that the supposed god of love was being used
to broadcast hatred).

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.rape,alt.sex