HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Gee, they must like me a lot!
Summary: Private email sent to me from PatricKKK 
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:18:37 GMT


Gee, it seems both Chris Lyman AND PatricKKK Humphrey are spending
time talking about me. And then they send me their little love notes
afterwards. 
This, folks, is only a continuation starting from PatricKKK's
re-initiation of email between the 2 of us. Remember, as he said, I
only IMAGINE that pro-choicers are emailing me first. (Which proves
how much of a liar he really is.) 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From patrick@is.rice.edu Tue Jan  5 18:08:39 1993
Received: by is.rice.edu (AA29028); Tue, 5 Jan 93 20:11:32 CST
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 20:11:32 CST
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Message-Id: <9301060211.AA29028@is.rice.edu>
To: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov
Cc: chaneysa
Subject: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Status: RO


   Steve,

   You wrote:

   > What? Because someone else helped you type this bilge?

   My goodness!  Didn't you see Kevin Darcy demand an objective definition
   of 'bilge' from Mark Cochran?  Be careful or The Kebbin will start coming
   after you!  Why, combining your purple choleric ravings with his grey
   agonized whines could form a black hole which would precede the imminent
   demise of Usenet!

Boy, talk about a revolting thought.  I *would* have to see this after I got
back from lunch.  You got the Pepto-Bismol, I hope...:-)

   Whatever would you do then?

I dunno...something unprecedented, like try and find a life away from Usenet
and IRC?  If I was twenty years younger, I don't know -- I might do it the
same way he does.  Fortunately, I'm not, and I never did, and one hell of a
lot of nephews and nieces (along with the other 70,000 or so kinfolk) are
thankful for that small favour...:-)

   Go to bed at a decent hour, or sleep in tomorrow, ok?
   Chris

Hey, I was up until about 1:15 PST myself last night -- but I'm all for the
sleeping-in part.  At least *someone* around here gets to do that...;-)

--PLH, ain't nothing on cable worth the look tonight, anyway
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 21:42:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.182534.8944@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>I havn't been following this threat, so I am not sure who stands were on
>the issue of abortion.  But, I was curious as to the pro-life stance on
>fetal tissue research.  The common arguement follows along the lines that
>fetal tissue reseach will up the number of abortions.  In addition, the
>use of fetal tissue gets into the ethics of human research.  

The argument you cite is spurious, given that with 1.4 million
abortions in 1990 (the last year for which stats are available) there
is more fetal tissue available from current abortions then could
possibly be used by researchers.
As for the ethics of human research...
You have *got* to do human research at some point in the development
of *any* drug, treatment, surgical procedure, or whatever. All the
animal research in the world is merely a starting point. 
In the case of fetal tissue, at least *something* good would be
comiong out of an unwanted pregnancy.

>I think it's pretty obvious were I stand on the issue, if you have read any
>of my past postings.  I just wanted to get some feedback from the pro-life
>and anti-research side.
>
Nope, never seen anything from you in t.a. (where I am reading this)
so it's not pretty obvious. (Although I might be able to make a close
guess from this one article, I'd rather not make assumptions.)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: We're working on it.
	<1993Jan5.000503.4625@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<1993Jan5.005319.23382@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1993Jan5.032752.10735@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:08:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.032752.10735@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

   In article <1993Jan5.005319.23382@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
   >In article <1993Jan5.000503.4625@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
   >}In article <1992Dec29.192416.5661@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
   >}>In article <1217@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
   >}>>In article <nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
   >}>>[everything but the following sentence deleted]
   >}>>>That was an attempt by Holtsinger to quote Humphrey, to illustrate what 
   >}>>>racist tendencies this redneck has.  
   >}>>
   >}>>For ten points, spot the racial slur in the above quote.  For
   >}>>10,000 points, guess what basis PHoney is using to assign a
   >}>>race to Patrick.
   >}>>
   >}>Let me guess... "Redneck" would be the racial slur, would it not? And,
   >}>like so much else, PHoney is assigning a race to Patrick based on....
   >}>his own fantasies.
   >}>Who'sz the scorekeeper?
   >}
   >}Galen is, of course.
   >}
   >}I wonder if Darcy is going to comment on Patrick being a "group" of people
   >}now...
   >
   >No, Darcy will probably complain that Gordon isn't qualified to keep
   >score...
   >
   And PHoney will pipe up to tell us that from a topological viewpoint,
   the score is incorrect anyway. It will take him roughly 1200 lines to
   say this.

Twelve *hundred*?  What gives you the idea he'd be THAT succinct?

:-)

--PLH, twelve lines is pushing it a bit much for me...

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Keegan's morality 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 16:50:56 GMT

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

> We haven't yet heard whether James Keegan condones the
> remarks of a pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-
> lifers. 

And we're still waiting...

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:52:55 GMT

In article <markp.726641670@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
Pundurs) writes:

>>>>>In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was
>>>>>denied her
>>>>>right to choose avoiding pregnancy.
>>>>You don't consider contraceptive failure (as in, the surgery didn't
>>>>work) to be a case in which the woman was denied her right to avoid
>>>>being pregnant?

>>>No; why should I?

>>Because the whole basis for "rape or incest" bit is that in those cases
>>the woman could not choose to avoid pregnancy. When a contraceptive
>>fails, the woman has obviously made an effort to avoid pregnancy, but
>>was foiled by (fate/luck/G-d/hoodoo).

>These are two very different situations. Even in a Libertarutopia
>where every person respected the natural human rights of every other
>person -- so there was no rape -- chance ("fate/luck/G-d/hoodoo") would
>still play a large role in every life. Rape takes away choice;
>chance does not.

>>Now answer the following question
>>with only one word, yes or no: If a woman who chooses to avoid
>> pregnancy gets pregnant anyway, should she be allowed to abort?

>As shown above, this question assumes an equivalence which is false;
>to answer it "yes" or "no" would be to assent to the false assumption.

The two cases are not so different as you might believe. In both
cases, the z/e/f dies. The only difference is the circumstances of
the conception. Why is it okay for the z/e/f conceived of rape to
be aborted, but not any other z/e/f?

Answer: In the case of rape, it is a woman's right to abort a baby she
does not want and cannot care for. Pro-choicers merely extend this right
to include _any_ baby she does not want and cannot care for. Logical,
simple: think Occam's Razor.

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:53:02 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>To label me as anti-abortion is accurate, but not the most accurate.  
>Pro-life means that I consider life to be the single most basic and
>fundamental right of existance.  Not only do I oppose abortion, but I
>support standards and policies of morality which seek to improve people's
>lives after birth.  Pro-life means that I don't think it is up to anyone
>to decide for anyone ELSE what a "meaningful life" means, or to
>decide if that person has the "potential" for "meaninful life".

Ohhhhhhhhhh, so only *you* get to decide what "meaningful life" means?
Can you at least explain to us what makes "human life" more important than,
say, other mammalian life?  Especially examples such as dolphins and apes...
(Or if you feel dolphins and/or apes would also be worth saving, explain why
they are and why they are worth more than animals that are not worth saving at
all costs.)

Try not to make any religious assumptions.


*I* never said that abortion was justifiable in one case just because there
was no "potential for meaningful life".  It is *desirable* as an available
*option* in ALL cases because in some cases the mother may feel that she can
not afford the large investment (which could severely affect *her future*
even if she were to chose adoption) at that point in her life.  It is
*justifiable* for a variety of other reasons.  I think the mother is a much
better person to make that decision than you or anyone else.

>Edward Simmonds

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 15:03:45 GMT

In <1993Jan10.143953.14541@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <markp.726547273@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <1993Jan9.001443.13479@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>In article <markp.726532818@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>>In <1993Jan8.205944.28139@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <markp.726525430@dragonfly.wri.com>, markp@dragonfly.wri.com
>>>>>(Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>Let me make this explicit for Mark and other irony-challenged persons: I
>>>>>>hold AIDS patient's lives to have the same (high) value as any lives.
>>>>
>>>>>*Any* lives? Let me guess. You're an anti-death-penalty,
>>>>
>>>>No; I value murder victims' lives too highly for that.
>>>>
>>>>>anti-euthanasia, 
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>So you not only wish to control a womans right to control her own
>>>body, but you wish to control the right of an individual to end
>>>his/her own life. No doubt the "pro-force" label fits you just fine
>>>then. 
>>
>>The term "euthanasia" is ambiguous; let me clarify. If a person suffering
>>a terminal illness, and in full possession of their faculties, chooses
>>death, I don't think the law should interfere -- although it's a 
>>deeply misguided choice. Most of what passes for euthanasia these days
>>(hypothetical and actual) falls well short of this standard.
>>
>Euthanasia: From the greek "easy death"

Come off it, Big Swinging Dictionary. I know etymology as well as
you do. It's not often useful for precise determinations of meaning.

>The pracitce of killing individuals (as persons or domestic animals)
>that are hopelessly 

Ambiguous.

>sick or injured for reasons of mercy.

"Mercy"? Also ambiguous.

Further, even if you cleaned up this cute copybook definition, it
would still leave ambiguous the applicability of the definition to
real-world cases.

>What part of that do you find ambiguous?

>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

Mark Pundurs
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54277 alt.flame:17643 talk.bizarre:43652
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 6 Jan 1993 04:37:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jac@doe.carleton.ca (James A. Cherry) says:

>"Ho hum"?  Well how 'bout these then?
>THE TOP TEN ANAGRAMS OF "KEVIN DARCY":
>And while I'm at it, here are...
>THE TOP TWENTY ANAGRAMS OF "ANDREW CLAYTON":
>Go to it, dac!

 David Andrew Clayton -- anagrams
***********************************
 1.  Windy old tan cadaver.
 2.  O, devil!!  Andy can't draw!!
 3.  Tawdry ol' Dancin' Dave.
 4.  Lewdy, vacant android.
 5.  DAC loved a randy twin.
 6.  I want a dandy ol' rec.vd!!
 7.  Very low, and an addict.
 8.  Cowardly, vain 'n' dated.
 9.  Love didn't warn ya, cad!
10.  I do newly advanc'd art.
11.  Avoid Darcy-land, Newt!
***********************************
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:25:00 GMT

In article <C0K4y1.M1H@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>
>Well, maybe we are speaking of a different "value".  The value I am referring
>to  is associated with the gene structure which differentiates one human from
>another.  That exists independently of the uteris. I don't argue that to allow
>that valued individual to develop requires the nurturing of the mother's womb.
>The only thing the pregnant woman can willfully do it to destroy a pre-existing
>value.

Thanks for helping to confirm my long-standing suspicion that most pro-
lifers suffer from self-indulgent over-abstraction. The "value" of a unique 
genetic code is a value that can only be appreciated in detached aesthetic 
terms, by an outsider to the situation -- a pro-lifer. The "value" of a 
woman's bodily autonomy, on the other hand, is concrete and actual. The pain 
and discomfort is REAL. The permanent physical after-effects are REAL. The 
medical risks are probabilistic, but nevertheless still very REAL, if only 
in emotional terms -- fear, uncertainty, etc. The feeling of being trapped, 
forced to perform acts against one's will, is REAL. That you would simply 
dismiss a woman's suffering in favor of your aesthetic, abstract, smug 
satisfaction that a fetus'es genetic "value" was being preserved, smacks of 
a profound lack of basic human compassion. Your abstract peace of mind and/or 
the indulgence of your fascination with the genetic uniqueness of a z/e/f 
isn't worth even one nanosecond of a woman's immediate physical and emotional 
suffering. Deal with it.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 14:53:51 GMT

>The two cases are not so different as you might believe. In both
>cases, the z/e/f dies. The only difference is the circumstances of
>the conception. 

Which IS an important difference.

>Why is it okay for the z/e/f conceived of rape to
>be aborted, but not any other z/e/f?

>Answer: In the case of rape, it is a woman's right to abort a baby she
>does not want and cannot care for. Pro-choicers merely extend this right
>to include _any_ baby she does not want and cannot care for. 

Your faulty leap of logic might be slightly justifiable in a reality 
where there was NO way for a woman to avoid pregnancy with complete 
assurance. In this reality, there are various forms of non-genital/genital
sex that fill the bill -- not to mention sexual abstinence.

>Tep

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Meet Peter Nyikos, Coward (was Re: Netserver problem: newer is not necessarily better)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 21:08:38 GMT

In article <root.726178744@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <root.726168416@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>
>>>>The sysadmin disabled the main netserver to install new software on
>>>>New Year's eve.  Since then, it has received no new messages.  I hope
>>>>that once he is contacted he can fix things up and then the new software
>>>>will be ultimately of benefit, but...well, see the thread title.
>>>>
>>>>Peter Nyikos
>>>
>>>It never fails....anytime I destroy good ol' Doc Nyikos in a series of
>>>posts, he all of a sudden can't read them....amazing coincidence...NOT!
>>>
>>You're not the only one Steve. I'm still waiting for him to reply to
>>questions I asked him *several* times, well before the date of the
>>alleged newsserver failure.
>>
>>Like you, I'm *sure* it's just a coincindence. At least, Joe Isuzu
>>tells me it is, and he's more credible then PHoney.
>
>It gets worse, now.  I just got some mail from a net.friend, who I've been
>conversing with for some time.  Seems Herr Doktor sent him some mail
>slandering and defaming me.  And it appears, to my knowledge, that Nyikos 
>saw the discussion I was having with this person over the last few days, so
>he's slipped up.
>
>I wonder if he's ever heard of ethics?  
>
Heard of them? I'm sure he has. Understands them? Extremely doubtful.
Practices them on a regular basis? When pigs fly... (and I don't count
catapulting pigs as flying. :) )

>Jeez, what a coward "Dr." Nyikos is.
>
I don't think there's any doubt of this. 

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:52:33 GMT

<C0JDnG.8pA@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1if1h7INNb5g@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>>2.  My definition of AA is the equitable standards I've used so far in
>>>answering these questions.  I know you've deleted those portions, but I
>>>trust you can go back and find it again.

[...] 

>>As a native English speaker, I do not find "equitable standards"
>>to be a synonym for "affirmative action."
>
>The "usual" definition of AA, as I have met it, is along the
>lines of:
>
>        If there has been systematic discrimination in filling
>        certain positions, on a basis that was not relevant to
>        suitability for those positions; and if this led to
>        underrepresentation of an underprivileged group; then
>        when there is a choice in filling future positions,
>        among those people of the necessary standard, there
>        should be a preference for those people of the
                     ^^^^^^^^^^
>        underrepresented group.

This is what I was getting at.  What Adrienne's "equitable standards"
position seems to propose, given her response to my questions, is that
men and women should be hired in the same proportions -- not that
any preference should be given.


>There are many variations on this, that depend on styles of
>implementation (e.g. quotas or not) and definitions of "necessary
>standard" (e.g. when/if a lesser-qualified person should be chosen
>over a better-qualified person, if they satisfy minimal standards).
>Adrienne's response was with regard to the latter variation, or
>so I interpreted it.  So she was *already* well-past the point
>you were apparently looking for.

It seemed otherwise to me; namely, that Adrienne objected to
preferences, let alone the fine points of what standards should
be met.  Her phrase "equitable standards" seems to say that the
standards should be the same -- ie. they should not be higher
for men than for women (the present-day *inequity* in custody issues).

But if Adrienne was indeed suggesting that a *preference* should
be given to men who meet the same standards as women, then I
would certainly accept that as "affirmative action."

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Impressive noise generated (was re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide)
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:21:43 GMT

I just logged in from Chicago to see what the situation was on talk.abortion
after two weeks. My, how things have gotten out of hand!

ALright, I wasn't around to defend myself from Pete Nyikos because of the
holidays. I guess that's my tough break. But there is one point I want to 
make, which is that Pete and DODie seem to be concentrating on the appearance
and function of a fetus at certain points. Wheither a fetus *resembles* a 
human infant is not the point. The point I'm trying to make is that a fetus
has to be capable of housing a soul for there to be a moral argument against
abortion. I have heard evidence that REM sleep starts after 17 weeks; this is
the best evidence Pete can produce that tells me that my guestimate of 20
weeks for a fetus to be able to sustain a soul is off. Even so, this doesn't
even begin to scratch the 6-9 week developmental stage at which
most abortions take place. 

For all the moral arguments, I have yet to hear a convincing LEGAL argument
that abortions should be made illegal after a certain period of time.

It's nice to be back.

Lost Boy


**************************************************************************
* "I wish that just once, one of these Operation Rescue types would wish *
* me a good Rosh Hashanna."						 *
*				-Karen Uru				 *
**************************************************************************



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:51:54 GMT

markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>In <30DEC92.17224243@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>Once again, consent to sex, with or without using brains, does not equal 
>>consent to nine months of pregnancy.  
>
>Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.

Driving = Chancing the possibility of dying.  (Simple biological
fact.)  Therefore: Consent to driving = consent to dying.

Ready?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion