HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: graveyard visit?
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:54:44 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan26.000636.1575@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
|> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
|> # patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
|> # > --PLH, glad I've *got* a life
|> # 
|> # Yeah, you've got yours.  All the unborn babies can go down the
|> # toilet.
|> 
|> Now, listen up, Ms. Forgach -- such atrocious accusations of
|> wastefulness are completely uncalled for.  I, for one, stand and call
|> you out for your shameless, vicious accusation that Mr. Humphrey would
|> advocate such a heinous waste of food.

	Jokes like this, if jokes they are, should be taken out and shot.  If,
however, you really meant it, then it is you who should be taken out and shot.
	By the way, this implies no disrespect for the right to life.  A person
who willfully compounds murder with cannabilism has waived his right to life.
	Sorry if this sounds humorless, but this is really sick, sick, sick,
beyond reasonable bounds.

|> +---------------------------+  I have little patience anymore for the
|> | J H Woodyatt              |  gross-out school of anti-abortion
|> | bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  debate tactics -- which is why I mock
|> +---------------------------+  it with this article.

	Sure.  If the gross-out school of anti-abortion tactics can do it, you'll
damn well do it, too.  Right?

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: DODie making a fool of himself?
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 mentioining.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 04:14:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.200506.24735@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan17.033436.14789@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>> Any attempts to get me to
>> violate ethical and legal standards is gong to be ignored.
>
>Cochran, I have a newspaper article in front of me which names
>Baby Theresa's neonatalogist, along with the hospital where he
>works.  If you'll publically name the baby's neonatalogist,
>as you have stated that you know him, I'll publically post the
>article reference.  If you're lying and you don't really know
>him, then you're probably not going to be able to name him.
>
Post away DODie. I'm not going to violate ethical and legal standards
for you or anybody else. Nor will I continue this thread, since it is
pointless (like just about everything you've ever posted).

>I'll even give the article reference to a neutral third party 
>(say Kevin Darcy) and let him verify that the article names the
>baby's neonatalogist.  
>
Kevin Darcy? Neutral? He may consider himself 3,4 or even 5 parties,
but I don't think he could be considered neutral...
In anycase:
>> I trust to
>> the perceptivity of net.readers to decide for themselves what 
>> DODie is really trying to do.
>
>I just want to know whether you're lying, Cochran.
>
You already know I'm not, you're just trying to drag me down to your
level.
It won't work DODie.

>---
>Doug Holtsinger
>'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
>DODie clings to a disproven theory.

--
                  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,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
X-To: ADRIENNE REGARD
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:51:00 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
>In article <nyikos.725126664@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
>(Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <rzs24pr@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>
>>>say phoney, have you posted your apology for falsly
>>>accusing adrienne of posting a forgery?
>>I've tried TWICE to post something that would set the ball rolling in
>>the direction of cleaning up this issue once and for all.  It included
>>apologies to (gasp!) you as well as to Susan and Adrienne and clueless
>>newbies, but my netserver LIED to me both times that it had been posted

>My gohd, this poor bloke is going to have to apologize to his
>newserver pretty quick, too!

>One wonders why/how someone gets a ball rolling ina direction of
>cleaning up, and why an apology is prefaced by a number of rolling
>balls, but one suspends one's disbelief until phoney's newserver
>quits lying.......


Ahem, Adrienne, but the fact that this recent message got through, is
*hardly* proof that he was lying about his netserver's mendacity.

I realise that you two have some long and bitter grudges, but *this*
accusation is probably pushing it...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Life is full of undocumented features!
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 25 Jan 1993 19:53:03 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

Doug Holtsinger:

>Mark Cochran is no medical expert.  He _pretends_ to be one.
>Just recently, he's been caught distorting the truth about 
>cancer patient pain.  He's also manufactured a lie about the
>existence of organ donor recipients for Baby Theresa.  Peter
>Nyikos documented his confusion over the meaning of digitalis. 
>
>> To be truthful, I subscribed to this newsgroup mainly
>> to sharpen my debating skills, but maybe I ought to look in this a bit
>> more.  
>
>You should also _question_ people more thoroughly about their
>alleged expertise in a field and the "facts" they present.  Don't
>accept anything at face value, even it appears to be common sense.

Well said, Doug.  I'll remember that.  To start, I will invite Mark
to defend himself against your claims.  If he doesn't wish to reply,
I will simply treat this as a typical case with evidence for one side.

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:24:56 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <C0vKJq.FJJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>[included text deleted]
>#Can you believe this?  She's using sources and studies that are anywhere
>#from 50 to 115 years before Roe v Wade!  The ONLY source she listed
>#that was anywhere near 1973 was one quoted by Planned Parenthood in 1957!

>(Does anyone else get a number greater than or equal to 50 when they
>subtract 1957 from 1973?)

>Some moron claimed that NARAL's estimates of the incidence of illegal
>abortion prior to Roe was a complete fabrication.  I had suggested
>that this person look at contemporaneous estimates of the incidence,
>but they requested that I do their research for them.  Because I
>wanted to show people that there were many estimates of large
>numbers of women having illegal abortions, I did some of that research.

>#Do you actually expect us to accept any of these as credible?  

>It depends on what you mean by credible.  I think that any estimates
>of illegal activity are suspect, since the activities will be
>concealed if at all possible.

>#The incidence of illegal abortion in 1860 has NOTHING to do with the ruling
>#in Roe v Wade in 1973.  Comparing medical practices across this vast time
>#is like comparing a slide rule with a supercomputer.  

>Actually, it has something to do with it.  Unlike you, Blackmun researched
>the issue before stating his opinion.  You might try learning something
>about the issue.

>#Hell, they didn't even have penicillin at most of the times she so
>#smugly quotes. 

>I would imagine that most particpants on t.a. are aware of this.  Did
>you have to go look it up?

>I wonder if you are also aware that penicillin (and other antiobiotics)
>require a doctor's prescription.  I wonder if you are aware of how
>long women usually waited before seeking medical attention following
>a botched, illegal abortion.  I wonder if you know that not all
>infections respond to treatment.  I don't wonder if you care or not -
>it's obvious that you don't.

>Susan

You still haven't given us any reason to respect how abortion rates
from 1860 have anything to do with Roe v Wade.  Also, I did not personally
call into question any statistics regarding the NUMBER of abortions
prior to Roe v Wade as claimed by NARAL.  What I DID question was the
number of DEATHS, which you did not address whatsoever.

I will not grace your condescending innuendo with any response other
than this one.

Have a nice day,



Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:57:41 GMT

From article by elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio):
>>>
>>> "I don't think Christians should use birth control."  
>>> 				--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue
>>
>>"Christians shouldn't use contraception or abortion."
>>                                --Pope Paul VI
>>Terry's in good company.
> 
>... 
> Terry's also the venemous cretin who said that he saw the hand of
> God in the AIDS epidemic.
>...
> --Frank

A death months or years after diagnosis, with the opportunity for
rethinking one's life and turning to Christ that that time allows,
is definintely far more merciful than a sudden quick death without
the opportunity to set one's house in order.

We're all gonna die some day.  The only difference between an
AIDS patient and a non-AIDS patient is that the AIDS patient must
confront his/her mortality, while the rest of us may foolishly
ignore ours at our own peril.

S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Coincidence or Conspiracy??????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:14:12 GMT

mconners@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael R Conners) writes:
]      So, just for the record:
] 
] 1) Mr.Bill *did* participate in anti-war rallies on foreign soil.
] 
] 2) He did go to Moscow.
] 
] 3) To my knowledge, Rush didn't say that Mr.Bill participated in anti-war
] rallies in Moscow.


      So, just for the record:

1) Nixon did Participate in AntiWar Activities on Foreign Soil,
as President of the United States.

2) Nixon travelled to the USSR as VP even!

3) to My Knowledge, Rush has not Pointed out Nixons participation
in trying to Stop the War In Vietnam .....
{Let alone that it was NIXON who Capitulated to Red China....}

This is TRULY SPOOKY!!!!!

ciao
drieux

ps: I guess its all a matter of what we mean by
AntiWar eh NO?????



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.test
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: sbooth posts idiocy.
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.
Keywords: Clinton has endorsed genocide, he is the Anti-Christ
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:56:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.171758.17571@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>Copied without permission from:
>The Los Angeles Times, January 22, 1993
>
Anybody have an email address for the LA Times? I saved this article,
and I'd love to send it to them. I have no doubt they would find Mr.
Booth's attribution of this article to them quite amusing. I'm forced
to wonder if their legal department would find it particularly funny.

[Gross misrepresentation deleted]

--
                  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: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:20:32 GMT

In <30251@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <30121@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

The context of the following >>>> statement will, I hope, become clear as
this post progresses.  The attribution line to which I refer in the >>>>
line immediately below contained the phrase,

Doug "yer fat black ass" Holtsinger

>>>>She altered an attribution line so it would read that way.  Ron Bense
>>>>agreed with this when he claimed that irony is lost on me.  Documentation

>>> {here Ron Bense said something about how talking in this way was not to
>>> {be construed as agreeing with the one the irony is due to}

Ron changes his story below, so he deleted the words I am responding to:

>>What's your point, Ron?  Read my words again.
>> I "accused" you of agreeing with me, not
>>with agreeing with Susan.  Are you deficient in reading comprehension?

>You implied that I agreed that Susan altered an attribution line. I
>did no such thing.

You did not explicitly agree, but your agreement was clear from the
way you said irony is lost on me--the irony, that is, of Susan Garvin,
using the appellation 

Doug "yer fat black ass" Holtsinger.

__________________________excerpt from post__________________________
>me
no > : Bense

>For Susan, a net.bosom.buddy of the man Steve Chaney calls "PatricKKK"
>to refer to "the Reverend" in the above way, illustrates the depths of
>hypocrisy to which she has sunk.

Irony is completely lost on you, isn't it. Even when the top level was
as shallow as it was in this case. (The deeper levels escape you completely,
I guess.)
____________________________end of excerpt________________________-

> Perhaps, if you meant something else, a remedial
>writing course would be in order?

No, what you NOW say about what I implied agrees with what I wrote, 
Ron, so no remedial course is necessary.

>Ron - still shaking his head at the concept of there being a more dense
>object in the universe than a black hole....
 
In another follow-up along this thread, I speculated that Ron has found
a higher Hegelian synthesis between truth and falsehood, and all of
the above shenanigans fit nicely in with this.  Far be it from me to
accuse Ron of such a mundane trait as deceitfulness.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Silverio: offspring of Kaldis & Chaney
Organization: NCSU
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:27:07 GMT

In article <vc7ql58@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu writes:

>> I think I'll start posting there more often, and e-mail
>> you my posts so that you can re-post them here in talk.abortion.
>> How does that sound to you?  

> Well, Holtsie, it sounds like email harassment & terrorism to
> me.  If you do any such thing, I'll be in contact with your
> system administrators.  Consider that a warning.

OK, I promise that I'll e-mail you (and Garvin) my posts from 
alt.flame.  I don't think I'll be able to accomodate anyone
else, but you can always re-post them here if you think other
people will be interested in them. 
 

>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720


Doug Holtsinger
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:31:48 GMT
Organization: None worth mentioning.
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.

In article <93025.203043KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.195007.11399@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
>(Mark A. Cochran) says:
>
>>>According to both the Washington Post and the Washington Times,
>>>Clinton said that America should be a place where abortions are legal
>>>and safe, but rare.
>>>
>>He certainly did. Don't you think that's a good goal to shoot for?
>
>Is it? Is it really?
>
Sure. I think anything that cuts down on the need for invasive medical
procedures is a Good Thing[tm]. Note that cutting down on the NEED
does not mean legislating against it, it means addressing the causes.

>If you don't believe that abortion is wrong, then why try to have less
>of them?  Heck, -more- abortions would bring down the birth rate and help
>with overpopulation, and it's safer than childbirth.  Right?
>
Lookie here folks. Another twit who can't tell the difference between
supporting the availability of all options for the pregnant women and
encouraging them to choose one particular option.
And from Penn 'the hell hole of the net' State no less.

Of course, Kurt probably hasn't considered that addressing the
*causes* of abortion (namely: unwanted pregnancies) will also bring
down the birth rate, help with overpopulation, be safer then
childbirth, and be safer then abortion as well.
That would require a brain.

Here's a free clue Kurt. I don't think brain surgery is wrong either,
but I'd like to see less need for it. Who knows? If the neurosurgeons
weren't so busy evacuating subdural bleeds, maybe they could work on a
brain transplant for you. I hear they're doing wonders with simian
transplants these days.

>So why have less, if abortion is OK?
>
Let me guess. You're a frosh, right?

--
                  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: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:34:05 GMT

rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>One has to draw the line somewhere.  Since there is no societal consensus
>>(in the USA), at this point one is free to draw the line where one wishes.

>Or is drawing the line "somewhere" like a hunter going hunting and
>shooting at anything that moves in the trees, even though he can't
>make out what it is?
Not really.

>He could say, "well I don't know if what is there is a deer or not." Yet,
>I'd dare say the hunter would be HELD RESPONSIBLE for killing a man,
>who was in the trees.  Yet, some say I don't know if it is a person
>or not, so I'll draw the line at birth and anything before that is unknown
>and so I'm not responsible.  Does lack of knowledge justify an overt act? NO.
Ummm...yes.  I can't pprove that a chicken isn't actually a human whose family
line has been cursed, thus making them look like that.  It is highly unlikely,
however, and, more importantly, we have reached a societal consensus that 
killing chickens is o.k. because they aren't human.  No one has proven whether
or not a fetus is human at 3 months, 2, or 1, and a resulting societal consensus
is that killing it is o.k.  The man shot in the tree is demonstably a man, so
the hunter is of course held responsible for murder.  A dead fetus is not 
demonstrably (within reasonable doubt) human, and thus people are not held
responsible.  If you can prove to me that the fetus is truly human (or define
human, for that matter) *without* using a religious text, which is meaningless 
in afairs of government, then I would agree with you completely.

>As far as a societal consensus goes, I think most people believe that
>the unborn is a person.  However, they are willing to let SOMEONE ELSE (not
>themselves) decide to terminate a pregancy for some supposed goal
>or achievment that is "needed" or required as seen by the other person.
I think you underestimate you entire country.  To think we recognize a person, 
then advocate killing it for convenience is insulting.

Matt Ivaliotes	lotus@uiuc.edu	ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
		Bitnet mail to: IVALIOTE@uiucvmd
		NeXTMail to: 	mci41087@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu

As much as I speak, I don't speak for C.C.S.O.  Aren't they lucky?
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:13:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:

>In article <bob1.727980568@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>
>I most surely will.  (Do you prefer to be referred to as "Grouch" or "Bob
>Blackshaw"?)  I am most capable of constructing cogent arguments, and quite
>frankly, I feel that the strategy used by Suzanne Forgach incorrectly
>represents the abortion issue.  It infuses a powerful emotion of horror
>that I feel must be avoided if we are to come to a rational solution to
>this problem.
>
>This is why I sought to moderate Suzanne's and Steve's arguments.  Suzanne
>made abortion seem horrible by linking it to the Holocaust; Steve argued
>that abortion is quite mild in comparison to it.  In a way, both were right.
>In a way, both were wrong.  I hoped to point out these ways, and in the
>process bring the emotion out of it.

Hmm.  I don't think this is what I meant.  I pointed out the difference in
the two situations.  One of them was a concerted effort by one man (or a
small group of people) to kill off entire classes of people.  The other is
millions of individual decisions.

I don't like either one, being that I object to abortion on personal
religious grounds, but each abortion is a personal decision made by the
woman.  There is no single person, or small group of persons, forcing
abortions on anyone.  And as a supporter of liberty, I can't deny a woman
the right to control her own body.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion