HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Who takes care of the unwanted mother? 
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: world  
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 03:57:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.234546.6461@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A
 Chaney) writes:
>
>As you can tell, while the flamewar articles receive a general 30
>minute to 1 hour response, this kind of post receives none in over 3
>days.

Congratulations!  You have written a non-flammatory post and one
reasonable enough that noone on either side of the debate has found
anything to refute.

I wish you continued success in writing such calm, thoughtful prose.

When I first got on the net, I used to worry that I got relatively
few responses to my posts.  Later, I realized that a reasonably rational
post will be read by many, but responded to by few.

The way I see it, if a ton of people post replies, then it is usually 
because I have written something inappropriate or wrong.  If a few or no
people reply, it generally means I have not said anything stupid
or offensive and that people either agree with what I say or
are willing to tolerate my views and the way they are expressed.

So, when it comes to responses: few is positive and many is negative
(generally speaking).  It would be foolish for me to equate the number 
of replies I get with the correctness or influentiality of my post.

>That's because this article fails to meet their Steve Hall Dennis
>Chaney Numbskull Raving Lunatic propaganda requirements, and they
>can't twist this post into a flamefest. So they don't respond.

Like I said: in general, no response is a good response.

So, the obvious way to take the wind out of the sails of your
perceived opponents is to post rational articles such as this last
one and not give them any articles that might be flame-bait.  You
will also have to ignore their flame-bait, since (of course) you
would never want to use their inappropriate actions as a guide to
your own standards.  (In other words, you do want to have higher
standards than those of your perceived opponents, correct?)

Good luck!

Scott



-- 
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*
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Summary: Funny you should ask...:)
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:47:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Patrick's Mobile Clinic Defenders

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

It could be done, but Steve/Dennis isn't worth the effort of organizing the
boycott in the first place, and in the second place, as long as he's loose
running off at the mouth he's doing a good job of demonstrating the
advantages of the pro-choice position.

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

Well, he last logged in at State on May 18, hitched a ride all the way down
here from Raleigh and tried to have the RUPD arrest me on May 27...since
that time, one of his two accounts has vanished -- interestingly enough, one
that someone logged in on on July 22.  If I know his m.o. at all, he's
probably hanging around Houston on his way back to school in Raleigh, so he
can say he did something for his fellow pro-lifers...:-)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

        Beware of being the Roller when there's nothing left to roll...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:45:09 GMT

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> It seems to be a signature of the pro-life mentality that one should never
>> publicly dissent from someone who's 'one your side.'  In fact the _only_
>> dissent I've seen in the pro-life camp (on the net, that is) is when Doug
>> Holtsinger and Steve Franklin delivered Bronx cheers to each other over
>> whether abortion is a religious issue or not.

> Ahem.  Am I chopped liver?  Or just not pro-life?  Or is that anti-abortion?
> Not-anti-choice?  Hell, just WHOSE side am I on today...?

I dunno.  Would you go nicely with some fava beans and a nice chianti?

>>  Not that I'm trying to pick a fight or anything... :-)

> Shoot.  You never have to pick a fight 'round here.  They come looking for 
> you.

Caveat poster. 'Specially in this noisegroup.

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32285 talk.politics.misc:40383 alt.politics.bush:1972
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:30:42 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Sorry, I forgot the subject line when I was writing about Buddy Roemer.

Buddy is one of the original "boll-weevil" Southern (Reagan) Democrats.
Despite his party affiliation, Republicans in this area have voted for
him because he isn't a way-out-left-wing liberal. His views on abortion
have always been that of the pro-lifers: abortion is not a moral option
unless in the cases of rape, incest, or maternal health. He refused to
sign an abortion bill passed by the Louisiana legislature because these
exceptions were not included! (The legislature overrode his veto, and
the bill is now in the Supreme Court pipeline.)

He did not flip-flop on abortion, just his party label.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy (was Re: BIBLE THUMPERS - ALLIES OF CHOICE!)
Keywords: Cough. Cough. Cough Man.
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:16:34 GMT

In article <Aug.16.10.51.22.1992.5421@remus.rutgers.edu> 
clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:

> The fetus couldn't care less if it was aborted or not.

An infant couldn't care less if it was killed or not.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:12:25 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>>> No, Holtsinger, he said that all women deserve support of their right
>>>> to choose.  

>>> And that's sexist, because he assumes that all women would actually 
>>> _want_ support of their right to an abortion, i.e. that all women are 
>>> pro-choice.  Not every woman _wants_ support for abortion rights;
>>> many women are pro-life. 

>> Saying "All X deserve Y" is not the same as saying "All X want
>> Y."

> That's true, but the implication is dependent on "X" and "Y".

Sorry, Doug, it appears that Dean has hit the nail right on the head.  On
the other hand, you are still hitting your thumb.

> If Lyman said "All people deserve support for their right to discriminate
> against homosexuals", then that statement would carry a very objectionable
> implication that all people would _want_ to discriminate against
> homosexuals. 

On the other hand, I could say, "Doug Holtsinger deserves to be spanked until
his cheeks are bright pink."  That's not implying in the least that, "Doug
Holtsinger _wants_ to be spanked until his cheeks are bright pink," is it?

Maybe you should give this deserves/wants insinuation game a rest before it,
uh, hits closer to home. :-)

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Now that we understand there's a woman... Was: Pro-Life? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
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: If Arnold Fell In A Forest, Would Anybody Care? 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 00:54:03 GMT

In article <Aug11.054430.6298@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <1992Aug06.181222.5409@watson.ibm.com>,
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>> In  <Aug05.063640.57364@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> 
>sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) 
>writes:

[Deletia...]

>> 
>> Requiring her to provide bodily resources, however, is.
>
>	Requiring someone to provide bodily resources is not necessarily
>punishment.  You might as well say that you signed the enlistment
>contract and now the U.S. Army is forcing you to serve as punishment. 
>Doesn't wash.

Doesn't make any sense, either.  Are you trying to suggest that the Army is
forcing pregnant women into combat or something?
>
>>  If she's in
>> an automobile accident and puts someone in the hospital, she can be
>> sued for *monetary* recompense, but she can *not* be forced to provide
>> blood, organs, etc. in order to keep that person alive.  So if she can't
>> be forced to keep a *person* alive, why should she be forced to keep a
>> *fetus* alive?
>
>	The key here is that IT IS THE ACT OF THE WOMAN which put the fetus in

HOLD IT!  IT TAKES MORE THEN THE ACT OF A WOMAN TO CREATE A "WARMCUTEFUZZY
UNBORNCHILD"!  IT ALSO TAKES THE ACT OF A MAN!  WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING FOR
THE MALE SIDE OF THE EQUATION????

>her body.  Now, as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't have to keep the
>fetus in her body.  But if she removes the unborn child and he or she
>dies, then she's in trouble.
>	The same is true of an automobile accident.  The perpetrator shouldn't
>have to provide kidneys, etc, but if the victim dies, the perpetrator is
>in for it.

So, if Cheryl is pregnant, driving down the road, her car gets struck by
lightning, and she runs into another car, killing somebody, and losing the
"WarmCuteFuzzyUnbornChild" because she wasn't wearing her seat belt cut too
far into her abdomnen, you're saying we should, like, charge her with two
counts of murder?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:29:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.012929.1692@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> [...]
>}dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>}-> Only about 30% of Americans support unrestricted abortion on demand,
>}-> which has been defined by Keegan et. al. as the only position which
>}-> is truly "choice".
>
>} [...]
>
>As one of those "et. al"'s I'd like to respond that I doubt any of us can 
>be quoted as saying that it is the one true position.  

Word games. Many folks, at the peak of their frothing-at-the-mouth in the
recent labelling debate, made the statement that one was _absolutely_
disqualified from "pro-choice" if one would allow ANY restrictions 
whatsoever on abortion. In fact, some of the lunatic fringe-dwellers went
so far as to label "pro-life" or "pro-force" anyone who would allow ANY
such restriction, no matter how slight.

Logically speaking, saying that no-one who would allow any restrictions on 
abortion is "pro-choice" is STRICTLY EQUIVALENT to saying that the only people 
who are "pro-choice" are those who support an UNrestricted abortion right.
Maybe no-one can be actually quoted saying the latter, but certainly the former
assertion was made many times...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:27:25 CST
 <1992Aug19.210947.26366@spdc.ti.com> <16ujc6INNm80@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <1992Aug20.143920.4375@spdc.ti.com>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug20.143920.4375@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
> In article <16ujc6INNm80@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>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.  
>>
>>Mike, let me guess.
>>You are a *young* man, right?  Probably not a man with a long standing
>>relationship, and probably not with 4 kids already, right?  
>>
>>MAYBE I'm crazy, but I'd be willing to bet a little cash on this.
> 
>   Well, you just lost a significant amount of cash. 

So does that mean you're an older guy with a longstanding relationship
and have 4 kids already?  I was just curious about what your background
actually is.

BTW, I'm young, I don't think my relationship is really all that long
standing in the lifetime sense, and I don't have four kids already,
so does that make me any more or less of a thinker?
 
>   On the subject of celibacy between married couples.  Why is it that 
>   we seem to think marriage is something less without sex?

Sex is fun!  Being deprived of having this fun for any other reason than
total lack of desire (if this is true then why did you marry?) is slightly
uhhhhh disappointing to say the least.  Let's just say it sucks and causes
a lot of un-needed stress and tension.  Why did people marry in the first
place?  Hmmmm I really wonder, but you'd think it would have a strong
basis on attraction between the sexes.  Anyone know the origin of marriage?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to not vote for Bush
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 18:00:33 GMT

In <1992Aug18.160714.3244@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>Fetus = member of human species != skin cell and alive = personhood
>>        because they're alive. 
>>Freedom of choice != right to kill -> ban on abortion

>>Novak: Here is a puzzle: 
>>
>>Find the biblical reference in my above argument. 
>>Until then, your argument is dust. 

>You forgot: I said "well-reasoned argument".  Your statement is simple
>blatant assertion, and quite unimaginative at that.  I repeat: I've never
>heard a well-reasoned anti-abortion argument.  Yours is laughable.

I don't think that we can say that it isn't well-reasoned. It isn't
even WELL-FORMED, so we can't make any claims as to whether it's
well-reasoned or not. (Is "1 + 2 =" true or false?)

As far as I can tell, what Mr. Chaney is trying to say is:

"(Fetus = (member of human species & alive & !skin cell)) => (Fetus = Person)"
"!(Right-to-kill-persons) => !(Right-to-kill-fetuses) => Ban on Abortion"

(Where "=" means "is a", "&" means "and", "=>" means "implies", and
"!" means "not")

Obviously, this is just my feeble attempt at interpretation. I could
very well be wrong. The first statement was especially hard to
translate; I couldn't figure out where the parentheses went. In
the likely event that I missed a nuance, I hope Mr. Chaney will
provide the correct encoding.

It is left as an exercise to the reader to show that both of the 
"well-formed" translations are badly reasoned. (HINT: None of the
three statements on the right side of an "=>" is actually implied by
the corresponding statements on the left side)

>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Keywords: Not being serious in this post
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:07:47 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug18.014938.24309@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <1992Aug17.191956.22687@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov writes:
>
>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> > chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> 
>> It seems to be a signature of the pro-life mentality that one should never
>> publicly dissent from someone who's 'one your side.'  In fact the _only_
>> dissent I've seen in the pro-life camp (on the net, that is) is when Doug
>> Holtsinger and Steve Franklin delivered Bronx cheers to each other over
>> whether abortion is a religious issue or not.
>
>  Ahem.  Am I chopped liver?  Or just not pro-life?  Or is that anti-abortion?
>Not-anti-choice?  Hell, just WHOSE side am I on today...?

You sure weren't showing conformity when you disclaimered me, Komrad.

You know, of course, that this means I'll have to request that you be
removed to the Gulag for telling the world about your differences with
my flamelord tactics. 

After all, we _must_ suppress diversity, in the tradition of fellow
Komrads such as Novak or Keegan... 


===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32821 alt.politics.bush:2375 co.politics:1338
From: ron@eatdust (Ron Schweikert)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,co.politics
Subject: Re: How many Republicans support their abortion plank? I do..
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:12:46 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Communications -- Information Technologies

I'm a Republican and believe in the sanctity of life.  I heartily support
the Republican platform.

Though very active in Colorado politics, I'm not a "one-issue" voter,
but it certainly was the sanctity of life issue that caused me to finally
get very involved.

However, what other issue is more important?  The way politicians view human 
life and responsibility for personal actions affects all the decisions 
they are required to make in office.

At the Nuremburg trials the focus was on one issue.  They didn't care if 
the guards and executioners had other good points.

When history looks back upon this sad time in America's history, they will
not be looking at how well we ran our schools, or our rate of taxation, but
rather will be looking at how we treated our young and old.

America routinely (4,400 times every day) kills it's children because they're
inconvenient.  Euthanasia is strongly pushed.  The next few years will go 
farther unless the good people of America awaken from their slumber and stand 
up and say, "Enough is enough."

The people who believe in the sanctity of life were referred to as "rocks",
with the quality that: "they'll never go away, but they'll never grow
either."

Wrong.  Not a rock, but a sleeping giant.  The good people of America
(Republicans, Democrats and independents) are rising up to take back this
country from the shrill minority that threatens the country's very 
foundations -- the family unit and it's moral fiber.

We won at the primaries because we got out and educated people.  Don't be
hypocritcal.  I got mailings and multiple phone calls from NOW and NARAL 
pushing the candidates too.  We were very much out-spent money-wise.
If people love the killing of babies so much, why didn't they support
those who believe the same way?

Sour grapes.  The liberals and anti-lifers see the writing on the wall.
They're angry that people have finally had enough.  They see the weakening
of their deathly strangle-hold on America and they're mad.  In spite of the
pro-abortion, liberal press, candidates were defeated.  It wasn't because
they were incumbent, but because people didn't like what they stood for.

Don't worry about the "party" Republicans.  There's always been more Democrats
than there are Republicans, but Republicans still secure the higher offices.
Democrats are crossing over.  We may lose a few "single-issue" Republicans to
the Democrats, but we'll gain more.  Mainstream America shares the platform
values.  They see through Clinton.  They see through the Democratic
rhetoric.  The foundations upon which America was built and became the
greatest country in the world are in the Republican platform.  America sees
that and if they bother to educate themselves will see through the
"family values" agenda the presidential hopeful from Arkansas expounds.
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: More Holtsinger lies about abortion on demand.
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:28:59 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

DOD is pursuing the strategy of repeating a lie more frequently as it
is challenged.  He has reposted quotes from Supreme Court cases,
juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest that third trimester abortions
can be obtained if a pregnant woman feels psychological discomfort.
The inappropriateness of this juxtaposition has been discussed
thoroughly, more than it deserves in fact.  The bottom line is really
about the reality of third trimester abortions.  Larry Margolis has
documented that these abortions are performed only when it is a
medical judgment that the life of the mother is in danger.  He asked
DOD to either provide evidence of such an abortion that did not
protect the life of the mother.  Surprise, surprise: DOD has not
posted such evidence.  Yet he continues to post lies about these
abortions.  I must conclude that not only is he a liar, but he has
adopted the tactic of Kellmeyer: Repeat a lie more frequently as it is
challenged.  

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion