HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 14:23:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.131446.25727@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>Then I suppose I must compliment C.J. as a woman of character.  
>I've seen her leave Nora Rivkis, and Siren, and now (apparently)
>Rescorla to their fates when they got into trouble defending 
>her.
CJ had Keegan killfiled. I specifically asked her to post
supporting evidence, and she stepped in for that reason only.
(Note that I did not say that she suppoted her original claim.)
She was certainly under no obligation to continue on an
interminable flame war with Energizer Bunny Jim.

>discussion and peace.  Or why she won't let this depressing quar-
>rel die.
This is utter nonsense. It had been dead for months until JIM
brought it back up. JIM accused CJ of being a liar. I challenged
him. THAT is how this particular round started. If you want to talk
about letting it die, bitch at Jim, not CJ. Take the mote out of
your own eye, Suzanne.

-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: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:13:45 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct8.183410.9169@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) wrote (in article <Bvt8rp.2AE.2@cs.cmu.edu>):
##I don't know of any group of clinic escorts who "squash"
##O.R. members.  Every group that I am familiar with is
##committed to non-violence at the clinics.  In fact, it's
##not unusual for escorts to block blows (from patients,
##or people accompanying patients) intended for pro-forcers.
#
#On a related note, a woman talked about the abortion issue two
#mornings ago on one of the morning television shows (Good Morning
#America, maybe it was).  She says she had just gotten an abortion a
#few weeks earlier, and that she was disturbed a *lot* by the
#pro-lifers ranting outside the clinic and praying loudly and blocking
#her way and holding up gruesome pictures.  A clip of a videotape of
#the event was shown: as she was being escorted through the blockade by
#a policeman, a pro-lifer ran towards her at full speed and slammed
#into her, tackling her and knocking her forcefully to the ground!
#Fortunately, she was unhurt.
#
#Stuff like this makes me feel really disappointed in pro-lifers.
#Sometimes, they just seem *such* like a bunch of hypocrites.

I think that the O.R. thugs, like most bullies, are simply
cowards.  They know that it is unlikely that a patient will
press charges against them for assault.  (A woman who pressed
charges would run the risk of endless harassment.)  For example,
a man named Hugh Amick punched an escort in the face here in
Pittsburgh.  There were about eight of us in the group, and
Amick hit the smallest person.  (This was a completely unprovoked
attack, by the way.  Luckily, it was captured on videotape by
a local television channel.  Amick was found guilty of simple
assault.)  The most recent arrest of an anti-abortion 
protester for assault here involved a priest who threw
himself at a group of escorts and two women entering
the clinic.  While he was on the ground (he dropped there)
waiting to be carried to the wagon, he grabbed the ankle
of a woman entering the clinic and tried to pull her
down.  

#It amuses me that they often pray loudly in public, but that they've
#apparently not even noticed the Bible verse in which Jesus tells them
#to avoid doing precisely that!

Suzanne Forgach is also unaware that the verse is there.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41133 talk.politics.guns:21828 alt.conspiracy:11039 talk.bizarre:33184
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 7 Oct 1992 20:25:37 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

This has little connection with anything of any interest to topics
considered in talk.politics.guns, fellows.

Can you all try to trim the Newsgroups: line?

(We can't get a.f.r-l or a.f.d-q here, but that's just fine with
me.)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:09:13 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <adams.718638072@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>Direct or indirect, you're still dead.

>Possible reasoning process:
>1) Abortion is illegalized
>2) Woman gets pregnant
>3) Woman doesn't want her child
>4) Woman looks to abortion to "solve" her problem
>5) Woman goes to an underground clinic to get an abortion
>6) Woman might die as a result of the abortion.

Another possible progression:
1) Abortion is illegalized.
2) Woman gets pregnant.
3) Woman has medical condition which threatens life. Pregnancy, with
its fluctuating hormone levels and extra burden on the woman's body
increase threat to definite danger.
4) Woman begins experiencing complications.
5) Complications will kill woman. Abortion would save her, but see #1.
6) Woman dies.
7) Fetus dies, as it wasn't developed enough to live without its host.

>Let's see, look at step 4.  No one forced her to go there in the first place.
>Perhaps there is something wrong with killing your own human sons and
>daughters?

>Going from step one to step six can be a dangerous way of thinking.  It
>is more appropriate to go from step 3 through step 6.

Being so narrow-minded and on a single track can be much more dangerous,
wouldn't you agree?

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: ayr@gtech.com (Aleksey Y. Romanov)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich RI
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:51:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.165424.29965@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>Hardly.  Sorry if you're confused; take a look at the word "fascism" in
>the dictionary:
>
>  "A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and
                                                                   ^^^
>  race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic
   ^^^^
>  government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
                          AAAAAAAAAAA
>  regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Just remove highlighted (by ^ and A) and you will have the goal set
by all this PC people. BTW, dictatorial leader or not (highlighted by A)
is just a matter of taste and cannot be par of definition.

>
>There.  "Near-fascist".  We have no dictator yet.  Do you see tendencies
>toward the rest of the definition?  I sure do.  Talk to me about
>Buchanan et al if you see something in Buchanan, Robertson, Gramm that
>I'm missing.

Real fascists are to left from mr. E.Kennedy. 


-- 
Aleksey Y. Romanov

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are entirely my own and do not
necessary reflect those of my employer or anyone else
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:21:33 GMT

In article <Bvu0oK.6LA@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
# jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson) writes:
# : >it wasn't that subtle.
# : >you're obviously another flag waving, law abiding, epsilon.
# : 
# : First off, what is an epsilon?  That is the fourth time you have used this
# : word.
# 
# I believe that he is referring to the category of people known as 
# "epsilon semi-morons" in _Brave New World_ by Huxley.  (I hope I
# got the right book.  It's the setting where Ford is worshipped as
# a deity, sex is abundunt, and everyone's a mason jar baby.)

From _The_New_Hacker's_Dictionary_:

	epsilon [see delta] 1. n. A small quantity of
	anything. ``The cost is epsilon.''  2. adj. Very
	small, negligible; less than marginal.  ``We can
	get this feature for epsilon cost.''  3. within
	epsilon of: close enough to be indistinguishable
	for all practical purposes.  This is even closer
	than being within delta of.  ``That's not what I
	asked for, but it's within epsilon of what I
	wanted.''  Alternatively, it may mean not clse
	enough, but very little is required to get it
	there: ``My program is within epsilon of
	working.''

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Oh God, now I've admitted to owning a copy of it
haven't I?
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: INFO: pro-choice protestors deny freedom of speech
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:15:06 GMT
	<1992Oct15.182156.25919@csus.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Oct15.182156.25919@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

   So unless you're pro-choice, you have no right to speak in a PUBLIC
   place. You remember, Casey WAS speaking in a public place. 

I believe the article said that the protestors disrupted his speech
with chants.  They did not rush the stage, gag Casey, tie him to the
ground and forcefully stop him from speaking.  He was free to speak.
Protestors are free to not listen.

Do you think the anti-choice protestors that are dogging Clinton and
Gore, that shout such things as "What about the babies?", are denying
Clinton and Gore's free speech rights?  Should they be "destroyed"?

   Right to choose never means right to take an innocent life. That's
   Casey's point. 

   If banning killing means tossing out your right to choose, find me a
   trash can and I'll dump it and call the truck to haul it off to the
   landfill.

   And in the meantime, I'm going to sign up to join my buddies who will
   be hitting ACT-UP super-hard, from now on. We'll get those buggers
   back once and for all. 

ACT-UP is the AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power.  What does your third
paragraph have to do with anything else you are saying above?

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"Indeed, to quarantine a person with AIDS or the AIDS virus does
entail a loss, in the short term, of human freedom.  Agreed.  But the
idea of human freedom isn't now, and never has been, absolute.
Besides, in the long run, as I have noted, all people with AIDS die."
             John Lofton, columnist The Washington Times, March 31, 1989
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Women have awareness! Do fetuses?
Date: 16 Oct 1992 07:43:24 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct15.230838.12816@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>I don't have to info right here in front of me, but I have read that a
>baby being aborted feels the pain of being aborted.  Now while that may
>not constitute sentience, this must reinforce the idea that afetus is indeed
>alive.

OK, Simon.  We can fix that.  Read the sentence below, and feel free not
to keep the info right in front of you from now on:

At 7 weeks, a fetus does not feel pain.

There.


>But if I say anything that is pro-life the you all tell me how stupid I am
>am no matter what I say. 

It may be comfortable for you to believe this, but in fact I think it is
untrue.  We will tell you how stupid you are when you write stupid things.
Stop writing stupid things, and see.

>BTW, I am looking for better software to allow me to edit posts.

Glad to hear it.

See?  That wasn't a stupid thing to say, and you didn't get flamed for it.
As a matter of fact, I think a whole lot of people will actually appreciate
this action on your part.  Presuming it's productive.

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: No Reply Re: The Genesis of this whole silly SAT flap
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:03:19 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->And people wonder why I've threatened to put Larry in 
->my de facto killfile.

what people are those? is there a list? as far as i can
tell, it's perfectly obvious why you've made that
threat; he's intimidated you and you don't know how to
reply to his posts.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Webster says no child before birth
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:07:30 GMT

In <1992Oct12.194739.2480@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>Just like to mention that a friend of mine had a Webster's dictionary
>onhand today (1986 edition (just a paperback thing)),

Was it Merriam-Webster?  There are a lot of trashy dictionaries calling
themselves "Webster's" or "Webster".  The name, alas, is not copyrighted.

> and it happened
>to specifically state that a child existed between birth and some other
>later stage of life (puberty or adolescence).  If you need a reference,
>I could track it down for you, but I can't see what it would prove.

It wouldn't prove anything.

Peter Nyikos
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:14:07 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


kl>In article <92289.024359KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
L>In article <lefty-121092131915@lefty.apple.com>, lefty@apple.com (Lefty) says:

[Regarding Rush Limbaugh]
L>Heh.  Enjoy him while he lasts.  The way things are looking right now, I
L>give him about five weeks.
 
kl>Thirteen million listeners, #1 best-seller, and a competitive late-night TV
kl>show.  Where's he going to go?
 
Hear anything from Morton Downey lately?
 
One can only hope that someday his followers will grow up.  Though I 
am nowhere near as optimistic as Lefty.  I think it will take much
longer than 5 weeks for them to grow up.
 
kl>Kurt Ludwick
 
Dan King
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Clinton Family Receives Death Threats From Pro-lifers
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:33:12 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

I saw this in talk.politics.misc. 

Caps emphasis mine.

METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze) writes:

> Also incidentally, earlier in the campaign I called Bill Clinton's
> 800 number to find that it had been disconnected.  I had to go to
> some trouble to do this, but finally tracked it down by calling
> a non-800-number in Little Rock.  APPARENTLY THERE HAD BEEN
> A DELUGE OF PHONE CALLS THREATENING THE LIFE OF HILLARY AND THEIR
> DAUGHTER AND BILL CLINTON WHICH APPEARED TO BE MADE BY ABOUT 20
> "PRO-LIFE" ACTIVISTS AS OFTEN AND CONTINUOUSLY AS THEY COULD MAKE
> THEM.  I see that the number is now back in service, but now there
> is a long wait until someone answers -- either they really are
> busy or this is a 'cooling off' period....

What was that someone was saying about the 'tenderness both pro lifers
and pro choicers express?'

How about this 'battle [which] is being fought by noble warriors on
both sides?'

Feh.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
BULLWINKLE: "You just leave that to my pal.  He's the brains of the outfit."
GENERAL:    "What does that make YOU?"
BULLWINKLE: "What else?  An executive..." -- Jay Ward
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Galen has always been pro-life (was Re: Galen turns pro-life?!? (was Re: Circles of Influence (was Re: In Suzanne's Defense))
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:23:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.043935.24843@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
}In article <1992Oct7.232505.4101@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}>
}>What you see as "social reasons" may be a life-or-death struggle for
}>someone else.
}>
}Exactly!  Behind the so called social reasons for aborting, there really
}lies a life-or-death struggle for someone else.  We should take note of that.

I guess Martin is too stupid to realize what is in the subject line.  Martin,
for your seemingly very slow wit I'll spell it out for you:  I have
always been pro-life.  I find there to be no conflict between being
pro-life and pro-choice.  It is those folks claim to be pro-life
when they are really pro-legislation that I have trouble with..

By the way, Martin, I have ended several of my previous sentences with
a "?".  In English, that usually indicates a question.  They have been
directed at you.  Are you avoiding them, or is your pea brain incapable
of figuring out an answer?

 

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Hey!   Steve Novak!  (Was: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:46:10 GMT

In article <7142@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.020248.1916@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>#Now, now, I didn't claim that I own the title. I'm not THAT arrogant.
>#I certainly think that Drieux and Novak are some stiff competition.
>#But Suzanne. Nah. She's not half as twisted as me. Just ask Novak.
>Okay.
>
>Steve, who's the most twisted person on the net?  (I'd even
>be willing to limit it to the most twisted person on t.a.)
>
>Why are we just asking Steve - can't we ask drieux, too?
I don't trust Drieux. He wants the title for himself. Steve doesn't
care. Oh, I forgot to mention that Geoff Miller (Mr. alt.tasteless 1991)
is also in the running.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Human Worth in Unborn (was Re: Poof! Martins a f..
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 06:46:18 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <QepTL7i00WB9FMNLYq@andrew.cmu.edu>  "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
> I think you mentioned that you changed your position because you found
> out that third trimester abortions are so uncommon. I thought I read
> recently that they made up 10% of abortions done in this country. I'll
> have to check. But that doesn't seem incredibly uncommon to me.

I believe that *second* trimester abortions make up 10% of the total
number of abortions performed; less than .01% take place after 24 weeks
(that's about 100 *per year*), and those are only done for serious
health reasons.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:25:32 GMT

<1992Oct8.223039.2638@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
><6739@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>> Can you document any of those things that you said about
>> Adrienne, Suzanne?  I seem to recall you getting rather
>> indignant about some comments that Gordon made about *you*,
>> and that you demanded documentation.  (Of course, I
>> also remember that Gordon documented each one, and you
>> were strangely silent after that.)  
>
>As Peter has so diligently pointed out, each one of Gordon's
>"proofs" was a non-proof.   

Yet another lie, Suzanne.  Peter has addresses *one* point of my list of
your innanities.  He has ignored the rest.  I'll qualify that:  As of this
day 10/9/92 at 4:23pm PST I have not seen a post from Nyikos addressing
more than one item of that list.  If you have some other evidence, please
post it.

>                            Obviously, net.readers can read
>that for themselves, and so I felt I need say no more.

Did you apologize yet for claiming to have never said "gay men hate
women"?  I failed to see that apology.

>                                                        I
>even e-mailed Peter that he need say no more either, but
>he has wished to continue pursueing Gordon for his own
>reasons.    

Yeah, he thought he'd have an easy time of it.  Tsk, tsk.  When will he
learn that most pro-choicers appear to be better educated than most
pro-lifers.

>            Even Kevin Darcy, with whom I have little
>in common politicaly, saw the farce in Gordon's "proofs".

Darcy probably sees pink elephants and little green men too.

>> Is this just the
>> latest installment of pro-force hypocrisy, or will
>> you be supplying evidence that Adrienne will kill anyone
>> who gets in her way,                              ^^^^^^
>
>I made a point of not using the word "anyone".   I said
>"other human beings".  And unless you are stupid, Susan,
>you know exactly who those other human beings are.

Pro-choicers do not have the need to make-believe we can mind-read
Suzanne.  Unlike some other people I could name.

>> that she devalues motherhood, and
>> that she's the most twisted person on the net?
>
>Adrienne herself proves these with every post she makes.

You believe a fetus to be a child.  You believe a pregnant woman to be a
mother.  You have stated on this net that no one knows what is best for a
child except it's mother. Yet, you won't allow a "mother" to choose what
is best for her "child".  That's pretty twisted.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.