HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... Th (2)
Summary: Whoops!  I don't have any music on! 
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 02:43:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.022521.2409@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>Keith Cochran writes...
>K"AAC> Personally, I think Will needs to get rid of the anger in his life, and
>K"AAC> get out of abusive relationships.
>
>Actually, after a year of counselling, I got rid of (most of) my depression and
>anger, some time ago, a very slow, and sometimes agonising process.  Nowadays, I

Good for you.

>live with my wife (whom I married just last year, who was in fact, a very long
>time acquaintance, dating back to our childhood) and our baby daughter, but

Congradulations.

>admittedly, it is still hard to forget.  Also, the second "anniversary" (hardly
>the appropriate word) is coming up next Sunday (the 18th).  As much as I try
>to forget it, I find it quite difficult, and have realised that I would much
>rather like to remove the day from the calendar...  So, given that I have more
>or less recovered, you wonder : "Why the hell did he say THAT, a month ago?".
>Well, first of all, as I explained to Dan, I was attempting to show the tragedy
>of a man who, not properly counselled, and feeling betrayed, feels that
>violence is the only answer.  In trying to show that violence can just as well
>be caused by desperation than by the desire to control someone else (indeed,
>desperation is the feeling that one has lost *self* control), I made the foolish
>mistake of casting myself as the hypothetical person, even though I never even
>considered violence, much less planned it, as some people had implied.

There are much, much better ways of writing such things.  I have some theories
as to why you wrote what you did, but I don't want Mr. Bill to call me
a net.counselor...

[Rest Deleted...]
--
=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???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: equil rights in abortion
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:00:38 GMT

Though I have posted this a cuple of times already, it seems that some
have yet to see it. The solution to the inequity in childsuport laws
is simple enufe.
Who ever wants the child suports the child and the uthere parint has 
nothing to do with that child. The perscent of the costs of rasing that
child should be preportional to the amount of time the parent has with
that child. ****note that is it percent of costs not income.****
were one parent wants the child and the uthere doesnt the rights of that
parent become equivalent to those of a sperm doner/seroget mother.
If she wants the child and he doesnt=>he has no visatation and pays 
nothing!
If he want the child and she doesnt=>he pays all costs and compensates
her for carieing his child and she has no visatation!
if nither wants the child=>they can eathere 1:jive it up for adoption
or 2:split the cost of abortion.
if both want the child=> as stated above, they share the cost of raising
the child with the %cost paid = % time spent with the child.

This is as fair a plan as you are going to get.  Basing a persons rights
on wether he can *get his sperm back with out envading someone else* or
*his ability cary a child inside himself* are extreamly sexist concepts
and if I were the sort to resort to personal atacks like miny on the 
net I might tell the person(s) who keep making such coments were I think
that they should go. Unfortinitly I do my best to keep my coments to those
concerning content of the post-just like we all should.
Such coments or no beter then stating *a persons rights should be based
on the amount of time they can give to fight for there country* or
*a persons rights should be basted on how fast/strong they are*

ELF-KIN  		Acccckkk
				-Bill D. Cat
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:23:08 GMT

In article <26388@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <26371@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri

>>>Don, what planet are you on?
>>
>>I am on Earth.
>
>>On Earth, in the United States, and most certainly in my state,
>>there are laws that say a non-custodial father (married or not)
>>of a child is subject to pay child support.
>
>I haven't seen a law that says that a teen-age boy that impregnates
>a girl is automatically billed for child-support.

Boy = man?

>Or that a man who
>encountered a woman, had sex, got her pregnant but walked away without
>so knowing is liable for child-support.

Are you sure your state's laws provide that a man who "encountered a woman, 
had sex, got her pregnant but walked away without so knowing" is NOT liable?
Ignorance of conception is grounds for refusing child support?

> There are many other cases,
>also of where men are not liable for child-support. The only ones I
>know of where they have been made liable are those in which there was
>a marriage ending in divorce, and those in which there was a supporting
>role played.

I suspect you haven't looked too deeply.  


>>On your planet, does the government give men the right
>>not to pay child support?
>
>Well, I also claim Earth, country of the US, state of Virginia as my
>residence at the present, and your laws just don't seem to apply to
>what I see, with the above noted exceptions.

She can't go to court, give evidence of their having had sex,
and "accuse" him of paternity -- regardless of his awareness of 
conception?  She can't get child support from him?

Is there truly a state in the Union where a man who is identified
as the father has the right not to provide child support?

Maybe we should all move to Virginia and become teenagers.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Minor Technical Clarification - Fornication
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:52:05 GMT

"Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
] drieux writes:
] > If you will actually look at your BIBLE,
] > you will notice that one can lay with 
] > one's concubines, and the handmaidens
] > of one's WIVES.
] 
] I have a question. (Honest question.) So the question is:
] 
] Didn't the parts were men slept with their concubines and wives' 
] handmaidens come before the 10 commandments were passed down? Those
] are the only parts that I've read where that's happened. Everything 
] else that I've read later, I don't remember that happening.

andrea, 

as I have already noted elsewhere, The Pauline Admonition
that a Bishop be the Husband of But ONE wife, is clear
enough to help, I hope, you understand that NO, Monogamy
is NOT implicitly Xtian. IT is, quite clearly, NOT Biblical.


That It is the Case that men have Turned their Back on
God, and have Allowed mere Economics to limit the 
Number of Wives that they should Maintain, as well
as ManServants and MaidServants, and that this LONG
Process of SeXularHumanism has been foisted upon the
UnKnowing By the UnCaring as the 'Western JudeaoChristian
Tradition' Does NOT change the Clear Word OF GOD!

ciao
drieux


ps: We shall wonder how it is that Folks have
forgotten that it is Mandrakes that one wife
owes to the Other for the Right to Sleep with
the Husband..... And the RadFemSurfNazi's 
want to talk about Oppression and Exploitation!!!!


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:36:32 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  <Bvv5FC.FvE@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
> Janis Cortese wrote the following on soc.women (moderated):
>
> ===   If I had a kid and someone threatened it, I'd slit their
> ===   throat wide open and drink their blood with a smile in my face.
>
> I think not.  In particular, I saw no reason to interpret "with a smile
> on my face" as a sign of violent insanity; rather, it seems a figurative
> description intended to emphasize her point.

True.  To emphasize her point that she *would* kill, with no qualms,
if the life of her child was threatened.  Actually drinking the blood
sounds dangerous, since you can catch nasty diseases that way.  (Practice
safer slaughter!  :-)

I see nothing wrong with saying you'd kill to protect your child.  (Would
you stand around and let your child be killed?)  That's a far cry from
saying you'd kill someone (hypothetical or not) for not showing you the
proper respect.

Did you have a point?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Observations 
Summary: Okay, let's take it from the top again...
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:04:51 GMT

In article <Bvrn43.6IF@rice.edu> amn@owlnet.rice.edu (Analisa Marie Norris) writes:
>My gosh, are you people always so rude when you
>don't like the way someone thinks?  I apologize 
>from the bottom of my heart to anyone I may
>have offended by my long lines and non-sequitors,
>and will sincerely try my hardest in the future to
>prevent such awful things from finding their way 
>into my posts.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, obviously, but I'm just speaking my
piece.  I'm just being honest about what I feel, and I'm fully aware that
there will be some who consider that rude.  Just keep in mind that those
aren't the intentions coming from this part of campus.

>Okay, yes I'm new to this group, so any helpful sug-
>gestions would be deeply appreciated (as long as they 
>can be made politely...)
>
>Thanks for the "constructive" criticism.

Just watch out for the dreaded non-sequitur.  (And don't ask anyone at the
Operations window for a startup disk for a Mac.  You wouldn't believe how
cranky some of 'em get.  :-)


--PLH (we're 109 -- 103 is over *there*.)

-- 
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4454 talk.abortion:42739 alt.discrimination:4547
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Evil Warren Wilson College Does it again...
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:46:23 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

> bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu writes:
>  
> ] 
> ] What would it take to convince one of the media bias against
pro-life folk i
> n
> ] western North Carolina?  What if you knew that less than a dozen pro-abort
> ] students from Warren Wilson College were rounded up, put on the sidewalk in
> ] front of a clinic, and shown in the Asheville Citizen as if a large
cluster,
>  
> ] while out of dozens upon dozens of pro-lifers across the street,
only a sing
> le
> ] member of the group was captured by the camera and shown in
juxtaposition as
>  if
> ] a lone demonstrater?  

    I grew up in Waynesville, NC and have warm memories of Warren Wilson
college.  A randomly chosen woman from Warren Wilson college has a more
entertaining look than a chick from a Baptist bible study group.  The 
Warren Wilson contigent at this protest was probably younger and much
prettier than the anti-abortionists.  Of course, a photographer will
prefer to take pictures of the Warren Wilson students.
    The line between esthetics and morality is very thin.  Pro-choice
people dress more funky and hence make better moral judgements.

Is this kulturkampf?
Michael Loomis
    
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4288 talk.abortion:41146
From: waf9851@zeus.tamu.edu (FULLER, WALTER ANDREW III)
Subject: Re: Rationalization
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:20:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.121721.16606@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com 
(Bill Rawlins) writes... [among other things...]

>    I do not claim to be the ultimate decider of morality.  However, I do
>    believe in God, who has made his position known.  The problem with most
>    people today is that they invent their own morality to suit the 
>    occasion - "Rationalizations" - Adolf Eichmann was good at it - like you.

Bill, you are a classic prolife entity. You prove by the statement above
that you and your ilk just want to impose your religious views on others
whether they agree or not.  Consider a career as an Iranian Mullah.

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Is Rawlins Really a DevilWorshiper or....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:31:20 GMT

waf9851@zeus.tamu.edu (FULLER, WALTER ANDREW III) writes:
] In article <1992Oct7.121721.16606@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com 
] (Bill Rawlins) writes... [among other things...]
] 
] >    I do not claim to be the ultimate decider of morality.  However, I do
] >    believe in God, who has made his position known.  The problem with most
] >    people today is that they invent their own morality to suit the 
] >    occasion - "Rationalizations" - Adolf Eichmann was good at it - like you.
] 
] Bill, you are a classic prolife entity. You prove by the statement above
] that you and your ilk just want to impose your religious views on others
] whether they agree or not.  Consider a career as an Iranian Mullah.
 

Well it is an interesting postion to oppose faith and reason.

Obviously as has been argued in t.a time and again,
the Fetal Idolators are on the Side of AntiAbortionIsm,
and the TrueBelievers of the OneTrueGod are on the side
of Choice....

So....


ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,talk.abortion,soc.men
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:27:35 GMT

In <1992Oct12.190237.113058@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <BvzoMB.HHI@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct11.191903.9648@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (K
>> >
>> >(If this is leading into the "but Will was just trying
>> >to protect the life of *HIS* child, I'd like to remind you that I don't
>> >consider it a child until it's born).
>>
>> Actually, it wasn't leading to that point, but as long as you mention it:
>>
>> Does your belief have anything to do with it?  That is, if a person believes
>> a fetus to be a child, is their "healthy parental instinct" (your words)
>> to protect their child supposed to change or be repressed based on
>> your beliefs?

>There's a difference between using violence to protect a child against
>harm, and using violence to get revenge for a past act.  Janis didn't
>say that if someone had hurt her child, she'd hunt them down and slit
>their throat; she was talking about an active threat.

Who said anything about "hunting down"?  Will said something about "right
where she stood" and "on the spot".

It would be interesting to ask Janis what she would do to a murderer who
killed her child.  Maybe (this is just a possibility) she would slit
"their" throat and drink "their" blood WITHOUT a smile on her face:

>> === Janis
>> ===   If I had a kid and someone threatened it, I'd slit their
>> ===   throat wide open and drink their blood with a smile in my face.

>And Will wasn't talking about either.  He was talking about not showing
>respect by not telling him immediately.  If he was talking about a child
>rather than a fetus, then I think it would be a *very* sick statement.

I've addressed this "respect" business often enough, but this "*very*
sick statement" is a new wrinkle.  If someone killed my child and I
saw it, I would naturally be in a murderous frame of mind about it, 
but if my child disappeared for a year and the murderer, whom I knew,
suddenly, casually, told me that he had killed her, I would not be in
any LESS murderous a frame of mind.

Are you any different, Larry?

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Peter Nyikos


Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4465 talk.abortion:42978 alt.feminism:2630 soc.men:17801 soc.women:17798
From: ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Ch
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:24:57 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Oct14.233805.29136@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>
>cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes in soc.women...
>CM> I can sympathise with Di being driven to violence.

Whoa! Hang on here! What are you guys talking about? Princess Diana
driven to violence? I saw the early postings quoting from your
National Enquirer, a tacky rag if ever there was one, but didn't think
you would fall for this rubbish and distortion of news.

As far as the British public are aware, Princess Diana has had a
strained marriage, threw herself from bannisters, cut herself a bit,
and was ignored by Prince Charles. But not once have we heard of her
battering her husband! This is outrageous! She has been reported as
flying into fits of rage at her husband's indifference and flailing at
Charles's chest - but that doesn't count as husband battery - he was
probably holding her wrists all the time. You guys seem to be making
her out as an ogress, when she is simply a woman under a lot of
strain. Give her a break!

Please take National Enquirer stories with a pinch of salt, and try to
get hold of as many interpretations as possible in future!

-- 
Ivan Hans Mark Reid                      Management Information Systems Analyst
"Information is Power ..."                                   Spider Systems Ltd
vox: (+44 31) 554 9424                                 Spider Park, Stanwell St
fax: (+44 31) 554 0649                              Edinburgh EH6 5NG, SCOTLAND
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Observations
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 03:54:57 GMT

In article <BvpzHq.Et1@rice.edu>, amn@owlnet.rice.edu (Analisa Marie
Norris) writes:

Analisa, please don't be like Ron last-name-forgotten, use the <return>
key liberally (oh, sorry about the dirty word).  All newsreaders were not
created equally -- long lines disagree with many of ours... I'll break
the lines for you this time.

>Ray is making some excellent points about freedom vs. rights of children.  
> Here's an extension of that thought:
>In order for something to be completely free, it MUST be restricted.  
> For example, you have free use of your arm, yet it is attached to 
> your body.  Were it not attached to your body, it would be utterly 
> useless.  Therefore, in order for this freedom to be effective, it 
> must have some limitations.

An interesting idea.

>The freedom of the 8 year old child may be viewed in the same way.  
> It does have the right to freedom, yet this freedom must be restricted 
> in some ways, in order for the freedom to be meaningful.

So far so good.  But here comes the HUGE leap of faith (so to speak):

>It can therefore be safely concluded that ALL children (born and 
> unborn) DO have rights equal to those of their parents, and 
> abortion is WRONG.

Ah, sorry, but this nonsequitor threw me for a loop.  I honestly can't
see how it can be "safely concluded" anything of the sorts.  Under such
reasoning the following would be equally as valid (PLEASE note I am NOT
advocating this, I use it only to show the inane reasoning used above):

   In order the fully realize the right to reproduce this right should
   be restricted only to those certified by a board as suitable parents.
   Women who become pregnant and do not qualify will be FORCED to have
   an abortion.  And unsuitable men will be sterilized (against their
   will).

Oh, I see YOU feel that YOU should be the one who decides how others
rights should be restricted.   You become the ultimate decider of what
is right and what is wrong?  Few here would claim that abortion is a
"good" thing, but there are many in this country who take issue with those
who say it is "WRONG".  It is sometimes a necessary thing.

Also, let me point out here that argument by assertion, as in
 > unborn) DO have rights equal to those of their parents, ...
just doesn't cut the mustard around here.  If you've been following this
group for more than a day you'll have noticed that there are many here
that do NOT agree that the "unborn" have equal rights as the "born".
And you have given no reasons to substantiate such a claim.  

Since you seem to be new to the discussion, I'll leave this "rebuttal"
at this level and suggest you follow the points made by both sides
at a slightly deeper level before you jump in and cover old ground
by making unjustified assumptions.

-robert (hatcher@msu.pa.msu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:54:04 GMT

In article <nyikos.719011655@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}                                   If someone killed my child and I
}saw it, I would naturally be in a murderous frame of mind about it, 
}but if my child disappeared for a year and the murderer, whom I knew,
}suddenly, casually, told me that he had killed her, I would not be in
}any LESS murderous a frame of mind.

Well, Petey Honey, we can guess a year isn't long enough.  Exactly
how long would it take you to calm down?  We aren't talking upset
or emotionaly tortured here, we're talking about you calming down 
from a "murderous frame of mind."

--
       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: alt.abortion.inequity
From: amn@owlnet.rice.edu (Analisa Marie Norris)
Subject: Observations 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:21:39 GMT

My gosh, are you people always so rude when you
don't like the way someone thinks?  I apologize 
from the bottom of my heart to anyone I may
have offended by my long lines and non-sequitors,
and will sincerely try my hardest in the future to
prevent such awful things from finding their way 
into my posts.

Okay, yes I'm new to this group, so any helpful sug-
gestions would be deeply appreciated (as long as they 
can be made politely...)

Thanks for the "constructive" criticism.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4321 talk.abortion:41609 soc.men:17528 soc.women:17530