HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 21:34:27 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <nlqce2g@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
#---
#mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
#| Notice that Doug apologized to C J but not to Susan.
#| Tell us, Doug.  What color is C J's tongue?
#
#I am going to count to 10 before flaming you for this remark.
#I'm sure you meant it as an insult of Holtsinger, and not me.
#Yes?

I thought that it was a djr reference.  

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jimh@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Jim)
Subject: Re: A view on abortion
Reply-To: jimh@aplcen (Jim)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 13:33:50 GMT

In article <Jul.18.20.52.20.1992.8115@remus.rutgers.edu> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.190720.13289@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>, Jim writes:
>
>> As a tax payer with representation, I would vote NOT to
>> have my tax dollars spent on abortion.
>
>On the other hand, I'd vote NOT to have my tax dollars spent
>educating you, since it'd clearly be a waste of money.

I'm glad to see support out there to do away with the
NEA :-))

Jim
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: catapjcm@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Joshua Christopher Marshall)
Subject: An abortion decision?
Keywords: Decision?
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 06:30:33 GMT


Abortion should be mandatory.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:52:41 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul26.134114.1987@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-240792160241@lefty.apple.com>, lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> > In article <1992Jul23.165522.1975@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca wrote:
> >> 
> >> But all humans are born sinners, dontcha know?
> > 
> > Really?!  In which sutra did the Buddha say that?
> 
> I was referring to the Christian mentality only, sorry my sarcasm didn't
> translate to the screen for you.

Opacity, thy name is "McBean".  The only difference between you and two
planks is that you're thicker.

Try following this thread back and see whether you can possibly deduce the
point I was making.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Hanson is a Frantic Fundie! (WAS Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:34:14 GMT

> = David L. Hanson impersonates a whiny shill at a carnival:

>Killing babies, born or unborn, is a sin against the God that made
>everything and everyone.  Children are a heritage from the Lord to be
>trained and nurtured to worship and glorify Him.

Damn, those Cubs are just pissing me off!  They reached .500 3 weeks 
ago, and it's been downhill ever since.

>Woe unto the butchers and the ones that support them.

That had to be the most cohesive Democratic convention I've ever watched on
television.  Cuomo gave a great nominating speech.

>"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
>whormongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have
>their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is
>the second death"  Rev 21:8

I'm wondering now what the Bears will do this fall.  They've had a
"quarterback controversy" since Sid Luckman was their QB in the 40s.

>"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
>cometh unto the Father, but by me"  John 14:6

I enjoyed watching the Dream Team in the Olympic qualifying rounds, but I
do wonder whether continual blowouts will interest the Olympic crowds.

>"The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in
>flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey
>not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with
>everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory 
>of his power;"  2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

For the first time since I could afford new vehicles, I'm thinking of
buying American.  I really like the Ford Explorer, while the similar Nissan
Pathfinder and Toyota 4-Runner seem to lack both power and intelligent
design, especially of back seat legroom and door access.             

>I will answer no flames or mockers. 

Does anybody else hear that?  My tooth fillings seem to be picking up some
moronic religious radio channel.  Which reminds me of the woman whose
gold alloy crowns picked up some alien communicating with its mother
ship...


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:12:23 GMT

jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:


>I don't understand how these religious zealots who call themselves
>"Pro-Life" can do so.  By outlawing abortion, they would be forcing
>women back in the alleys, and many would die of these illegal abortions.

Three-part response:
1) It would "force" both men and women to be responsible for the
results of their actions.  If they wish to engage in a procreative
act, then they have to deal with the results of their action.

2) No one can be "forced" to undertake an illegal activity.  

3) Killing babies, as long as they are in a womb and being killed by
the mother's choice, is currently legal.  Why do you refuse to realize
that ALL of the children involved in abortion are dying?

>A lot of these people are also against the use of fetal tissue for
>experimentation to save people's lives.

Yeah, and I'm also against using prisoners for medical experimentation
against their wishes.  I am not to keen on the human experimentation
done on prisoners in China today, or under the Nazis in WWII.  Now,
according to Gerhaard Wagner, the data obtained from these experiments
was used to further scientific research in Europe in the 'fifties and
sixties, and is being used for the same purpose in China today.  But
I hardly think that justifies the "life-saving".  OR do you think it's
perfectly alright to use such data, since "we have it anyway"?

>And many of these people are
>against teaching the young about safe sex, and then diseases like AIDS
>spread.

"These people" teach chastity.  If you don't engage in sex, you have an
extraordinarily small chance of getting AIDS.  True, many of us are 
against the use of contraceptives.  But claiming that condoms offer
protection against AIDS, is like claiming that schools should teach
"safe" Russian roulette - always wear a Kevlar vest.  After all, teenagers
are GOING to play Russian roulette, theirs no way to stop them, so we
really ought to show them how to do it safely.  

>These people are obviously Pro-Death.

Here's twenty-five cents. Go to K-mart and buy a clue.

SK
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CALLING A MOTORCYCLE A GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICH!
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:52:28 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul27.210424.5602@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> Mark Kaufman has been deleted from the KILLfile. It's about time I
> came back and slammed him. 

I suspect the only thing you're capable of slamming is a car door, on your
hand.

Run along, sonny.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An abortion decision?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:04:44 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Jul23.063033.14767@cs.rose-hulman.edu>, catapjcm@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Joshua Christopher Marshall) writes:
> 
> Abortion should be mandatory.

Wouldn't nuclear devastation of the earth be a lot faster and efficient?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:01:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.200948.10622@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Jul29.161719.26070@ncsu.edu>  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul28.230839.14412@cs.yale.edu>
>> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>
>> >dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>   [.. comparing the safety of prostaglandin abortions, which sometimes
>>       results in live birth, against the safety of D&E, which always kills
>>       the fetus ..]
>>
>> > I am, however, a bit concerned about statistical significance.
>> > Do you have the absolute numbers?
>>
>> I can do better than that, I can give you a controlled study comparing
>> the safety of the two procedures.
>
>No, Doug, that's not better, since it doesn't answer the question of
>how many women's deaths you consider statistically insignificant.
Hang on there, Larry. Statistical insignificance has nothing to do
with Doug's judgement of the value of women's lives. It's purely
a measure of confidence in the study.

You may feel that Doug has no respect for women's lives, but him
feeling that data is STATISTICALLY insignificant is not grounds for
claiming that.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:31:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.152619.5660@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Jul29.012524.3335@cfctech.cfc.com>  kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <Bs2BLt.pE@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin
>> >To be fair I think that the original poster's quote was easy
>> >to misinterpret.
>
>In fact, I think the prison reference makes it fairly obvious that Kevin
>*did* misinterpret it.
>
>> Thanks for the effort, Steve, but once a witch-hunt is in full swing, it's
>> often very difficult to demonstrate to the mob that the victim isn't actually
>> a witch (shades of Monty Python and the Holy Grail :-). I have a feeling this
>> one is no exception.
>
>Except it's not a witch-hunt, it's an asshole-hunt.  

Ah, I see. Anything is excusable when the victim is unpopular, huh?

Great reasoning. Great principles. Great integrity.

>And it's easy to
>disprove the accusation - simply admit that you misinterpreted it, and
>apologize.  

I have offered to add my apology to that of everyone else who has contributed 
to this mess. I decline to be anyone's scapegoat.

(If you can't bring yourself to apologize to Susan, then at
>least to her SO.)  

My article was addressed to Susie. Why should I apologize to anyone else
but its recipient? If she chose to inflict the article on her S.O. that
was hardly MY choice, now was it?

>Continuing to attack merely proves the accuracy of the
>accusations.

What a crock! Continuing to counter-attack merely proves that I don't lick 
massa's boots, no way, no how...

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: SOME USEFUL STATISTICS
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:20:07 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul21.134505.9660@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov writes:

> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
> > ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> >> The U.S. death rate from surgical abortion is 0.4 per 100,000
> >> abortions.
> 
> > The U.S. death rate for the unborn CHILD is ~100% in all
> > abortions recorded.
> 
> Wrong.  The U.S. death rate for children is 0.00%.  Fetus != child.

  While we're being picky, the infant mortality rate in the US is considerably
higher than 0.00, leaving out the abortion concerns...

> Btw, my daughter's birth could be thought of as an abortion...

  Only if you ignore the fact that your daughter is still alive, while
whatever is removed from the womb via abortion is not.  Which is related to
the "We're just removing, fetuses, not killing them" idea someone threw out
last week.  And has to be the most ridiculous dodge I've ever heard.

  Not that every pro-choicer uses this--the above comment is only for those
that do.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ))
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:07:38 GMT

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>Yes, they control congress. However, how many vetoes have been presidential
>vetoes have been overridden in the last 12 years? None? One?

A non-sequitur. If Congress sends a bill that has been passed by the 2/3rds
majority of Congress or more, there is little reason for the President to
veto it, since the votes were there to support it's passage to begin with.

>Both major parties are fucking the country up.

I agree completely. I want to get government completely out of my life. I 
don't see the democrats as being that solution though. 

MD
-- 
--  Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.)      /   "Its okay dear,
--  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /     you can show me...
--    UUCP: ..!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz        /      I'm a Doctor..."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Dole attack backfires
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:12:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.174605.23258@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>
>And the good Senator estimates that the lead is really only about 10%. Where
>he gets this, who knows. Maybe he's figuring the 20% undecideds are all Bush
>voters.

Maybe they in fact HAVE hired Mr. Gerard Vignes as their campaign
supervisor.  His third eye must have seen through the mists of
political polling to see the truly shallow nature of Democratic
support.  After all, the Democratic party is a hollow shell, waiting
for Sherman resurrected to expose it for what it is.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ? VARIETY!
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:14:38 GMT

> snoopy@crchh426.BNR.CA (Antonio Tello) writes:
>2) could your history survive the media scrutiny required to be
>   elected president ?

Antonio, not only would my history make me a poor candidate, the 
following people could never be elected to public office today:

George Washington (known philanderer and slaveholder, cultivated marijuana)
Thomas Jefferson    (known philanderer, and with a black woman! Also a slaveholder.)
James Madison	      (slaveholder, known philanderer) 
Andrew Jackson     (known racist and military extremist)
Abraham Lincoln    (Medical Abnormalities, possible homosexual affairs) 
U.S. Grant		     (alcoholic and cancer from smoking cigars)
Theodore Roosevelt  (Asthma and other medical problems)
Franklin Roosevelt   (marital infidelity, possible homosexual affairs, medical problems)
John Kennedy         (philanderer, medical problems)

These are just the best known examples. Probably no President before Nixon could survive
the kind of scrutiny now being levelled on our candidates. Are we getting better leaders? 
I think not. Is George Bush a better man than Thomas Jefferson? Does Bill Clinton have
the vision that Benjamin Franklin gave this nation? (Ben was never President, but he 
might have been...but he was a public philanderer.) 

I think all this business about judging a man's character by figuring out if he ever cheated
on his wife is a lot of crap. Whether a man abides by his marital vows has nothing to 
do with abiding by his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Statesmanship is one
thing, and your dick is quite another. Does Thomas Jefferson's well-known affair with 
Sally Henning (his slave) detract from the words of the Declaration of Independence or
his handling of the Presidency? Does the fact that George Washington died while returning
from his mistress' house make him any less the father of our country or discount his
farewell address?  I say no. 

JZ   
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Baker to join Bush campaign
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:21:17 GMT

>Great. One of the few people in the Bush Administration that I have
>any respect for, and they have to take him out of office.

Shades of 1976... Ford is a turkey, but we can't lose Henry Kissinger!

Ironically, one of Larry Eagleberger's supposed drawbacks is that he is 
too closely associated with Henry the K.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.comn
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:25:09 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Jul30.221228.7381@reed.edu>, nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
> In article <11420@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>Do you know ANYONE who is willing to defend the position that "faggots
>>are subhuman and therefore they are okay to kill"?  I don't anyone
>>who takes that view.
> 
> You've never been queer bashed, have you Clayton? I live in fear of
> this sort of thing every day.

	I have heard people state that they wouldn't mind seeing gays:

killed
castrated
beaten
etc.

	Such people exist today and will tomorrow, as long there is a
government that is (supposedly) allowed to define acceptable behaviour.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: francois@usenet.umr.edu (Why ya askin?)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: perot  (conspiracy?)
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:59:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Missouri -- Rolla

Perot still in the running?



according to the St. Louis Post Dispatch of Tuesday, 21 july, 1992
Perot sent the necessary statement to the Secretary of State , Roy 
Blunt's office dated Friday, that date is AFTER his official withdrawal.
this gives credence to the theories that Perot is playing a wildcard 
game, hoping to beelected without oficially entering the race, in
order to keep the press from delving into his history. Others feel 
that this whole Perot campaign is designed by the Republican party to
swing a last-minute vote if Perot was to invite his followers to
join the GOP party. I personally believe that Perot didn't want the
press to uncover some of the skeletons in his closet.



--
\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></
/<>\BLAK**TO**BASICS*********    \></ We Must Educate Our Own.    /<>\
\></ francois otherwise..        /<>\For Tomorrow Belongs To Those\></
/<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></,>\></Who Prepare For It Today...../<>\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Demopublican or Republicrat ?
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: usa
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:43:18 CDT


In article <1992Jul22.160011.11244@morrow.stanford.edu>, GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
> In article <Brsn0p.BDK@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul22.021646.4576@esd.dl.nec.com> mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
> >>From article <BrrCyK.AEz@wrs.com>, by gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven):
> >>>
> >>> Why is this so hard for people to understand?  NO NON-DEMOPUBLICAN WILL
> >>> WIN THE PRESIDENCY IF EVERYONE VOTES DEMOPUBLICAN!  That goes for
> >>> elections at any level, really...the very very low number of
> >>> independent, Libertarian, or any other third-party holders of partisan
> >>> offices is a testament of that.
> >
> >  This is simply wrong.   Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a
> >  socialist independent.
> 
> However, Mr. Sanders had previously been very active in Vermont
> politics as a Democrat and had developed much name recognition as
> such prior to deciding to seek the Senate seat as an independent.
> Libertarians are not willing to pretend they're Republicrats just to
> get elected to lower office first.

Why not?

The socialists never had to win any elections to get their 1924 party
platform enacted.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:41:15 GMT

In article <3443@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.035951.8389@news.Hawaii.Edu> blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais) writes:
>>
>>Clinton never said he had an affair. Also at the point the Gennifer 
>>Flowers affair supposedly took place, He was running for 
>>re-election-had a ten *month* old daughter. Even the 
>>Republicans Arkansas say that he was too *obsessed* with his career
>>to ever jeopardize it that way. Additionally the story is *known*
>>to have been brought to the press by an old enemy of Bill Clinton,
>
>Ya know Kristin if you're going to support this guy you might want to 
>brush up on the facts so you don't look quite so silly. 
>
>Ms. Flowers was number thirteen in a string of women (mostly state employees)
>that have claimed to have affairs with Bill and received a job or promotion
>to keep quiet.  Secondly these accusations have been around since long before
>his plan to run for President and it wasn't Republicans that called him on the
>issue but Democratic state house representatives that had gone as far as suing
>him for official corruption because of his alleged sex for jobs scam.
>

I'm not supporting him I support the truth being told, but this 
group seems to be only in support of people smearing Bush or Clinton
rather than talking about the issues. As I *said* rumors about
Flowers and Clinton having an affair have been around for 
almost 10 years. Flowers has *denied* these rumors all this 
time until *this year*, she was paid a large sum of money,
she gets even basic facts about supposed places where they
had sex wrong. (i.e. saying they were together on such and 
such a date, when he was actually in another state at the time)
 The rumors can *all* be traced back to *one*
person who Clinton has slighted in the past -who I believe
is a Democrat. (I never said they were Republican- you read  that
into my statement). Bill Clinton also worked long and hard 
on getting an ethics bill passed even though there were
quite a few people against it in the legislature, he held another
bill hostage to get it passed, and it calls for anyone in 
government to be held accountable for such things and reviews
allegations such as getting jobs when you're unqualified thru
some form of nepotism. I might add out of the 13 women you
claim, no one has come forth to support their stories, except
the one person who started the rumors. 
:-)
Kristin


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics