HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  6 Oct 92 16:47:12 GMT

In <1992Oct2.003522.4832@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>In article <nyikos.717897446@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <usglkrx.717686544@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:
>>
>>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>>>In <1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>
>>>>><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>>>>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>>>>>> In article mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>>>>> >In nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>Are you a Wiccan, like Eric?

>		__________________________
>>nb. Storga has admitted to being a confirmed atheist.  I wonder whether
>>that rules out being a Wiccan.

>I doubt that it does. Many people who call themselves Wiccan or neo-pagan
>are animists and do not believe in a god or gods.

Thanks for this clarification.  Could you or someone else tell me whether
Wicca is really connected with the religion of the ancient druids, or 
whether it is a revival of something that died a while back? 

Analogy: I saw a TV special a few years ago about a woman "priestess"
who was helping revive the religion of Gnosticism, or at least set up
something called Gnosticism.  I believe (I may be wrong) that the
last vestige of organized Gnosticism became extinct with the 
completion of the crusade against the Albigensians.

>>"Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and
>>utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me.
>>...Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
>>		----The words of Jesus, spoken during the Sermon on 
>>		    the Mount [Matt. 5:11-12]

>Storga should soon be a saint by this criterion. St. Gordon and his
>Unvirgin playmates... I like that one.

Alas, he falls on his face where "falsely" is concerned.  The charges
against Gordon are, sad to say, all too true.  Otherwise I would not
be making them.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 22:45:55 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <3782@ra.nrl.navy.mil>  psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.222735.10080@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>
> > The trouble is that human
> > reproduction is a gradual process and there simply isn't an obvious
> > event where a new person exists where a second before there wasn't
> > one.
>
> This again is circular in that it a priori excludes the view that life
> begins at conception.

No, it simply assumes that it takes more than a fertilized egg to
make up a person.

> > I think rights should be conveyed upon individuals upon live birth --
> >..... simply because the
> > state need not abridge the rights of the mother to protect the rights
> > of a newborn, but it *must* abridge the rights of the mother to
> > protect the `rights' of a fetus.
>
> This is in essence the crux of the problem.  Implicit in an anti-abortion
> position is that women have different responsibilities than men because
> of their biology.  To the 'old guard' women's movement this is heresy.

Also implicit is that pregnant women have less rights than other people.

--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:00:47 GMT

In article <1lkzqf-@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> so, if you are really interested
>in the facts, you can ask suzanne lucia as i suggested. if
>you'd really prefer to hear from me, send me email. i'm not
>going to get into it further publically.
I'd prefer to hear it publicly, Mr. Keegan. You accused CJ of lying
publicly, I think you should support it publicly.
If you can't--or won't--perhaps you should consider retracting
the accusation.

>->>to cj and not to me eric.
>->Why? You did it too. 
>
>you expressed your criticism to me, eric. see it? it's
>still included above.
[deleted. I freely admit to criticising you]
Why should I express your criticism to CJ and NOT to you?
In fact, I've criticized CJ in the past for this, and when you
pointed it out, I criticized her this time too.

>->>unless you have different standards for different people.
>->Not in this case. I simply didn't notice that she had done it.
>that wasn't very observant of you. don't worry, we all make
>mistakes.
It's not a matter of mistakes, Mr. Keegan. I don't look for followup-to
lines in posts to which I am not following up. I was ALREADY following
up to your post, and noticed the followup-to line in the process.

-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,alt.religion.computers
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: But I thought NFS was a Good Idea?????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:19:29 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

] In talk.abortion, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] >The truth of the matter is, Official Virus, is that I oppose the teaching of
] >NFP because it does not work.  It makes about as much sense as including an
] >ephemeris for the phases of the moon in the drivers' education curriculum.
] 
] Chris, I never said it should be taught as a method of birth control,
] just that the information of NFP (The cycles, etc) would be information
] on how the female body works, and that would be more than is taught
] in many schools today. (Although I do admit that when I said other methods
] of birth control, that could be misconstrued. Sorry for the ambiguous
] statement.:) I agree with your cycles of the moon analogy, although
] if that were to be taught in driver's ed, just the phases, and how they
] come about, that would be more than many learn in school. :)


Hey, Now Hold On there JUST a Minute,
NFS Is a Great Idea and allows for
simple maintenance of a variety of
workstations from only a hand full
of File Servers.....

and If that is Not an Important Notion
to teach in School, then What is!!!!

Ok, so granted, there is a Connection
between the Phases of the Moon and Random
NFS Glitches, but IF I have said it once,
I will say it a Thousand times....

NFS File Handles go stale if You leave
them out of the Refrigerator too long....

ciao
drieux


ps: You mean NFP is not the Network File Protocal....


Oh, Sorry....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: "Faustus" <p00056@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Inferno@Eight.Bolgia.Malebolge
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:30:02 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   5 Oct 92 21:25:42 GMT
>FROM:   Doug Holtsinger <dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu>
 
>
>> Well.. Teddy.. Its sure is nice you aren't a woman.. You never will 
>> experience doubts, fears or trepidations of not being able to afford 
>> an unwanted child..
>
>And you will never face being torn to pieces by an abortionist's curette 
>or his vaccum cleaner.  


That is true... But who said this damn life is worth living, especially,
an unwanted life which will bear down its' parents into poverty or 
servitude. Come on! Who the hell are we men, that we can dictate to
females what they should do or not do. I imagine if you were a female
and had a muffin in the oven, your thoughts would be alittle different.
Afterall, its just a slop of growing cells, does it really matter if we
just destroy it like any other infection.. 

Listen up, I really pity your salivating dogma.. I bet you are on your
knees asking the lords' forgiveness for those evil thoughts you long for.
You are a slave, and aren't even aware.. 

BTW: There are worse events than abortion.. Death and imprisonment of freedom
for one.. It must be so nice to stand so high upon the podium and lecture
to others, too bad you are so removed from reality.

>But when you get old and senile, and you become a burden to society,
>would you mind if we tore your body to pieces with a giant vaccum 
>cleaner and dumped your body parts into a garbage can?  Surely you
>wouldn't mind having the same thing done to you which you advocate
>for others.

No.. I am a living complete man, not some half-baked sperm soup which will
be cleaned off the walls of a womb. As for the old age comment, when the
time comes to die I guess Ill suck a bullet or go to uninhabited area and
just lose myself. I despise what mankind has become... craven, ignorant and
self-serving..

Faustus

	Barter away my soul? You mean its worth something? Here take it..
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Threats?
Keywords: poor DOD
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:09:21 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
# Do you criticize "pro-lifers" publicly, DOD?  You haven't,
# for example, criticized Chaney for making some rather 
# personal and insulting comments about people on t.a.  You
# have publicly criticized Patrick for his comments.  Should we
# all assume that you approve of Chaney's actions?

Susan, I think you meant to use the word `condone' rather than
`approve of' in last sentence of the paragraph above.


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

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: PatricKKK the Liar Humphrey strikes again! (was Re: threatening larry, again (was Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney is unsupported)
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 23:19:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.180432.11672@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.180947.14248@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.181813.3785@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>PatricKKK to obtain, immediately. 
>The only help I need from this society is that I need to be reprogrammed 
>to follow the rules and accept whatever the pro-choicers say, without 
>question, and without any backtalk. 

>And to say Heil whenever I pass by the likes of you. "Heil Adolf!" 

Actually, I was thinking of treatment for what appears to be mania on
your part. :-)

>
>>BTW - Erik and I want to meet you. Send me email and let's set a date.

>Any time. I'm here at any one of the computer labs. I work at the CSUS
>Computer Store on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Meet me any time you
>want. 

Yo, Erik? Shall we drive up on Sunday? Where do we want to meet.

>If you're looking for trouble, however, I'm all you can handle. I
>guarantee that the first swing you take will earn you and Erik a free
>trip to the hospital, to prison, and then to the bank to pay off the
>lawsuit I'll slap you with, for assault and battery. And seeing as
>that you came all the way out to meet me, it would be first degree
>assault. But hey, I'll do you a favor - I'll drop you off at the
>police station myself. 

Excuse me? I think you really are paranoid.

>Do you REALLY want to meet me? 

Yes. I want to see what you are like in person. Your net personality comes
off as hostile and whatever. So does mine. Few people are like they seem
on the net.

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re:  "Snapple" Anti-choice?
Date: 29 Sep 1992 08:56:17 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <80713@ut-emx.uucp> zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
>1) Abortion on demand: abortion is always OK through all nine mos. of
>pregnancy
>Let's examine these positions, shall we?
>1)  I think none but the most calloused among us can seriously believe that
>abortion up until live birth is acceptable, as this requires delivery to
>be a prerequisite to humanity/life.  How can on argue that 3 inches separates
>a child from rights and no rights?  (If anyone *does* support this position,
>I'd *love* to hear the logic involved).

You know, I probably do qualify as one of the most callous among us all 
here, but even I wouldn't make such a stupid silly git argument as this.
It isn't the '3 inches', you insensitive boob.  It is the living breathing
WOMAN.

My god, in your four different possibilities, you couldn't force yourself
to find even one place to mention the woman who doesn't not WANT to be 
pregnant.  The woman who is PAYING the PRICE.

And somehow folks figure this sickening smokescreen entitles them to consider
themselves 'compassionate' and the rest of us 'callous'.  Yeah, right.

>If I've missed a position let me know!

DONE!  You've missed one hell of a position:

to wit:

Abortion being an intensely personal decision, the lack of which implies
high physical, mental and economic costs to someone completely unrelated
to me, I'll keep my nose out of it.  The person who bears the burden also
bears the decision making capability and the responsibility for that 
decision.  Until the care and support of the fetus is TRANSFERABLE, the
person who (fortunately or unfortunately) carries the fetus decides it's
fate.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Tommy Kelly and the Law (was Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:46:35 GMT

In article <44991@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

}So why should I not press for laws to stop you killing foetuses when I
}do press for laws to stop you killing born humans?

Simply because you have neither shown that such a law is necessary nor
have you shown that it would be effective.

Tommy and I have discussed differences in philosophy that lead him to
first answer the question about why he shouldn't have a law if he
wants it, and then to consider its practical application later.  I 
have told him that I consider the practical application first, then 
deal with the moral or philosophical issues.  I have told Tommy that
I will concede (for the sake of advancing the argument) that his
desire for a law is unquestioned.  It is now for him to show that such 
legislation (or even consideration of such legislation) is necessary and 
effective.

Tommy, why shouldn't you press for laws to repeal gravity when you
press for other laws?  I've conceded you the ability to pass such 
a law.  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: It's a bird, it's a plane, it's...
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:56:56 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep23.160756.8470@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (Cranius Sphinctus) writes:
>In article <Bv0Grt.9GG.2@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Borg designation: Bogus) writes:
># I am surprised that the A.B. is using his gay pride .sig
># in a.f.r-l.  
>
>That's pretty damned funny.  I wonder if he's the evil genius behind
>the rash of stickers in Sacto (I read about in the Bay Guardian) that
>look like Queer Nation stickers (bright orange, black letters) that
>say: __Three abominations against God: homosexuality, abortion and
>Bill Clinton.''

Then the Bay Guardian must be one of those places where pot fumes are
swirling heavily in the news room. And it must mean that you and Susan work
there. No such stickers around here, dude.


># I will agree with Adrienne, though, that Dennis is funnier
># than usual this week.  His attempt in this thread to chastise
># someone else for taking a television show too seriously was
># classic.
>
>I'm speechless, actually.  I'm stuck in 7:00-A.M.-no-stimulants-
>in-the-bloodstream hamster wheel over this statement:
>
>Message-ID: <1992Sep23.014327.29219@csus.edu>
># Oh, I love it when my liberal approach makes me look pro-choice.
>
>He wrote that in a followup to a post by barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet which
>presumed that *Larry Margolis* was pro-choice.  I was left with the
>impression that Mr. Chaney was confused about his identity and thought
>he was Larry Margolis for a moment.

No, you stupid shit - it was a response to ME. It was my attribution
directly before his words.

You've got some major stepping to do, Cranius Sphinctus, to make this lie
of yours stick. For instance, re-posting that article to show evidence.


>It was all very bizarre.

So is your stupidity, J H Woodyatt, Borg-designation Cranius Sphinctus.


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39558 talk.politics.misc:48714 alt.rush-limbaugh:6256 alt.politics.clinton:7899 alt.politics.bush:7263
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:14:51 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>In article <9365@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Ma
>rk Wilson) writes:
>>In <1992Sep28.215858.18233@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brin
>dle) writes:

>>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

>>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.

How about spelling it "burden" if you're going to repeat it three times?

Her point, if I may be so bold, Jennifer, was to indicate that abortion
can be a responsible solution, in response to many who seem to think
that abortion is an "easy" and/or "quick" and/or "irresponsible" solution
to pregnancy.

>Unfortunately, here in california we have a legalized euthanasia initiative
>on the ballot in November.

Looks like Ca is trying to lead the rest of the nation again. May it
succeed. Anyone who thinks that a terminally ill patient in a lot of
pain should be *forced* to suffer should have an enlightening experience
on the rack. (JMHO, of course, but completely applicable and appropriate)

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
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 10:12:05 GMT

ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

>The following is an article that refutes all arguments that justify abortion.

>These 19 arguments are refuted:

>	 1.  A woman should have a choice.

Ah.  So you feel you've definitely established that a woman
_shouldn't_ have a choice.  

I suggest to you that you would be happier living in a country such
as Saudi Arabia, where women have few choices in anything.

                  -rocker
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 1 Oct 1992 07:51:43 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct1.071141.446@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1ad6r3INNfc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.185401.4741@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>
>>>Dehumanizing the child.

Let me also take this opportunity to point out that no one is dehumanizing
the child.  Pro-choicers 'de-personify' the child, certainly.  But there 
isn't anyone here who things a fetus is a canine before birth.

However, since 'de-personifying' doesn't sound as 'naughty' as dehumanizing
(and, of course, because it is more accurate), pro-life idiots are loathe
to use it.

Another inaccurate appeal to emotions.

>>>at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.
>>Where, asshole?
>>(a) there is no 'right to life'.  Take a fucking look at the fucking
>>constitution.
>Does the Constitution have to tell you everything?  Blacks, for many years
>did not have any protections whatsoever for many years in the Constitution.
>Does abscense necessarily mean it doesn't exist?

You are proposing to remove rights from humans who do exist, as if they
don't exist.  I'm not sure why you have trouble with the concept.
You have proposed a couple times now that the 'right' to life is of
primary importance, and that it therefore OVERRIDES other people's lives,
conveniently overriding only those people in whose position you will never
be.   And this with a 'proposed' right you cannot even support.

One has things, yes.  Generally speaking one has a body, some of us have
minds, we have personal property, we have thoughts, we have indigestion.
Does the existance of these things imply a RIGHT to these things?  Not
hardly.

Life is a necessary thing in order to have 'rights' to other things, sure.
But there is no notion, and never has been, that each and every potential
MUST be realized in service to it's 'right to life'.

Try trampling my rights in service to your notion of something that doesn't
exist, and you'll run into resistance.

THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is what TYRANNY is about.
THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely what the people who set up our
constitution were dedicated to avoid.

It's not that hard to get a feel for.  The Federalist Papers are in any
Library.  Get yourself educated, Martin.

>>YOU are quite willing to trade women away into slavery because *you*
>>value the fetus.
>Yes, I value human life, mother, father, daughter, son, the unborn son
>or daughter, cousin, uncle, etc.


Empty rhetoric.  Bud, I value my horse, too, but I consider it a beast
of burden.  And I breed her if *I* want to, not when/if/never she wants
to.  I object to you placing human women in this category.

Adrienne Regard

Of course, we note that you deleted (b) and (c).