HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Nyikos is not a world class idiot...yet (was Re: The battle is won. So long for now.)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:26:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.143556.12606@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
}keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
}
}> while this may be an unpopular statement, i don't think
}> you should run a net.idiot election for Phoney. he's
}> too new and hasn't earned the multi-newsgroup
}> disrespect over time that darcy, k*nt, t*d have.
}> conducting a vote for Phoney would be like giving a kid
}> who won a few golden gloves matches a heavyweight title
}> shot.
}
}I see your point.  The Perfesser has been active in other newsgroups
}but I don't think he has accrued the low esteem elsewhere that he has
}in talk.abortion.  He has certainly earned the title of group.idiot
}by acclamation.
}
}Perhaps over time, a broader exposure of his unique talents in other
}forums will bring him a chair (a high chair, actually) on the Council.

I tend to agree.  While Peter shows promise, he has yet to demonstrate
his unique talents across the net, as the other members of the Council
have.  I think that group.idiot might be fairly appropriate, but
he doesn't seem to have the stature yet (have faith, give him time)
to be a genuine net.idiot.


--
       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: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Jim reiterates the chastity belt theory of forced pregnancy!
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:54:20 GMT

In article <1e90b9INNlbk@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.190305.26198@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>.In <32682@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>.
>.>So, to accept your argument we have to buy all
>.>of the assumptions implicit in equating child support payments and
>.>forced pregnancy.
>>
>>My claim was only that child support payments are a heavy obligation
>>that can seriously affect the ability of the person burdened by the
>>obligation to live his life as he wants to.  There are obvious
>>differences between making such payments and being pregnant.  The
>
>You bet your life there are.  In the first place, the woman in question
>has two responsibilities, and the man in question only one.

Two voluntary responsibilities, yes. Which doesn't even hold a candle
to one FORCED responsibility, in terms of injustice.

Yet again, Adrienne, you are guilty of making the consent of the woman
to her situation "invisible".

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48278 alt.abortion.inequity:5152 soc.men:19458
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 12:24:05 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov17.180422.14301@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>In article <1eb9ucINNjb0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>People lie.  We all know this.  We *all* know this.  Therefore, relying
>>upon the word of another person is AUTOMATICALLY stupid.  That's where
>>the whole growth of the legal industry sprang from.
>>Now, if you want to be a disingenuous idiot, go ahead.
>
>Life is full of hard choices, isn't it?  But, you know, if the choice
>really was that hard, then yes, I'd rather be a disingenuous idiot,
>than live my life in the manner implied by the above posting.


Robert, 

I'm thrilled to death that you intend to occupy the moral high-ground.

Now, the question is, do you intend to use a condom in your sexual
encounters, or do you intend to complain afterward that the woman
defrauded you?

That *was* the context, after all.

Not that this net has a whole lot of respect for context, but.......

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:01:27 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 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: The Village Waterbed

In <By35Jt.3DD@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.022547.86943@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <BxzFy1.KA3@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>>In the long run, you support *everybody's* best interest, if you succeed.
>>
>>The end justifies the means?
>
>>>It may be stupid,
>>>pragmatically speaking, if it gets regarded as childish -- but
>>>this sort of technique works (and fails) all the time.
>>
>>So do other forms of blackmail.  Doesn't make it right.
>
>
>"Vote for Clinton -- we're just one justice away from banning abortion."

That's pointing out a bad alternative, not threatening to cause it to occur.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Saturday, 14 Nov 1992 11:14:41 MST
From: <ASWFM@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
 <1992Nov5.162936.1392@midway.uchicago.edu>
 <nyikos.721430753@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
 <1992Nov11.201959.12199@wdl.loral.com>

I probably missed this discussion, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

Whatch'all think about Arizona voting down a proposition which would have
banned all abortions except to save the life of the mother (it also made
provisions for the State Legislature to allow for rape/incest cases)?  It
failed by a two to one margin.  Proponents got it on the ballot by misleading
petition signers about its true intent.  They aired commercials that gave
the impression that pro-choicers were backing it.  Alas, it failed.  Maybe
anti-choicers, at least in Arizona, will now get a clue and keep their noses
out of one's personal affairs.

bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:21:37 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 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 <nyikos.721945583@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov10.045329.17021@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>> At this point I gave Peter my standard response, which is to
>>let me fist him for nine months to give him just a small understanding
>>of what an "inconvience" some portions of pregnancy can be like.
[...]
>>According to the CDC (March, 1992) the highest rate of new HIV infection
>>is among WHITE MALES, AGES 18-22.  How many more have to become seropositive
>>before you say "enough is enough", Peter?  Oh, let me clarify that.  The
>>highest rate of new HIV infections is among white HETROSEXUAL males, ages
>>18-22.
>
>How much of this could be avoided if people refrained from anal
>intercourse?

Probably, none of it.  Heck - you can even get AIDS using the
"missionary postion".  You'd think there'd be an exception for that one,
wouldn't you?  :-)

>As the sole male member of the Campus Sexual Assault Task force's
>subcommittee on Survivors, it fell upon me to look at programs and
>services for male victims of sexual battery.  I am learning a lot,
>part of which is that men are extremely reluctant to talk about being
>victimized by homosexual battery.  For if they do, and they are not
>gay, they feel obligated to say something negative about the sexual
>orientation of their assailants, lest it be thought that "they asked
>for it" or they "enjoyed it".

And I know of a gay man who was forced to give head to two straight
men, and who was afraid to go to the police because they'd figure
"the fag was asking for it".

Did you have a point?

>>=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.
>
>And your fist.  Looks like it's here to stay, and that's a shame.

*Where* to stay?  And for a full nine months?  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:24:58 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 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 <1992Nov23.185509.20901@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.131501.9420@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
>> Let's see.  You cross-posted irresponsibly to a number of
>> inappropriate newsgroups and someone complained to your
>> administrators about it.
>
>Don't be stupid, I didn't cross-post my article.

That's part of the problem - you forced people to see it multiple times.

>I don't care about your opinion.

Evidently, you don't care about *anyone's* opinion besides your own.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: when does potential life begin?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 14:18:56 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de
Keywords: abortion. life.

In article <markts.721887230@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
>
> lots of talk lately about when life begins.
> answer: when you are born. 

I must have missed all that talk about life while my newsreader was down.  I
saw some talk about when personhood begins - no-one knew the answer, aside
from the legal position in the U.S., of course.

> (or born-again, depending on who you are
> talking to and what spectrum you are talking
> about.)
>
> but now on to more philosophical, socratic
> discussions.
>
> when does potential life begin?

The Tuesday before time begins.

> are we so proud of our sperm that each is
> a potential life? do millions of would-be
> souls scream in agony as they race out of my
> penus and discover that they are in a 
> condom?

I don't know.  Did a would-be soul scream in agony when it raced out of the
void and discovered that it was in markts.721887230@mcl?

> is every egg a potential life? is pms a 
> mask for guilt that results from not fulfilling
> that "life"'s potential?

Socrates never asked such dumb questions.

> when is a soul set aside for a life?

The Monday before time begins.

> or is life like an overloaded function? 
> can it exist without a soul, but with room
> for that variable when it needs it.

Probably the other way around.

Hope this helps.

> mark.


-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 10:41:07 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>Unnecessary, though it exists.  Before going into private practice,
>one of the psychologists I work with was the director of the Addic-
>tions Services division of our local mental health center.  He has
>a fairly impressive library of relevant reference material which I
>was browsing through last night.  But I see no value in posting any 
>of it.  Inevitably, the controls would be deemed inadequate or the 
>conclusions misinterpreted.  The only solid research would likely
>consist of those studies (if one could find them) that support your 
>personal agenda.  But since nothing that I read seemed to do that, 
>they're all undoubtedly flawed. 

Usenet Avoidance Tactic #357:  I _could_ post facts to back up my
position, but you wouldn't believe them anyway so why should I bother?

                   -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48357 alt.abortion.inequity:5157 soc.men:19487
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 23:11:45 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.180422.14301@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>>In article <1eb9ucINNjb0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>>People lie.  We all know this.  We *all* know this.  Therefore, relying
>>>upon the word of another person is AUTOMATICALLY stupid.  That's where
>>>the whole growth of the legal industry sprang from.
>>>Now, if you want to be a disingenuous idiot, go ahead.
>>
>>Life is full of hard choices, isn't it?  But, you know, if the choice
>>really was that hard, then yes, I'd rather be a disingenuous idiot,
>>than live my life in the manner implied by the above posting.

What is so hard about donning a condom to protect yourself?

>Now, the question is, do you intend to use a condom in your sexual
>encounters, or do you intend to complain afterward that the woman
>defrauded you?

>That *was* the context, after all.

						--  Michal
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Misogyny
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:05:34 GMT
Followup-To: kevin@rotag.mi.org
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov14.215402.19126@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes: 
>In article <31866@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen
>J. Mezias) writes: 
>>
>>I find the anti-choice position to have a
>>discriminatory effect and I feel comfortable interpreting that
>>discriminatory effect as evidence of misogyny.  
>
>More men than women died when the Titanic sunk. I guess icebergs are 
>misandrous, huh?
>
>Be careful in attributing motives, based purely on EFFECTS, Stephen.

First, I am sure that certain corrections would disprove your
contention.  If we controlled for the effects of (1) actual gender
distribution on the ship and (2) policies that allocate positions on
lifeboats on the basis of status, we could disprove your claim by
testing against a random sample of events {Ship hitting iceberg}.  I
believe that disproving my claim would prove more difficult; in
addition, I believe that those who believed my claim would be less
likely to be recommended for mental health care than those who
supported your contention about misandrous icebergs.

Second, the question is not about comparisons of objective cause and
effect, it is about how we actually define cause and effect.  If one
applies a contract law model, then proving intent is not necessary.
The very fact that you failed to meet the contract *in effect* is
enought to establish guilt.

My statement quite clearly gave my position: I am comfortable in
associating the intent to discriminate against women with support for
forced pregnancy.  If you have some other interpretation that you wish
me to consider as I follow your advice to be more careful in making
such assertions, please share it with us.

SJM
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The answer (are the unborn alive?)!!!
Date: 19 Nov 1992 12:07:00 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov18.095021.10085@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#>In article <markts.721552522@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
#>>
#>> please let me rephrase: the unborn are composed
#>> of living cells. but they lack the elusive soul
#>> needed to be alive in our little christian
#>> spectrum.
#>
#>Substute the minority group of your choice for 'unborn'.  Now prove that the
#>statement is true for 'unborn', and not for the minority group of your
#>choice.
#
#Easy.  Find something which is commonly considered as having a soul
#(you, for example), and find something which is commonly considered as
#not having a soul (a cat, for example).  Note the differences between

I once heard a theory (from a Catholic priest, believe it or not) that all
species had their own Messiah.  That is, cats and dolphins had their Christ
two.  I get this nice image of the dolphin's Messiah saying to them "look at
the humans of the earth, are you not of more value than they". I bet the
dolphins didn't crucify their Messiah either :-)

What I am saying is "commonly considered" doesn't really work for me, sorry.

Does a cat have a soul?  Haven't a clue.  I don't go out of my way to harm
cats.  

#you and the cat that lead people to believe that you have a soul while
#the cat doesn't: the ability to conceive of indirect solutions to
#problems, the ability to use language, and so forth.

These are measures of intelligence, not humanity.  There are lots of people
who can't do either of the things you mention to any useful degree, and some
of them are my colleagues :-)

#Now compare anything against the two of you.  A minority person would
#possess many, if not all, of the distinctions that distinguish you
#from the cat.  

Only because YOU say so.  Only because you want it to turn out that way, 
perhaps.

#A fetus, on the other hand, would not, nor would it
#even biologically be similar to either you nor the cat until late in
#its development (that's biologically, note, not genetically).

Sure.  We can invent criteria which allow us to treat a foetus as less than
fully human.  Some of these criteria are even extremely reasonable ones.
Nevertheless, some the actions which they are used to justify stink to
high heaven.  That's the data of immediate experience, and I'm willing to
fly with that.

I believe there's a certain amount of reverse engineering going on here.  We
can do this for just about any helpless minority, and have done, in living
memory.

#_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:00:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.000433.5823@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Nov15.035941.20377@rotag.mi.org>, by kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy):
>> In article <1d85iaINNate@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>>
>>>I think that it's rather demeaning to be told that a fertilised egg is no
>>>more important than an animal.  
>> 
>> Does it demean YOU, Frank? Do you consider yourself a fertilized egg? If not
>> demeaning to you, then to whom? I see it potentially demeaning only to
>> fertilized eggs. It could hurt their "feelings", maybe.
>
>Kevin, every single one of us is a fertilized egg.  Some of us are just older
>than others.

The single fertilized egg that WAS me died a long time ago. Many other cells 
had, by that time, grown to supplement the same organism, of course, and that
same process of cell division, maturation, and extinction, which constitutes 
this biological organism, continues to this day.

If anything, I find it demeaning to suggest that the genetic code in my cells, 
which I kill without a second thought by the thousands each day, is my ultimate
identity, my humanity. As irrelevant as I think the endless debates over 
"personhood" are to the abortion issue, I will say in passing that there 
simply HAS to be a better measure than that.

								- Kevin
From: hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The Silent Holocaust
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:14:26 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I just galnced through this group for the first time, and I sense a lot of
hostility...You can all beat me down however you want, but it is nothing
compared to the silent holocaust going on every day in this country.

 For all those out there who have had an abortion or are considering it:  YOU 
MADE THAT CHOICE BEFORE YOU GOT PREGNANT!  Ok, excluding that small percentage
of rape victims who get pregnant.  But for the majority, don't tell me about 
your freedoms of choice.  You made that choice the moment you had sexual 
intercourse.  What CHOICES did that baby have?  And how can you tell me when
life begins?  Can you prove to me that life doen't begin until birth?  Can you
define life? 

What about the man.  He's not always the one to push for the abortion.  Doesn't
he have his choices also?  Or do you also want the right to control his sperm? 

These are just few of my many thoughts...And I must note that I wouldn't be 
able to voice these thoughts if my birthmother had opted to have an abortion
instead of giving me up for adoption in Bogota, Columbia!

Also, I am a woman, if that makes any difference to you.
                              

                                        -Keira
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:45:20 GMT

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:

>In article <1992Nov19.042445.3279@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov18.193320.20408@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>>> I have a simple question for pro-choicers:
>>> 
>>>    You say you have the "Right to Choose".  Who is the
>>>    authority that grants you this right?
>>
>>RIghts are not granted.  Rights are recognized.
>>
>>Dean Kaflowitz
>
>Oh?  The authors and signers of America's own Declaration of
>Indepence would disagree with you.  Even Thomas Jefferson,
>a probable non-Christian, author of the Declaration of
>Independence would even disagree with you.

Jefferson seems to have beleived that rights occured naturally.  There were
a part of nature and inseperable from it.  "That to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men"

Governments *protect* rights...they do not grant them.

Leave God out of this, please...defending "god-given" rights is impossible
when one is talking to an atheist.  He won't give a fig if God has granted
me rights or not...rights granted by a mythical (in his opinion) being are
mythical.  Rights found in 'nature' are natural...hmm...natural rights,
natural law...Tom Jefferson!

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: My last post!
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:02:06 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

I have loved the chat about the truth, but I must now say goodbye.  I know
because God is in control that someone will follow me with the same passion.  I
have enjoyed some of the conversations.  As you have noted, I have not answered
all of them.  God says not to answer a fool according to his folly lest he be
wise in his own eyes.  Many of the replies I got only wanted to discredit me
not discuss anything.  I humored a few, but I need to spend more time on other
things now.  I pray for you all.

P.S.  Tear at this letter if you will.  I will not be here to object.  My point
has been made though, and it is time for me to move on.

take care.

...Ken!