HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (Charles Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Simon, you're no Orwell, or Bradbury, or Huxley, for that matter...
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 15:41:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.135246.24319@athena.mit.edu> purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
>It seems to me that if you think "liberalism" is such a bad thing, you
>should write a novel about a "liberalist dystopia" rather than a novel
>about a "facist dystopia".  After all, if the worst thing about
>"liberalism" is that it goads its opponents into behaving as piggishly
>as possible, it looks like the problem lies with "liberalism's" 
>opponents rather than "liberalism" itself.
>
>Its like saying that gay people are bad because their mere existance
>incites gay-bashers to beat them up.  One hopes that you would recognise
>an argument of "he was gay so I was forced to beat him up" as completely
>and utterly morally bankrupt.
>
	Bingo!  Give the man a cigar.  The really amusing thing is that this
Booth kid apparently thinks that this "blame the victim" approach is something
novel (pun intended) that he just discovered.  Doesn't he follow the news?
This has been the standard excuse for terrorists and thugs for years.  How
often have we heard some group of hijackers blame the USA when they kill
hostages, on the premise that our support of Israel "forced" them to resort
to violence?  How many fascist governments have used "civil unrest" or
"outside agitators" as an excuse for engaging in the violent repression that
they want to use in any case?
	Whether Booth is simply so gullible that he has actually swallowed
this bogus line of argument, or so enamored of the police state that he has
chosen to cynically exploit this particular bit of propaganda, is an open
question.
	It does seem, though, that I was a bit unfair to the boy in an earlier
post.  I assumed he was simply trying to be annoying.  Now it appears that
there actually is an agenda here, albeit it a fairly obnoxious and
fundamentally anti-American one.

>Get a clue, dude.
>
	Don't hold your breath.
>
>-- 
>Jim
>
>Once I was single.  Now I am married.

Chuck


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Hungarian? was Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Keywords: n~uk, n~uk, n~uk
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:27:23 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>"Thou shalt not kill" goes back quite a few centuries, before most modern
>ideologies existed.  How far back does your translation go?

Just because a mistake is old does not mean that it is a mistake.  

The Hebrew bible CLEARLY says murder.  I do not personally read Hebrew, but I
did the necessary research.  The Biblical Hebrew dictionaries I checked all
agreed that the word is 'murder'.  

Additionally, I talked with two Orthodox Jews with whom I have Old Testament 
discussions quite often.  They stated that the text says murder.  One of them 
pointed out that 'kill' must clearly be wrong, since God prescribes the death 
penalty AND leads Israel into battle.

Finally, I spoke with two theology professors, one of whom specializes in
Old Testament and they both agreed that the text says 'murder'.  Both of
them pointed out that not only is the word used there the one that means
murder, but given the context of the rest of the law, it clearly cannot be
a general prohibition on killing.

Stick to math.

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade (was Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
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: Fri, 16 Oct 92 00:34:15 GMT

[Note:  _Somebody_ hacked out the attribution lines.  Sorry.]

In article <YerRb4W00iUx85DJk_@andrew.cmu.edu> ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
>>>>>>> so he could charge patients more money, and asked sedated patients 
>>>>>>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>> to get up off the operating table to pay more money. 
>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>[deleted most of argument]
>
>>Wrongo boopsie.  That line was both funny _and_ dumb.  And we're not
>>laughing at this alleged women's alleged misfortunes, either.
>
>Question. What is funny about the above line?

Ever been sedated, Andrea?  About the only way you're going to get off the
table is if somebody pushes you off.
--
=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!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos 
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:21:45 GMT

In article <7m2zkgb@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> 
> ->How would you characterize it when I argue with Jim Keegan or 
> ->Steve Novak?
> since you mentioned me, i'll be happy to comment. you
> are usually..
> 
> my observations are based on a reading of your posts to
> me, to novak, nadja, adrienne, cj, linda birmingham,
> susan, rocker, dean, bense.

Since you mentioned me, I am forced to comment since to
name a demon is to invoke its spirit, or something like that.

Bill isn't nasty to me because I don't get nasty to him.
I've come on very strong from time to time with Bill,
but I don't get nasty with him.  I'm too afraid he'll
analyze me and have me commited, and that would be
embarrassing since I wouldn't want to be sequestered
in some mental health facility until they've first carted
David Rasmussen and Stephen Chaney off to their respective
wards.


Soon as those two  loony-tunes get carted off to Happy House
(did I use the correct scientific terminology, Bill?), I'm
gonna kick out the jams and let Rngduus have it with both
figurative barrels.  By the way, those are cracker barrels
I'm refering to.  Wouldn't want Don Beaver to claim I had
threatened anyone's life.

Dean Kaflowitz

Nor do we find him forward to be sounded,
But, with a crafty madness, keeps aloof,
When we would bring him on to some confession
Of his true state.

-The Swan of Avon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:31:17 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  <1992Oct12.025244.8101@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> In article <1992Oct11.085749.89683@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <1992Oct9.210851.21085@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon
> >> In article <1992Oct8.211540.23545@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@d
> >> >
> >> >That's the biggest reason why abortion should be banned. People are
> >> >*resources*, not "parasites" or "endless stomachs," as some of you on
> >> >the net have claimed. If you don't agree with that statement, throw
> >> >yourself off a roof right now -- human life is, in your opinion,
> >> >worthless.
> >
> >This is inane; it doesn't distinguish between a one-celled zygote and
> >a living, breathing, person.
> >
> >> Yes--perfect!!!  Abortion does indeed cheapen life.
> >
> >Failing to distinguish between a zygote and a person cheapens personhood.
> >
> >> Now don't give me that BS about the death penalty and warfare,
> >> because everyone knows that is totally unrelated.
> >
> >Exactly - those involve killing *people*.
> >
> Actually, execution is the killing of a criminal, usually a murderer
> deserving of death, and in war enemies are exterminated.

But still people.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Subject: Women have awareness! (Was Re: Walking down to the student center last night)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 04:54:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.023740.7589@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.005152.18738@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Oct2.042310.4735@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.
>>>
>>>Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
>>>moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??

Simon, we have seen this all before but you need to work on those reading
skills a bit more... If a pregnant woman is feeling (and responding to) 
something then that implies that the pregnant woman is aware (to some degree).
It doesn't mean that motion implies sentience, got that?  Just because the
pregnant women can feel the wind does not imply that the wind is aware.
Note the similarity between the previous sentance and what you've said 
above.

>>Trees move in the wind.  Bacon moves when it sizzles.  Fires moves as its
>>fuel is consumed.

You asked to be corrected if you were wrong and Gordon is trying to
help you out in that way.  I'm sure he is paying you a compliment when
he assumes you have the ability to understand what you've written.
I'm sure he was quite serious and highly amused at your cognitive
abilities.

>Get serious, please.  You know fully well what I was talking about.
>Unless the truth makes you uncomfortable.....                :)
>
>Simon

Simon, a whole bunch of clueless people show up here every fall -
People here have seen it all and are quite skilled in making you look foolish.
If you look foolish on your own, it is less humorous.

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer


-- 

The cat is very fond of using the keyboard when I'm typing...

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:46:59 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->(Susan Garvin) writes: >
->> What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
->> about a dead young woman?  

->Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
->crusade.  

please list the criteria that you relied on to conclude
that her parents were being malicious in any way
whatsoever.

->> I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  

->I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...

please list the criteria that you relied on to conclude
that ms. garvin tends to see misogyny around every
corner.

if you're uncomfortable answering either of these
questions, bill, just say so.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Answer to Woodyatt's 'jisms (syllogisms, that is)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 9 OCT 92 19:45:19 GMT

In a previous article, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) wrote:
> 
>	When you have sex, you know you might become pregnant...

Who exactly is this "you" that you refer to?  Plenty of people have sex 
without the slightest possibility of pregnancy.  My 70 year old granmother, 
for example.  My brother, my lesbian friends, and people who practice oral 
sex, too.  In fact, "might become pregnant" applies to a minority of sexually 
active people.

>	When a mother has sex, she consents to take every reasonable step 
>within
>her power to protect the life and safety of the person her act creates. 

I'm not a mother.  Does this mean I can have sex without consenting to protect 
any fetuses that may come along?

And where does the man involved fit in to all this?  What has he consented to 
by having sex?

> 
>Steve


				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:28:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.031307.17961@cfctech.cfc.com>,
Kebbie (kevin@cfctech.cfc.com) writes:

| Just out of curiosity, when has Keegan ever defended
| YOU in an argument that he didn't help start, Suzanne?

Well, my favorite such occasion was an infant-baptism
argument that I'd started against Forgach.  Keegan posting on
Catholic theology -- a t.a first, I suspect.

| Has it ever occurred to you that your "relationship" with 
| Keegan is basically one-way: him being the parasite, and
| you being the host?

Gee.  I'll remind him of that next time he insists on 
paying for dinner.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                      suzanne-lucia.demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:17:46 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a 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  <Bw721t.7tq@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>  kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
(kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
>>In  <Bw4v7v.JwC@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>  kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>
>>> If you believe that a human being exists from the moment of conception,
>>> then two people are necessary to create a human being.  If you believe
>>> the fetus is an unviable tissue mass, than it takes only one person,
>>> the pregnant woman, to make a human being.  The man merely supplies raw
>>> materials.
>
>>This is where "kellmeyer logic" takes a big leap away from reality.
>>Both the man and the woman supply equal amounts of genetic material,
>>to make a zygote.  The zygote develops into an embryo and then a fetus,
>>using the resources provided by the woman.
>
>ANd here is where Larry gets hoisted by his own petard.  Because he is
>adamant in insisting that not one of the terms above refers to a child.
>Thus, it is obvious to someone even as dim as Larry that the man does
>not create a child.

and neither does the woman.  I said as much below.

>Larry virtually declares that the man is merely a supplier of raw materials
>in the last sentence above.  Each developmental stage occurs only and
>solely because the woman supplies the materials and the location

No, each development stage occurs as a result of cell division and
specialization.  Without nourishment and the proper environment, the
cells will die, but the development doesn't occur solely because of them.
Take a biology class.

>>Neither the man nor the
>>woman "created" the born child; they provided the gametes which created
>>the zygote that developed into the child.
>
>The man supplied nothing more.  The woman supplied EVERYTHING ELSE.
>Is Larry saying that an unviable tissue mass can create itself into
>a child?  Preposterous!  For if it can do so, it cannot be unviable!

You're mixing up two different senses of the word.
  viable (aj)
  DEFINITIONS:
  1   capable of living; esp : born alive with
      such form and development of organs as to
      be normally capable of living
  2   capable of growing or developing <^ seeds
      ^ eggs>
  3   WORKABLE
  viably (av)
  (c) G. & C. Merriam

It's certainly living tissue that is viable[2], but until around
the third trimester, it's not viable[1].  It can't live on its own.

>Larry's uncomfortable because my predictions are coming true.

No, I'm quite comfortable watching you make a fool of yourself.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Meet Ismail Elguindi, Abortionist
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:04:10 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

Well, here's some more evil doctor stories, this time from Mr. "Kill-Her-
Where-She-Stood."  Yeah, you're REEEEEALLY concerned about women, huh?
OK, let's give you the benefit of the doubt (I'm in the upward slope of
my coffee curve).

Steeves, I am happy to see bad doctors pay huge fines and go to jail, go
directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200, revoke license for
all time to keep women from being mauled.  But I keep wondering
why your (apparent) conclusion is not: "Put this bozo in jail" but is
"We gotta outlaw abortion."  To me, this indicates a political motivation,
not a caring for women.

There are any number of dentists, OB/GYN MD's, heart specialists,
psychiatrists, what have you who have damaged their patients in negligent
and evil ways:  if that were not true, why the hell do they have to pay
malpractice insurance?  But no one would suggest that the presence of
scoundrels in any of these fields leads one to the conclusion that those
fields of medicine should be outlawed.

So tell me, please, WHY... Nyikos, you're invited to answer this as well...
WHY do you think that in this ONE field and this ONE ALONE, the existence
of a few idiots necessitates the outlawing of the procedure?

Could it beeeeeee... POLITICAL PREJUDICE??  An AGENDA, perhaps?

I'm interested, come on, show us your brilliant reasoning.  Why this one,
and not the others?

--Teddi
----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:42:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.153559.123133@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct3.064647.5038@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep21.115540.3572@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (
>> >> >{...} At an early age I knew that black
>> >> >people could spot racism pretty quickly, and that one need not
>> >> >say "nigger" for a black person to realize he was being called
>> >> >one.  But then, I also learned at an early age that one need
>> >> >not say "kike" for me to know when I am being called one.  The
>> >> >smell of anti-Semitism and racial hatred are easily detectable
>> >> >to the experienced.  [...]
>> >>
>> >> So, just kiss reason and benefit of the doubt and due process and civility
>> >> aside, and just go by your "nose", huh, Dean?
>> >
>> >Usual blather from you, Kebbie.  When you are Jewish or black,
>> >you come tell me about reason and benefit of the doubt.
>>
>> Am I supposed to apologize for being a White Anglo-Saxon Male, is that it,
>> Dean?  [...]
>
>Where did he suggest that?  Nobody should be expected to apologize for
>what they have no control over.  I believe that the point was that,
>unless you've lived your life as a victim of racism, you're unlikely
>to be as sensitized to it as someone who has.

Just about everyone has been victimized by some form of bias, prejudice
or bigotry, Larry -- we're all minorities in one way or another. The only
difference is whether the bigotry is recognized as a "traditional" kind of
bigotry or not, or, as I put it earlier, whether our minority status is
on the Approved List or not.

As for being "sensitized", where is the line between sensitivity and 
overreaction/persecution-complex? How do we know when that line has been
crossed? I wouldn't buy a piece a piece-of-shit radar detector that was so
"sensitive" it went off constantly, why should I buy a line about Dean's
Miracle Racism-detecting Nose which seems to go off pretty easily too?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Stop preaching and try personal Responsibility (Was: Choice for life)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:17:57 GMT

In article <Bvt2tH.H4G@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.082415.1797@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>In response to Garrett's comment's that my info on abstinence was
>>perhaps flawed:
>>
>>I'm not personally trying to tell people what to do.
>
>Sure you're not.  You're just advocating enactment of statutes that'll
>accomplish the same thing, while you say "but *I'm* not forcing anything on
>anyone!".  It don't play in Peoria, kid.
>
>>What I was trying to say is that sex is serious business (and highly enjoyable,
>>based on what I have been told), and that both parties involved should know
>>what they're doing, but I never said to outlaw it.  But I do think it ought to
>>be a part of a good relationship.  ok folks, fire aay.
>
>What you feel about sex is your business -- so it's your job to find someone
>who shares your view.  It's not your job to try to force everyone else to
>share that view by law.
>
>--PLH, lived with my wife for two years before I married her, and I'll be
>damned if anyone will force me to apologize for it -- especially some
>wet-behind-the-ears brat at a cookie-cutter school...
>
Now since when did I attack ANYONE'S personal life???

Simon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:28:54 GMT

In <841z9vl@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
  (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
(James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >>

>>>>conclusion:  I have rights that I'm not willing to give up.  Does
>>>>that sound familiar?
>
>>>familiar? sure. it's the attitude that becky bell's
>>>parents believe killed their daughter. it's the kind of
>>>attitude that could kill a lot of young girls. i truly
>>>hope that you never have to look back like becky bell's
>>>parents have.
>
>>Thank you.  Me too.
>
>it's too bad you don't feel the same about other
>parents. but then, a lot of people establish rules for
>others.

You are, I assume, referring to your insistence that
net participants conform to your personal Rules of
Correspondence? 

Would you mind posting the whole set?  They're not
easy to assimilate when you post them one at a time.

Thanks.

Bill