HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:33:52 GMT

In article <nancyo.712310146@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>From: nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)
>Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
>Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 07:55:46 GMT

>ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:

>>If Mr. Chaney is inquiring why supporting abortion is consistent with
>>saving with a desire to save various animals species and/or ecosystems,
>>then the answer is simple.  Human population destroys animal habitats. 
>>Abortion reduces human population growth.  An environmentalists that
>>does favor abortion rights is simply not very smart. 

>I would suggest that the connection between the pro-choice
>position and the concern for the quality of life in general
>is that such views are rights-oriented, and preoccupied with
>the rights of the individual to a happy and prosperous
>existence.

No one has a right to happiness or prosperity, only the right to take those 
actions he/she deems necessary to pursue them. No one has a right to success 
in what he undertakes, only the right not to be interferred with in pursuing 
his goals. If people do have such rights, a right to, say, happiness, then 
someone--indeed everybody in the society--has a duty to provide it for 
each person in the country. But then, that would mean I had a duty--a second-
order duty if you will--to make it my business to know what constitutes 
happiness for every person in the society. And I, for one, do not 
consider myself some sacrificial lamb to be immolated on the alter of '
everybody's happiness.' Do you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.birthright,alt.who.is.bob
From: bdb@becker.GTS.ORG (Bruce Becker)
Subject: Re: I think you're finished now...
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:53:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul15.020401.8600@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
|>In article <1992Jul14.235313.3979@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Inc.) writes:
|>>But we don't punish the innocent and helpless so the strong can have
|>>it better off.


	ha ha ha ha, the democracy fairy left
	a quarter under my pillow


|Sounds like James Watson, the Nobel Prize Winner & geneticist, who
|pushes for non-personhood 3 days after birth... 


	I've heard of people who think abortion
	should be practised up to the age of
	15 years or so


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker			Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.gts.org	Uucp: ...!web!becker!bdb
 `\o\-e	 \*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/
 _< /_	 "Awaken the Geek Within" - Anthony Robot
Xref: sparky alt.birthright:126 alt.abortion.inequity:2693 talk.abortion:29256
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:06:24 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Mr. Chaney asks the rather trite question

>Why is it that the typical pro-choicer: 
> 
>1) Opposes war because it is killing? 
>2) Seeks a ban or massive waiting periods on guns because they may kill? 
>3) Favors spotted owls over the welfare of working-class human beings? 
>4) Opposes the death penalty because it is killing? 
> 
>5) Wants to save the dolphins? 
>6) And the whales? 
>7) And the eagles' eggs? 
>8) All because it is killing? 
>9) But then tries to justify abortion even though it is killing? 
> [several other such things]

Of course, any who understands the current "left"-"right" paradigm could
ask the same question back to Mr. Chaney; for instance 

Why is it that the typical "right-to-lifer"

1) Supports the death penalty?
2) Does not care if we kill every other species on the planet?
3) Is opposed to homosexuality?

I could go on, but why bother?  Let's simply just say that outside of
his fetal idolatry, the only form of life of interest to to
"right-to-lifer" is christain middle class americans and may nordic
europeans.


If Mr. Chaney is inquiring why supporting abortion is consistent with
saving with a desire to save various animals species and/or ecosystems,
then the answer is simple.  Human population destroys animal habitats. 
Abortion reduces human population growth.  An environmentalists that
does favor abortion rights is simply not very smart. 
Newsgroups: alt.birthright
From: bdb@becker.GTS.ORG (Bruce Becker)
Subject: Re: About alt.birthright (was Re: More 'thoughts'...) 
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:05:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.145220.21168@cs.tulane.edu> newcomb@navo.navy.mil (Don Newcomb) writes:
|
|I would like to point out that the only clearly defined purpose
|for the existance of alt.birthright is to discuss why the group
|exists and what topics should be discussed :-) . I would suppose
|that any article which could be cross posted to another group
|(other than talk.bizarre) would not be appropriate for 
|alt.birthright.
|
|Among the suggested topics:
|
|1. Discussion of the Birthright political party.
|2. Discussion of the Birthright comic strip.
|3. Search for birth parents by adopted children.
|4. Discussion of the "A" thing. *
|5. Discussion of aristocracies and inheritance.
|6. Other tongue-in-cheek suggestions.


	"alt.birthright" has been around for quite
	a while - I seem to recall that 1. & 2. are
	about the same subject, and that is what
	the newsgroup was for.  There are newsgroups
	for discussing the A-subject - I don't think
	that belongs here however.


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker			Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.gts.org	Uucp: ...!web!becker!bdb
 `\o\-e	 \*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/
 _< /_	 "Awaken the Geek Within" - Anthony Robot
Xref: sparky alt.birthright:121 talk.abortion:29212
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: alt.birthright,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers: It's okay to run e-mail on USENET (was Re: More 'thoughts' for discussion...)
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:38:37 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul27.194811.3270@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> In article <Bs25xB.2KF@news.udel.edu> wilhited@brahms.udel.edu (Douglas Ben Wilhite) writes:
> >
> >Good God, What in Hell are you?
> 
> Just call me the BOSS, AKA Steve "General Havoc" Chaney - just
> anything that signifies inflicting a lot of damage. ]-) 

What, to yourself?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: alt.birthright
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Susan Garvin's plummeting IQ (was Re: Susan B. Anthony: More evidence) 
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:08:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.173752.3176@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> sgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>
>Anyone who believes that Chaney has any credibility should
>check out the article in talk.abortion in which he claims
>that Margaret Sanger died of an illegal abortion.  (Sanger
>died at the afe of 83.)
>

Then go and yell at Planned Parenthood, Susan. 

It was PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S AD that said she died of an illegal
abortion, not me, Susan. 

Are you telling us that PP is wrong about their own historical facts?

Then let me step out of the way and let some previously unseen PP
worker suddenly jump onto USENET and gnaw your ass off, Predator
style. 

>Susan
>


===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Xref: sparky alt.birthright:165 alt.abortion.inequity:2753 talk.abortion:29570
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:55:36 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <nancyo.712374117@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>>In article <nancyo.712310146@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>>>
>>>I would suggest that the connection between the pro-choice
>>>position and the concern for the quality of life in general
>>>is that such views are rights-oriented, and preoccupied with
>>>the rights of the individual to a happy and prosperous
>>>existence.
>
>>I will now translate O'Connor's words: 
>
>>In order to ensure my happy and prosperous existence, I must kill
>>_you_ in order to achieve it. Hence, I you no longer legally exist.  
>
>>Thanks for clarifying things. 
>
>No.  To kill means to rob a person of her/his existence.  Since
>a foetus is, until birth, a parasite of the mother (and not
>a person unto itself), to abort is not to kill.  In some cases,
>to abort is to steal, but that is another discussion.

Oh, so they're not alive, then? 

The last time I heard, anyone whose body is growing, had to be alive
to grow. 

The dictionary definition of killing is "deprive of life." 

Just thought I'd take a cheap shot and trip you on that mistake. 

>So, to ensure my happy and prosperous existence, I must have
>the right to control my own reproduction.

To ensure my happy and prosperous existence, I must have the right to
control my own stomach, but if I get hungry, I can't kill someone in
order to control it. 

Your point falls down when it comes to light that abortion is killing.

>Hope this clarifies things.

Only that you have weaknesses.



===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: alt.birthright,talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers: It's okay to run e-mail on USENET (was Re: More 'thoughts' for discussion...) 
Keywords: Flash Gordon's Storgidius Stupidius Machine is active again.  
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:45:22 GMT

In <1992Jul30.162930.12622@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>Shut up, Dennis. (He must be Dennis' brother.) 

(Sigh.) When I was in junior high school, I could probably have 
come up with a dozen clever responses to this. But over the years,
my creative abilities have deteriorated. I suppose there's no shame
in this. But, there it is: I'm speechless.

Quite frankly, I have to concede. I'm utterly defeated. When you say 
to me, "your articles look like they were written by 'Dennis Hall'", 
what can I say in response? I can't think of a rejoinder which would be 
even 1/10 as insulting.

You win. You've outflamed me. All I can do is hope that you demonstrate 
Christian charity, and that you don't spend too much time rubbing it in.

>>Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
>		    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>		Licenses come real cheap these days, obviously.

Well, the North American Applied Philosophy Association charges
$250 for the qualifying exam, and after that, it's only $10/year
to get your license renewed. That's actually a pretty good price,
considering that the test is mostly essay questions and takes
a few hours to grade. Are you interested in taking it? I have
to warn you that it's a test of your analytical and persuasive
skills, and not your ability to flame.



ObAbortion: "If z/e/f's could scream, do you think that we'd be
    so cavalier about aborting them? Maybe, if they screamed
    all the time, for no good reason." [after Jack Handey]
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: alt.birthright
From: nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:41:57 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>In article <nancyo.712310146@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>>
>>I would suggest that the connection between the pro-choice
>>position and the concern for the quality of life in general
>>is that such views are rights-oriented, and preoccupied with
>>the rights of the individual to a happy and prosperous
>>existence.

>I will now translate O'Connor's words: 

>In order to ensure my happy and prosperous existence, I must kill
>_you_ in order to achieve it. Hence, I you no longer legally exist.  

>Thanks for clarifying things. 

No.  To kill means to rob a person of her/his existence.  Since
a foetus is, until birth, a parasite of the mother (and not
a person unto itself), to abort is not to kill.  In some cases,
to abort is to steal, but that is another discussion.

So, to ensure my happy and prosperous existence, I must have
the right to control my own reproduction.

Hope this clarifies things.

Newsgroups: alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 07:55:46 GMT

ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:

>If Mr. Chaney is inquiring why supporting abortion is consistent with
>saving with a desire to save various animals species and/or ecosystems,
>then the answer is simple.  Human population destroys animal habitats. 
>Abortion reduces human population growth.  An environmentalists that
>does favor abortion rights is simply not very smart. 

I would suggest that the connection between the pro-choice
position and the concern for the quality of life in general
is that such views are rights-oriented, and preoccupied with
the rights of the individual to a happy and prosperous
existence.


Newsgroups: alt.birthright,talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers: It's okay to run e-mail on USENET (was Re: More 'thoughts' for discussion...) 
Keywords: Flash Gordon's Storgidius Stupidius Machine is active again.  
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:20:16 GMT

In article <bklmhy_.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>In other words, given that excessively insulting is anyone's
>>definition, it's okay to post someone's e-mail. 
>
>Right - Ray said that if _he_ found someone's e-mail to _him_ to be
>excessively insulting then _he_ might post it.
>
>You're such a blithering baboon.  How did you arrive at Ray speaking for
>everyone when he specifically states he is NOT speaking for anyone but
>himself?

He sure isn't speaking for anyone intellegent. 
Which means he's speaking loudly for you. 

Let me diretly refute your hopeless point: 

Ray's actions SHOULD have ignited your net-etiquette alarm - you know,
the one you sound whenever we pro-lifers make these mistakes. 

Wait, we pro-lifers don't make the mistake of uninvitedly posting
people's e-mail. So far, only pro-choicers have done that.

>>You just fucked up with regards to the fallacy of BEGGING THE
>>QUESTION. 
>
>Well, give it my regards too.  Did you take *any* english courses in
>college?

Yeah, and while I was getting A's and going on to translate Japanese,
you were still flunking your ABC's.  

>Gordon
>-- 
>The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
>of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
>Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.


===============================================================================
		Is Dan Bredy still mopping the floors? 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Xref: sparky alt.birthright:163 talk.abortion:29568
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: alt.birthright,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers: It's okay to run e-mail on USENET (was Re: More 'thoughts' for discussion...)
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:38:50 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <60lmy-p.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>> wilhited@brahms.udel.edu (Douglas Ben Wilhite) writes:
>>>Good God, What in Hell are you?
>>
>>Just call me the BOSS, AKA Steve "General Havoc" Chaney - just
>>anything that signifies inflicting a lot of damage. ]-) 
>
>Kind of like fireworks.  It can be fun to light Chaney's fuse just
>to watch him self-destruct with lots of noise and a flash.

It can be fun, but too bad it'll never happen. 

Keep fishing, Ray. 

>-- 
>Ray Fischer
>rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
>ray@netcom.com


===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Xref: sparky alt.birthright:178 talk.abortion:29632
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: alt.birthright,talk.abortion
Subject: Chaney talks to his (other) self
Keywords: Flash Gordon's Storgidius Stupidius Machine is active again.
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:24:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> = (Charles Don Hall) writes:

>Shut up, Dennis. (He must be Dennis' brother.) 

You're never alone when you're schizophrenic.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.birthright:221 talk.abortion:29771
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: alt.birthright,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Chaney talks to his (other) self
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:45:13 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Jul30.202404.13991@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

Steve Novak shows us all what happens when your brain is on drugs.

===============================================================================
		I smoked, but I didn't inhale - Bill Clinton 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: alt.birthright
From: sgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Susan B. Anthony: More evidence  
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.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 17:37:52 GMT


Anyone who believes that Chaney has any credibility should
check out the article in talk.abortion in which he claims
that Margaret Sanger died of an illegal abortion.  (Sanger
died at the afe of 83.)

Susan

Newsgroups: alt.birthright,talk.abortion