HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Gay Pride .sig of Steve Chaney
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:04:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.234208.28188@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Prove 
>1) That this is my "gay pride" .sig. 

Steve, your "PRIDE = POWER" sig is equivalent to the gay pride slogin of 1992.
Or at least according to Susan Garvin, and I would believe her over you any
day.

>2) That I even have anything to do with "gay pride." 

Who cares if you do?  That isn't the point.

>3) That I am Dennis Hall. 

Again, this has been shown many times.  Give up.

>Please show posts, dates of posts, and documentational proof. 

Why?  What's the point?

This *is* just the net, isn't it?  It's *not* the "Real World".

>I am calling you a bold-faced liar and I challenge you to prove what
>you say. 

Um, Steve -- the correct phrase is "bald-faced liar".

>Lesson to other folks: Susan Garvin has never beaten me in a
>one-on-one battle, yet she is trying again to get her shortlived high
>off of making her usual cheap shots. 

Lesson to other folks: Susan Garvin is much more reputable and believable than
Steve Chaney any day of the week.  Steve never knows when to leave well enough
alone -- he just *has* to answer back to every allegation.  I don't even see
why Susan bothers to keep trying to get his goat, it's no more sporting than
shooting fish in a barrel.

>Well, it just cost you your reputation in two ADDITIONAL newsgroups,
>Susan Garvin.

Oh?

Please prove this allegation.

B^).

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

"That must be wonderful!  I don't understand it at all."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 22:26:22 GMT

You are arguing that the Bill of Rights contains no provisions for the right
to life? So, I suppose that YOUR right to life is not guaranteed in the
Constitution? I don't know if you have heard this case, but in the 1960's
two college students from Chicago I believe were in the South working
with SNCC to register black voters. They, along with a black companion were
murdered, allegedly by local law enforcement officers. When a local 
kangaroo court found the accused not guilty, federal courts found the
defendants guilty of  RIGHTS violations. Also, the officers accused
of beating rodney king now face counts that his rights were violated.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 3
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:07:03 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1atg0oINN96p@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>|In some states, CA (I think), it is considered murder if an assailant (sp?)
>|hurts a pregnant mother and consequently kills the unborn child.  Does not
>|that seem like a double standard when you consider abortion is not a crime?

>It's an assault on me if you rip out my tonsils without my 
>permission.  It's ordinary surgery if I hire a doctor to do 
>it with my permission.   You could also try thinking about it
>in terms of property rights.

This might be relevant if the assaulter were to be charged with murdering
your tonsils.

I've not seen the California statute but I have heard of it.  Under my 
understanding.  Causing the death of a fetus is feticide.  And under
certain circumstances is considered murder.  That is, the assaulter wil
be charged with murder in a court of law.


>I'm setting followups to talk.abortion.  This discussion does
>not belong crossposted to the entire universe.

>---
>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>"There is no expedient to which man will not resort to avoid the real 
>labor of thinking." 	--Sir Joshua Reynolds
-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: psychological effects of abortion
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:36:05 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Can anyone tell me why this person is posting long lists of
periodical articles?  

Susan
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:44:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.163316.26982@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>The Jews were killed because they were greedy and thieves and because
>>>they were clearly subhuman.  The Bosnians are being killed because the 
>>>Serbs are defending themselves.  And black South Africans were not
>>>being discriminated against any more than cows are discriminated
>>>against.  In none of these cases did people believe they were doing
>>>anything but the most noble actions.  Just like you.
>>>
>>>(and no, I don't hold any of these beliefs personally)
>>>
>>The "noble" actions of these people often involved killing.  Those who
>>supported the specialness of human life no matter what age, form, color
>>or creed, wanted them to stop killing even if those who killed thought
>>that they wanted to produce only "wanted" people.  These people recognized
>>the humanity of all humans even if certain people wanted to take away
>>their rights, most important amongst them, the right to life.  Many 
>>justifications were made, as you said, humans were more like cows, or
>>that these individuals were greedy and like thieves.  But nonetheless, the
>>Nazis and the Serbs continued to do ethnic purging because they removed
>>humanity and a human's right to life away.
>
>Rest assured that making abortion illegal _will_ kill women.  

Huh?   Let me get this straight.  Abortion will kill women?  I didn't
know abortion killed women.  Oh, I take that back.  Abortion does kill
unborn females directly.

Abortion is direct killing of our human offspring.  Illegalizing abortion
does not directly kill women.  Even indirectly, it doesn't unless some
women choose to bring on death to their offspring and themselves.




>The Serbs believe that they are defending the lives of themselves and 
>their people from the Bosnians and the Croats.  They don't think they 
>are doing what you've called "ethnic purging", they think they are 
>removing hostile enemies from their land in order to protect 
>themselves.
>^^^^^^^^^^

The protecting THEMSELVES argument from invaders, unwanted elements, etc.
Now who is more likely to use this argument in trying to justify the
destruction of human life?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:22:34 GMT

> = "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [...]   This brings up an interesting question (to me). How do most
>people here perceive what the word 'person' means? I thought I knew
>what it meant. But I've never thought of a person as 'cognizant' which
>is one definition that's been proposed.

Some attempt to assign a qualitative, meaningful definition to "person", 
others simply assign an arbitrary definition, still others 
shift their usage at will in an attempt to concoct an argument.

I suggest:
1) we identify common ground, the indisputable/obvious SUBSET of "persons": 
   "normal, born persons"
2) we expand this group of obvious persons to include more people,
   *justifying* their inclusion by *explaining* *why* they are
   "essentially the same as normal, born persons"

The rational is that this prevents people from assigning an *arbitrary* 
definition to "person" -- it must bear some resemblance to colloquial usage.
Instead they must justify/explain that a given non-obvious "person" is
arguably "essentially the same as" what we all indisputably acknowledge 
as being "persons".  

>[...]
>Final question. Is arguing whether the child is a person or not a
>worthwhile endeavor?  [...]

Maybe.  

o AN ASIDE: by "child" I assume you are in fact referring only to 
  so-called "UNBORN children" like zygotes, etc.,  This is, of course, 
  a highly subjective, dubious, and loaded usage of the word "child".

o Because my definition is not merely an arbitrary assignment, but rather
  is based on, and builds on a *common* concept of "person", I think my 
  definition of "person" could actually facilitate meaningful discussion.

o ASSUMING a *meaningful* definition of "person": it seems natural to 
  extend the rights of "obviously persons" to the set of "all persons".  
  SPECIFICALLY: that if one cannot rationally explain that a zygote 
  (for example) is (or at least might be) a "person", (ie. is "essentially 
  the same as normal, born person"), than one can hardly claim that a zygote 
  should naturally have the same rights as "people" do.

o NOTE: many pro-lifer's either do not or cannot defend that a zygote is
  "essentially the same as normal, born person", so they resort to the
  semantic smoke & mirror's trick of merely *defining* a zygote to be 
  a "person".   Unfortunately, by virtue of assigning an arbitrary definition 
  to the word "person", they trivialize the concept.

o BUT EVEN IF one can rationally explain that a zygote (for example) 
  is a "person" (ie. is "essentially the same as normal, born person"), 
  and thus deserves the same rights as all normal, born persons, 
  then they still must debate how to resolve conflicting rights.  
  SPECIFICALLY, if a person's bodily autonomy wins over 
  a person's fetal-right-to-life, then the "personhood" of the unborn 
  is a moot point.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The Suffering Of Some Dental Patients And Their Bills...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:53:02 GMT

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>> Ah, so, apparently I did miss a post.  The name was Kathleen Marie
>> Maki, and these lawsuits can drag out for years.  The abortionist
>> of COERCED ABORTION got involved in an unlawful death case that
>> dragged on for four years, and finally the State Supreme Court
>> ruled that the father of the dead woman could get the award of
>> $100,000 that a lower court had awarded long ago.

> So Dr. Hanson's clinic was found guilty in an unlawful death suit, or
> is this something you're throwing out to try and distract people from your
> statement that Dr. Hanson had a woman held to a table and performed an
> abortion on her?

Keith honey (no, I'm not sexually harassing you :-) ), Dr. Hanson's clinic
wasn't involved in that wrongful death lawsuit.  This was somebody else
entirely; someone whose name I don't recall ever being posted.  Given
Mr. Nyikos' habit of pulling accusations out of thin air (J'ACCUSE), I
have to wonder about the origins of this little tale.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:36:54 GMT

<1992Oct15.134540.26238@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) :
><1992Oct13.195245.18561@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>>Gordon
>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
>>Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
>>Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
>                                                 ^^^^^
>I'm as hip as the next guy, but would you be proud if your wife was telling
>thousands of strangers on a computer network of the ten men she had done
>before you came along?

Heck no!  But if she wanted to tell the net of the women she "had done"
before and ... well, that's fine with me.  (PS:  You may not be as 'hip'
as you think... :-)  )

>And I can't believe any man could be with a woman named "Cathi". :-)

You haven't lived till you've been with a woman named "Cathi".

Maybe I should give up the sig.  People just have no sense of humor.  What
does everyone think, eh?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:43:11 GMT

In article <4er_N1600iUx06jax_@andrew.cmu.edu> 
Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>> Do you have nothing substantial to say about FFL's positions? 

> In a previous post, I said that I have recieved some FFL literature and
> I was willing to post the contents if people were interested. If the FFL
> are so durn wonderful, Doug, why haven't you asked me to post them? 

What are you waiting for?  Post it!  
 

>Alison Colman  


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:43063 alt.flame:13650
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 15:47:32 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <lefty-141092161206@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) write
> >If you're interested in my political orientation, I'm an anarchist.
> 
> "Litigious Anarchist" is basically an oxymoron, Lefty.

You don't need to have a government to have laws, Kevin.  You don't need to
have a government to enforce laws either.  Hence you don't need to have a
government in order to litigate, since litigation is simply the process of
contesting a point of law.

So even if Lefty were litigious, which I don't believe he is, that would not
be incompatible with his being an anarchist.

The idea that anarchy necessarily means disorder, lawlessness and so on, is
one of the little myths that governments put about in order to make
themselves seem useful.  It's not surprising you fell for it.


mathew
-- 
"Boy, they were big on crematoriums weren't they?"
 -- George Bush, during a tour of Auschwitz, 1987-09-28

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD)
Subject:  I'm back....
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University
Distribution:  world
Date:  7 OCT 92 23:36:42    

After much traveling, almost being in Hurricane Andrew, attending the world 
sf convention and doing other various things, I have returned.  I was quite 
pleased to notice that...

In article <1992Oct3.022951.5733@coopsol.com>, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes...
>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
>Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and

I am still remembered here!  Thanks Gordon.  And hi to my other ex-boytoys.
:-)

Lynn
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:38:59 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Oct9.232532.11604@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><1992Oct8.223039.2638@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>><6739@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>>> Can you document any of those things that you said about
>>> Adrienne, Suzanne?  I seem to recall you getting rather
>>> indignant about some comments that Gordon made about *you*,
>>> and that you demanded documentation.  (Of course, I
>>> also remember that Gordon documented each one, and you
>>> were strangely silent after that.)  
>>
>>As Peter has so diligently pointed out, each one of Gordon's
>>"proofs" was a non-proof.   

>Yet another lie, Suzanne.

I "pointed them out," in Larry Margolis's sense of these words, I just
haven't gotten around to addressing more than two of them yet.  For one
thing, my netserver was down for almost a whole week.

>  Peter has addresses *one* point of my list of
>your innanities. 

Actually two, one where most of the work was done by Darcy and Suzanne
and I just mopped up.  

I said at the time, "Keep digging, folks."  I meant for you'uns
[the Pittsburgh area equivalent of y'all, in case Ms. Garvin is listening] 
to keep digging for more evidence, because the present batch just doesn't cut
the mustard.  But Gordon seems to interpret it as, "Keep digging your
own grave."

> He has ignored the rest.  I'll qualify that:  As of this
>day 10/9/92 at 4:23pm PST I have not seen a post from Nyikos addressing
>more than one item of that list.  If you have some other evidence, please
>post it.

As I said, I've experienced a number of delays, but I hope to post 
Case#3 today.

>Yeah, he thought he'd have an easy time of it.  Tsk, tsk.  When will he
>learn that most pro-choicers appear to be better educated than most
>pro-lifers.

I *have* had an easy time of it.  Gordon's arguments may be long-winded,
but they have very little bite to them.

>>            Even Kevin Darcy, with whom I have little
>>in common politicaly, saw the farce in Gordon's "proofs".

>Darcy probably sees pink elephants and little green men too.

The above is yet another sign of Gordon's immaturity.

>>> that she devalues motherhood, and
>>> that she's the most twisted person on the net?
>>
>>Adrienne herself proves these with every post she makes.

>You believe a fetus to be a child.  You believe a pregnant woman to be a
>mother.  You have stated on this net that no one knows what is best for a
>child except it's mother. Yet, you won't allow a "mother" to choose what
>is best for her "child".  That's pretty twisted.

What's really twisted is thinking abortion is best for the child.  Would
Gordon also say that child abuse is best for children already born?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Let us Unto history Rewrite
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:28:50 GMT

ayr@gtech.com (Aleksey Y. Romanov) writes:
] There is no circle here. I guess  that anarchia and concentration
] camps cannot coexist. 

Aleksey

what was that book by George Orwell....

and the matter of 'anarchists' and all....

I appreciate a Romantic Vision of Politologia and all....

ciao
drieux

ps: but thank you for trying to pay 'homage to catalonia.'



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Varney
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:50:16 GMT

From article <1992Oct9.124814.2466@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
>... 
> So I went further and asked him something like this: "Ask the female 
> members of your family if they support your desire to enslave every
> woman to bring every conceived zygote to term."
> 
> He didn't respond, so I emailed another message asking him if he
> had asked his family that question yet.  He didn't respond, and I
> know he may just be busy, but I'm an impatient kinda guy, so I
> thought I'd post it in hope of getting a speedier response.
> 
> So didja ask them yet Bruce?  Do they still like your ways?


So Brian, I suggest you ask your 18 month old stepson-to-be if he supports
your desire to burn unborn babies to a crisp, rip their arms and legs off,
and pulverize them with suction machines.   What?  You don't want to?  You
think it would misrepresent your own position?   You mean you're going to
ignore my suggestion?  You mean you won't even answer such a remark?  What?


> Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

Don't be stupid, Brian.


Suzanne Forgach
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 13 Oct 1992 00:21:06 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|It is ENTIRELY within the realm of possibility that CJ retracted it,
|and you merely did not see it. Proving the nonexistence of an
|object with an essentially infinite possible location space is
|very close to impossible. CJ's potential retraction is such an object.

Some would consider the email that Demitrio excerpted from
to *be* a retraction.  Wriggling semanticists would not.

I won't bother arguing language & meaning with Keeganites.  
It's a total waste of time.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com     C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"My dear fellow, she tried to found a salon, and only succeeded
in opening a restaurant." --Oscar Wilde
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Untruths about Rush (WAS Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 14:46:52 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <92281.220604KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
 
>Is Rush a feminist?  You be the judge.
 
Nope.
 
>Kurt Ludwick
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Are Canadians covered under the Fourteenth Amendment?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:20:05 GMT

StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
] 
] A woman's rights with regards to abortion are protected by the Fourth 
] Amendment.  An unborn child's rights with regards to abortion
] may be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  If that is the
] case, then it becomes a question of whose rights take precidence --
] the born person's or the unborn person's?


As we all Know, canadians CAN become US citizens,
and thus, that this potential to become US Citizens
would mean that they are Coverable Under the 14th Amendment as well.


What I really want to See is the IRS start
taxing these potential americans what they
owe the USA for protecting their Potentail Citizenship.


ciao
drieux

ps: what was that about 'arguments of potential'?????


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!