HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Next: Mark Kaufman
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:09:39 CDT

In article <18jq2oINN4gm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>   Sorry about all of the terrible things I said, Steve.  I don't
>know what got into me.  But, thanks to you, I have seen the light
>of day.  I am free of the sick, secular humanist, liberal, lefto,
>pinko, environmento, animal-lover psychosis that stole my dignity
>as an American.  I am now a pro-life member of the NRA...I mean a
>life member of the NRA.  And I am cured of the vegetarian madness
>that had held me in its grip.  I am eating a big greasy burger as
>I type this.  I am selling my volvo to buy a Ford pickup equipped
>with a rifle rack.  God Bless America.  God Bless Bush and Quayle
>and Buchanan and Schlafley and Robertson and North and Reagan and
>Haldeman and Ehrlichman and Mitchell and Stans and...most of all,
>
>                   GOD BLESS YOU, STEVE CHANEY!
>
>-- 
>   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
>may not be both."
>                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Me, too.  Pass the polyester!

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:39:33 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>In article <24642@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:

>>A question: Is having a glass of wine with dinner "using" alcohol, or
>>is it merely the enjoyment of fermented grape juice?

>If you are asking whether I drink wine or not, the answer is I don't --
>it's alcohol.

This wasn't the question. Whether you do or do not drink it is none
of my business, nor would it matter to me whether you did. It wouldn't
affect your credibility any at all. :)

>If you are asking whether you should drink wine or not, I can't answer
>that -- that's something you have to decide for yourself.

Neither was this in my mind at the time, although it has been shown
that a lifetime of one or two glasses of red wine will lower your cholesterol
level a percentage. :)

>I did not mean to imply anything by the word "use" except, perhaps,
>that both alcohol and marijuana are recreational drugs.

This was my point. There are many negative conotations that come with
the word 'use' in your context, and my question was sort of intended
to ask whether a glass with dinner constituted 'use' of this drug, or
if was just the enjoyment of fermented grape juice, which has a distinct
flavor not reproducible in non-alcoholic form. The question was asxked
because of the negative connotations that ride with 'use'.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.

PS - Your 'decaying' fact was pretty interesting, and I guess it'll
be time for another .sig, as this one is kind of worn out, and might
have served its purpose to make people realize what garbage they are
unecessarily into their bodies.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 5 Sep 92 19:43:14 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <nyikos.715655719@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Sep3.213620.21098@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>>In <1992Sep3.201731.13010@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>>From article <1992Aug26.061545.18227@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>>>> 
>>>> 	Well, to be fair, even Jesus Christ was known for white-hot
>>>> rages, or so his biographers depict. Consider what those poor Scribes
>>>> and Pharisees suffered.

>>>Oh, yeah, He really crucified them.
>>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>     I am disgusted. I find this lighthearted treatment of the Savior's
>>agony on the cross appalling and blasphemous. I demand an apology!

>>                                                     MP.

>You don't fool me for one second, M. Price.  I wonder if anyone doesn't
>see you are being sarcastic.

     Jeez, I hope not! What an astute little reader you are, Petie!

>Peter Nyikos

                                                              MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:56:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.002716.19838@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.
Yeah, and that's complete bullshit too.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Message to Ron Graham (Was: Hey, Susan Garvin!)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:56:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.151635.462@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
#Hey Ron Graham,
# 
#Doesn't this kind of post just make you proud as all hell that
#the Inturdgent is a member of FFL?  
#

Ron Graham refuses to read any responses to his talk.abortion 
articles.  (Conveniently, that way he never has to publicly 
admit that he has no documentation for his claims.)  I asked
him in e-mail (he also responds to replies in other groups
via e-mail, too.  He seems to be obsessed with having the
last word on any subject on the net.) about the official
virus and FFL.  He avoided the question and asked me if
a number of people in t.a. represented NOW.  I answered that
none of these people had given any indication that they were
NOW members, while the A.B. has mentioned his FFL membership
repeatedly.  Graham answered the mail, but didn't respond
to this.  (I'll be glad to forward the mail to anyone who
asks - it's a revealing little display in which Graham
exhibits breathtaking paternalism.  He also attributes
statements made by Chaney/Hall in t.a. to me - I think
that he relies on the BorgieBoy for his "information"
about the t.a. discussions.)

Graham, like FFL, is a joke.

Susan
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:46:49 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

>Also Congress cannot restrict the free excercise of religion, unless
>you aren't Christian then they can (like smoking Peyote in a
>religious ceremony)

I do believe that the courts reversed this if you are Indian, etc....as
any other religion would be seen as one constructed solely for the purpose
of allowing those to participate in otherwise illegal activity.  To
clarify the first portion, that is you are a member of the religion
that had this as part of its ceremony, peyote smoking, which also happened
to be around long before Congress was ever around to limit it. You cannot
start your own religion that says this is part of its ceremony. This
would be seen as only trying to legalize the use of a substance.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Swing and a Miss for Dear Old Dean...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:49:44 GMT

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

] In article <1992Sep11.151619.21451@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
] > Demonstrate that Chaney is "convinced", please.  If we were
] > going to evaluate individuals based on their network personas,
] > we could have a field day with "drieux".  
] 
] Bill, Bill, Bill, don't you realize that drieux is a very
] sick man? 
 
Dean,

Dahling, I hae tried to point out to you that
jumping out of perfectly good air mobile assets
is NOT good for you.....

and for this you call me a 'sick man'??????

Just because I have been trying to outlaw HeteroSexuality,
for this you consider me a 'sick man'??????

Look What HeteroSexuality has Done to YOU.....


Unlike YOU, I have my 'HappyHappyJoyJoy' Card
that certifies me sane for trial.....

IF YOU READ the postings, you would already know this....

So it leads me back, first to YOUR PROBLEMS,
and then to Dear Old Bill, and potential questions
about 'professional competence' Given as I have
been certified, and most of You Loonies are still
VERY, VERY, VERY questionable....

ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems

I just restructured my mail queue hierarchy and 
I can't do a thing with it.....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: This just occured to me... (Was: Real Misogynists...)
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: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 18:00:56 GMT

In article <5754@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>	  Police have arrested a Fort Lauderdale abortion clinic
>>	physician after his wife reported that he handcuffed her,
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>	strapped her to a table in their home and performed an abortion
>>	against her will.

[Delete.  Delete.  Deleted.  Deleted.]

1)  Why does a Ft. Lauderdale Doctor have handcuffs in his home?  I mean, I
can certainly understand it, but I come from a different "sexual climate" then
most other people...

2)  This also gives us a good case for outlawing handcuffs, straps, and tables,
you know...
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 19:35:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>Why not back it up to the lustful gleams?  This answer should be clear.
>
>Before the egg and sperm join, there exists nothing that could be
>considered
>a person.  

You believe that personhood begins at conception?  Why?
What is a person anyway?

To me it looks like conception, gleam, birth, and viability are all
largely arbitrary distinctions.  One could just as well pick one's 
high school graduation.

What makes _your_ choice the Correct Choice?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:34:15 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep12.155140.28327@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
|> In article <Sep12.074253.38224@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> 
|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> 
|> }	Yeah, and what if the hang glider did something to cause the guy to be
|> }hooked up in it?  If the hang glider swooped down and grabbed the guy, for
|> }instance (still assuming the hang glider is a person), then it seems to me that
|> }the hang glider wouldn't have a right to just let him go in mid-air, would it?
|> 
|> What a concept!  I think I see why people might shoot hang gliders on 
|> sight.  I'm not sure if a hang glider would have the right to let someone
|> go in mid-air, but if they had that capability, who knows, it might even 
|> be a right.  I sure doubt that I would support legislation making that
|> illegal, however...

	Do you mean to suggest, Galen, that if hang gliders were persons you
wouldn't want to make it illegal for them to swoop down and pick up people, and
then drop them from mid-air?

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 20:28:07 GMT

In <18511vINN1ih@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715471986@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>Butchers in slaughterhouses are not prosecuted for murder.  Serial
>>killers are.  Do you sense injustice in this?

>No, I do not... I do still stand by my conviction that human
>life takes no more precedence than any other life form (except
>in its own eyes).

A human life should take precedence over a life that never was conscious,
except for some extraordinary circumstances.

>>
>>Saving lives and ending them--do you see no difference?

>Both cases are examples of man's interference with nature.

You sound like an ethical nihilist.  No offense meant here, I am just
using the precise philosophical term.

>If you accept that man can intervene to save lives, then
>you should also accept that man can intervene to prevent
>a life.

Preventing a life and ending a life are two very different things
in the moral dimension.

>>
>>But to get back to your question: there is something to be said for making
>>abortion more freely available in some third world countries than the USA.
>>But the USA has been far BELOW zero population growth in every year
>>since Roe v. Wade, and the only reason you don't notice it is that there 
>>is still a big bulge of people ("baby boomers") not yet past childbearing
>>age.  But if women keep having children at the rate they do now, and there
>>is not a much bigger influx of immigrants than at present, the population
>>will begin to decline while most of us networkers are still alive.
>>
>>Peter Ny.

>IMHO, the USA could do with a little population reduction itself.
>It may wreak havoc with the economy (since it is based on infinite
>growth),

There's a lot more to it than that.  Our population is growing top-heavy
with age:  fewer young people to support an ever-growing population of
retired persons.  Even the most enlightened economy has a hard time
coping with such things.  And except for Ross Perot and Tsongas, I have
not seen a presidential candidate even begin to address these problems.

> I firmly believe that we must maintain
>a balance, and that that balance should be somewhere below the
>240 million or so people already here.

But we must accept short-term population gains as the price of avoiding
a calamitous drop in our standard of living later.  

>I support abortion, because it is a means of population control.

War, genocide, famine, natural disasters, these are also means of
population control.   Again, do you see no moral difference?

Peter Ny.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NEXT: PatricKKK Harumphrey
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:42:28 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

the chaney/hall creature posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (DEVASTATOR OF PATRICK
HUMPHREY to you, PatricKKK) writes to patrick:
[..]
-> it would really be luney for me to continue to heap
-> more verbal and emotional abuse on your already
-> troubled self.

yes it would. i'm glad you admit it.

i wonder how long it will be before you display that
characteristic yet again.

[watch carefully bill overpeck.]

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35448 alt.abortion.inequity:3583
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Observations)
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:25:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not bloody likely!

In article <18824cINNhuq@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.222229.16440@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Actually, this is a *great* proposal.  Any random woman can say, "Sex, sure.
>No sperm."  And make it stick through force of law!!!!  Any random woman
>who becomes pregnant by a man leaving sperm around when she said "No sperm"
>has been raped, and can prosecute that man to the full extent of the law!
>
>What a terrific idea!!!
>
>Adrienne Regard
>
>PS, ok, maybe not raped.  Battered instead.
>
>PPS,  all joking aside, WHY wouldn't this actually work, folks?  Does the
>answer to that question buy you any clue as to why pro-choice people feel
>women should be allowed to make up their own minds about abortion?

Try the reverse, how about the MAN saying, "Sex, ok.  But no egg."  and
making it stick?

Any random man who is hit with ANY charges related to a pregnancy would
be able to charge the woman with rape. . .ok, battery.

All joking aside, does this make you realize why people like me think
that pro-choice is a lie, it really means pro-female-choice-and-screw-
the-men?

I thought not.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Daniel Dick and ignorance is bliss!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:14:58 GMT

<1992Sep3.152728.20037@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) said:
>smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>: In article <1992Sep3.002843.17095@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM
>: (Daniel J. Dick) writes as if to illustrate the dangers of posting
>: without thinking or even reading.  He started his rant in response to
>: Susan Garvin's question: 
>: 
>: >: How is it that you know what Nyikos's point was, given that you
>: >: didn't read his article?
>: 
>
>Stephen, if you want to behave like a total jackass and defend your own
>side's misrepresentation, defend someone's childish mockery, and join in
>yourself in more of the same, then I don't need or want your respect or
>care at all about what you have to say.  Let's suffice it to say you're
>in my kill file and you're welcome to place me in yours.
>
>What I want is an intelligent discussion with people who are willing to
>play by the standard rules of mature discussion--namely that they address
>the arguement of the *opposing* side straight on instead of misrepresenting
>it and mocking the misrepresentation.  Muster up inside yourself the courage
>and honesty to face the issues as they are instead of wasting everybody's
>time with your childish gibberish.  We don't want to hear it.

Are you the same Daniel Dick who last year accused us all of cnesorship
because we wouldn't help you get a late term abortion shown on national
television?  Even though we explained to you over and over that we
wouldn't stand in the way of *you* pursuing the matter?  Did you ever
realize that that was a misrepresentation of the pro-choice side?

...

>So, let's cut the crap whoever you are, whichever side you are on, and get
>to the point of discussing abortion unless of course you wish to tell the
>world that your side has no case to argue.

Uh, yeah.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Date: 12 Sep 92 07:38:33 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <-cnnv-b.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> 
|> So then, this is rather wordy intro to the question: what is a human being?

	A human being, medically, is the organism which results from the union of
the sperm and the egg, causing a "joining" of chromosomes, one set from the
father and one set from the mother, which creates a new "instruction set" which
from then on directs the ontogenesis of the new organism.  This new human being,
given nutrition and care, requires no further genetic material to develop into a
mature human being like you or me.  This is not true of either the egg or the
sperm, taken singly, nor is it true of anything else prior to conception.
	A human organism begins at conception and continues until death.
	The definition for "person," on the other hand, is a matter of personal
opinion.  The definition necessarily involves value judgements, and in the case
of abortion it involves value judgements of the most bizarre kind.  To say that
abortions should be allowed is to say that the lives of some innocent human
beings have no value insofar as the right to life is concerned.  Why can this not
be expanded to include other groups of innocent living human beings? 
Rationalizations abound, but they all fail on one point or another.  Anyway, in
the end, even the rationalizations themselves are mere opinions, value judgements
containing many debatable assumptions.  What are the rationalizations for the
rationalizations?  I don't know.

Steve
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (No - No  Never)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:44:41 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <pmar1vs@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <nyikos.716064418@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:

>Gosh, Nyikos, why don't you name for me a contraceptive
>that's 100% effective?  That is, a contraceptive that will
>prevent pregnancy for sexually active het women 100% of the
>time.  Can you name one?

Pants ( for both ).

>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720





--
Kevin Welch						  POLITICALLY INCORRECT
University of Pennsylvania				  FREE MINDS
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu				  FREE MARKETS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++FREE SOCIETY
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro B
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:32:24 GMT

From article by deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc):
> In article chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney):
>> <on Rush Lumbaugh>
>> Rumor has it, he's got a TV show coming soon. 
>> 
>> What does Gloria Steinem have? 
> 
> Hmmm, that's a toughie.  Well, I'll start the list with
> 
> 1.  Dignity.


What?  With that stupid (graying) hippie hair do?
Oh, I get it.  It's to hide the huge chip on her shoulder.
 
 
> Anyone wanna add to it?

No thank you.


> Bob De Guc

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion