HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:56:25 GMT

In <1992Nov7.003215.29695@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:


>[Larry performs a posting service for Peter Nyikos and also explains
>again to our esteemed doctor the finer points of attribution.]

Totally unnecessarily, and all done with tongue in cheek.
And you fell for it, Galen, unless you are writing with tongue in cheek
all thru this post.

>Another contribution to the excuses use for making an ass out of themselves:
>Related to the rather lame:  "It was all a joke."
>The slightly improved:  "I thought it was all a joke."

Actually, my point was: "The only way Adrienne can avoid making an
ass out of herself is to admit that she's been making one long practical
joke, and I'm giving her all the chance in the world to do that, but
she refuses to take advantage of it."

>I'm impressed.  

You better be.  I don't do this for everybody, and I don't think I'll
be doing it for Adrienne again.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmin
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:51:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.030651.69140@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Nov21.003516.21632@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
>>
>>Here's the e-mail that Larry Margolis sent to my system
>>administrators, forwarded from one of the NCSU sysadmins.
>>I omitted the sender's address from the e-mail.
>
>You also omitted your name.  Any particular reason for that?
>
>You were also posting from a different ID (dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu);
>the first appearance of dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu was in the anonymous
>"letter-bombing".  And that had names attached like "big tree", "Woody Allen",
>or (as above) no name.
>
>I just tried fingering, and your usual ID is still valid (in fact, you're
>on it right now), while the dsh ID gave back:
>  Login name: dsh                         In real life:
>  Directory: /usr/users2/dsh              Shell: /bin/csh
>  On since Nov 19 16:49:32 on ttyp2 from :0.0
>  8 hours 12 minutes Idle Time
>  No Plan.
>
>So how was I supposed to know that dsh was the same lying weasel that
>posts to talk.abortion as dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu?  You didn't
>start using the dsh ID to post here until after people complained
>about the anonymous posts to other groups.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that you thought "dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu"
and "dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu" were two totally different people, Larry?

Is "gullible" in your dictionary?

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48909 talk.religion.misc:21695 alt.atheism:21766
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:25:15 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Nov19.003606.19144@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) said:
><1992Nov19.002242.6511@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
...
>>It's really very simple folks:
>>
>>In the OT, God teaches us right from wrong.
>>
>>In the NT, He teaches us why what is right is right,
>>                     and why what is wrong is wrong.
>It would be really nice if he could make up his mind between the OT and
>NT about what's right and wrong. I mean, are we supposed to stone
>adulterers or aren't we? Are we allowed to get divorces or not?
>Which one is it, God?

Better than that, in the OT an illegitimate son may not enter the kingdom
of heaven.  But in the NT Jesus supposedly rises to heaven.  And don't
forget:  God never changes. :-)


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:10:33 GMT

In article <By166q.1xD.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
}In article <nyikos.722214039@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
}
}[text deleted, before and after this paragraph]
}
}#You are talking gibberish. I did not remove any attributions [in fact, I
}                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}#left in one too many; I've admitted this mistake in a number of posts].  

You know, I've kind of wondered about this.  How do you not remove any
yet leave in one too many?  Doesn't leaving "in one too many" imply that
you have removed some?  If one were to claim that one did not remove
any attributions, wouldn't one naturally claim that they, in fact, should
have deleted one, rather than saying "I left in one too many"?  


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:39:37 GMT

In article <-my1gdq@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>->>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>->>->>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>->>->>->Funny - she doesn't *look* shrewish...  :-)
>->>->>her .gif had me fooled too, for a while.
>->>->Larry has seen CJ in person
>->>then he doesn't have an excuse, does he?
>->An excuse for what, Mr. Keegan?
>do your own homework eric. you're responsible for your
>ignorance. you can't expect me to tutor you all of the
>time.
I don't expect you to tutor me, Mr. Keegan. At this point, I don't
even expect you not to be evasive.

>btw, do you want to imprison women who have banned
>abortions?
I fail to see the relevance, however:
I don't want to ban any abortions. The answer to your question should
logically follow.

>do you want to prevent rape victims from having
>abortions?
See above.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Has Petie shown that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?
Date: 22 Nov 92 15:46:18 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.722210207@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) changes his sig from Peter
Nyikos to PJN.  Given that SJM has been my sig since my first
appearance here in Talk.abortion, do you think I should be flattered
by this new sig?  I wonder if it symbolizes that Petie, excuse me, PJN
will no longer publicly lie, mess up attributions, and start insulting
people based on his own posting ineptitude.  We actually have an
opportunity for a test with this very post; Petie, I mean PJN writes:

>Michael Loomis has spoken out in favor of infanticide.  I can document
>this.

Please do so.

>Doug has been around longer than I, maybe he knows some more examples of 
>people posting on talk.abortion expressing support for legalized 
>infanticide.

I'm sure he does.  He has also spoken to Julius Caeser, Genghis Khan,
Napoleon, and Jack the Ripper in the last week to ascertain that all
are strongly pro-life.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:49:32 GMT

In <s6qpd0o@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com 
   (C.J. Silverio) writes: >

>We have Overpeck talking in his condescending way about women
>under stress making bad decisions, and about how they need
>counselling.

Why would you say this?  It isn't true.  Please retract it.

Bill
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: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:13:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.062022.129536@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> In <1992Nov17.205311.28467@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> >
> >In <1992Nov07.073010.101799@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com
> >   (Larry Margolis) writes: >
> >In <1992Nov2.195513.1120@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com
> >   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
> >>>It wouldn't have mattered if it were *free*, Eric.  This guy has
> >>>two daughters who watch as he systematically destroys his life,
> >>>his marriage, and his relationship with them.  He cannot keep
> >>>a job, so he stays home and "watches" his two-year old while
> >>>nearly catatonic.  The divorce is pending, btw.
> >>
> >>Then his problem is addiction, not drug use.
> >
> >Not according to him.  He thinks his problem is stress.
> 
> Whatever; the point is, you're not describing recreational use.
> 
> >>I know people who've done the
> >>same thing due to addiction to motorcycles, computers, ...
> >
> >Me too.  The difference in those situations is that the
> >individual *can* be available to those around him/her if
> >warranted.
> 
> Actually, the drug addict can be a lot more available than the
> motorcycle addict.

Story on another newsgroup a few months back about a guy.  He
said that before he started his hobby/avocation, he had a house,
two cars, steady job, and was happily part of a family with
a wife and children.  Ten years later he had lost his family
and owned a van, the clothes on his back, and the gear he
needed for his hobby (it's a pretty expensive hobby, too;
much more expensive than bird-watching and I think more
expensive than skiing).  This was because of his addiction
to the hobby.  Yet the hobby itself is a fine one, enjoyed
by 20,000 people worldwide on a regular basis, most of whom
hold down jobs and have families and enjoy the hobby and
their lives.  Many, if not most, of them put a great deal
into the hobby, but they don't get so wrapped up in it as
the fellow I mentioned.  Is the hobby the cause of his
problems or the addiction to the hobby?

Bill, you know what addictive personalities are like.  You
also know that some people can use marijuana or cocaine
and not get involved to any great extent in the substance.
Alcohol too, for the matter of that.  Other people try any
of them once and become addicted in long or short order.
The problem lies not in the substance itself, but in the
personalities and susceptibilities of the user.

As for the individual being available to those around him
or her, availability decreases to a lesser or greater extent
with any addiction.  The computer addict will not be dragged
away from his system to look at little Debbie's report
card.  He'll do it "later."  The motorcycle addict won't
be at Jessica's Little League game because he's taking
Highway 1 with his buddies.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: The Best of Enemies - John Dee
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: na
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:31:05 CST


In article <1992Nov23.051005.26181@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Nov20.153702.719@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> >dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> 
> >>> Dee was recently sentenced to a six-month jail term for violating the 12-
> >>> person limit at the Robbinsdale clinic.  He will start serving his term on
> >>> the day after Thanksgiving.
> 
> >> What is the meaning of a "12-person limit", and why does a person
> >> deserve six months in jail for violating this limit?
> 
> > The abortion protests at the Robbinsdale clinic got rather rowdy this 
> > summer.  In the interest of keeping the peace, a judge issued a temporary
> > restraining order saying that no more than 12 people from each side could
> > demonstrate in front of the clinic.  
> >
> > As for Mr. Dee, he has been arrested many times at abortion protests, and
> > as a repeat offender, merited the extra time.
> 
> I still don't understand why a non-violent protester deserves
> six months in jail.

The Robbinsdale clinic was able to get the restraining order because
they videotaped protests, which convinced the Judge that the protests
are not non-violent.  Mr. Dee was part of the violent protests.

>                     Who cares how many times he violated
> the restraining order?

The Court cares.  

>                         That still doesn't warrant a six
> month jail sentence.  
>  
> >Chris Lyman  
> Doug Holtsinger

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Question for the Pro-Lifers or Anti-Abortionists or whatever
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:15:34 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Nov19.000241.5744@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>From article <ymt1y#_@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>>If you are pleading on the half of incest or rape victims, that is
>>>one matter.  However, the MAJORITY do not fall into this and they 
>>>DO NOT fall into this supposed UNWILLING catagory.  They may and 
>>>probably do fall into the UNPLANNED or rather LACK OF PLANNING 
>>>catagory or even into the UNEDUCATED one.  Families needs to teach their 
>>>children (males and females) how to control their body - don't just let 
>>>them run wild and then excuse their actions.  The error of thinking
>>>that pregancy is unwilling is that the action (the sex act) is so 
>>>trivialized and young girls think they need to give themselves to
>>>some supposed man to gain acceptance.  Everyone needs to learn self-control
>>>and self-acceptance.  One doesn't really gain either by having sex.
>> 
>> For someone who professes to be a Christian, you sound terribly
>> full of hate.  Perhaps you should ask yourself why this is so.
>
>Cathi, this is so bizarre, the only thing I can call it is a non-sequitor.

Actually, I would ask Richard if he has ever really been in love.  I'm
talking about the kind of love that makes you do things you might not
normally think about doing.  For a young person, boy or girl, falling in
love can make you want to do things for the other person (like making love
with them).  Heck, when you fall in love as an adult you want to make love
to that person too.  Why make it such a crime for a young person to
express love (rhet)?

It sounds to me as though Richard has never really fallen in love.  I also
disagree with his last 2 sentences.


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:33:12 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Nov19.002242.6511@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>For a fuller expression of Christianity, see Catholicism.

More full of ____.  (Fill in the blank.  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 7
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:33:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.065804.18302@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <32737@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>
>>Pregnant women are not criminals, Jim.  They also have
>>not entered into a contract to bear the child by engaging in a sex
>>act.
>
>I agree on both points.  Criminal law and contract law are not the
>only bases for legal obligation, though.

Yeah, add "torts" and you complete the set. Well, arguably, one could add
tax/excise/tariff, but that's seen by many as a special form of implicit 
contract.

Under which species of legal obligation do you suppose "obligation to carry
child to term" falls under?

									- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Centrist position on abortion?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:43:58 GMT

sounding more than a bit paranoid....

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes: >
->>I am not about to hold my breath waiting for Sweety Petey to respond 
->>or even acknowledge it though.  I suspect he considers it beneath his 
->>dignity to recognize the thoughts and writings of us lesser mortals 
->>known as women.  Of course maybe I should count myself fortunate that 
->>I am obviously still on Petey Luv's Good Girl List (those of us brain-
->>less, but misguided) and not with Adrienne on his Bad Girl List (those 
->>who are evil, conniving, infidels).  Hmm, isn't there a theory about 
->>men who see women in such a Madonna/Whore dichotomy?  Ooops!  Better 
->>stop now before Bill takes me to task for psychoanalyzing without a 
->>net.license.

->Hmm.  Psychoanalyzing?  Is that what you're doing, Sarah?  Not 
->to worry; I'm not supposed to question the posts of net.women 
->anymore, lest I appear to "condescend" to them.  

it's not your questions, bill. it's your style. talk
with someone who has a background in dealing with
people and see if they can help you; perhaps a
counselor or someone in psychology.

->It must be somewhat reassuring when, in the absence of a sound 
->argument, one can simply hide behind allegations of "Misogyny!".  

heck, if that's the case, you should try it. you
certainly sound like you could use some reassuring.

->But then again, I suppose crying "Wolf!" is politically expedient, 
->at least in the short term.

you sound bitter, bill. are you tired?

btw, do you want to imprison women who have 'banned'
abortions?

would you prevent a rape victim from having an
abortion?
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some Pro-life...conclusions?
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:28:18 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Nov19.231751.6495@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Would you mind telling me how you reached this conclusion?  I don't
>think I've ever heard a pro-lifer say that abortion is wrong because
>it sometimes fails to kill the child.

I have seen repeated examples presented in which stories are told about 
failed abortions in which a child results.  These examples are invariably
associated with an anti-abortion statement.  If they are not arguments
against abortion (or at least perceived as such by the pro-life
movement), why do I keep seeing them in pro-life ads on TV, and in
postings on the net?

Joe
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 3
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:55:46 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov17.062948.16995@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
writes a lot of gobbledy gook about how to determine this amorphous
thing he wants to call the general pattern of things.  We're in
agreement about one point: As a society we will make a determination
about whether women should be denied the right to abortion as a
consequence of having consensual sex.  We disagree as to the answer,
and it looks as if my side is about to have a series of important
victories.  

>Of course, there are other distinctions -- organ donations where a
>parent is the only possible donor are exceptional, while pregnancies
>in which the mother is the only possible person to bear the z/e/f are
>the rule.  In addition, I think people are stricter about acts of
>commission than acts of omission, and abortion seems to be the former
>while failure to donate an organ seems to be the latter.

So, do you favor forcing organ donations in cases of unique donors?
The commission-omission distinction turns out to be no more objective
than the definition of what acts people will be held responsible for:
more semantics to cover a case of disagreement which you are about to
lose in the Congress.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:31:11 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
->And this from our own Sweety Petey Honey Nyikos who *just* before this
->article told James Keegan that he didn't lie about adrienne regard.

hell, if he can lie about you and susan garvin, there's
no reason why he can't lie to me.

perhaps he's displaying misogyny when he lies about
women and only lies to men. wait a minute! didn't he
lie about dean? never mind.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame