HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcadotte@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Beverly Cadotte)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:05:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.072416.29753@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes ...
>>This is easy.  It is not "bigoted" to note that any group which clings
>>so tenaciously to the ludicrous contention (and manifest lie) that
>>aberrant sexual behavior represents in some sense a "viable alternate
>>lifestyle" is bound to have substantial problems coming to grips with
>>reality.
>
>This would be a good point if you could show that homosexuality is, in
>fact, "aberrant sexual behavior".  Apparently it is only your own
>homophobia or bigotry that leads you to that conclusion since there is
>little evidence to support that opinion and none at all from you.
>
>About the only thing you've established is you own abberant social
>behavior.  Get help.
>
>-- 
>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche


This is not difficult to do. Aberrant: to deviate from the natural.
I would say partaking in activities with body parts not designed
by nature to be a part of these activities is aberrant. 
Why is it against moral law to sleep with
one who is married, or under 18  but not one who is of the same sex. 
MY moral law says it is.I know man can change alot, but I personally draw 
the line here. And guess what? I'm allowed !!!
Stating an opinion about this is  NOT aberrant. 
If however, you mean he is aberrant from deviating from your social
opinion then I sir, suggest you are the one in need of help.
Also, a spellchecker.


Beverly Cadotte


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:09:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.145813.6945@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.025305.24483@pony.Ingres.COM> 
>dan@Ingres.COM (a Rose arose) writes:
>
: :  ...  The fact that sex is used for pleasure 
: :  is sin--it should never be used for self-gratification!
>
: > No, it shows that you're an arrogant self-righteous prude. 
: > Christianity has no monopoly on the "value of life".  For 
: > you to claim otherwise just shows what an ignoramous you 
: > happen to be.
>
:  Who says christians are a bunch of prudes that think having sex for fun
:  is sinful?  
>
>I didn't say that Christians are a "bunch of prudes", I said
>that HE was a prude.  I mean, the guy thinks masturbation is
>immoral!   Nobody has to sit here and listen politely to such
>horse-hooey.  If you think having sex for fun is wrong, then
>you're a prude too.

	FINALLY! A subject that Doug Holtsinger and I can agree on.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: sexist assumptions
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:15:44 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1ji7tmINNfnv@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Man A's condom breaks, woman has abortion, man A pays no child support.
>
>>Man B's condom breaks, woman has child, man B pays $200,000.
>
>>What did man B do that man A did not -- given that the woman's choice
>>was unilateral in each case?  What is the source of his obligation,
>>and is it something he caused?  If he caused it, then how -- if man A
>>did not?
>
>Lets try a little analogy here:  You earn $1M and do not report it to 
>the IRS.  Some beancounter at the IRS decides to audit you.  You end 
>in hock for back taxes + fines, etc.  John Doe also earns $1M and does 
>not report it. He does not get audited.  He gets off scott free.
>
>Are you exempt from paying just because John Doe didn't get caught?

No, but I can call the IRS on John Doe and get both him caught and myself a
nice reward.  Actually, not a bad strategy.

Straw man knocked down -- try again Michal.

Or is it that the "last clear chance to avoid" mechanism, which is how we
assess liability in most other cases, isn't one you happen to like here?  

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: THE REAGAN ERA IS OVER, THE END IS NEAR!
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:43:26 GMT


In article <vbe19t8@zola.esd.sgi.com>,
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

#---
#I've discovered Holtsinger's Secret Identity, and NO!
#it isn't David Rasmussen!  Check it out:
#
#In article <1993Jan24.193355.16736@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu writes:
#|Fuck off, you pretentious sniveling little asshole.  You had 
#|better be damn glad that there are people who are willing to 
#|put their life on the line for pompous little shits like you.
#|No wonder IBM is losing so much money -- they've got too many
#|snotty cock-sucking Canadians spending their time posting to the
#|net.  Why don't you start pulling your weight and stop jizzing 
#|on the net before they fire your lazy Canadian ass? 
#|Doug Holtsinger
#
#
#The Canadian fixation CLEARLY reveals that Holtsinger is
#really....
#
#		TED KALDIS!!!!!

Are you sure?  I thought that this revealed a different identity.

In article <1993Jan24.203740.18605@ncsu.edu>,
dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-Billary Clinton is nothing more than a draft-dodging adulterous
-druggie who began back-pedaling from his campaign promises even 
-before he dragged his liberal ass into the White House.  The only
-reason he got elected is because Americans are too stupid to 
-recognize that he's a special interest ass-kisser who will  
-hand out cushy government jobs to the Democratic criminals,
-thugs, and party bosses who helped Clinton buy his way into power.
- 
-
-Doug Holtsinger

This sounds like pure Chaney/Hall to me.  It's got the Limbaughisms,
the pointless profanity, and the characteristic lack of logic,
after all.  

Maybe the Rev is the dreaded Chaney/Hall-Kaldis cross.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 18:14:12 GMT

In a thread he no doubt can't follow at all, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
(Mike Cobb) blurts out another inanity:

>Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right to 
>bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?
>
In order to have bodily autonomy, it is first necessary to be a
person. Would you care to take a stab at providing evidence that a
fetus is a person? Please ensure that this evidence is scientific, not
emotional, and that it is supported by reputable peer-reviewed texts.
And while you're at it, demonstrate why you think any theoretical
bodily autonomy of the fetus should supercede that absolute bodily
autonomy of the mother.
--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:56:55 GMT

In article <adams.728067759@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>>In article <v77tln8@zola.esd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>>All the quotes you have are from the Old Testament and as I have stated 
>>earlier that the Old Testament is Old history and no longer valid....
>>Although it is useful for studying history all the laws are not valid...
>>Before Jesus came the OT was what counted and If I am correct still counts
>>taoday for Jews but Christian follow the NT as the Law....
>Huh?  Jesus certainly didn't hold this position!  Remember what he said?
Sure, he talked the talk, but did he walk the walk?

>Not one iota of the Law (Torah) and Prophets would pass away.  What Christ 
>did was move away from doctrinaire following of the law and ask for following 
>the spirit.  Christ went BEYOND the literal requirements of the OT.  Read the
>passages in Matthew 5.  Christ goes BEYOND murder, to hate.  BEYOND adultery 
>to lust, BEYOND an 'eye for an eye' to turn the other cheek.
Nonsense. Jesus directly contradicts the literal requirements of
the law. The law requires you to stone adulterers.


>All of Jesus teaching is grounded in the OT.
Again, I think this is untrue. Jesus provides a very different
conception of the law than is found in the OT. For instance,
he ignores the entire law of purity, which was very important.

>Try studying the Bible a bit...
I have and so has CJ. DOn't assume that just because w disagree
with you, we are uninformed.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Followup-To: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:31:17 GMT

Kevin Darcy (kevin@rotag.mi.org) wrote:
: In article <17JAN199311115080@utkvx3.utk.edu> dchatham@utkvx3.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug) writes:
: >In article <1993Jan17.042429.16551@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org 
: >(Kevin Darcy) writes...
: >>Relatively short and sweet, primarily directed at those folks who keep mixing 
: >>up the economic and biological aspects of the paternity child support issue...
: >> 
: >>PROPOSAL:
: >> 
: >>Abolish traditional paternity child support, and, in its place, make every 
: >>man and woman who cause a conception, while not married to each other, pay an 
: >>"Illegitimate-conception Tax". ...
: >>
: >> [...]
: >>
: >
: >PROBLEMS:
: >
: >	1.  The issue of CONSENT is not addressed by this proposal.  Should
: >women who have been raped be further injured by being forced to pay an
: >18+ year tax?  On the other hand, should the children who are the result of 
: >rape not be supported?
: 
: Hmmm... an oversight. The tax should only apply to unmarried folks who cause a 
: conception by a voluntary act. A rapist should be liable for the tax, but not 
: his victim.

This still has loop holes (in fact comes rather near to a no-win situation)

You then create a situation where someone can attempt to get out of the tax
by claiming to have been raped.

Also what about where the pregancy is a result of deliberate sabortage of 
contraceptive devices, caused by either of the participents or a third party.
(false claims that an oral contraceptive had been taken also)

And also you have assumed that in a rape it MUST be the male who has commited
the rape.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Total apology to all concerened
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:22:08 GMT

The problems with my site I mentioned are for real.  I have trouble
sometimes no matter what group I'm in.  I'm not making up glitches to cover
up flaming someone.

I never meant to post that article.

The terminal I was one DID lock up, and when I said I slipped and hit 'send',
I didn't realize I had sent it until I saw it on the net that evening.

I left the lab thinking I had junked it.  And now the system has lock up
twice while I was making an attempt to find and cancel the article.

I've posted outrageous things on the net, but I swear I would never have
deliberately posted something like that.  The worst I've posted lately have
been jokes about Clinton.

From the moment I started posting the article, I fully intended on junking
it when I was done.

This is not an 'I was only kidding' after the fact message.  I thought by
expaining what happened it would be better than to simply ignore it.

Let me clarify something from the beggining of the post: I logged off
Monday morning honestly thinking I had hit abort.

Think about it:who would post something like that with their name all over
it?

I do not deny that I edited that message.  But I am saying it here and now
that it was a mistake that it ever got out.

I admit, it was a stupid mistake.  If I knew this would happen I would
never have started fooling with the editor like that.

I'm angry with myself that I did something like this without even trying.
That something as stupid on my part as a slipped keystroke could cause all
this.

When I saw the original, my emotions got out of hand, so to vent my fustrations
I decided to edit the message into an ultra-negative anti-abortion message,
but like I said, at the same time planned on junking it when finished.

In fact, I've done this a couple of times before, typed a flame message
only to junk it upon cooling off, never planning to send it in the
first place.

Again I say, this is not a case of 'covering one's ass', so to speak, after
getting into trouble.  In a nutshell, this is my sincere apology to
pro-life and pro-choice persons alike.  I feel pretty rotten that a
stupid mis-typed keystroke has caused so much damage.

Put simply, I f--ed up, and I freely admit it.  I'm trying to apologize,
and I hope this is taken seriously.

Like I said, I've done some outrageous things on the net, but I swear
absolutely that this is the honest truth, totally on the level.


I reget what I did, I am truly sorry.

To all reading this, please accept my apology.  I wished there was more that
I could do.

I feel like I've started the net version of a nuclear war because of human
error.
I am sorry.  If I could go back to Monday morning I would stop myself from
ever checking talk.abortion.

I have canceled the article, thanks to those who helped me with that.

This is for real.  I would never lie about my personal feelings.

Simon





Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:21:39 GMT

In article <bob1.727989714@cos> 
bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

> Funny thing is that nowhere in the ensuing articles or amendments
> did we tell them they could establish laws governing abortion.

Or laws governing homicide, rape, and robbery.
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:19:02 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <21661@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:
|> In article <1993Jan21.002902.20917@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
|> >
|> >Yeah.  Actually, I have been a little surprised at all of this negativism
|> >before he asssumed office.   I remember back to President-reject Bushs
|> >first 100 days, when he hadn't even filled his cabinet yet.   Clinton
|> >might not be doing everything 100% right by everybody,  but moss
|> >ain't growing on him either.
|> 
|> Rush is incensed that Bush lost because he threw his support toward him 
|> (he had previously spoken rather glowingly of Pat Buchanan) after Bush
|> invited him to sleep in the White House.

Not true. His posn. was pretty much the same as that of National Review's,
i.e., Vote for Pat as a protest against Pres. Bush in New Hampshire, but we all
know that Pat hasn't a prayer of actually winning.


|> Granted, Limbaugh would have supported whoever the GOP picked at its
|> convention, but in his show after his PJ party with the Prez, he was
								 ^^^^^^^
|> ebullient over George Herbet Walker Bozo.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In comparison to Bill "Even slicker than you thought" Clinton. If he had a
real choice, like between Bush and Kemp, no cigar for guessing just who
he (and most of the GOP, I think) would have chosen.


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:04:16 GMT

pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes ...
>  Better to put it up for adoption than to abort it.  And people do have to
>accept responsibility for their actions.  If a woman gets pregnant, it's as
>much her fault as anybody else's, and she should have to accept the respon-
>sibility and perhaps go through with the pregnancy.

And as a responsible member of society interested in having all of its
children well cared for, you, of course, will be more than willing to
pay for pre-natal care and the child's care and education, right?

You wouldn't want to be accused of shirking your _responsibilities_, now
would you?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57983 talk.politics.misc:69808 talk.religion.misc:27571 misc.legal:23305
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:16:25 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1jp6odINNij@gilligan.East.Sun.COM>, mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
> In article <13960@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Really?  Birth control was effectively unavailable in this country
# #to teenagers in the 1950s.  It was difficult or impossible for even
# #married couples to get, until the 1960s.  What happened to the abortion
# #rate after birth control became available?  It went up dramatically,
# #as did the illegitimacy rate.  Now, I won't claim that one caused
# #the other, because I'm quite sure that's not true.  But your claim,
# #that there is a "*direct* inverse correlation" is demonstrably
# #false.
# #
# #Birth control education, pills, condoms, etc., are readily available
# #throughout the U.S. now.  When are we going to see the unwanted
# #pregnancy rate drop to the level it was at in 1960, when these
# #items were rare, or usually illegal?
# #
# 
# Um... Just a thought...
# 
# You're neglecting the fact that the sexual revolution took place
# during this time period, aren't you?
# 
# -- Mike

What caused the sexual revolution?  The availability of birth
control pills, and an abolition of laws restricting access to
birth control.  So why has the number of unwanted pregnancies
gone UP?  This is quite the opposite of what you would expect,
isn't it?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:36:30 GMT

it always gives me, well, a nice, cared-for feeling,
when dodie puts my name in the subject line,
misrepresents something, and then is exposed as a liar
again.

heh.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.policy
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: CLINTON ACTION ON FETAL TISSUE EXPECTED TO BRING NEW TREATMENTS
Organization: NCSU
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:03:07 GMT

In article <74215@cup.portal.com> 
L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:

>	Copied without permission from:     
>	New York Newsday, January 22, 1993
>
>	CLINTON ACTION ON FETAL TISSUE EXPECTED TO BRING NEW TREATMENTS
>
>	By Jamie Talan
>
> President Clinton's lifting of the ban on federal funding of fetal
> tissue transplants should speed efforts to develop new treatments for
> Parkinson's disease, and possibly diabetes, Alzheimer's disease and spinal
> cord injuries, scientists said Friday.

This article completely ignores the fact that the Bush administration 
did provide federal funding for fetal tissue research which used
the remains of spontaneous abortions.  The funding "ban" was on 
research which used the fetal remains from elective abortions. 

> Several Parkinson's researchers were racing to finish federal grant
> proposals, due next week, that if funded would allow them to use tissue
> from aborted fetuses to treat people with the disabling brain condition.

There was nothing which could have prevented these researchers
from using federal funding, as long as they used the remains from
spontaneous abortions. 

> In 1988, before the ban was imposed, a federal advisory committee
> recommended the use of fetal tissue in treating Parkinson's. It drew up
> guidelines designed to prevent women from getting abortions in order to
> provide fetal tissue for loved ones or for money. The guidelines also say
> that doctors should not change their abortion techniques to help preserve
> fetal tissue for research.

None of these guidelines can prevent pregnant women from believing
that they would be helping another person by aborting and donating
the fetal remains. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:23:25 GMT

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <22JAN199316264320@oregon.uoregon.edu>, dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
>> In article <Jan.20.14.35.49.1993.26756@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
>>  kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes...
>> >In article <1993Jan20.031318.26063@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>> >gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
># ## Well, I'm not homosexual, . . . .
># # 
># #But you are an apologist for them.
># 
># I know I shouldn't say this, but why should gays need apologists?  As far as
># I'm concerned, it's none of my business what consenting adults do behind closed
># doors.
># 
># 							Daniel Reitman

>It's a shame that homosexuals don't believe that.  Instead, they want
>the government to tell consenting adults what they can do behind
>closed doors -- like employment, rental of housing, etc.

You are incorrect in the above statement.  What homosexuals want is
to not be descriminated against simply because of their sexual 
orientation.  I'm all for not giving special rights to homosexuals,
such as allowing them a classification as such, but I'm against the
descrimination of a homosexual simply because a person is homosexual.
More plainly, don't lump a homosexual into a quota pool as a 
minority, but in the same breath, don't disclude a known homosexual
from employment simply because of the same homosexuality.

allen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion