HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Patrick's ideas of what makes right (Was: Bare-Fased [sic])
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:14:32 GMT

In <PATRICK.92Dec27094849@blanco.is.rice.edu> patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <1992Dec26.222823.13078@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>  In article <34633@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>  >
>  >I'll happily stand on my net reputation for lying versus yours.  

>  I'll happily stand the validity of most "net reputations" against truth
>  anytime.

>...at least, until the reputation approaches the truth a little too closely.

>  If there didn't exist people like our dear TSAKC who spend virtually all of 
>  their posting time trying to fabricate people's "net reputations", then maybe
>  "net reputations" would be a useful yardstick, Stephen. But with all the
>  context-cutting, misdirection, obfuscation, and outright LYING that these
>  folks do, do you really think that the resulting "net reputations" are worth 
>  a damn? They are tainted by the obvious vendettas of the people that create 
>  and sculpt them.

>In other words, they're no good because YOU didn't create them -- classic
>"do as I say, not as I do", it looks like to me.  At least you're
>consistent, kebbin.  :-)

Heh heh heh.  Formula for a PLH rebuttal: no matter what your opponent
says, claim it's only because HE says it.  Well, the truth in this case
is otherwise.  Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?  is her
address still a mystery to the net?  Why?  Your old nemesis, Chaney,
once said she was flamed off the net by the politically correct
pro-choicers.  [He did not use the words "politically correct."  That's
my embellishment, to distinguish between the likes of Keegan on the
one hand and a small handful like Elizabeth Bartley and Will Steeves
on the other.]

>--PLH, people that think two wrongs make a right -- enjoy their antics while
>they're around...

So, if PLH does not belong to this group, why did he insist on Chaney 
coming to his place to collect his apology?  Apparently he thinks Chaney's
wrongs toward him and his insistence do make a right as far as he is
concerned.  To top it off, he is ready to add another wrong: if Chaney
comes to see him in the wrong place (no hint as to what the right place
is) PatricKK will see to it that the appropriate police escort him away.

Perhaps PatricKK thinks his wrongs, whatever their number, all make 
right--or, to put it in more traditional terms, might makes right.
[See my follow-ups to Garvin on how much mightier the regular politically
correct pro-choicers are than the regular pro-lifers--Suzanne and I, with
Doug as an honorary member, now that Chaney appears to be on extended 
vacation.]

PJN
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:34:31 GMT

In article <34655@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.225912.15810@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes: 
>
>>You are confusing the JUSTIFICATION of a right, with the permissible manner
>>of its ASSERTION. An assertion of BA rights, as you correctly point out, is 
>>justified by the location of the z/e/f; however, the right that may be 
>>asserted is primarily one of REMOVAL (i.e. changing the "location" of that 
>>z/e/f), not necessarily destruction. That's where you went wrong.
>
>Oh.  So you think viable /z/e/f/s need protection from bloodthirsty
>mothers and their doctors?  

Did I say that? You excel in straw men, Mezias.

Before viability, I would oppose all attempts to restrict abortion, purely
on Constitutional grounds. After viability, I would allow the legality of
"normal" abortions to be decided by popular mandate. So, you see, although
I don't happen to support any abortion restrictions, viability is still a
crucial dividing line for me.

Have you grokked yet the distinction between limiting a right, and limiting
certain manners of its assertion, Stephen? I may believe in the right to
not be assaulted, for instance, but on the other hand, I wouldn't 
necessarily condone the actions of someone who, when merely slapped or
pinched, pulls out a gun and shoots their "attacker". That is an 
inappropriate way to assert a perfectly valid right. Similarly, so the pro-
life argument goes, destroying a viable z/e/f is an inappropriate way of
asserting BA rights, especially since it purportedly violates the very
BA that the right is premised upon -- specifically, the BA of the fetus.
To a pro-lifer, no doubt this seems the height of hypocrisy -- violating
one human's BA in the name of asserting the BA of another....

DISCLAIMER FOR THE VERACITY-IMPAIRED: I do not necessarily concur with any 
of the pro-life arguments above. I present them only for the purposes of 
facilitating open, balanced and fair debate on the issues; not to advance 
any kind of pro-life agenda.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:06:43 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f 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: The Village Waterbed

In <C01JMJ.Jt@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>
>Heather's question has an obvious and trivial answer: Take the case of the
>born child vs mother.  How does society deal with the rights of these
>individuals now?  Since I see no difference between a born vs unborn
>child, the same resolution of rights applies.

A person can not be forced to donate bodily resources to their child,
even if not doing so will result in their child's death.  Apply this
to a fetus.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Summary: Keith Ramsey, please pick up the white clue phone. 
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 19:18:25 GMT

In article <1gs5tdINN88o@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
>In article <14DEC92.20420711@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>|I'm willing to sign a legal contract stating that I will not abort any 
>|unwanted pregnancies if you will agree to be fisted for nine months.  What's 
>|nine months of your time compared to the life of a cute little unborn baby?
>|
>|Prove that you are willing to sacrifice your time, money, and bodily 
>|resources for the life of a fetus, or quit demanding that women do that.
>|Otherwise you are nothing more than a sexist hypocrite.
>
>I find this argument bizarre.

Why?  Because you're a sexist hypocrite?  Or do you just find it strange that
women would want men to endure the hardships of pregnancy also?

>
>For one thing, there is a big difference between being willing to make
>sacrifices which are actually necessary to "save" the life of a fetus,
>and being willing to submit to the conditions imposed by someone else
>as a condition for their doing so. It is similar to the difference
>between being willing to risk your life to defend another, and giving
>in to terrorist demands.

It's also very similar to the difference between going through a life-
threatening pregnancy becuase you want a child, and being forced to endure
it becuase the fetus worshippers have managed to get abortions outlawed.

>
>I doubt whether such a "contract" would be enforced, by the way. I
>also hope that you are not the kind of person who would arrange for
>someone to be "fisted" for nine months just in order to make a
>debating point.

There certainly seem to be enough people who want women to be killed "just
in order to make a debating point."

--
=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???=
=This .signature file will be in Chicago, Illinois, USA From 12/26/92 until   =
=01/03/92.  Have you given *YOUR* .signature a vacation from the net lately???=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:27:47 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes about
phoney:

->Seems to me that if he *wanted* to apologize then he could ask someone
->whose news server *wasn't* sick to post the apology for him.  Or even
->(gasp!) email the apology to the person to whom he's apologizing.

i disagree with the email alternative. nyikos posted
his lie about adrienne in a public forum. that's the
same forum to which he should distribute his apology.
as far as his news server being broken .... he's posted
over a hundred articles since he made his false claim.
maybe his server is just broken when it comes to
processing a post containing an apology.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:57:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.000254.18927@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:

}You are saying here that in a natural state (no law), a small man cannot
}enslave a bigger man, or a minority cannot enslave a majority.

}You are saying here that in a natural state (no law), a developed
}person can stop the beating heart of a lesser developed person.

Umh, without law there is no slavery.
     without law there is abortion.

In some cultures, the term "law" is not law as we know it.  It sometimes
is little more than peer pressure, in others it is far more like what we
are used too.

}What's the difference?  In both cases, the stronger can impose will
}upon the weaker or underrepresented?

In some cases, the stronger can indeed impose its will on the weaker.

Sometimes the weaker impose their will on the stronger.  This is done
usually with the help of legislation or some kind of enticement to 
enlist the aid of some strength, often refered to as the "teeth" behind
the provision.

I'm sure there are other explanations about law and the like which would
be much more satisfying and correct than I can provide.  If you
find it difficult to differentiate between slavery and abortion I
doubt that I could do much to explain strength and the law...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53684 alt.abortion.inequity:6230
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Apologies to Garvin, Keegan, clueless newbies, and Regard
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:39:39 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

for almost two months, PHoney has been skirting posting
an apology to adrienne for falsly accusing her of forgery.
let's see what he does here ...... 

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
|>Here I go again, trying to post this for the third time.  This time, I
|>am taking the precaution of e-mailing copies to Adrienne and to Will
|>Steeves, who has kindly offered to post things for me if my netserver
|>misbehaves again.

not a bad start...

|>This is to Susan Garvin for misattributing some things to her in a post.

that's susan, deserved, but not adrienne....

[...]


|>I even speculated that the "missing" attribution line had been deleted
|>by Adrienne, and for this I apologize to her, and also to Keegan and anyone
|>else who was confused by my claim that the line was missing.

here's one to me and another to adrienne, but not for his
false accusation of her "forgery."

[...]

|>But now, on to something which has been confusing people for more than
|>two months now.
|>
|>To Adrienne: 
|>
|>You and I have in the past had a reasonably civilized e-mail
|>conversation, but when we get to talking on the net, we both get carried
|>away by the presence of an audience into doing a lot of flamboyant things
|>we wouldn't do without them.  For two months now, we've let a 
|>tangled web develop from a rather simple mistake that could have been 
|>corrected very simply in a one-on-one conversation.  
|>
|>I propose we start to unravel this tangled net from the beginning.  Since
|>I made the initial mistake, the dubious privilege of first apology falls
|>to me.
|>
[....]

|>Give up?  In chronological order, the first error was to somehow neglect to
|>delete the > in front of the Suzanne Rini reference, making it look like it
|>had been made by Adrienne, even though the subsequent lines, clearly from
|>the Rini book, have no > in front of them.  Apparently I had deleted a
|>whole line of text by Adrienne except for the  >  and typed on without
|>hitting <return>.
|>
|>This, however, was not the mistake about which Adrienne complained in her
|>follow-up to the above post.  The mistake was to leave in the following
|>attribution line at the beginning even though there were no lines 
|>preceded by >>> anywhere in the post:

|>Anyway, I hereby apologize to any clueless
|>newbies who were confused by them, and to Adrienne for having to devote
|>some time to setting the record straight for the benefit of these newbies.

is this it? is this the long overdue apology? is this the
apology for your false accusation?

if it is, you did a pretty characterless job, PHoney.

                                                                        
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53095 alt.abortion.inequity:6199
From: goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 26 Dec 92 16:17:00 GMT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>>just imagine if the government WERE to outlaw abortion and started telling
>>women to "hedge their bets"...

>We don't have to imagine.  We can remember.

Oh!  So you *would* have a problem with the government telling women to
"hedge your bets"?

You seem to have no problem telling this to men, however.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * aibohphobia, n. The fear of palindromes.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson)
Subject: Re: A question for Suzanne.
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:22:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.201543.21315@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach ) writes 
>>
>>Were I he, I would refuse it. 

But Suzanne do you object to others using this resource? Nevermind what
*you* would do?

>> To me there is a large difference between
>>receiving a transplant from someone who died naturally, and receiving one
>>from someone who was killed specifically to provide me with it.   You say
>>it was to be aborted anyway?  Still, I myself would refuse to profit from
>>the deliberate killing of someone else.
>
See above question
 
>Hmmm??
>
>Enjoy your dinner last night?  Live in a nice house?  Good thing that
>the land it's on wasn't taken from anyone else.  Or that anyone was
>killed so that you could live there and enjoy dinner.
>
>BTW, many native Americans [still] living in your part of the country?
>And Arizona (or is it New Mexico?) _is_ still part of the US?
>
>-- 
>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche


Way to go Ray, Personaly i have to admit that your point jumped right out at me 
Because to tell you the truth Suzanne it doesn't take much logic to 
realize that much life was taken to give you the land that your home (whatever
that may consist of) sits ond tnd that was not for the taking.  Many people
died and are still dying to supply the "rights" of invading European 
Anericans to "own" that land.  I wonder, do you ever think about other 
issues, or is abortion the only thing you rap yorself up in?  Or maybe
things like mass death (even of CHILDREN (living, breathing, talking ones)).
Do you ever think about those things or do you just like to rehearse the lines
you've learned from other abortion protesters just like you?

I don't know something to think about anyway...
Peace all,	
	Carrie

Standard diclaimer applyed to St.Olaf College, Northfield MN.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE ABORTION, DON'T HAVE ONE!

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: darcy is, well, darcy
Followup-To: misc.whine.kevin-darcy
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:23:02 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->I wonder if she would 
->be as forgiving of someone who joked about something equally tasteless in 
->alt.flame and DID apologize for making a mistake?

you're not referring to the idiot who used the fact
that her s.o. had been sexually abused to attack her, 
who then made about 25 posts denying any wrongdoing, 
who then apologized, and who then made an additional 
25 or so posts blaming others, are you?

oh wait! you're the twit who did that. never mind.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Petey Ny continues to blow smoke
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:36:04 GMT

In article <nyikos.725739272@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[Rip and slash]

>Heh heh heh.  Formula for a PLH rebuttal: no matter what your opponent
>says, claim it's only because HE says it.  Well, the truth in this case
>is otherwise.  Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?  is her
>address still a mystery to the net?  Why?  Your old nemesis, Chaney,
>once said she was flamed off the net by the politically correct
>pro-choicers.  [He did not use the words "politically correct."  That's
>my embellishment, to distinguish between the likes of Keegan on the
>one hand and a small handful like Elizabeth Bartley and Will Steeves
>on the other.]
>
Formula for a PHoney rebuttal: Make unsubstantiated claims, then quote
(from memory, no documentation) an individual no longer in the
newsgroup, but is still remembeed as an incredible twit.

>So, if PLH does not belong to this group, why did he insist on Chaney 
>coming to his place to collect his apology?  Apparently he thinks Chaney's
>wrongs toward him and his insistence do make a right as far as he is
>concerned.  To top it off, he is ready to add another wrong: if Chaney
>comes to see him in the wrong place (no hint as to what the right place
>is) PatricKK will see to it that the appropriate police escort him away.
>
Step two: Make moronic claims about a situation which occured long
before PHoney ever appeared on the net, and certainly long before
PHoney ever figured out what attributions were, and who was, in fact,
saying what.

>Perhaps PatricKK thinks his wrongs, whatever their number, all make 
>right--or, to put it in more traditional terms, might makes right.
>[See my follow-ups to Garvin on how much mightier the regular politically
>correct pro-choicers are than the regular pro-lifers--Suzanne and I, with
>Doug as an honorary member, now that Chaney appears to be on extended 
>vacation.]
>
Step three: Gratuitous insults which nobody in their right mind cares
about, followed by references to ones own articles, as if PHoney
actually had any credibility left, and anyone was taking his postings
as anything other then pure unadulterated tripe.

BTW PHoney, you still haven't replied to my questions and ocmments
regarding your stance on organ donations from anencephalic neonates.
How does it feel to know that you and your "Pro-Life" group are
directly responsible forthe deaths of BORN, LIVING, WANTED children?
And how do you reconcile your claim to being pro-life with the facts?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for FAQ (Was: Reconciling OT/NT)
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:56:06 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>|> Not only are you wrong, but by referring to them as pro-abortion, you're
>>>|> insulting many pro-choicers who are against abortion, but nevertheless
>>>|> feel that forcing their moral beliefs on others through laws would be
>>>|> a greater evil.
>
>An even stranger example is Steve Adams, who says "abortion is a
>responsible choice" to score debating points against a newbie, then
>turns around and claims he never believed the statement in quotes
>to be correct, at least from a religious point of view (funny, I don't
>recalling him mentioning religion when he made that statement to Elizabeth
>G.).  He is even predicting that he will very likely be a fundamentalist 
>very soon.
>
>You figure it out.

Notice how Peter twists the words, eh.  He accused me in another post of
saying 'abortion is the responsible choice' which I never did, never would
say.  I pointed out to him the difference between a definate and an
indefinate article.

Nowhere did I say I 'would likely be a fundamentalist.'  What I *DID* say
is that I would likely be worshiping at a fundamentalist church in the
future.  What Dr. Nykios fails to realize is that I *AM* a fundamentalist.
But *MY* fundamental reading of Scripture differs from many people who are
tagged with the 'fundy' label.  My fundamental understanding DOES NOT lead
me to enforce it through law, and in fact, I beleive it requires that I
don't.

I never have, and never will attempt to 'score points' in a debate.  I
state my case and limit the personal insults and ad hominem attacks.  Most
people around here would likely testify to that fact.

As for not making the explicit statement that I find abortion abhorent from
a personal moral point of view that is based on religion, I think it's
irrelevent.  Look at my basic philosphy.  I don't propse to impose my moral
views on others (though my kids will tell you otherwise, I suspect!) and I
don't think religion is a proper basis for discussing what to me is 
essentially a political or liberty question.

Dr. Nykios, you think about that.  When YOU figure it out, then perhaps we
can have a rational discussion.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion