HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Apologies to Garvin, Keegan, clueless newbies, and Regard
Date: 4 Jan 1993 08:39:57 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.725578290@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>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.  
 
Phoney, don't you think you'd be *safer* just speaking for yourself?
I really don't feel that my amazing lack of derisive response to your
unfounded claims of forgery amount to 'us' doing these 'flamboyant
things.'  I've kept my mouth closed pretty damned tight while you posted
HUNDREDS of other postings in this 2 month period with NARY a nose nod
at an apology for *your* mistake.  

Now it's quite true that many other people have taken you to task for being
an idiot, and being a hypocrit, and being dishonest, and all kinds of otehr
low-life kinds of things, but I've masterfully restrained myself from taking
literally hundreds of cheap - nay, FREE - shots at your silly ass.

I think *you* may have done a low lot of 'flamboyant things' you wouldn't
do without the presence of an audience, but I don't think you need to impli-
cate me in that foolishness, either. 

You managed it all by your lonesome, Peter.

> 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.  

Oh, "we" have, have we.  Who the hell posted OVER and OVER again in an
attempt to clear himself from his inacurate claim?

>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.

Once again, I'm going to refrain from taking the free shot.

>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.

Ah.  I see.

You are apologizing for taking time.

NOT for having accused me of forgery.

>Now let's see whether Adrienne is ... er ... woman enough to apologize
>for something in her follow-up that was, if anything, even more likely 
>to confuse the same clueless newbies.

Now, let's see if Phoney has the CHARACTER to actually apologize for the
accusation of net forgery that he made, and not for his handwaving ba-
zillionth attempt to try to make himself come out of this by having wiped
the grime off on other people.


Ain't it funny that PETER's apology because of PETER's mistake is somehow
contingent upon MY taking some subsequent action?

PETER can't seem to handle his own keyboard responsibly.

Feh.

Adrienne Regard



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: PostPartumDepression
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 10:51:05 GMT

ai245@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chris Thomas) writes:
] 
] <I can't believe how long this thread is!>
] 
] Does anyone believe there is such a disease characterized by depression,
] nightmares, etc., which could last for a liftime?  This theory is being
] touted on another board by Anti-choice folk.


Ever Notice the folks who try to bring up the alledged PAS
are never willing to come out and admit that the Well 
Documented Cases of Post partum depression would put
them in a Bad Logical Position....

Assuming that they are arguing that PAS were sufficient
reason to oppose abortion in the first place....

Barring the Fact that the Surgeon General Of the USA
under the Reagan Administration could find no evidence
of the alledged syndrome..... In an Administration most
noted for its support of the Allegation.... One sort of
has to wonder:

Was C. Evert Koop an Honest Man?

ciao
drieux


ps: well given some of the Faith in the Ether,
that shows up in talk.abortion, it is clear that
a lack of proof is clearly a sign that it must be true....


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"Let's Get Digital, Digital"
	Olivia Newton TheHideousMachOSFKonspirakii
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:46:35 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|>I should like to point out that almost nobody seriously proposes that
|>there should be no restrictions whatever on the process of getting an
|>abortion.

this statement is not correct.

i know of no pro-choice organization seeking to restrict
abortions. 

you sound like you're trying to make your specific restrictions
palatable to the people whose choice you want to take away.


                                                     
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- 30fps drop frame, 4 field lock)
Subject: Some people at least hide it better (formerly: March for Life)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF ... Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:47:16 GMT

What: <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu>
Who:  jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) [to Patrick Humphrey]

>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>you wind up losing yours.....

Congratulations, Mr. Price, you're in extensive company.  Perhaps I've
even met you before - maybe you were the guy at the pro-life march who
said I should be killed.  Or maybe you were the one protesting outside
a clinic and said I should have been aborted.  Perhaps you were the man
in wearing the bicycle helnet who rushed a police line and lunged at a
patient?  Oh wait, I know - you were the one saying your "amens" when
Randall Terry publicly encouraged his followers to pray for calamity
to strike the family of an abortion provider.

Nah, you're probably just some random bozo who only pretends to respect
life, and there are a lot of those.

You're an embarrassment to humanity.  IMO of course.

--Jay T Stein ... adding the above, along with Suzanne's "look at what you
  married" comment, into his pro-life quote file.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: An Item for Dougie
Keywords: trees
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:40:25 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>What does this have to do with abortion?

I dunno Dougie, you were the one who originally insisted that it
was legal to cut down trees on your own property.  I take it you
didn't have any abortion-related point at that time?

              -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:27:23 GMT

In article <C0G8oI.6E1@athena.cs.uga.edu> 
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

> I personally find it repugnant to carry dead unborn babies around in a jar.
> Most would consider it disrespectful to lug a corpse of a fully grown
> person around, even if one were lugging aroud a dead Jewish body during
> the holocost to make a point.  But I can see why they would do that, or
> send pictures of aborted babies to advocates of abortion.

I remember reading about a public opinion poll conducted during the 
early 1960s which showed that 60% of the public disagreed with the
protest tactics of people who sought civil rights reforms.  Eight 
months after the poll was conducted, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was 
passed. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 7 JAN 93 14:32:54 GMT

In a previous article, markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) wrote:
>In <30DEC92.15120932@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> 
>>Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a 
>>right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?
> 
>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of 
>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
>right to life.

Didn't the man involved also engage in voluntary activities that created the 
fetus and put in a position of dependency?  Why do you feel that only the 
woman should be forced by law to use her body to support this fetus, when the 
man is perfectly free to refuse to donate organs, blood, etc. to his children?

>Mark Pundurs
				
				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: Now *wait* a minute...
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 08:21:19 GMT

On Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:38:01 GMT, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) said:

>In article <1993Jan9.032032.14586@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
>(Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Mr. Chaney, kudos to you for doing this, even if you say it is under
>protest.  

>Mr. Nyikos, if you had anything to do with this, kudos to you too.

>Mr. Humphrey, as far as I am concerned, you don't owe anyone anything.

Thank you, but I owe it even to Steve and Peter to be honest with them, even
if they can't or won't return the favor.  

>so much for the t.a love fest.  I think you are all scum, but hardly
>as low as Kevin Darcy.

Scum?  Jeez, just because I'm *still* an Oilers fan...:-)

--PLH, fortunately, the pre-season is still six months away...

--
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: 4 Jan 93 05:57:12 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
|   In article <1993Jan02.174533.19580@watson.ibm.com> 
|   margoli@watson.IBM.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|   >In <C02Con.3vo@cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
|
|   >> I know several people who reject nearly every
|   >> aspect of the religion, except for the principle that they must marry
|   >> a jewish person.  I really would appreciate an explanation for this.
|
|   > Children.  No way in hell would any child of mine be raised Christian.

Sheesh, Larry.  Marry an atheist.  No way in hell is any child of
*mine* going to be raised Christian, either.  My own Christian 
childhood is to thank for my vehemence in this matter.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Your sweet little book is a bizarre collection of out-of-context 
quotations, misquotations, misleading quotations, non sequiturs, errors 
of fact and just about every other dirty intellectual trick known
to man." --Tim O'Neill, on the JW's anti-evolution book
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:20:11 GMT

<1993Jan4.062332.16135@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
><1993Jan3.055618.24249@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1993Jan2.094941.7852@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>><1992Dec30.005219.9201@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
...
>>Perhaps I should clarify something.  I don't read all the posts in this
>>newsgroup.  And I'm not going to go out of my way to research everything
>>Susan might have said.  I have no evidence or experience to contradict
>>your quote of SG.  
>
>Nice little "out" you have there, Storga...

An "out"?  You mean *qualifying* my statements.  I rarely make unqualified
staements any more.  Oh occasionally I do (there I go again), but with
much less frequency than some people.  Do you have a problem with someone
qualifying their statements?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:15:42 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1icfejINNsnv@meaddata.meaddata.com>,
by johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend):

> If I run a live cat through a wood chipper, I'm breaking the law
> against cruelty to animals.

And our special today is lasagne... hey, did you hear that noise?
What *was* that?  Anyway, we also have an excellent gazpacho...

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
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
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:02:16 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >don't be so modest, kebbie. i believe you're the
-> >sole remaining person still posting who has been
-> >elected to a lifetime term on the council of
-> >net.idiots. your reputations spans newsgroups.
-> >you're famous. takecredit where credit is due
-> >kebbie. there are many idiots on the net. but you're
-> >an elected net.idiot.
-> >
-> Didn't Suzzie Forgasm get simoultaniously elected to the council of
-> net.idiots, the net.stupid.conspiracy and net.rabid.fundi all at the
-> same time? Were hers merely 1 year memberships or something? If so, we
-> should hold another election. She's surely due for permanent
-> recognition. 

heavens no! the council of net.idiots is a special
group generating disdain from many, many newsgroups.
suzanne has, to the best of my knowledge, generated
disrespect in talk.abortion pretty much exclusively.

-> This will be such a tough year. with Suzzie, DODie, and PHoney all
-> trying so hard. And now Airplane Boy seems to be tossing his hat in
-> the ring (to the sound of much of net.land tossing their cookies into
-> the ring).

i think galen reflected this sentiment earlier
today: these people are all idiots and liars, but
their "fame," such as it is, is fairly localized;
certainly nothing like darcy's when he was elected.

someone once suggested that individual newsgroups
conduct their own newsgroup.idiot contests though.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:59:56 GMT

In article <markp.726625670@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
Pundurs) writes:

>>>In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was
>>>denied her
>>>right to choose avoiding pregnancy.
>>You don't consider contraceptive failure (as in, the surgery didn't
>>work) to be a case in which the woman was denied her right to avoid
>>being pregnant?

>No; why should I?

Because the whole basis for "rape or incest" bit is that in those cases
the woman could not choose to avoid pregnancy. When a contraceptive
fails, the woman has obviously made an effort to avoid pregnancy, but
was foiled by (fate/luck/G-d/hoodoo). Now answer the following question
with only one word, yes or no: If a woman who chooses to avoid pregnancy
gets pregnant anyway, should she be allowed to abort?

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Garvin list, Woodyatt off, Demetrio on.
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:57:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

Suzanne Demitrio asks "Doctor" Peter Nyikos:
> >Do you always use 'first' to allude to 'second'?  Ever coach Little League?
> 
> No, and no.

I'm happy about the second, because children should have
coaches who know the game.

 I say this because "Doctor" Peter Nyikos then wrote:

> There is a special rule in baseball that if the catcher drops the third
> called strike, the player can run to first.

No, you stupid, stupid man.  The rule is that if the catcher drops the
third strike, whether it is called or swinging.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Challenge to Chris Lyman -- Get a real argument! (was Re: Greetings
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:00:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.195319.12715@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>>chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>> Imo, the evolution/creation debate is yet another facet of what seems to
>>> be a cultural war between the radical and/or religious right and the
>>> progressive and/or humanist left.  I am particularly struck by the
>>> similarity of mindsets between creationists and anti-abortionists.

>> Here it is once again assumed that all anti-abortionists are religious
>> zealots.  I am an atheist, anti-creationist, and anti-abortionist.

> My mistake.  I hadn't posted in two weeks (got rusty, you know), and so
> neglected to insert the appropriate qualifiers.  

In other words, you accidently let your true colors shine through.
Chris Lyman, like so many other pro-choicers, can't seem to stop
portraying pro-lifers as religious zealots, despite evidence from
this newsgroup that many pro-lifers are opposed to abortion for secular 
reasons.  If the religious stereotype were to crumble, Chris Lyman
would actually have to start presenting solid arguments, instead of
the shoddy arguments based upon stereotypes which we are often accustomed 
to seeing from him, such as the following statement:

> However, I invite you to
> attend an anti-abortion demonstration so you can see for yourself
> the religious content of the signs and the slogans.

I challenge Chris Lyman to present a rational argument in support
of abortion rights, if he is able to, instead of rationalizing 
his position using a stereotype that no thinking person could
mistake as a serious argument.

>> I understand your outrage.  Indeed, I feel much of it myself.  I
>> think we must refrain from dismissing a certain viewpoint merely
>> because idiots espouse it, however.  You will find that there are
>> idiots in every cause.

> Agreed, with reservations.  Wrt anti-abortionists, I see all too often
> an unwillingness to incorporate facts presented in this forum into their
> thinking.  Very much like creationists.  This kind of anti-intellectualism
> does not serve the future of our Republic very well, imo.

It is Chris Lyman who is unwilling to incorporate facts into his
thinking.  He, and others like him, refuse to consider the fact
that many pro-lifers are opposed to abortion for secular reasons.
He must resort to stereotypes and appeals to anti-religious bigotry
in order to support his position.  


>Chris Lyman


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:46:42 GMT

In article <markp.726793936@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark
Pundurs) writes:

>The word "possibility" is crucial here:
>Sex = possibility of pregnancy; so
>Consent to sex = Consent to possibility of pregnancy.

Nuh-uh. Sex=some or all of the following, depending on the mindset
of the participants: touching, cuddling, sexy underwear, moaning,
licking, body-butter, and a million and one other things of which
"possibility of pregnancy" may or may not be part of the plans.
But to humor you, I'll add the following tidbit:

Use of contraceptive = Actively expressed desire not to procreate.

Simple enough for ya?

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.magick,alt.pagan,alt.drugs
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Abortifacients
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:46:49 GMT

A lot of people have recommended planned parenthood, and I have to
second this.  I used to work for CARAL, the calif.  version of NARAL,
and we were told several times that Planned Parenthood was THE best
way to go for clinical advice, aside from a doctor who knows your
personal history.  Also, PP will give advice and counseling should you
decide not to abort the child, and will definantly give information
freely on any option you choose to discuss with them.

I'd say you should talk to them regardless of your final decision.

-Howard

-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                                   	   howard@netcom.com
"These check boxes actually function as check boxes." - from a SW spec
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:58:09 GMT

In <1993Jan10.220646.246@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

>In article <markp.726677631@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
>Pundurs) writes:

>>>The two cases are not so different as you might believe. In both
>>>cases, the z/e/f dies. The only difference is the circumstances of
>>>the conception.

>>Which IS an important difference.

>Not to the z/e/f it isn't!

But it is to the mother.

>>>Why is it okay for the z/e/f conceived of rape to
>>>be aborted, but not any other z/e/f?

>>>Answer: In the case of rape, it is a woman's right to abort a baby she
>>>does not want and cannot care for. Pro-choicers merely extend this
>>>right
>>>to include _any_ baby she does not want and cannot care for.

>>Your faulty leap of logic might be slightly justifiable in a reality
>>where there was NO way for a woman to avoid pregnancy with complete
>>assurance. In this reality, there are various forms of
>>non-genital/genital
>>sex that fill the bill -- not to mention sexual abstinence.

>Mark, you can't just _say_ my logic is faulty. You've got to prove it
>too. So I'll ask you again: Why is abortion okay in the case of rape
>or incest, but not in other cases?

I did. Here it is again: Chance (e.g., contraceptive failure) is an
inescapable fact of reality; rape is a violation of rights by a free
actor. Your logic has so far unsupportedly denied this distinction.

>Tep

Mark Pundurs