HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: re:  Extra! Extra!  God expands punishment for AIDS
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:15:35 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul22.160553.14158@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes writes:

>Pathetic.  It must be embarrassing for intelligent Christians to put up
>with this slander of their god - you know, that a purported compassionate,
>loving being could possibly be such a cruel asshole.  Do you really think
>you're gonna recruit anybody by scaring people with this wacko version of
>the Big Enchilada?  Methinks no.
>| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 

  As a Christian, I find it embarrassing beyond belief. But the loonies always 
make much better TV.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 

Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 18:48:58 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul23.164954.3957@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
#In article <1992Jul22.165113.24546@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
## = Susan "Lies Exposed for Free" Garvin writes:
#### = Stephen A Chaney steps into a four foot cowpie:
##
###[text deleted]
###
####This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath, that
####abortion was wrong, and then died of one? 
####
####And don't say that isn't true; Planned Parenthood themselves, in their
####big Sanger's Birthday celebration ads, talked about her death by an
####illegal abortion. 
####
####Don't even TRY to escape from this one, Garvin.
##
###Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966.  
###
###Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.
##
##Oh, MAN.  You shouldn't use a sledgehammer on someone's nuts.  Between him and
##Holtsinger, they *may* send a hitman after you :).
#
#Well, you forgot the other 99% of that Susan B. Anthony article that
#gave it to you guys on the chin. 
#
#That and now, Susan Garvin has herself called Planned Parenthood a
#bold-faced liar. 

No, Chaney, I called you a liar.

We have no evidence that PP said anything of the sort,
other than your claim that they did.  Your credibility, like
Holtsinger's, is nonexistent.  (Your anti-Semitic version
of a NYT article comes immediately to mind.)

Can you prove that PP said this?  They laughingly denied
any such advertisement.  I'm sure that if the ads really
existed, you would be able to produce verifiable proof.

I'm willing to ask the readership who they believe.  Are
you?

#That's a punch that ought to kill her, much less score a KO. 

No, Chaney, your lies, like those of your cohorts in falsehood,
cannot hurt me.  I have the truth on my side.  You have only
your own fantasies and those of the others, who, like you,
have no integrity.

##Whaddya say, Chaney?  Do we get a retraction?  Or will you blow smoke out
##of your ass like Holtsinger does?
#
#Well, we would first have to learn the skill from you and Garvin, undoubtedly
#masters at the art. The art of blowing smoke out of your ass...  

There's your answer, Steve.  More smoke from the A.B.  



#		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 

Projecting again, Chaney?  I realize that your Church seems to
be supportive of such acts, but you should remember that it
is *your* church.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:35:30 GMT

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Cool World applicant) writes:

>What: <1992Jul21.161854.15664@ncsu.edu>
>Who:  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)

>>but I think his strategy will backfire badly once 
>>more pro-choicers start voicing their religious views on abortion.

>One more time Doug - it is okay for one's *personal* view on abortion to
>be guided by religious beliefs.  It is *not* okay for abortion *legislation*
>to be guided by religious beliefs.  This has always been my stated view
>on t.a.

*HEY*
Don't you *DARE* try to impose *YOUR* personal views on me!!!!!
You have no right to tell me what can be legislated and what cannot
be legislated.  I don't need my religious beliefs sanctioned by you,
nor do I need my political beliefs sanctioned by you.  Fascist.

>Because it's irrelevant.  I have already said that her belief is, if based
>on religious tenets, an inappropriate basis for legislation.  Aside from
>that, it makes *no* difference what I think of her comment.

Again, you attempt to legislate what is and is not acceptable as a basis
for law.  You don't have that right.  Quit trying to force your personal
beliefs on everyone else.

                                     :)

>If you really think I'm basing my pro-choice view on religious tenets,
>Doug, then you haven't understood a word I've said.
>--
>     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
>   |   |      |  \    /        
>   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
>|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

Steve Kellmeyer
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29354 misc.test:9033
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.test
Subject: Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:59:15 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion,misc.test
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <22795@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>
>>steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>
>>>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>>> = (Doug Holtsinger):

>>>>>   "Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do so."
>>>>>    -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention

>> This displays the ignorance or malicious deception that both DOD and
>> Frau F. will go to.

>Oh please, can't you pro-choicers take a little ribbing? Are you all
>humorless gits? Think hard now... isn't it ironic that Clinton would
>force parents to take responsibility for their born children, but
>not their unborn children? I thought so.

Not at all, I fail to see why this comprehension eludes you. In one
case, there is a child, who needs care, (and IMO) actually has the right
to that care as the parents consented to providing that care by bringing
said child into the world. Case 2 has a lump of flesh developing off
the resources of another's body, and it is there without the consent
of the owner of said body (for those that wish an abortion, those that
carry to term obviously give consent). Can you see the difference, and
why your statement and view is ludicrous? An infant and a fetus are
two entirely different entities.

>And BTW, Ms. Forgach *acknowledged* that Clinton was speaking about
>child-support, but somebody (either you or Novak) deleted her acknowledgement.
>There's some "malicious deception" for ya.

It didn't show in her statements that were in the usual vein for her.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29036 alt.sex:25154 alt.politics.homosexuality:5197
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Just Say NO! to it all?????
Keywords: felony, sexual battery, coerced, abortion
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:08:01 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:

] In article <1992Jul23.070322.19014@cc.uow.edu.au>, nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos) writes:
] 
] [long article deleted, equating coerced abortion with rape]
] 
] Fine.  So abortion should be made illegal since some women are coerced
] into having abortions.
] 
] I take it you think that, since some women are raped, the solution to
] this is to make all sex illegal, both consensual sex and rape?

Ilana

I can understand 'Just Say NO! to Hetro!' - as clearly
they are DANGEROUS....

There are far and away more Hetro's in Jail for Violent
Dangerous Crimes, than there are any other single group!!!!

But just because THEY have problems....

well, doesn't mean that EVERYONE has problems....

But I can see your basic point, You NEVER KNOW
when some ClosetHetro might just pop out, and
start corrupting the morals.....

ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Tired of that subject line. "Pick the 'right' woman, John."
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 23:11:25 GMT

<1992Jul27.220431.11568@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
><1992Jul22.194056.26712@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>>Why do you feel we *need* women, and they *need* us?  You are using a very
>>all-encompassing turn of phrase.  Perhaps you are not aware of gays and
>>lesbians who seem to get along fine without the other gender being an
>>active part of their lives?
>
>Exuse me.  Are you saying that gays and lesbians do not have mothers and
>fathers?

... no ...
>
>I thought not.  EVERYBODY needs their parents.  And EVERYBODY had both
>a father and a mother.

In the context of the original post (which you cut out) the reference was
to sexual partners NOT parents.

>>>I don't view 9 months of pregnancy as affecting the woman more than
>>>dying.
>>
>>Maybe you should wait until you've been pregnant, and faced death, before
>>you make that choice for someone else.
>
>I've faced death several times.  I've nutured and supported two different
>women through pregnancy.
>
>Pregnancy may have it's rough spots, but it isn't dying.

And supporting a pregnant women is NOT facing pregnancy.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS AND PROLIFERS IS BIGOTED
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:46:39 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Jul7.192300.11581@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II) said:
>In article <NELSON.92Jul6223918@cheetah.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
...
>In THEORY homosexuality is just fine.  Two people of the same gender
>who just so happen to be sexually attracted to each other.  In PRACTICE
>homosexuality is an unmoral cesspool.  If you want loving Christians to
>stop wagging their fingers at you, try keeping your damned pants on.

<snicker>  What about the Pope, who doesn't even *wear* pants.


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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29319 alt.flame:11443 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:332
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:36:06 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
-> In case anybody missed the beginning of this, Darcy managed to
-> stop sucking the pus from his many facial zits just long
-> enough to make a "joke" about the sexual molestation that
-> Susan's SO went through as a child.
-> 
-> He's now thrashing around in his own shit, desperatly trying
-> to backpedal and save his ass.

kevin is an experienced backpedaler though. he's been doing it
since he first appeared.

-> It's not going to work.

you're right. it never does. kebbie never seems to realize this.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: SOME USEFUL STATISTICS
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:49:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.134505.9660@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:

>> The U.S. death rate for the unborn CHILD is ~100% in all
>> abortions recorded.

> Wrong.  The U.S. death rate for children is 0.00%.  Fetus != child.

You're both wrong. Some children (or fetuses if you prefer) do survive 
the abortion attempt, so the death rate is not 100%. See my recent
post entitled "Survivors of Abortion: The Dreaded Complication". 

>Chris Lyman 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:31:55 GMT

In <s5fm3-#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com 
   (Ray Fischer) writes: >
forgach@noao.edu  
   (Suzanne Forgach) writes >>
From article by dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
   (Doug Holtsinger): >>>

>>>   "Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do so."
>>>    -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention
>
>>You noticed that too, did you.  (Although he was addressing deadbeat dads.)
>>I guess whatever's _convenient_ to his campaign.
>
>Like you using whatever interpretation is _convenient_ to _your_ campaign?

Despite the contextual shell game, we should all eschew the notion that
the government can *force* citizens to behave in ways that reflect *its* 
notion of "responsibility".  Don't you think?

Bill
From: eeb1@panix.com (Elizabeth Bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh-no, not *that* one again!
Date: 30 Jul 92 03:31:21 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Jul30.003419.8862@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>What I was, and am, objecting to, is the practice of cloaking one's eyes
>with the garb of "education", insisting that people use Latin words like
>"fetus" instead of the equivalent English word "baby", in order to
>dehumanize another human being for the purpose of committing some cruel
>act against them, in this case, the bloody destruction of that human being.

Suzanne, I highly doubt that anyone on talk.abortion uses the Latin word
"fetus" in their articles.  Many of us do, however, use the *English*
word "fetus", which depending on your dictionary is subset of "baby" or
has an entirely different meaning.

>You can try to sanitize it all you want, with "re-education", mental re-
>programming, redefinitions, and even insisting that English speaking Americans
>speak Latin.   But you cannot make the underlying truth of the horror of what

I find the word "fetus" in English dictionaries.  This rather suggests
(to those of us with any sense) that "fetus" is an English word as well
as a Latin word.

English has the largest vocabulary of any language on Earth because we
appropriate other languages' words when we find them useful.

>you are advocating, the bloody dismemberment of millions of unborn children,
>go away.   No amount of whitewash will cover the bloodstains.
>
"Baby", as the term is usually used, means infants out of the womb.
"Fetus", as the term is used, means human beings still in the womb.
No amount of hysteria will cover those facts.

(You know, Suzanne, I don't much mind the use of the term "unborn
baby" because while it appropriates the connotations of "infant",
at least the denotation is accurate, and the "unborn" (much as I
find the term ridiculous) makes the denotation precise.  In other
words, "unborn baby" takes emotional strength from born people x
which the term doesn't deserve, but the word "baby" is commmonly
used to include embryoes and fetuses, and the word "unborn"
(though I think it's rather silly) makes it clear that "baby"
refers to an embryo or a fetus rather than an infant.  In any
case, I don't find the usage unacceptable -- just your defense of
it.  Pretty silly defense.)

--
Pro-Choice    Anti-Roe    Pro-Freedom of Choice Act      - E. Elizabeth Bartley

 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: steve franklin: homophobe or not?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 20:24:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes ...
> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>> |This is ridiculous. I am afraid that I no longer can sit passively during 
>> |this thread. Homophobia is an IRRATIONAL response to homosexuals and 
>> |their practices. It is NOT irrational to be disgusted by the concept of two
>> |(wo)men having sex. Although one should tolerate and leave alone such men and
>> |women, they should never be forced to accept, practice, or condone it.
>> 
>> This man claims not to be a homophobe?  Ugh.  I think he 
>> disgusts me.
>
>Why?  Because he thinks homosexual intercourse is disgusting and will
>never accept, practice, or condone it?  How is this homophobic?

I think that eating raw sea urchin is pretty disusting and am very
unlikely to indulge in such behaviour myself.  Nonetheless, to refuse
to associate with people who do enjoy eating raw sea urchin, or to 
imprison people who do, would seem pretty irrational and even phobic.

That's the difference between being homophobic and irrational, and 
not wanting to try it oneself.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Mary Joe & Saddam (!)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:17:16 GMT

From article by kartik@hls.com (Kartik Chandrasekhar):
> 
> 	To further complicate matters consider the following situation:

I suppose then, that this is a hypothetical situation.

> 	Mary Joe an airforce helicopter pilot goes to the gulf war and
> is captured, tortured and sacrificed at Saddams altar i.e his bedroom.  
> She is then released and comes back to the US and finds herself 
> pregnant. Do you think she will in her right mind let the pregnancy
> go to term. I think not. 

Ya know, if she did, we would then have a loyal U.S. citizen who would
be heir to the Iraqi throne.   Such a child could benefit our country,
and the world, greatly!


> ck

You see, ck, every child has a purpose in the world, if you care to
look close enough.

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: on slandering God
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:59:30 GMT

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
] > = (Andrew Fusco) writes:
] >> = (Gordon Storga) writes:
] 
] >>If you are referring to AIDS then you are sadly mistaken.  AIDS was
] >>originally a heterosexual disease believed to be spread primarily because
] >>primitives practiced anal sex as a form of contraception.  See what a lack
] >>of viable contraceptives leads to.
] 
] >Those heterosexual couples would never have contracted AIDS if they had
] >remained monogamous. Contraceptives alone won't stop AIDS.
] >See what a lack of monogamy leads to, you mean.
] 
] Ah, I see.  So now AIDS is not only "God's punishment of homosexuals" but
] "God's punishment of homosexuals and anybody that screws around".
] Additionally, God's apparent sloppiness leads to all those infected through
] blood transfusions, medical accidents and all the other horrors AIDS has
] inflicted.
] 
] Pathetic.  It must be embarrassing for intelligent Christians to put up
] with this slander of their god - you know, that a purported compassionate,
] loving being could possibly be such a cruel asshole.  Do you really think
] you're gonna recruit anybody by scaring people with this wacko version of
] the Big Enchilada?  Methinks no.

Steve,

We know that news travels slowly to the upper NorthWest,
and that you may be NEW to talk.abortion.....

But these Alledged 'Xtians' have been slandering their God
right left and center. Why do You think I simply refer to
most of them as FetalIdolators.

They do not wish to address the fact that what abuse of
Scriptures they have Used rests upon Profaning the Sacred....

{as that would require them to come face to face with 
their BLASPHEMOUS BEHAVIOR, and require them to think through
which is more imoportant, their bible, or Their FetalIdolatry! }

After one has made that mistake, does it matter what other
creative ways they go about defaming the divine?????


ciao
drieux




-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion