HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spinoza@next01wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Steve vs. Patrick
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:29:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.162442.18183@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill  
Overpeck) writes:
> In <15820@umd5.umd.edu> spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu 
>    (J. Skorecki-Weiss) writes: >
> In article <1992Sep30.211442.10398@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu  
>    (Stephennis Chahallaney, ...) writes: >> 
> 
> >> Someone is missing a bunch of their marbles there, and whoever it is,  
> >> needs help.
> >
> > Absolutely true, Stevennis, how true that is. It's a relief that  
you've  
> > finally acknowledged what just about everyone from BOTH SIDES has been  
> > saying for some time (with the exception of the NetClowns, Petey and  
> > Cinder). Since you seem to have missed this vital bit in the past [and  
at  
> > the risk of flames from Mr. Overpeck, defender of the medical  
profession  
> > extraordinaire], lemme reiterate for ya: a person who thinks that he  
is 
> > 1. a propeller aircraft
> > 2. a jet aircraft
> > 3. a fictional cyborg-type creature
> >
> > is most likely not dealing with a full deck. That is to say, there is  
a  
> > strong possibility that the individual in question is coping with some  
> > sort of mental deficit [Mr Overpeck: I spoke to Mother about this  
[didn't  
> > mention names, just asked "hypothetically". She's a nurse who has  
worked  
> > at not only St. Elizabeth's, but also several locked wards in local  
> > hospitals. While she declined to diagnose you without further  
examination,  
> > she did say that the behaviors described (paranoia, pretensions to  
> > Borghood, etc)could well indicate the need for treatment of what is  
> > generally known as a mental deficit.  
> 
> I asked my Mom, too, but she reminded me that those taking their first
> abnormal psych class tend to see mental disorders everywhere.
Thanks for the information, Bill. It's nice to know that you and Mom have  
a close relationship. As far as Psych 235 goes, I would not suggest action  
on the basis of MY experiences. Mother, however, as an RN who spent  
several years dealing with folks who ALSO thought they were jet planes who  
were gonna take over earth lock, stock and barrel of vitriol, suggested  
that perhaps mr. chahallaney might from treatment. 

> BTW, a "mental deficit" generally refers to impaired intellectual func-
> tioning, not affective or thought disorders as you've implied.
Although I would tend to view the inability to function in reality as a  
result of a mental deficit, I would seem to have erred in terms of  
terminology. I  stand corrected. Please insert "affective and/or thought  
disorders" wherever the words "mental deficit" occur.

jeff skorecki-weiss
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:25:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.212737.10910@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>RINGALINGALING! Alarm bell ends dream. Time to face reality, Elizabeth:

Dear, I *live* in reality.  I know that may seem strange, but it's so.

>Wasn't it YOU who also jumped in on that Dennis Hall prank that Roby
>started, which made me killfile you?

You KILLfiled someone publically because they called you Dennis Hall.
I then made one post calling you Dennis Hall.  This succeeded in my
goal of a) experimenting to see if you really KILLfiled people because
of one incident, and b) to get into your KILLfile so you wouldn't post
articles like this about me.  It seems in retrospect a pity I've been
taken *out* of your KILLfile; would you consider putting me back in?

>>->Pro-Choice            Anti-Roe                - E. Elizabeth Bartley

>When Roe goes and the HLA shoots into her state legislature, she'll wise up
>and drop that .sig because Roe will be all she had.

<Beth leans forward, puts her head in her hands, and shakes her head.>

Chaney....  Chaney, you absolute twit....  <Beth starts to giggle and
sobers up again.>

The reason the Human Life Amendment got started as such in the *first*
place is that an amendment to the constitution is the only thing which
can override the Supreme Court.  Roe would not interfere with the
Human Life Amendment in any way, shape or form, and there is no
correlation between overturning Roe and passing the HLA.

Besides which, the HLA hasn't an ice elemental's hope in hell of passing.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40335 talk.politics.misc:49351 alt.sex:31804 alt.rush-limbaugh:6459 alt.politics.elections:15051 alt.politics.clinton:8342 alt.politics.bush:7628
From: p00056@psilink.com (Faustus)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 3 Oct 92 13:07:43 GMT
Organization: Inferno@Eight.Bolgia.Malebolge
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>>I see that YOU, TOO, are unaware that abortion, for some women, IS
>>a responsible solution.  Please try to memorize this..I know it will be
>>hard, as you seem to have trouble rationalizing it, but it is true.
>>Now, take the pencil in your little hands and write 1000 times....
>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>>
>>There.  Is it sinking in yet?
>>
>>(nod your little head.)
>>Jennifer
>
>Jennifer, your statement works for anything up to the moment before 
>live birth.  Let me modify that statement for one moment after that.
>
>   Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted child.
>   Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted child.
>   Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted child.
>
>Why does your statement fail just because we wait one moment longer?  
>Perhaps because your statement is flawed.
>
>Ted
>-- 
>"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu

Well.. Teddy.. Its sure is nice you aren't a woman.. You never will experience
doubts, fears or trepidations of not being able to afford an unwanted child..
Your smug all-knowing attitude turns my stomach..I WANT TO SPEW!  But I
digress.. If you believe life is so sacred why arent you in africa aiding
the starving? If you are such a moral "another joke word" person why are
you so selfishly studying in school, your efforts would be of better use
preaching to the handicapped. They are unable to run away..
Actually.. I like to modify the offending statement..

   Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted problem.
   Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted problem.
   Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted problem.

Thats much better, seems to be the 20th century political feeling.
BTW: Since I spent so many years in the study of physics I've noticed
a few major camps.. Those who rejected the notice of god, became over-religous
and those who were relaxed with their faith.. The major jerks were the preachy
self-serving asses, who hardly could function.. 

Anyway.. Ted just stuff it.. Though I doubt you have been doing that.. Eh?


Faustus

	In a nice warm place...
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: The semantics of "human": Eric and Larry 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:33:39 GMT

In <1992Sep27.211356.8173@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>In article <1992Sep26.033029.124744@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com
>(Larry Margolis) writes:
>> 
>> In  <1992Sep24.224638.22235@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> > In article <1992Sep23.040913.29268@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
>> > <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>> > >
>> > > In  <1992Sep22.232133.29152@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Go
>> > > > In article <1992Sep19.164114.2317@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In article <1992Sep17.211955.9280@nntp.uoregon.edu>, egorr@hebb.uoregon.ed

> Eric
>> Larry

>> > Any other comments?
>> 
>> Why, yes.  Making up your own definitions and using them instead of the
>> standard definitions of words is neither understandable, clear, nor useful.

As a matter of fact, this is what mathematicians do all the time, simply
because they are dealing with concepts that have not achieved widespread
adoption, and the current words don't hit the spot.  So rather than cook
up new words all the time, they give old words new meanings. 

And, for that mattier, this is how our language evolves, and why dictionaries
need periodic updating.  Would even Larry use a dictionary that was
published around the turn of the century?

>Then please let me know what those definitions are that you don't
>understand and I will
>explain further.  

A very sensible attitude.

>> > > > A sperm or an egg, seperated, does not constitute human life.
>> > >
>> > > Are they human sperm and eggs?  Are they alive?
>> > >
>> > > They're *just* as much "human life" before conception as they are after.

I propose we ask a biologist whether a fertilized ovum is generally 
considered to be a member of its own species, and whether a sperm
or egg is considered to be a member.  

Note, I say "its own species."  I do not restrict the discussion to humans.
In fact, I prefer that the question be phrased as generally as possible,
so the biologist does not cotton on to the fact that abortion is what the
question relates to, and alter the answer to fit his/her ideology.

>> You choose to define some forms of human life as human life,
>> and other forms of human life as not human life.  Not only is it clear, but
>> it's irrefutable - if one accepts your axioms.

If biologists answer the way I suspect they will, Eric's definition is
by no means as arbitrary as Larry makes it out to be.

Peter Nyikos
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39933 alt.abortion.inequity:4200 alt.birthright:507
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:08:06 GMT

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
->In a recent post, Keegan has made it clear that he is not going
->to give permission.  However, he leaves me no other manner of
->responding to his allegations.  His behavior leaves me with the
->choice of letting the allegations go unanswered, or violating
->netiquette by posting the email.  I resolve the dilemma in the
->only way I can see.  I consider posting the email to be the
->lesser of two evils.

there was another way for you to resolve the dilemna.
you could have told the truth.

->I realize, also from his post, that he will simply accuse me of
->forging this email.  The only response to that is to ask the
->other recipients whether their archives (if they have them) or
->memories match mine.  Such dishonesty astounds me, but maybe I'm
->just naive.  I hope instead that he's simply forgotten about
->this email, and will admit a mistake.  I would be happy if he
->does this.

i do admit a mistake. my mistake was to admit in email
that i had asked a mailing list for support when i had
not done so, as the attached posts prove. . presumably, 
this is why you used as evidence my erroneous email rather 
than the post to the mailing list which you lied about me making.

since you've demonstrated your absence of concern for
the confidentiality of email, i have appended to the
end of this post the posts which i made to the mailing
list. t.a. readers will note that the entire content of
these posts are articles posted to t.a. with no
editorial comment from me whatsoever.

the subject of my mailing to the mailing list was
"please post your comments. thanks." the first mailing
contains a post from siren and a post from me. the
second mailing says ignore the first article because i
meant only to send the second. nowhere does it ask for
support. the only edits i have made to these mailings
are to remove the mailing address for the mailing list.

these mailings are irrefutable proof that cj lied about
me in her post.

the email that cj included in her post also indicates
that she lied about suzanne lucia.

cj's recent claim that this was not a matter of
contention when it happened was proven to be a lie by
cj's own evidence and evidence that i posted earlier
today.

the evidence follows===========================



Message-Id: <9205242216.AA27035@sungod.crd.Ge.Com>
From: keegan@crd.Ge.Com (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Date: Sun, 24 May 92 18:17:43 EDT
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
To: alias deleted
Subject: please post your comments. thanks.
Status: RO
Content-Length: 4526
X-Lines: 123

>From rdsunx.crd.ge.com!daisymae!keegan Sat May 23 23:20:53 EDT 1992
Article: 7642 of talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@daisymae.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Subject: Re: Why restrict third-tri abortions?
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, 24 May 1992 03:21:09 GMT

boyiny@lie.mit.edu (Siren) writes:
-> >[James Keegan to me]>[...]
-> >-> "all the usual pro-choice arguments" (value of women
-> >-> retaining bodily autonomy) still exist, with almost the
-> >-> same force.  However, the value of the fetuses increases
-> >-> with time, therefore a priori there is no contradiction to
-> >-> say that at some point abortions should become illegal in
-> >-> the pregnancy.
-> >
-> >at what point, then, are you willing to legisate against
-> >abortion; against, as you will, a woman's right to
-> >self-determination?
-> 
-> I am not opposed to any regulation which only prohibits
-> abortions in the third trimester on viable fetuses that are
-> for non-medical (physiological or psychological) reasons. I.e,
-> I think Roe vs. Wade is quite reasonable law, whatever its
-> constitutional validity.
-> 
-> I am opposed to any regulation of abortions other than that
-> normally required for medical procedures in the first
-> trimester, when it is truly a matter of privacy-- that is, the
-> society clearly has no interest in the particular fetus about
-> to be aborted.
-> 
-> I thought I had in fact said this many times.

well, if you don't know what you said, i certainly don't.

-> >didn't you once say you were pro-choice?

-> I think I must have. I still say that I am pro-choice, does
-> that sound wrong to you? It seems that I sound pro-choice to
-> most people...

i suspect that you do sound pro-choice to some people. i would
doubt "most." that is why i thought it important to point out
that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
third trimester.

-> 	"What's in a name, after all?" She mused...

interesting comment. your position doesn't differ all that much
from phil buckland's, just a matter of weeks. does your comment
mean you want to refer to yourself as pro-chouce even though you
are not pro-choice, at least not under the definition of the
position accepted my most people familiar with the abortion
debate?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.


>From rdsunx.crd.ge.com!sunroof!keegan Sun May 24 18:15:43 EDT 1992
Article: 7694 of talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@sunroof.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Subject: just what is a pro-choicer?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 22:18:30 GMT


over the last several days, an interesting point has arisen here
on t.a. what has happened is this: a number of people who
commonly refer to themselves as pro-choice have indicated that
they do not oppose legislative restrictions on a woman's right to
abort after some specified time in the woman's pregnancy.

until now, i was responding to each person with follow-ups
to their comments. unfortunately, darcy is now involved in
each of these threads and, despite my hopes and public requests,
i expect kebbie to turn those threads into his type of flamewar
with fake accusations and the furtherance of his net.vendettas.

so, i decided a new post was a reasonable way to raise the
question of just what is a pro-choicer.

i believe the commonly accepted definition is that a pro-choicer
is one who opposes legislation to restrict a woman's right to
abort. historically, that has been the accepted definition within
this newsgroup.

i'd like to hear what people think on this question and to remind
folks that it wasn't so long ago when people (presumably
pro-choicers) were flaming/arguing with phil buckland because he
stated he'd support legislation to restrict a woman's right to
abort.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.

Message-Id: <9205242246.AA27119@sungod.crd.Ge.Com>
From: keegan@crd.Ge.Com (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Date: Sun, 24 May 92 18:47:57 EDT
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
To: aleas deleted
Subject: whoops: i goofed
Status: RO
Content-Length: 171
X-Lines: 13

i just sent you two posts under the header "please post a
reply to this...." i meant to send only the second post.
sorry


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Have you herd about the ram?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:09:24 GMT

In <1992Sep28.163816.15163@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <Bv5s9r.3nn.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
->   (Susan Garvin) writes: > 
->In article <1992Sep23.201837.21608@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
->   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
->>> I think your egocentrism justifies current speculation 
->>> that you're the "ram of the herd"!  You obviously think 
->>> so!
->>
->> Would you care to elaborate on this comment, Overpeck?
->> I'd like to know who you are calling a herd, for one
->> thing.  

->Seems like it was this very sort of situation in which you 
->last decided to become incensed with me i.e., in the context 
->of a joke. 

that's what the homophobes and other bigots say when they
get caught too -- "it was just a joke."

->> I'd like to know who other than you indulges
->> in such sexist speculation, 

->That you infer some non-existent sexism in my comment is not my
->problem.

backpedal, backpedal, backpedal. you should be ashamed of
yourself, passing off your sexist posts as someone else's
problem.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:58:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.155709.18679@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
>
>we have a bit more control over our own sex drives than we
>do over hurricanes or rapists. where we have control, 
>perhaps we should accept the responsibility of our actions.

Well, well, well...

I see that YOU, TOO, are unaware that abortion, for some women, IS
a responsible solution.  Please try to memorize this..I know it will be
hard, as you seem to have trouble rationalizing it, but it is true.
Now, take the pencil in your little hands and write 1000 times....
  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

There.  Is it sinking in yet?

(nod your little head.)

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 00:53:34 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <6703@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>  sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> I'm wondering when Suzanne will tell us what "black facial
> features" are.  Does she mean that the baby had white skin
> everywhere other than its nose, ears, and mouth, or does she
> imagine that all black people look alike?

What *I* want to know is, did it have a black ass?

:-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:06:24 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep23.150451.23163@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Tweedledee) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to Ron Bense:
>
>> Cut the Larry Margolis crap, it is unbecoming you.
>
>Curiouser and curiouser.  Mr. Nyikos mentioned Mr. Margolis three
>times in his response to Mr. Bense.  When Larry raised some valid
>points in a different article about Peter's demonstrations of
>ignorance of set theory and logic, Peter deleted Larry's points and
>threatened to killfile him.  Now he appears to have constructed a
>strawman Larry Margolis and is having at it with a pitchfork.

The last time logic came out of Larry Margolis' head was when his ancestors
were paying rent to Fred Flinstone. Sorry, didn't mean to be politically
incorrect there - Wilma Flinstone. :)


>Be careful, Ron.  Don't hold Mr. Nyikos to too high a standard of
>debate.  You may become a killfile candidate like Larry and me. :-)

Ho ho ho, dude. Real funny. Why if you were actually telling the truth I'd
recommend you for a job as an unpaid comedian.


>-- 
>Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
>   "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." -- J. Danforth Quayle
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Must've been what he concluded after hearing an earful of you, I guess.


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: Turkey Hall
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:54:16 GMT

>>The following is an article that refutes all arguments that justify abortion.
>                                          ^^^
>You failed to address at least one that is important in my book
>(I'm sure others can point out additional arguments you missed.):

My sincere apologies.  Honestly.  I had meant to say "all major arguments".
And #20, which you list below, is one I hadn't considered.

>        20.  Equal opportunity for women to "walk away" from unwanted 
>             pregnancy as some men choose to do.
>
>Equality between the sexes is one of the strongest arguments for the abortion 
>option, IMHO.

Just a thought to throw out.  If science made it possible, would you support
the idea that men should carry half the unborn babies in the world...?
-- 
//================================================================\\
||  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:  ||
||      no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.  John 14:6      ||
\\================================================================//
           Samuel Stoddard, Jesus freak and Bible basher.
//================================================================\\
||         ss1@kepler.unh.edu       ss_cs611@unhh.unh.edu         ||