HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 23:54:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.142356.29645@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>I merely wish that Mr. Keegan publicly substantiate a publicly
>made accusation.
>
>-Ekr

Mr. Keegan prefers innuendo, rumor and red herrings to proof. If rocker is
to substantiate Mr. Keegan's claims, she should either post her evidence or 
apologize to Ekr, CJ, and others. All that I have seen so far is the
alleged willingness of rocker to support Mr. Keegan by email, but a refusal
to post the alleged evidence to the net. 

Whenever someone plays this game, I wonder if their reluctance to post is
out of the fear of being the loser in a slander suit if the alleged 
evidence is posted to the net.
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:36:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <25817@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
>>a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
>>be dead?)
>
>Since when? Do you see it granted or stated anywhere? I see lots of
>other rights granted, but not the one to life. We are granted other
>rights (and yes, that is granted, because they can be taken away, and
>have been throughout history) that we can claim while we are alive.
>

No one has to grant anyone else the right to life.  People have it
from the moment of their existence whether or not some document says so.

Did the blacks in the early 1800s have the right to be free?  Was it written
anywhere?  It wasn't stated anywhere in law but they did have a right not
to be slaves.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:57:03 GMT

> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> = (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>> = Suzanne Forgach writes:

>>>> Gordon, Professional Atheist

>>>So what are they paying you?

>>Sorry, but I'm unable to publically discuss the terms of my contract.  If
>>I told you, I'd have to kill you.  And that would be unfortunate for both
>>of us.
>
>>Gordon, with tongue firmly in cheek.

>I figured that out even before I saw the last line, just as I saw through
>M. Price's deception immediately.  Alas for you, you have done many other
>things without tongue in cheek, and for those I will hold you accountable.

Petey - before you slide totally into Holtchan-speak, a little hint:
showing everyone on t.a. how one, and only one, person can get under
your skin so easily makes you LOOK like a dork and WHINE like a turbine.
(from the bestseller, "Novak's Helpful Net.Hints")

>>The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
>>of whatever company you think I work for. 

>Nor those of an honest man.

Someone who's so quickly joined the Non-Thinking Anti-Women Council makes
me think of YOUR honesty.

What were those SAT scores, Professor (I ask sweetly)?  (He wouldn't fall 
for this *again*...would he? :)


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Eric Gorr on Biblical support for abortion...?
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:04:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep28.202426.18597@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com
(drieux, just drieux) wrote:
> ] What about the Love
> ] 
> ] By Amy Grant on the LEAD ME ON cd.

Amy Grant is I guess a prime example of a modern Christian, jumping
around and kissing a foreigner in a video, instead of loving her man
(that was too ugly according to the video producers). Sorry, I was
sarcastic.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38998 soc.singles:26608 alt.sex:31124 talk.bizarre:32011
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.sex,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Dealing with the Ultimate Basis of Proof and Proveability
Date: 28 Sep 1992 23:01:29 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Sep28.144956.3485@ultb.isc.rit.edu> tjg2946@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>>pps: You post a Lightbulb joke and YOU DIE!!!!
>
>What is the different between a woman and a light bulb?

You can turn on a light bulb.

>(ducking the death threats)

(May I join you?)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:14:03 GMT

In article <lx+pfk-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>That wasn't the question.  It's empirically verifiable that it's
>>>human, because it has human DNA.  But is it a PERSON?  If not, why not?
>>
>>The pro-life movement (I can't speak for it though) and I are concerned
>>about HUMAN life BORN and UNBORN.  Human life begins at conception.  A 
>>discussion on "PERSON" (a fight over semantics) may not even be that
>>relevant.  It's a human life.  Doesn't that count for anything to people?
>
>Which human life are you talking about?  The mother's or the embryo's?
>

Both lives should count, the mother and the child.

No, being "enslaved" does not override taking away the life of the unborn
child.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR MOTHERS (Case 1)
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:52:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <nyikos.718176873@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep28.180212.11160@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> 
> >decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> 
> >> Isn't that sooo convenient?  Last I looked, every time you
> >> posted about one of these lawsuits we discovered they were
> >> just harassment or the case had been thrown out.
> 
> There was ONE case like that, and your "discovery" hinged upon the
> word of one of Hanson's assistants.

The case I was refering to is the one you cited in which it was
claimed that Dr Hanson's staff failed to inform a patient that
she had s erious medical condition.  I believe it was Chris
Lyman who checked up on it and found that the court had
found that Hanson's staff had tried for months to inform the
woman, both on the trelephone and throughthe mails, of
her condition.  The next case is the one discussed in this
thread, where Chris Lyman found that the case was again
decided in Hanson's favor.

One can bring suit for any number of reasons, and the suit
can be brought falsely.  The final determination of
the suit is more important than the mere bringing of a lawsuit.
I could sue you for sexual harrassment or something, Peter.
Then I could post an article saying "Is this the same
Peter Nyikos who is being sued for sexual harrassment in
which it is alleged that he fondled a number of students
at his university against their wills and spoke to them
at length about pornographic movies and pubic hair?"
If the case is thrown out of court for lack of evidence,
or even dropped by the plaintiff before it comes to
court, the alegation has still been published in the
newsgroup.  Does the allegation constitute anything in
the way of proof?  And should we discredit you because
someone brought an action against you when the result
of the action is not known?  This is precisely why I
find your tactics dishonest and reprehensible.  You show
such a willingness to believe anyevil thing said against
the opposition, and yet these cases you cite keeping
getting decided in favor of the abortion provider.
And you won't even admit that there is the beginning
of a pattern of harrassment in these cases thatcreates
a presumption against your assumptions.
Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 00:03:54 GMT

In article <QemkVNy00VI=Q190kf@andrew.cmu.edu> eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Elizabeth Cornelia Green) writes:
>
>Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?
>
>Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
>1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
>judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
>the deaths of millions?!

Boy, then I guess the Armour Packing Co. family is in real deep doo-doo. :-)


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: BIGNESS
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:19:01 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less


Bigness.  In the fifties, bigness was cool, and everybody knew it,
even if nobody wanted it openly discussed.  There were commies under
every bed and pinko symps in every school, church and dime store, and
they were all out to destroy the bigness that every good citizen knew
was absolutely essential to their near limitless supply of new stuff
to buy.

The bigness doesn't exist anymore -- gone the same way the commies
went.  Only a vestigial notion left in the fading minds of the
generation that owned the fifties after buying it on credit built on
the backs of their grandparents in the mineshafts and on the steel
highways of the century before.

Now the bigness has been replaced with the sprawl, and only the new
generation seems to understand.  The sprawl is mean, like the bigness,
but mean in a more basic way.  It feeds on the bigness.  Burning every
last pound of its flesh in its quest to grow into ever larger
economies of diversity.

And if nobody wanted to talk about the bigness in the fifties --
they're horrified by the sprawl today.  And for good reason.  The
bigness made good men and women crawl on their bellies for food, but
the sprawl -- heh heh, the sprawl makes them crawl for the *chance* of
getting food.  And the sprawl tells no rags to riches stories.  It's
invisible hand separates the people with price tags from the people
with hazard markings.  No pricetag?  Then, you're Untouchable.  No
love, no hate, no greed -- just grinding mass mind chaos.

The old men with the wisdom to see that the days of the bigness are
history still pine for the ease and comfort of Standard Operating
Procedure knowing that, for better or worse, the sprawl is closed to
them.  It is the sandbox of the new generation -- a generation as
alien to them as the sprawl itself.  The rules the old men learned in
the forties and fifties have changed, and the new rules aren't even
written on the same medium, let alone in the same language.

The bigness let us all down when it succumbed to the sprawl, and the
sprawl isn't making any promises.  Time to make your peace and start
carving out a slice now while there's still a piece of the old bigness
left.  By the time you read this, there may only be scraps available.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: The difference between "Safe" and "Safer" sex...
Summary: Sortof like the difference between hamburger and steak 
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: Mon, 5 Oct 92 01:31:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.134655.2422@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.202254.27444@col.hp.com>, pml@col.hp.com (Patrick M Landry) writes:
>> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>> In  <5638@news.duke.edu>  eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>> >
>>> > Okay, to make it "fair," take 93% of 1.5M, removing the instances of
>>> > rape, incest, mother's health, or even fetal health.
>>> 
>>> What does that have to do with the fact that:
>>>    Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>> 
>> Simple.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the above 'fact' is true,
>> it means that even if it CAN be a responsible solution, it rarely is.
>> 
>> 93% of the time it is an irresponsible 'solution' to irresponsible
>> behaviour.
>
>Ahhhhh so having safe sex with your wife is "irresponsible behaviour".
                  ^^^^^^^^

>I see.  I guess you're single, eh?

TWEEEEEET!!!!! Incorrect sexual reference penalty.  5 yards lost, and loss
of down.

Brian, anytime you engage in penetrative intercourse, even with condoms,
lubricant with nonoxynol-9, spermicidal foam, and a diaphram, you are no
longer engaging in "SafeSex".  You are engaging in some form of "SaferSex".
(I almost put "SafierSex" up there.  The subconscious is a tricky beast,
isn't it? :])

You _cannot_ become pregnant while engaging in SafeSex because in SafeSex
there is _no chance_ of fluid transmission between partners.

You _can_ become pregnant while engaging in SaferSex becuase in SaferSex
the condom might break, you might not pull out in time, there might be
enough sperm and gogojuice in your pre-cum to get the little guys going,
etc etc etc.
--
=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???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:04:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct5.190140.19923@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> In <6693@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu 
>    (Susan Garvin) writes: >
> 
> > What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
> > about a dead young woman?  
> 
> Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
> crusade.  
> 
> > I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  
> 
> I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...

Probably because of the evidence, old darling.  It tends to lead
one to conclusions.

Now don't get above yourself, Billy dear, and accuse anyone
of paranoia.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Not a flame (was Re:
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 14:55:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.021610.26620@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
 >> In article <1992Sep25.185248.15614@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley
> MG>  (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> MG> >We all want real change.
> 
> AR> Who's "we", white man?
> 
> White man?  ...  hardly warrants a flame based upon his race...

Adrienne was obviously refering to an old joke involving Tonto
and the Lone Ranger.  It's a very well-known joke.  It was
clearly not a flame based on race, and if one knows the joke,
which I am sure most people reading this group do, there is a
point to using the punch-line here.  One can only construe it
as a racial remark if one is stretching pretty hard for an
excuse to flame Adrienne.  I haven't read any other follow-up
articles to this one yet, but I won't be surprised to see a
good deal of that stretching as soon as I send this article.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 19:10:22 GMT

<BvCww4.5zE@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) said:
>In <0pjzy9h@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>Nonsense.  I fully epxect pregnant women to make a responsible
>>decision, whether that decision is to carry or to abort.  I am
>
>	Abortion is NOT a responsiblie decision.

Pure assertion.  I argue that it is because it solves the problem with the
impact limited to the person involved: the woman.

>>>too that the only defense that proaborts can come up with sometimes is
>>>"Hey you've never been pregnant so you don't know". 
>>Defense?  Against what?  I am simply saying it is arrogant (as well
>>as stupid) for you to comment on the rigors of pregnancy, never
>>having been pregnant yourself.
>
>	I have not commented on the rigors of pregnancy. I have commented
>on the fact that it is wrong to kill someone else for your own
>gain. 

I agree with you pretty much (depends on your definition of 'gain').  But
what does this have to do with abortion.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth, 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: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:13:10 GMT

In <nvgz6jh@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
->wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->>Is it true that you're the "Ram of the Herd", Jim?

->Freud would have a field day.

bill is no freud.

i would like to see his qualifications for
diagnosing bunnies though.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 19:28:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes ...
[to Eric Gorr]
>If you want me to explain further, I'd be happy to sit on your chest and
>bonk you on the head with the condensed version of the Oxford English
>Dictionary until this point becomes clear.

Awww.  Would you pleeease consider using the non-condensed version?  I'm
sure I can find some straps to hold all seven(?) volumes together.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:21:11 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Sep27.000031.6368@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.014811.9069@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>These are merely your feeble failed attempts deduction.   I have never made
>>the statement that abortion is murder, because obviously, the word "murder"
>>means illegal killing, and at the present time abortion is not illegal.
>>
>>Abortion is not murder now.
>>
>>BUT IT WILL BE!!!
>
>You know, for some reason I picture Suxanne posting this (and hoarding
>resources, BTW), while she's checking her mucus for about the 200th time
>in 10 minutes...

Another vulgar, misogynist post, Keith? Well, I imagine you have to take a
break from homophobic outbursts once in a while...

								- Kevin
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Ragu Spaghetti Sauce:  It's In There!
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:03:04 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

# Since when? Do you see it granted or stated anywhere? I see lots of
# other rights granted, but not the one to life. We are granted other
# rights (and yes, that is granted, because they can be taken away, and
# have been throughout history) that we can claim while we are alive.

>When people make statements like this, I am reminded of the arguments
>against ratifying the Bill of Rights -- that an enumeration of rights
>would encourage the idea that rights not enumerated didn't exist --
>and sometimes feel that perhaps that argument has merit.

In effect granting us any rights we wish to claim, that are not given
specifically. That this both supports and denies the pro-life contention
of a right to life is obvious. The key here is that were the fetus to
claim it, it could have it, but it can't. The woman does, however, have
the ability to claim the right to bodily autonomy and does, no matter
which choice she makes.

>Mr. Bense, you should know better than to fall into the cheap trap Mr.
>Guerrero has sprung on you...

There was no trap, unless you fall into Mr. Guerrero's line of thinking.
I think outside of those narrow walls, and will continue to do so. So
far they can't take that right away either, as I claim it.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:28:54 GMT

In article <6739@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>were strangely silent after that.)  Is this just the
>latest installment of pro-force hypocrisy, or will
>you be supplying evidence that Adrienne will kill anyone
>who gets in her way, that she devalues motherhood, and
>that she's the most twisted person on the net?
She better substantiate the insult to me, too.
After all, if Adrienne is the most twisted person on the net,
I CAN'T be. And I find that implication offensive.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion