HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Okay, 13-1 in the conference.  Nobody's perfect.
	<lllulfINN8o7@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu>
	<PATRICK.93Jan18195144@lampasas.is.rice.edu>
	<lm1d4oINNef0@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 06:22:52 GMT

On 22 Jan 1993 20:59:36 -0600, brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) said:

>In article <PATRICK.93Jan18195144@lampasas.is.rice.edu> patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>On 18 Jan 1993 12:45:03 -0600, brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) said:
>>
>>>...I've met a good number of "bible-thumpers",
>>>and I'm convinced that most of them had nothing but good intentions, and
>>>certainly didn't appear to be aspiring to power.  I think it's just that
>>>the ambitious ones get many times more press....
>>
>>...and can do the most damage to their own cause in the process.  Me, I've
>>always looked at it like Mencken did:  if you see someone coming towards you
>>with the obvious intent of doing you good, your most prudent response is to
>>run.  :-)  (Not to mention the old saw about the road to hell being paved
>>with good intentions -- some of the anti-choice folks are just the least bit
>>scary precisely because of their good intentions, combined with their
>>complete ignorance of the consequences of said intentions.)

>No contention on that point.  If you intend to run from a moron with good
>intentions, you'll have to race me, bucko.  After, of course, I fling
>myself into a brick wall trying to edify the poor soul.

Well, I may be approaching the time when I'm starting to push 40, but I can
still move fast if i have to...so while you're bringing down the wall, I'll be
running interference for you.  :-)

>The way I see it, good intentions are often harder to come by than the
>social equivalent of "clue", so I'll be thankful for what we have.

That makes two of us.  (Three if you count my wife, even though she's not
exactly brimming with good intentions at the moment, after surviving the annual
inventory-taking at JCPenney's Sharpstown store...:-)

>>>>--PLH, Rice 2-0, UT 0-3...come on, January 30!
>>
>>>That was a most malicious cut on an admittedly weak point in our campus.
>>>We'll see if you get any Christmas cookies this December.
>>
>>Might as well nuke my chances for '94 as well, then -- since I wrote that,
>>it's now Rice 3-0, UT 0-4...and the 30th is less than two weeks away.  Pass
>>the barbecue sauce, because Bevo's going to dinner...:-)

>Playing on my love of BEEF now, are ya??  Gimme that brisket!

>*snatch*

>(hey, this ain't Bevo; the meat's too tender...)

Of course not -- you just snagged Tom Penders.  :-)  (Of course, assuming the
Owls got pounded in Waco tonight, they're going to be just the least bit testy
when they get home...)

--PLH, now, if Cougar High would stumble a few times...


--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: NRL 
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:32:15 GMT

In article <C1870B.1v8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan20.210343.23208@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
>>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>>>> it is questionable whether Ms. Garvin's estimates could be 
>>>>>> applied to today's situation.  
>
>>>>> Of course, I never claimed that they could.  
>
>>>> Then we agree that your estimates are worthless.
>>>> Why are you still arguing the point?
>
>>> Susan never said any such thing.
.....

Gee, is this deja vu?  Seems like just a few weeks ago when I claimed that
there were fewer abortion related deaths prior to RvW than now, Susan Garvin,
along with a host of others dragged out a similar set of irrelevant stats. Of
course, my sources were impeccable: NARAL, US Census, Am. J. of Obst & Gyn.
Frankly, the whole thing is just a scare tactic - unfortunately its a
successful one. 

- Paul


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:47:25 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan) writes:

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

>>In <1993Jan7.202657.2066@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):

>>>Yeah right.  Stripped and strapped on your back to a table, with a metal
>>>suction tube shoved up your vagina.   That's the "ultimate in dignity".

>Is that how they did your abortion Steve?  What a pity.  Find a kinder

Sorry, I got my attributes mixed up.  This should be Suzanne.






-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Use of Force
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:26:07 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>Sure they have circuit breakers. The ones here are about 5 feet from
>the generator, so they'd have to get way far in to turn them off.

Presumably they wouldn't have to get much futher than they did to shut
off the main power in the Dallas clinic recently.  However, these
breakers should be required to be locked up.  The main ones are often
simply behind pull-open doors.

>Your point about the 'startle factor' is cetainly a bigger concern.
>I'd worry more about the patients then the staff, though. 

Certainly.  The staff might be anticipating it, as well, now that
there is a precedent.

[Sharps disposal regulations description deleted.]

Good policy (not re-capping, just disposing of it uncapped).  

>Cochran's Law #1: Never visit a surgeon who will answer to the
>nickname 'Thumbs'...

Another good policy. ;) 

>And if any of them are warlorders, they'll prolly meaniton the hyphen
>abuse and whitespace abuse in your .sig...
>(Note to the humor impaired, sprinkle with :-) to taste)

Ah, well, I'm allowed a little "jingoistic" leeway after sticking with
the 'Boys through the tough times.  Still, it's only four lines and
the whitespace and hyphens compress well.  I guess it will be a little
less efficient when I replace "NFC" with "Superbowl" though.  ;)

>>-- 
>>-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
>>
>>                     Dallas Cowboys -- NFC Champions
>>                           The 'Boys are Back!

>--
>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
>These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
>Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
>Member, T.S.A.K.C.

-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------

                     Dallas Cowboys -- NFC Champions
                           The 'Boys are Back!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:20:45 GMT

remember: life can be shown to cause death,
therefore we should all be working hard to stamp out
the causes of life.

the rest of this makes perfect sense:
adric@access.digex.com (William Johnson) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.080537.25451@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>>Then there is the "finger fee" since people with fingers potentially can
>>hold a gun and shoot other people.  If you'd like your fingers removed
>>you won't have to pay the fee.

>Exactly!  And so therefore, we punish all those people who are irresponsible
>enough to have fingers.  That segment of society shoots more people, so let's
>let THEM pay the taxes to support the victims.

>>I've got it... the government can set it up so if anybody wants to have
>>sex they pay a fee regardless of whether anybody gets pregnant.  It can
>>be called the "Pimp Act".

>Sounds good.  After all, sex can lead to AIDS, so let's tax anyone having
>sex and let THAT pay for AIDS research.  After all, that segment of society
>is irresponsible, even if they are married and trying for children.

>>Your idea is mindless.  You know why they don't "just pass a fat people"
>>tax ?  Because it wouldn't pass and nobody would pay and anyone who
>>tried to enforce it would be screwed...  If you're trying to devise a
>>way to place 30% of the American population in jail you're on the trail
>>if you're trying to solve a problem your engine has derailed.

>But wait, a fat people tax would be GREAT!  Don't you realize that fat 
>people are a huge burden on the rest of us?  After all, they have many
>more heart attacks than the rest of us, and who knows what costs there 
>are to the public for those who get so fat they can't work!  Let's tax
>the ones who can.  After all, that segment of the population is 
>irresponsible enough to be fat, it shouldn't punish the rest of us.

>Now why do I not believe that Darcy will understand the sarcasm here, or
>will claim there is some fundamental difference between his proposals and
>yours (with my expansions)?

>Could it be because he seems to lack any grey matter what so ever?  

>Nah, that couldn't be it.

>>FUME!<

>(Oh, and for anyone who might think that I'm so strongly motivated on this
>subject only because it effects me, I would have been just as upset at his
>small-minded crap two months ago, before we found out, as I am now.  
>I guarentee it.)

>Will.
>-- 
>Copyright (C) 1993 by William Johnson  All rights wronged, all lefts made
>adric@access.digex.com                     without benefit of turn signal.
>Will Johnson, 307 S. Reynolds St Box P-216, Alexandria, VA  22304
>"Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have included a quote in your .sig file."
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Nothing says loving like a bun in the oven.
EOF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: The ball's in your court, Larry (Was:...SAT deal)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:55:33 GMT

In <1993Jan19.075232.25287@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <nyikos.727403401@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>True.  On the other hand, they were relevant to the canard Larry Margolis
>>made of me, when he said I had shown myself to be quite ignorant of
>>set theory and logic.

>Not a canard; I backed it up, and you backed down.

In my initial reaction, I said I saw no reason to spend any more time
with your tedious post.  In a later post, I addressed these issues in
detail.  I never saw a follow-up from you to that post.  

I e-mailed you a copy several days ago and have not seen any e-mail
messages from you since then.

See thread title.

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58369 misc.legal:23461
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:50:27 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan25.020911.27901@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1jtq56INNs2v@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> >There's another rule of statutory construction called _find out what the words
> >mean_.  If you apply this to "well-regulated militia" you will find out that
> >nearly everyone in the NRA, for example, is a member, ...
> 
> They may (arguably) qualify under "militia", maybe, but what about the "well-
> regulated" part? And what about the "necessary to the security of a free 
> state" part? Do they meet ALL of the qualifications? 

"Well-regulated" meant "disciplined or effective."  See Federalist
29.  In any case, every male citizen between 18 and 45 is a member of
the unorganized militia of the U.S.[10 USC sec. 311]

> Sorry, it just doesn't wash. The Mafia soldiery, for instance, is probably a 
> more well-regulated militia than the NRA will EVER be, but since they aren't 
> "necessary to the security of a free state", they don't get an automatic RKBA.

Sorry, but that's not a requirement, either.  The clearly stated
intentions of the ratification debates are that the ENTIRE population
be capable of rising up against the government, if it turns tyrannical.
See Federalist 46, among others.

> If you want a Constitutionally-protected RKBA, pass an Amendment. You might
> even get my support in that effort. But stop trying to hijack the Second,
> please.
> 
> 								- Kevin

Look into the original intent of the Second Amendment -- it was to
protect the right of individuals to possess and carry arms -- as
many pre-Civil War state supreme court decisions pointed out, when
striking down STATE laws regulating or prohibiting the carrying of
arms.  While the purpose was to keep the government in check, it
wasn't limited to collective possession or carrying of arms.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.peeves
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: On: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:40:16 GMT


Folks,

we have wandered around this discussion for a while,
and its time to sum it up.

The Fact that some folks engage in Sex_For_Orgasm
rather than Sex_For_Reproduction, should clearly
show that there are GREAT FAILINGS in the current
Sex Ed Regimine.

I think a Poll of the folks out there would show
that the VAST MAJORITY of them are engaging in
Sex for the WRONG REASONS, and this NOT something
that should be occuring after all these years
of Publically Funded Sex ED!!!!!!

ciao
drieux


ObPeeves: Persons who Do Sex Badly! Even with 
their Class Notes with them....


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: The ball's in your court, Larry (Was:...SAT deal)
Organization: The Pipe Wrench Clench
	<1993Jan16.082610.235@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1993Jan16.215731.6507@netcom.com>
	<nyikos.727403401@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
	<1993Jan19.075232.25287@watson.ibm.com>
	<nyikos.727656933@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:52:45 GMT

On 21 Jan 93 22:55:33 GMT, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) said:

>In <1993Jan19.075232.25287@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>>In <nyikos.727403401@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>
>>>True.  On the other hand, they were relevant to the canard Larry Margolis
>>>made of me, when he said I had shown myself to be quite ignorant of
>>>set theory and logic.

>>Not a canard; I backed it up, and you backed down.

>In my initial reaction, I said I saw no reason to spend any more time
>with your tedious post.  In a later post, I addressed these issues in
>detail.  I never saw a follow-up from you to that post.  

>I e-mailed you a copy several days ago and have not seen any e-mail
>messages from you since then.

I obviously don't speak for Larry, but did it ever occur to you that maybe
he could have the same reaction as you did initially?  (Or maybe he just
decided there was no use in trying to teach a pig to sing, so to speak.)

>See thread title.

See PHoney.  

See PHoney try and force people to listen to him.

See PHoney blow a fuse when no one does.

(You know, the last time I had to deal with someone who was obviously a
couple of cans short of a six-pack, he wound up coming here to demand that
the RUPD arrest me.  They disagreed, and that was the last time he's been
seen on Usenet...:-)

--PLH, no particular reason for posting this, other than to say that Nyikos
is proceeding exactly on schedule, just like his friend Dennis Hall...


--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: The pro-choice thought police in action
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:19:09 GMT

In <1993Jan24.164519.12254@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>You're missing the point.  The judge on the case *ordered* the
>lawyer not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''.
>Do you think the judge's order was appropriate? 

Yes.

Grouch
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos, Apologies and Humble Pie
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:43:59 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

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> UNRETRACTED LIES
-> ----------------

	(this about susan garvin):
        'The "original author" is a lying bitch who would say
        anything to try and salve her gargantuan bruised ego.'
		 <1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 22 Jan 1993 21:51:21 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

> (Steve Adams) writes:
>> (Paul Brinkley) writes:

>Wow!  Selected out of 500!  How kind!  How thoughtful!

You're welcome.  :)

>>....However, as palatable as abortion may be when
>>compared to the Holocaust, to Suzanne (and myself for the time being),
>>it is still one person taking the life of another, without the latter's
>>consent, or dare I say, choice.
>
>The issues here are a bit larger, I think.  First of all, I am opposed to
>abortion.  But, I also think that it must remain legal.  The issue comes
>down to a basic liberty interest.  Until the fetus is viable outside the
>womb, I don't think there is any arguable position to deny the liberty
>interest of a woman to make decisions about her own body.  Once the fetus
>becomes viable, then the liberty interest of the baby becomes relevent.

Yeah, the issues are certainly larger and more complex; I hope I didn't
imply that they weren't.

Your stance seems to indicate that rights are attained upon that moment
when the fetus can be proven to be able to survive outside the womb, if
I paraphrased correctly.  My current counter-argument is that this is a
bit too arbitrary of a line on which to base something as valuable as a
human life.  An aside:  How exactly does one prove viabilty outside the
womb?

>On purely moral grounds, you are correct.  But, I cannot impose morals
>which I derive from my religion on others.  I base my opinions on laws
>on whether or not they protect the liberty interest of the individual, and
>to what extent.  Laws that are not based on individual liberty are junk in
>most cases (certain exceptions : taxes, which are necessary at some level,
>etc)

A _very_ admirable position.  As I've said before, religious arguments to
support U.S. code just wouldn't apply to anyone not in that religion but
still a U.S. citizen.  My stance, in that light, is non-religious (unless
someone can point out any flaws in my reason):  A fetus' liberty is as
equally valuable as that of anyone else, and furthermore, when one or
the other's liberty must be compromised, the law should choose the least
restrictive course.

In conclusion, your reasoning is quite valid, the only difference being
that you base it on the assumption that a fetus must first be able to
survive on its own.

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-s
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: Clinton Communist Cretin
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:54:29 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <HXBRXB8w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>remember this Moscow canard came from the lips of Drooling Bob Dornan, 
>extremist right winged creppy Congress geek.  He knew it wasn't true, but 
>what the hey, this was an election we were talking about, not truth or 
>honor.

Sorry folks, but all Dornan was doing was quoting from "Peace Eyes", a book
by Rev. McSorley.  McSorley was a friend of Clint's and was the person
Slick met with in Oslo.  Seems he should know what went on, and as a friend
of Slick's wouldn't be trying to hurt him.  McSorley is also the person
who told the Washington Times that Slick couldn't say what he did in Moscow,
since he was running for Prez.
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:55:50 GMT
Organization: Boulder CO

> = Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) says:
>kl> = Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>bk> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) says:
>>bk> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) says:

--- THE question: ------------------------------------------------------
>>jh> = 90397106@bradford.ac.uk (JR HAVELOCK) writes:
>>jh> 
>>jh> I am currently writing an article on the stages of gestation. 
>>jh> I would appreciate any details/statistics on this and any ideas 
>>jh> (plus reasons) on when life beings. [...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>bk> "Life" doesn't "begin", it continues and permutes.
>>bk> Your question is ill-posed.

>bk> (except in a StarTrek-type scenario or perhaps a god-related miracle)
>bk> [...]
>bk> EG: family trees can end, but they don't begin out of non-living matter.

>kl> I can tell you with certainty when a tree's 'life' begins, and when it
>kl> ends.  Ditto for a human (though you won't agree. :)

>> Really?!  Tell me: when did my family tree begin?  
>> You know, the point before which there was no life (ie. no member of 
>> my family tree existed), and after which there was life.
>> Similarly: at what point did "human life" begin?

> I say at conception; I imagine you disagree with that.

(note: relevant context restored)
Read the question again.  You're completely missing the point.

-------------------
>> In summary, please form a well-posed question.  What is it you're asking?

>> Q1: when did life begin?
>> Q2: when does an individual life begin?
>> Q3: when does an individual's (ie. a person's) life begin?
>> Q4: when during individual's life does the life become a "person"?
>>
>> It's all too common that someone will ask Q2, get an answer, and then carry
>> on as if the answer was to Q4.  So what is "THE question" really asking?

> In my opinion, question 2 and question 4 are (or should be) the same.
> It's a matter of what we decide a "person" is.

Then my suspicions are confirmed.  The distinction between Q2 & Q4 is 
absolutely essential.  To agree that something is "an individual human life"
in no way implys that something is a "person", at least not without (IMO) 
trivializing the concept of "person".

EG: one might reasonably say a butterfly's life began *before*
it became a butterfly.  Certainly there is a continuum of both life and
individuality, but there is significant physical development 
(understatement) which warrants a name change.  Likewise, according to *my* 
concept of "person", a "person's" life begins *before* it is a "person".  
Where *my* concept of "person" requires (for example) a brain, with which 
one might conceivably think and/or feel.

Does *your* concept of "person" require a brain, with which one might 
conceivably have a thought or feeling?  <y,n>

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion