HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
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.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 05:20:39 GMT

In article <PATRICK.93Jan4230809@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.032752.10735@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>   In article <1993Jan5.005319.23382@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>   >In article <1993Jan5.000503.4625@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>   >}In article <1992Dec29.192416.5661@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>   >}>In article <1217@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>   >}>>In article <nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>   >}>>[everything but the following sentence deleted]
>   >}>>>That was an attempt by Holtsinger to quote Humphrey, to illustrate what 
>   >}>>>racist tendencies this redneck has.  
>   >}>>
>   >}>>For ten points, spot the racial slur in the above quote.  For
>   >}>>10,000 points, guess what basis PHoney is using to assign a
>   >}>>race to Patrick.
>   >}>>
>   >}>Let me guess... "Redneck" would be the racial slur, would it not? And,
>   >}>like so much else, PHoney is assigning a race to Patrick based on....
>   >}>his own fantasies.
>   >}>Who'sz the scorekeeper?
>   >}
>   >}Galen is, of course.
>   >}
>   >}I wonder if Darcy is going to comment on Patrick being a "group" of people
>   >}now...
>   >
>   >No, Darcy will probably complain that Gordon isn't qualified to keep
>   >score...
>   >
>   And PHoney will pipe up to tell us that from a topological viewpoint,
>   the score is incorrect anyway. It will take him roughly 1200 lines to
>   say this.
>
>Twelve *hundred*?  What gives you the idea he'd be THAT succinct?
>
>:-)
>
I'm an optimist. :)

--
                  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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:50:36 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

[--deletions--]

> #1 - Chris Lyman has threatened to remove my access by sending my
> sysadmin a copy of my .sig of Patrick Humphrey.

I made no such threat.  For the record, Steve, I told you that if you were
to send me any more copies of your klansman barfic via email, I would 
forward a copy of same to your sysadmins.  That was last Thursday.  The next
day, I received not only *two* copies of your klansman barfic, but copies
of all our correspondence since the beginning of the week; all 14000 bytes'
worth.

So, Steve, are your reading skills that poor or are you lying?

> I apologize for making fun of Dale Ann ...

Good man.  Now if we can get you to acknowledge that Patrick himself knows
he was out of line, we might make some progress on that issue too.

Of course, now there's the issue of getting you to retract your statement
about my "threats."

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
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.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 14:27:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.071719.21528@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson):
>> by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>>>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been
>>>>with your wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.
>> 
>> Here it is!  I found it!  James Keegan wrote a post called "anti-
>> choice morality" based (in part) on this atrocity.  He suggested
>> that the failure of pro-life folks to condemn Suzanne's behavior
>> was evidence for some sort of moral compromise.  Now I see why.
>> 
>> Suzanne: your comment is sick.  Your vindictiveness is unhealthy.
>> I think an apology is in order.
>
>No way.   Read my statement again.  In no way did I in fact insult
>anybody.   I said nothing derogatory about Patrick, or his step-daughter.
>Unless just pointing out that she is his step-daughter is such an insult.
>But if you and Keegan and Patrick find that it is, well, I'll find _that_
>pretty funny.
>
Go read your own statement Suzzie. Your wording is obviously chosen to
be as offensive as possible. Especially whe nyou say "I hope it drives
you crazy"

>> Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
>> sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
>
>Hey Steve, we work within walking distance of each other :-) 
>You and me and Beth Weiss.
>
We won't hold that against Steve. he (unlike you) is at least
rational.

--
                  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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: So PatricKKK posts private email now
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:35:30 GMT


I just got mail from a close friend showing that PatricKKK posted
private email between us, to USENET. 

Why don't we just KILLfile PatricKKK? He has broken every rule he
himself has set and that everyone else abides to out of courtesy. He is
too afraid to apologize to me directly for his racist remarks, so I am
perfectly right in making comments to and about his family. But will he
recognize that? Yeah, when his wife is allowed to stroll the streets
without being chased by the dog-catcher.. 


  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  --Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--
  USENET Warlord / IRC Channel Owner / Accounts WorldWide / Home Login!
	      (Whooboy that means LOTSA time for all this?)
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Date: 9 Jan 93 08:28:16 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan8.002801.8664@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.

No.

I just ceased to breathe for a minute before typing this, and I appear
to be alive.

Even if the ceasation is permanent, death is not instant.

-- 
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:54892 soc.men:22455 alt.dads-rights:3262 alt.abortion.inequity:6367
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 9 Jan 93 21:39:57 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan9.002410.11395@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
>>In article <1992Dec19.052827.25350@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wri
>>es:
>>>Why can't some of you (meaning women in general) understand that it's
>>>not about responsibility, but RIGHTS.  And it isn't a myth, either.
>>>It happens so often it's nearly a cliche.
>
>>Because some of us know something about the current law.  And those who
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>do apparently don't include you, Ray.  Go read, educate yourself.  Then
>>get back with us.
>
>Adrienne, it's nothing personal, but I have seen you boast at some length
>about your vast knowledge of laws, though I believe that I have yet to
>see you post an actual reference to one of these laws.

Yeah, and wasn't this the same Adrienne Regard who was recently surprised 
to find that men can be assessed child support for their "imputed" earnings
if they are considered to be "underemployed", and are being routinely jailed 
for the so-called "crime" of non-support? For someone who claims a superior 
knowledge of the current law, those boo-boo's sound pretty humungeous...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: anti-choice morality
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:03:11 GMT

markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>just in the past few weeks, we've seen an anti-choicer,
->>admitedly a disturbed personality, post repeated sexual
->>and personal slurs about an adversary's spouse and
->>family.

->>we've seen another anti-choicer, a roman catholic, post
->>that she hoped one of her adversaries felt pain and
->>discomfort that his spouse was the parent of a child
->>fathered by another man.

->>i've seen not one single anti-choicer criticize either
->>of these attacks. that seems to suggest there is
->>nothing unusual about these attacks, from the
->>anti-choice perspective, of course.

->Quite a leap of logic, there. 

what the hell, i don't mind helping out an obvious
newbie. what part didn't you understand?

->I agree that the above-paraphrased postings were repugnant. I wish
->nothing but the best for pro-choicers and their families.

->Now can we get back to the issues?

who is the "we" you are speaking for. who determines
what issues are appropriate? are you kevin darcy
posting from a different account?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:38:18 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>Pregnancy is not a punishment.  Pregnancy is a responsibility one must
>accept for one's actions.  Men who consent to sex should be legally
>responsible to support the child emotionally and financially.

I'd be absolutely fascinated to hear how you propose to legislate that
men emotionally support their biological children.  Or is abortion the
only fit subject for legislation, and should we just trust that men
will "do the right thing"?

I'm also assuming that you are strongly against the concept of adoption,
since it allows all those horrible, slutty men to escape their emotional
and financial duties.

>This society is going down the hill MORALLY.  All of these problems stem
>from the same thing: lack of moral absolutes.  Abortion is a great way to
>escape maturity, regardless of your actual age.  

Do share with us your currently fashionable set of politically correct
moral absolutes.  I need to keep up, since these "moral absolutes" seem
to be as changeable as the weather.

>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers

                    -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:10:21 GMT

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
-> In a previous article, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) wrote:
-> >hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes to kebbie:
-> Actually, I wrote this in response to Edward Simmonds, who wrote something 
-> similar in response to Kevin.
-> 
-> >-> You seem to think that female people are incapable 
-> >-> of making intelligent decisions by themselves.  
-> >-> You want to make sure you decide for them whether or 
-> >-> not they stay pregnant because you think your 
-> >-> views are so superior.
-> > 
-> >people have been criticizing kebbie for that for
-> >years. it's one of the reasons he has been referred
-> >to as a "pro-forcer."

you're absolutely correct. even i sometimes can't
tell the difference between what kebbie posts and
what other pro-forcers post.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:23:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan05.195210.19908@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan5.045159.7499@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan02.044419.17590@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <1993Jan1.020450.218@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>The woman who aborts, or chooses not to, also exercises an ECONOMIC right,
>>>>Larry. No male-choicer is asking for men to have the same BIOLOGICAL rights
>>>>as women; we're just asking for the same ECONOMIC rights that women currently
>>>>have thrown in as a bonus with their biological rights.
>>>
>>>What economic right is that?  Are you saying that a woman has a *right* to
>>>not support her child?
>>
>>She has a right to not support her _potential_ child, by aborting it. No child,
>>no child support.
>
>This is the assertion I'm questioning - is this a right in and of itself,
>or simply a side effect of her absolute right to control the use of her body.

It's legally separable, therefore it's a separate and distinct right. Some
"rights" are NOT legally separable -- my right to toss a rubber ball into 
the air a few feet above my property, includes, as a side effect, my right to 
have it fall back to earth again. That's a valid example of a "side effect".
But the right of a woman to escape child support obligations via abortion only 
occurs through the operation of law, not through any natural process. I'm 
saying that equity demands for the man to enjoy the parallel operation of law 
-- the right to "abort", in economic terms. No-one is suggesting that we 
legislate biology; that's a straw man argument. What is being suggested is
that it is inequitable for the abortion right to give rise to an economic 
choice for women that doesn't apply equally for men. If both are going to be 
held equally responsible, in economic terms, then both should be given equal 
economic options.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Suzzie gets confused about sex...
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.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 23:01:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.194710.935@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

[Deletions]

>Hey Larry, that sounds to me like a proposal, if ever I heard one.
>
>Can I be matron of honor?  huh? huh?  Can I?  Can I?
>Or how 'bout best man?
>
Despite your evident confusion about your sexual status, it is safe to
say you could not be "best" man or woman.
If your current sex is still in doubt, I suggest you check your mucus
again. That always seems to reassure you.

--
                  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.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: approved by suzanne's god?
Date: 9 Jan 93 13:49:30 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
|>From article by patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
|>> --PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...
|>
|>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
|>wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.

didn't someone recently ask, perhaps PHoney if suzanne
was malicious?

i wonder if this is the kind of thing suzanne's god requires
that she confess.
                                             
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55026 alt.sex:41571 soc.singles:35962
From: al@spring.unr.edu (Al Benincasa)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Majore Mental Stimulations Please
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:57:25 GMT
Reply-To: al@spring.unr.edu (Al Benincasa)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV

In article <1993Jan9.231904.10575@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>As a general rule do you always start out by 
>asserting as True an unproveable premise,
>and assume that this will lead to a logical
>following through the rest of the 'argument'????
>
>
As a matter of fact, ONLY an unprovable premise should be asserted
as an axiom. Reason, to avoid being circular, requires the acceptance
as true of non-provable premises. In order to command respect however,
a reasoned argument must choose its premises sparingly, and restrict
them as nearly as possiblr to the self evident.

  / \
 <(0)>  "There IS no underground, Winston"
  \ /
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mark is playing Devil's Advocate, and badly? (Re: Who are you guys?)
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:30:13 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <29531@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>Abortion is either wrong, or it is not.

>Here's your mistake. No serious ethical questions are this absurdly
>simple.

I made it simple so there would be no mistakes in interpretation. You
seem to move about in absolutes.

>Compare: The use of force is either wrong, or it is not. If it is wrong,
>you may not use force to prevent someone from killing you. If it is not
>wrong, then anyone who wants may use force however he wants.

You said it was allowed in the case of rape. If it is ok there, then
there is no logical reason to disallow it in other cases. (Recall that
the fetus itself has no significant differences whether it is conceived
willingly or unwillingly) In the above force case, someone is again
trying to propagate something onto another (sounds a lot like a fetus
usurping the mother's resources for its own needs, doesn't it) and something
unsavory must be done to halt it. (I've never claimed that use of force
or abortion is a "nice" thing)

BTW, the force arguement, if you support it, also directly covers abortion.
It is a much shorter step than the one between supporting capital punishment
and banning abortion. It is also much more logical.

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,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:26:48 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
] 
] The "usual" definition of AA, as I have met it, is along the
] lines of:
] 
]         If there has been systematic discrimination in filling
]         certain positions, on a basis that was not relevant to
]         suitability for those positions; and if this led to
]         underrepresentation of an underprivileged group; then
]         when there is a choice in filling future positions,
]         among those people of the necessary standard, there
]         should be a preference for those people of the
]         underrepresented group.


Sorta sounds like the basic case of awarding both
child custody, as well as child support awards.


I believe that Chris has put forward a clear case that
far too many child Custody Cases have been Explicitly
a violation of the general tenants of AA.


ciao
drieux


ps: it would be amusing to watch the Trendoids of the ProLife
Camp resolve how best to deal with the fact that there are a 
lot of DYNAMITE FATHERS who were/are vastly better qualified to
be parents, than the person to whom the award was given.....

But of course that means getting past the Nick_At_Nite view
of the happy suburban world.....



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55008 can.politics:11342
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 10 Jan 93 14:59:42 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:
-> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
-> >And physicians do *not* determine that an abortion is necessary.
-> >The patients condition is explained to them, and their options are
-> >outlined. The risks and benefit of each option are detailed, and the
-> >patient then makes their own choice as to treatment. I would like to
-> >see you produce an example of a physician performing an abortion based
-> >on his decision, and not the patients. A physician may suggest that
-> >abortion is the safest option, but not determine what is best for the
-> >patient. That decision is left to the patient.
-> 
-> Which is precisely *WHY* abortion cannot be treated as "strictly a medical
-> issue": there's a whole host of other factors besides medicine which go into
-> each and every abortion decision -- economics, sociology, religion, ethics,
-> psychology, etc.

what makes you think you're more equipped to decide
if a woman elects to have an abortion than the
pregnant woman, kebbie. this just looks like another
of your arguments favoring restrictions on abortion.

-> Now that we've dispensed with the naive, 
-> dangerous "treat abortion strictly
-> as a medical issue" chestnut, shall we 
-> get on to some constructive dialog on 
-> how to deal with the problem of unwanted
-> pregnancies?

who is "we" kevin? the only people i've seen who
agree with you are other anti-choicers who argue
against choice.

-> UNRETRACTED LIE
-> ---------------
-> 
-> "Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
->  himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
-> 				    Susie Garvin
-> 				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
-> 				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>From talk.abortion Tue Oct  6 18:37:18 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion