HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:44:27 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov19.212031.1576@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.210645.6256@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus):
>>> In article jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>>> 
>>> Then we get to the question of his alleged direct decent from king David.
>>> Ever notice in Matthew it traces Jesus ancestry through JOSEPH to David?
>>And in the Gospel of Luke, his ancestry his traced through MARY to David.
>>So there you have it.  A direct bloodline.
>Pure harmonization. There is nothing internal to the text that suggests
>this.
>
>>> Ever notice the contradictions in the geneologies given in the other gospels?
>>Heh?  Just because one's paternal and one's maternal does not mean they
>>contradict.
>What makes you think that the one in Luke is maternal?
>-Ekr
>
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
>                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

This brings up an old thread that I tried to carry on a few
weeks ago.  I don't believe that the Luke genealogy has any-
thing to do with Mary.  The two evangelists are writing about
two entirely different sets of parents, both named Mary and
Joseph, and two Jesus children.  The union of the soul-
spiritual being of the one with the physical-soul being of
the other took place during the events Luke describes when
the 12 year old Jesus visited the temple in Jerusalem.  The
Jesus of Nazareth, in whom the Christ incarnated at the age
of thirty in Jordan, is the same written about in all four 
gospels.

The true nature of the virgin birth is far more spiritual
a thing than can be determined by disputes on the level of
biology 101.

End of summary of alternative explanation.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Description of the Fetal Remains from an Abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:06:36 GMT

Third day - third group.  Except for the fact that
the first post was somewhat different - and this one
seems to have several references hanging off of it 
(see above), I'd think he'd gotten hold of my .newsrc
and had an automatic posting program posting one-a-day
down my "active" groups - although he DID miss a couple

Anyway - this was in:
Newsgroups: soc.singles
today.

(and WHERE will he show up tomorrow???)

Diana
dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:

]   "It was easy to shrug off an aborted pregnancy as nothing more than
]    a sack of blood and globs of tissue--as many pro-choice activists
]    did--if one never saw fetal remains, or products of conception (POC),
]    as they were known in medical circles.  But the nurses, medical
]    assistants, and doctors who worked inside procedure rooms knew
]    that while an eight-week POC was indeed a sack of blood and
]    globs of tissue, an eleven-week POC harbored tiny arms and legs
]    and feet with toes.  At twelve weeks, those tiny hands had tiny
]    nails.  Although the fetal head was too small at that stage to
]    withstand the evacuation machine's suction, pieces of face--a nose
]    and a mouth, or a black eye (all fetal eyes are black in the
]    first trimester) the size of a pea--were sometimes found in
]    the aftermath.
] 
]    Later abortions spawned even more gruesome fetal remains.  Between
]    the twelfth and the sixteenth week, early in the second trimester,
]    the fetus almost doubled in length as its body caught up to its
]    large head, and it filled out to the point where it looked like
]    a human baby for the first time.  Since the fetal skull was 
]    still soft, the head did not come out whole during the evacuation,
]    but the legs and arms and rib cage made it through intact.  The
]    hand of a second trimester fetus, as a Preterm doctor described
]    it, seemed big enough to shake.
] 
]    Most of Preterm's abortion staff didn't volunteer to work ``seconds''.
]    Late first trimester POCs were hard enough.  The counselor/medical
]    assistants (CMAs) met regularly to discuss their feelings about
]    their work, and often the discussion focused on the POC.  Inside
]    a procedure room, facing the contents of the uterus, there was
]    no denying what abortion was." 
] 
]    Sue Hertz, _Caught in the Crossfire: A Year on Abortion's Front Line_,
]    Prentice Hall Press, 1991, pg. 104.
] 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:45:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.155713.23692@news.cs.brandeis.edu>,
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
|>In article <1992Nov14.214406.23543@doug.cae.wisc.edu>,
mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
|>>How to reconcile the Old Testament God with the New Testament God, (they
|>>do appear to be quite different):
|>
|>Let's see, in the OT God is portrayed as capable of unimaginable wrath and
|>unimaginable love.  In the NT, God is portrayed as capable of unimaginable
|>wrath and unimaginable love.  Yep, they are different.
|>

Different in the way God shows his (sorry, His) wrath/love.

OT: stone the sinner (my fav: gathering sticks on Sabbath)
NT: "let he who is without sin..."

I think that is a LITTLE different.
In the OT, if anyone got in His way (Sodom, Eqypt, Babel, etc), He
wasn't slow in throwing his weight around.  In the NT, He didn't 
smite a single person (well, maybe Judas. But in a round-about way.)
Of course there a few books in NT that look like they belong in OT
(Revelations, for one), but those don't focus on the life of Jesus,
which seems to be the main crux of the NT.

Brian /-|-\
                
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!!
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:08:46 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1eg0utINN6g0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
O'Dwyer) wrote:
> 
> I note that the Christian religions seem to offer salvation as a remedy for
> original sin, and the penalty for original sin is not particularly severe.

Beg pardon?  Eternal damnation, outer darkness, wailing, gnashing of teeth?
 Not _particularly_ severe?

> The Church of Reason, on the other hand, offers a new kind of original sin -
> a z/e/f is guilty of the crime of non-sentience, a crime for which it is
> guilty until proven innocent.  And the techno-nihilists are not nearly so
> forgiving...

Nonsense.  Non-sentience is certainly not a crime, but neither is it any
particular virtue.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Let's Play Attributions, Take 2
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:09:48 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 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: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov20.022248.6532@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>Thank you, Larry.  EVen though you showed conclusively that
>"Doctor" Nyikos can't follow the attributions and made it clear
>that the man is a bonehead (yet again), don't expect him to admit
>he was wrong.  Expect more bluster and nonsense.  Maybe he'll call
>you a name and then tell you he only did it because it saved you
>from his having to call you a worse name.

Well, I'm putting Peter on notice - if he calls me any more names,
I'll consider it harassment and Take Appropriate Actions.

>That's another of his tactics.

It is?  I feel so ashamed...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:02:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.154519.14631@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
>I find it quite repugnant, Peter, that you would attempt to deflect well-
>deserved flames away from Darcy.  He made several tasteless, tactless and
>mean-spirited posts about a t.a participant's SO's experience as a victim
>of child sex abuse.   

"...well-deserved flames..."

	Blatant assertion.

"He made several ..."

	Incorrect. The whole flamewar stemmed from a single post.

"...tasteless, tactless and mean-spirited..."

	Speculation presented as fact. My post attacked the spectacle of a 
	child molester bragging about his exploits. I doubt that anyone would 
	consider my behavior, placed in the context of that interpretation, 
	as "tasteless, tactless and mean-spirited". As it happened, my 
	interpretation was incorrect. I have apologized for that error. But 
	error is not the same as malice, and the presence of malice in this 
	instance is purely a matter of speculation on Mr. Lyman's part.

"...about a t.a participant's SO's experience..."

	Misleading. My article was posted exclusively to alt.flame, where it
	was completely appropriate. The term "t.a participant" seems to 
	insinuate that I inflicted the flames on talk.abortion, when in fact 
	the parties guilty of _that_ particular offense have never owned up or 
	apologized for their actions.
	
								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: "Unrestricted abortion on demand" is a lie
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 00:34:56 GMT


margoli@watson.ibm.com once again refutes Holtsinger's lies
about Roe.  Bootlessly, I think-- he's shown no signs of
stopping his endless repetitions of his misinformation.  But
anyay, Larry makes this point:

| Not only does Roe *allow* for third-trimester restrictions
|(leaving it up to the states to decide, of which about 30 have
|third-trimester restrictions]; the current situation is a de
|facto *ban* on third-trimester abortions for anything other than
|serious medical considerations.

I have a question for EEB:

Is this de facto ban on third trimester abortions sufficient
for you?  If not, why not?  Why require legislation to ban
something that doesn't seem to be happening, to enforce the
status quo?

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Elizabeth, none of us men out here "know" what pregnancy is like and what 
it does to the woman psychologically.  What we do know is that often it is 
painful and unwanted.  It is like a harmless slavery of sorts." -Kevin Welch
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Netcom - San Jose, CA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:26:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.214406.23543@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>How to reconcile the Old Testament God with the New Testament God, (they
>do appear to be quite different):
>

     One can not reconcile the OT God with the NT God without throwing out
all logic and rationality.  That is one of the reasons that I rejected 
Christianity.

          GIGO == Gospel In Garbage Out
-- 
       +----------------------------------------------------------------+
      /  Keep Abortion Legal and Safe.  Reduce the Deficit.            /
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga       UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |
|  \X/       Go A's!     \X/ 3000UX   Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM      /
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:50:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.031905.123870@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <robert.722307483@labyrinth> robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:

>Not *just* "in a different way".  Worse in a new way, and just as bad as
>before in the other ways.  It's not saying, "If I can't make it better for
>me, I'll make it worse for you."  It's saying, "If I can't make it better
>for me, I'll make it worse for *both of us*."  That's what I think is stupid.
>You're either making idle threats, or you're prepared to "cut off your nose
>to spite your face".

Actually, the idiom isn't really appropriate:  one is prepared to
cut off someone else's nose.

And I'd think the comment is, more accurately, "If you won't help
me find a solution for everybody because you're satisfied with an
unfair status quo in your favor, I'll remove your advantage."


>>       It's not mine, though.  I'm pro-choice; but I'm also open-eyed enough
>>to recognize that as long as choice for women is a bad deal for men, there
>>will be men who fight it.
>
>Choice for women is not a bad deal for men.  Lack of choice for men is a
>bad deal for men.  Taking away additional choice from everyone helps nobody.

Choice for women -only- is a bad deal for men.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Do all Steves have the same opinion on 3rd trimester restrictions?
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:52:01 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov16.175947.7914@advtech.uswest.com>
steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>My *own* opinion is that third-term abortions should only be used in cases
>of risk to the woman's health (including mental), or of an unhealthy fetus.
>Being that I'm not a woman, and that I can't know every one of
>life's circumstances, I do *not* support any legal restrictions on a
>woman's right to abortion. 

AMEN, brother Steve.  Another brother Steve.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:24:37 GMT

In article <sk9fj4k@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov19.214033.12282@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@advtech.uswest.com writes:
>|Thanks, Eric.  Next time you visit I'll have Chimay Gold to drink,
>|rather than Samuel Adams and Samuel Smith.  CJ says that, in addition to
>|having the typical capacity for beer as young bucks should, you also
>|can handle the "good stuff" without whining for a Bud Lite.
>You better believe it.  I rue the day I started feeding him
>microbrewery beers & ales.  Lance is going to start home-brewing
>soon-- that should make Eric's thirst mysteriously vanish.
Heh heh...I was drinking Sam Adams "before you were born" Chris....
Seriously, though, if you can drink whatever Lance produces, I'm
sure I can. Hell, he who can drink Golden Anniversary can drink
anything.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Let's Play Attributions, Take 2
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:22:48 GMT

Thank you, Larry.  EVen though you showed conclusively that
"Doctor" Nyikos can't follow the attributions and made it clear
that the man is a bonehead (yet again), don't expect him to admit
he was wrong.  Expect more bluster and nonsense.  Maybe he'll call
you a name and then tell you he only did it because it saved you
from his having to call you a worse name.  That's another of
his tactics.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:20:02 GMT

In <_3s1=gk@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>peter honey, you just quoted someone other than susan
>garvin as if the person you were quoting were susan
>garvin. what you just did could be referred to as
>forgery.

Show me where I did that.

>as i told you when you lied about adrienne regard
>posting a forgery,

I never *said* she posted a forgery.  What does ?!?!?!?!? mean to you?

> then apologize to
>adrienne for lying about her.

I never lied about adrienne.

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and SAT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:59:34 GMT

In article <nyikos.722204053@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
}In <1992Nov9.000524.19332@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}
}>In article <nyikos.720736852@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
}
}>}In reality, I wanted to conceal my credentials on the net as long
}>}as possible.  
}
}>Why did you want to do that, Peter?  If they are so unimportant
}>to you why would you desire to conceal them?  Why would you wish
}>to make an effort one way or the other?
}
}Like I said, I did not want people to think I was trying to pull rank
}on them [Army usage, but I think you know what I mean.]

I was in the Air Force, were you in the Army?  Btw, I think it is
in fairly common usage in any field that has a pecking order.  The
department chairman just said it to me today in an academic context.
Oh, what made you think that we would assume you were trying to
"pull rank" as you put it.  I suppose it didn't cross your mind
that we might think instead that you were just being a jerk.

}>Peter, your continued attempts to portray yourself as the somewhat
}>innocent victim of an "in-joke," as you put it, misses the mark 
}>entirely.  You look like a fool.  Whether it is due to egotism,
}>shallowness or dishonesty I don't know.
}
}It is due to a shared in-joke, that anyone who posts SAT scores is like
}some pompous braggart [I forget his name, it was revealed to me shortly
}after I posted my SAT scores in response to a direct question] who posted
}them once upon a time, and is a suitable target for ridicule, and worse:
}As Kathi Mills said in reference to my posting the scores, "Let the
}flames begin."

It isn't just because you fell for some "in joke" that I'm laughing, Peter.
I doubt that is the only reason a lot of folks are laughing, too, 
although I admit I tend to at least smirk when someone gets a prank
pulled on them.   You seem to think that SAT scores have some relevance
to this group.  Granted, they were higher than most.  I'll bet
you got to go to a fairly "good" school, and perhaps they aided
you in some other academic areas, too.  Aside from that, I don't
think they have any relevance whatsoever.  To put it rather
bluntly, my reaction to even a direct request to post my SAT scores
would be:  "Whatever for?"  I doubt I would ever post them.  I 
can't even remember what they were.  I have to admit, I 
chuckle a little about that.  About what you must think is 
important in this world.   Yes, I laugh that you posted your SAT
scores, and I think you're a pompous ass.  I'll bet you're
honestly puzzled, too.

There's a pretty thin line between what we find funny and what we
pity, Peter.   You should be glad people are laughing...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:59:34 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <shl2l14@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

>I would
>say, in fact, that the state shouldn't ever use "moral rights"
>as justication for laws.  The state has no business making any
>statements about "morality".)

What do you mean by this?  It seems to me that judgements of good and
bad are a necessary part of all action.  For example, if the state
does something to promote economic growth it does it because it thinks
economic growth is good.  How can the state act at all without taking
positions on what things are good and what things are bad?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Adoption is an answer
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:20:28 GMT

In article <3146@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> 
joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:

> Question for people would call me "pro-abort"...
>
> Do you believe in making swimming illegal?  No?  Tell me, how long
> have you been "pro-drowning".  Don't try to deny it.  You are for
> drowning.  

I don't want to see people drown, but I don't want them to 
hurt other people in their attempts to save themselves from 
drowning.   Likewise, I don't want women to have to face 
unwanted pregnancies, but I don't believe abortion is a 
legitimate solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

> I would like to see some respect on both sides of this, and at least
> see members of each side refer to the other side by labels the referent
> has chosen, if only because reduces unnecessary offensiveness and flames.

I disagree; I think people should be labeled by what they believe,
not by what they want others to call them.  

If you see nothing morally wrong with abortion as a solution
to an unwanted pregnancy, then in my opinion, the label 
"pro-abortion" suits you much better than "pro-choice".  

>Joe


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48212 alt.politics.bush:13931 alt.politics.elections:24002