HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:37:08 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->> I will be glad to mail both my original article and Nyikos'
->> reply to anyone who wants them, or I'll repost both if anyone
->> asks.  I'm not marking deletions here.)

->I'd like to see a re-post of Mr. Nyikos' reply

i reposted it a few hours ago. it proves he lied,
again.

->Who knows, perhaps one of you pro-aborts might get up the 
->courage to actually reply to Mr. Nyikos' arguments, instead
->attacking him for an accidental misattribution.  

this doesn't wash. if it were accidental, which i'm
convinced it wasn't, he would have simply apologized
and moved on long ago. no, he did it on purpose and
simply doesn't have the character to face up to having
been caught.

plus, he still hasn't dealt with his false insinuation
of forgery by adrienne.

don't you see a pattern?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Butthead counts as an attribution error, too, Petie.
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:18:28 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.722020205@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to James Purdon about
his attribution problems:

>>With one dubious exception (the exception is dubious because it was
>>claimed by the woman whose name my cats cry out when they cough up
>>hairballs) in five years of posting I have never had a problem with
>>attributions.  An examination of the attributed posting is generally
>>enough to sort things out, and the defacto standard imposed by what
>>appears to the most frequently used posting software seems
>>straightforward enough.  As further evidence of this contention,
>>thousands of postings containing attributions are made on a daily
>>basis and received without objections.

Peter have you forgotten that you misattributed Brian McBean's use of
butthead to me and used that as an excuse for characterizing my
opinions as such.  Have you already forgotten the butthead for forced
pregnancy thread?  So soon?  What other recent events have you
forgotten?  

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:46:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.064023.28693@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.182957.25544@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>> But are you admitting that you sent e-mail to my system administrators
>>> asking that someone should talk to me about my posts?  You don't
>>> call that threatening?  What were you expecting them to do? 
>> Even if your sysadmins threatened you, that would not make Larry's
>> email threatening. 
>That's easy for you to say, you're not on the receiving end.
Since I'm my own sysadmin, if Larry were threatening anyone,
it would be me.

>> It struck me as rather polite, actually. 
>In your opinion.
What did I just say? I thought that was quite clearly an opinion.

>> Even if Larry had asked them to threaten you, his email STILL wouldn't
>> have been threatening. 
>In your opinion. 
No, I don't think so. How can Larry's email be threatening if it
contains no threat?

>> In fact, I fail to see how any threat Larry
>> would make against your system admins would be anything but laughable.
>You and Margolis obviously have far more control over your posting 
>privileges than I do.
Perhaps you're not listening. I'm not doubting that your sysadmins
could remove your posting access. I'm doubting that Larry could threaten
your sysadmins in such a way that they would not want to remove your
access but would have to. There is basically nothing he can do to them.
Whether they can remove YOUR privileges is irrelevant to this point.

>> Remember, Usenet is an anarchy.
>Not when you're at a public University which can easily
>revoke net access. 
Oh stop whining. There are quite a few places which offer public
Usenet service to those with telnet access. Since you seem to be a
CS student, I'm guessing you will still have that in any case.

-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."
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48319 news.admin.misc:351
From: booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: can someone help Doug Holtsinger's site
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:39:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

In article <1992Nov15.174828.16814@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>But Maybe Small Sites like UB.com and Lawrence Livermore Lab
>don't really understand the internet?????
>

Kevin Darcy already straightened out your confusion with mail to DH's site.
I'll simply point out to you that there are probably few Internet sites
managed as well as lll-winken.llnl.gov is.  Your comment couldn't be further 
from the truth.
-- 
Mark Boolootian		booloo@llnl.gov		+1 510 423 1948
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:19:40 GMT
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 <Ef2zRZq00WBLE4rVkJ@andrew.cmu.edu> Elizabeth Cornelia Green <eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

Shit.  I hate idiots who mail the same thing they posted - I mail a reply,
then find out that it's also in the newsgroup.  I'm not going to bother to
repeat myself; I'll just cut to the conclusion.

>Hope I don't sound too old fashioned.  But I'm only nineteen

Don't worry, you'll grow up some day.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: J Price answers questions
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:27:22 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Nov17.170257.10999@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:


> lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD) writes:

>|>In article <1992Nov9.165434.20916@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes...
>|>> 
>|>>In article <19242.2afd6c4e@levels.unisa.edu.au>, 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:

>Have you ever heard a pregnant woman mention that her fetus is kicking or when
>she talks about her pregnancy how many times does she say fetus instead of
>baby? What is the difference between a fetus and baby?

    Well, for me, after long consideration, the difference between a
baby and a fetus is the lack of acceptance by the mother of whatever she
is carrying in her body. This, for me, covers most of the bases.

>-- 
>-Jeffrey Price

                                                              MP
(absolutely, positively, no relation).
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49321 soc.men:19849 alt.dads-rights:2700
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:31:44 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Nov22.182905.5766@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <By4FI2.2vr@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov21.234238.28627@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov21.185550.25534@fys.ruu.nl>
>>>johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston) writes:
>>>
>>>> Ulrich, Laurel.
>>>>     A midwife's tale : the life of Martha Ballard, based on her diary,
>>>>   1785-1812 / Laurel Thatcher Ulrich.  1st ed.  New York : Knopf : Distributed
>>>>   by Random House, 1990.
>>>
>>>>The book is based on a very detailed diary kept by Martha Ballard. The
>>>>author describes how M. Ballard used to ask the mothers of illegitimate
>>>>children who the father was during childbirth, as that way she was more
>>>>assured of getting an honest answer!
>> 
>>> ... And that sometimes/a lot of the time
>>>the mother took advantage of this by naming someone who was
>>>financially able to support her and her child.
>>>
>>>Of course, that's a very low brand of evidence....  But it does have a
>>>certain plausibility to it, doesn't it?
>> 
>> And a certain timeliness, too.  ;-)
>> 
>> Don
>
>Well, as someone who has given birth to two children, I can see the logic
>behind the questioning during labor.  It's not a time when you have the
>strength or ability to easily come up with a lie.

If the woman knows what to expect, she doesn't have to come up with the
lie during labor, she can invent it beforehand.

>I was able to answer
>questions in one word sentencesand had a very low tolerance for being
>'fussed with' by anyone.  I do remember that a ham-handed intern came in
>and examined me during my first labor.  He was extremely rough and I 
>threatened to kick him in the balls if he touched me again.  All manners
>and courtesy go out the window when you are giving birth!

I do understand that giving birth can be *very* rough. I recall Groucho
Marx's short course on how a man can experience what a woman goes through
when giving birth. It's easy; all he has to do is take his upper lip in one
hand and his lower lip in the other, and pull them back behind his head.


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dedward1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Deirdre Edwards)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:05:10 GMT

Hmmm, as I am not a Jew, Atheist, or a Christian, I have found all of the
remarks on this topic interesting, except for the gratuitous flaming.  I
think one of the prime mistakes in interpreting the Bible, Hebrew or
Christian, is not taking into account the history of the book(s) itself. 
Fundamentalists will argue with me, but there is no way you can take the
Bible as the absolute, as dictated, sequential word of God and not run
across contradictions.  It is not one book, but a collection of texts, with
a history and purpose that has changed as times have changed.  It has been
edited and added to numerous times over its history.  To say that the OT
God is this way, and the NT God is this way doesn't make sense, as the text
is not cohesive.  This is not to say that there is no truth in it, merely
that you should know what you are reading and the circumstances in which it
arose in order to judge how true it is for you.  As for Christianity and
the NT being totally irrelevant to a rabbi, I would be inclined to
disagree, as I have found the study of various religions very helpful in my
search for God.  But I also have found organized religion to be the biggest
hindrance in my search, so perhaps you are right to sequester yourself from
other ideas if you want to remain faithful to one theology.  Just my
thoughts,
Deirdre



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 09:47:01 GMT

<Bxy8KK.KwF@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
> You have a rapidly growing group of anti-choice people.  

How rapidly?  I thought, in the words of Dr. C. Everett Koop, that
the pro-life movement had "shot its wad."

> More men than women are involved in this movement.  

Evidence?  Other sources posted here over the years claim that far
more women than men are activists on both sides of this issue.

-- 
|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 18:58:25 GMT

<1992Nov19.002242.6511@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
><1992Nov16.030911.25233@watson.ibm.com>, by strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom):
[OT god vs NT god]
>> I agree that these are quite different,
>> but it doesn't look like mellowing to me.
>
>It's really very simple folks:
>
>In the OT, God teaches us right from wrong.

You mean when he teaches us that you can kill people who disobey you?  And
you can kill their children too?  And you can kill their animals too?
Or when he teaches us that lying is ok as long as it's a "test" <wink>
<wink>?  Or that offering your daughters to rape gangs is a wonderful
thing to do?

Tell me Suzanne, if you were in Lot's position, would you hand over your
daughter to a rape gang to "save" an angel of god?

>In the NT, He teaches us why what is right is right,
>                     and why what is wrong is wrong.

OK Suzanne, tell us why "what is right is right".  You infer there is no
explanations given in the OT.  I assume there is a different reason than
the OT reason I read: Because god said so.

Please enlighten us with your biblical scholarship.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth, 
"CJ", and Nadja, 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: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: DODie and censorship
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:47:45 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>->It wasn't "my" moderated talk.abortion newsgroup, Keeganoid.
>->I only proposed a moderated newsgroup 
>
>how many readers, other than ms. bartley of course,
>supported your proposal to censor talk.abortion, DODie?

I don't recall anyone (not even DOD) proposing that t.a. be censored.
Are you lying again?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48746 alt.abortion.inequity:5197 soc.women:19998 soc.men:19635
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Guilty of (Fill In Th
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:43:19 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 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 <1992Nov21.024458.18269@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>LM> In <1992Oct30.014531.22679@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.o
>LM> writes:
>LM> >I realise that you might find it invidious to "legislate honesty".  However
>LM> >there are many areas where "attitudes" and "honesty" are legislated, namely
>LM> >"affirmative" action laws, "comparative worth" pay programmes,
>
>LM> These laws were passed in response to a verified problem.  I've seen no
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>LM> evidence of such a problem in regards to the laws you want passed.
>
>
>I hardly think that the lack of "equality of results" is necessarily inherent
>proof of systemic discrimination.  Read "The Employment Equity Empress Has
>No Clothes," by Grant A. Brown, for a thorough refutation of the premises
>behind "affirmative action" laws.  (*Someone* is going to call the title
>sexist, I just *know* it...)
>
>Still, the reason I brought up the point, is that in employment situations, we
>*used* to count on the honesty and the objectivity of employers to hire without
>bias, and to trust their judgements without having to *force* a judgement upon
>them.
>
>In the case of father notification, we have a case where people have said "Women
>will generally tell the father, unless there is a genuine problem," and indeed,
>that "you can't legislate attitudes".  This is why I find it so strange that
>in the former case, we feel it necessary to legislate attitudes and honesty,
>without it being considered "oppressive," yet in the latter case, many of these
>same people who yell about having to legislate attitudes, are crying foul.

Can I take it that you have no evidence of a real problem in regards to
the laws you want passed?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 17 Nov 1992 09:17:56 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted

In article <1992Nov17.133648.25175@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>But I didn't bother getting into that thread
>because I figured Adrienne could take care of herself. 
>I haven't seen anyone suggest this yet, so I move
>we nominate Dr Giggles Nyikos for the net.council of idiots.

Second.

As you see.

>He would be right at home with Tire Iron Kaldis and Kibble Darcy.

Adrienne Regard
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 01:22:07 GMT


In article <1992Nov18.193320.20408@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu writes:
|I have a simple question for pro-choicers:
|    You say you have the "Right to Choose".  Who is the
|    authority that grants you this right?

Oh, dear, a philosophical quandry.  Does the state grant
rights, or merely recognize them?

---
c j silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men 
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."  --Louis B. Brandeis
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: J Price answers questions
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:07:13 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes ...
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes to Lynn Alford:
>|>> She knew there was a chance and she took and messed up PAY THE PRICE !!!
>|>
>|>You seem to express a willingness to PUNISH a married woman for having sex
>|>with her husband.  Is that the case?  Yes?  No?
>|>
>I'm not going to punish her she punished herself by getting pregnant.

Coward.  You want to set the rules but refuse to own up to the
consequences.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: ray fischer and credibility
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:49:31 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
->>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->>->As an example note that I
->>->never said anything about banning abortions.
->>
->>an example of what? you haven't showed i claimed you
->>had.

->----------------
->From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
->Message-ID: <d7s129k@rpi.edu>

->ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->->I would not object to some restrictions on abortion.

->are you referring to just your access to abortion, ray,
->or to everyone's access to abortion?
->----------------

so?

are you going to support your claim or withdraw it?

or, you could do nothing just like nyikos and dodie.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Why is Nykios AntiBible?
Keywords: slavery, pro-life
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:12:30 GMT


In article <nyikos.722119966@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov8.184806.26949@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>Well its clear that this citation of yours is
>>intended to establish that you are AGAINST
>>biblical principles, and what the BIBLE has
>>to say about Slavery.
>
>Moses led the Israelites out of slavery.  Paul sent a slave back to his
>master, but this master might well have been as kind to the slave as 
>though it had been his own child, no?  What conclusions am I supposed
>to draw from all this?
YHWH(through Moses) provided the Israelites with a legal code
that explicitly endorsed slavery. I also remember something like
"Slaves, obey your masters" in one of the Pastoral Epistles.
It would be hard to argue that the Bible is anything but pro-slavery.
-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: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:33:58 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1egf8iINNk3t@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Nov18.193320.20408@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>>I have a simple question for pro-choicers:
>>
>>   You say you have the "Right to Choose".  Who is the
>>   authority that grants you this right?

>The highest authority that exists:  Ourselves.

I take it you mean ourselves individually rather than collectively --
you don't think your "right to choose" depends on any decision our
society makes.  For example, you don't think it could legitimately be
taken away by legislation.  Am I right?

If so, then it appears you are saying that for you, you are the
highest authority that exists, for me, I am the highest authority that
exists, and so on.

Does that view even make sense?  "Authority" means something you are
bound by.  What sense does it make to say you are bound by yourself?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)