HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:40:05 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <Bsuyt7.B9M@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (You know who) writes:

[much drivel deleted...]

>Besides, aside from Jay Stein (possibly), I didn't jump on anyone
>without provocation. Ever. I didn't get all that nagging e-mail from
>Ronald Bense, and a half dozen others, without provocation: I was

Nagging e-mail? I do believe you sent me e-mail first, at least e-mail
that said something, and wasn't a repeat of a post. The only *nagging*
e-mail I can think of that I sent was a single copy of "Dodge This..."
every time you posted it to display my displeasure at your posting tactics,
and waste of bandwidth. You basically said that you would quit posting
that fdrivel if someone posted a reply to it and didn't dodge it. I
guess now that I should have saved my reply to your 3rd or 4th posting
of this trash. At least you have the honesty to admit that you provoked
this *nagging* e-mail. 

Now all you have to do is explain what you mean by nagging, as all I 
did was raise some points and express my views about what you said tied 
into the way you respond on the net. There were no flames in this, just
observations.

>involved in a flame war, and people began going after me.

Um, going after you? How about refuting what was seen as moronic dribbling?

[...]

>No one has yet proved one thing about my family that could be
>dysfunctional, and yet you continue to assert my family history was
>"bad." There is absolutely nothing wrong - at least there never has
>been a thing wrong - with parents demanding respect, which my brother
>didn't give for a while, before they put their feet down and demanded
>it from him. There is also nothing wrong with taking an inheritance
>away when the kid(s) decides not to give respect at all.

>But in your language, it's called "dysfunctional." The rest of America
>knows it as normal. Y'know, 50 million French can't be wrong and you
>be right. Or, in this case, 250 million Americans.

Maybe you should be more careful in how you describe things and not
do so in the confrontational tone you generally fall into. The way it
was stated, with the words used, indicate to a majority of those reading
that this was a seriously dysfunctional family. I also noted that you
never refuted any of the things I said about the habits of your family,
which tend to indicate that 1) they are true, 2) you don't consider
them important enough to refute. 2) might almost be more disturbing
than 1), because if 2) is true, then it is very likely (although this
can be deduced from your posts) that you will turn out to have the same
type family that your parents had. And the cycle continues.....

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:10:42 GMT

From article by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
> 
> 	"Dennis Hall" was reportedly sexist and arrogant? I guess that
> being sexist did not endear him to the abundance of female
> pro-choicers here.
> 
> 	I wonder if us pro-choicers can start a boycott of Steve
> Chaney, just as we had done of David J. Rasmussen.
> 
> 	Say, what's happened to DJR? I haven't seen him post in an
> awful long time.


The way I heard it from somebody in the know, he simply moved away.


Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Rephrased: a war behind the Iron Curtain (was Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:58:07 GMT

In article <lefty-180892174027@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.190254.5966@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
>(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
>> 
>> Of course Keegan is Lefty's only friend and Lefty is Keegan's only
>> friend. Not even EE Bartley wants to identify with him. 
>
>Hey, sonny, I've got more friends than _you_ have _personalities_!

So you have two friends - yourself and your dog, affectionately called
Kate. 

Go figure. 

>--
>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:46:05 GMT

In article <Bt5F7L.Epr.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> I'm still waiting for someone to explain what kind of idiot repeatedly
> fabricates evidence, 

This statement is not correct.

> doctors quotes, 

This statement is not correct.

> and changes context 

This statement is not correct. 


Character assasination won't work Ms. Garvin, much as you'd like it
to work. 


I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Ms. Garvin could say that
I had been making up sources for a post that she had never seen.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Racism?
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:17:19 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug20.145953.9544@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems writes:
>
> It seems you're just trying to tell people you were sorry that your
> racism accidentally got out of the closet there for a moment, and that
> while you're sorry that it offends them, you're not going to apologize
> to the person it was directed at.

Refresh my memory, please.  Did you ever apologize to "the Jews of New York"
for your racist lies about them?  Sounds like a case of the pot calling
the kettle - (um, err, fill in the appropriate word here  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:54:04 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <tgreen.713578667@pv1788.vincent.iastate.edu>, tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
> In <oeqd9g0@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

[...]
 
> so I'l' say something about compassion then.  The compassionate
> response would be to help the car accident victim, bring them
> to the hospital, etc, then if they were drunk, throw them in 
> jail when they get out of the hospital.
> 
>>Unwanted pregnancies are going to happen, whether abortion is
>>legal or not.  Women are sometimes going to be desperate,
>>whether abortion is legal or not.  Women are sometimes going to
>>terminate unwanted pregnancies, whether abortion is safe & legal
>>or not.  Do these women deserve injury & death?
> 
> No, they don't.  But would a back-alley abortion be a smart
> thing for them to do?  No.  Do they know that they could
> die or be injured?  I don't know, but they probably should.  

My my, that sounds very compassionate.  So, do you or do you not hate
women?  One or the other.  Should women desperate enough to seek
a back-alley abortion be killed or not, in your opimion?  
 
>>What's the compassionate answer to the back alley abortion
>>scenario?
> 
> educate them to the safe alternatives, offer to help them
> during and after the pregnancy.  Throw the abortionist in
> jail.  
>>Women are going to abort, whether it's safe & legal or not.
>>Should abortion be safe & legal?
> 
>>What's the compassionate answer?
> 
> abortion has nothing to do with compassion.  If you were truly
> compassionate, you would feel compassion for the baby (fetus) that is
> killed.  

But none for the woman, who may be good as dead with a kid anyway.  So
is this an answer to my question?

> Compassion doesn't mean to let everyone take the easy way
> out of difficult or desperate situations.  Compassion would be to
> help them (not just the mother, also the baby) through it. 
> 
> There is never no other choice but to get an abortion.

Of course not, but maybe abortion is the best choice in some situations.  

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Who takes care of the unwanted mother? 
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 19:36:12 GMT

<1992Aug14.125013.27357@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.):
>In <1992Aug13.234546.6461@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu writes:
>> As you can tell, while the flamewar articles receive a general 30
>> minute to 1 hour response, this kind of post receives none in over 3
>> days. 
>> 
...
>> That's because this article fails to meet their Steve Hall Dennis
>> Chaney Numbskull Raving Lunatic propaganda requirements, and they
>> can't twist this post into a flamefest. So they don't respond.  
>[amazingly coherent post deleted for space]
>
>  Well, I'd guess (1) They actually agree with what you said, and (2) They're
>still in shock.  I know I am.  You should stick to this style.

I just want to know who wrote it for him.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32335 alt.flame:12175
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:52:52 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug18.155726.19400@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-170892182532@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> 
> >Second, you have always been irrelevant to "intellegent" discussion here.
> 
> And when you blow your smoke, I'll do as Reagan said and follow
> Clinton's advice: DON'T INHALE. 

Do you suppose that you could avoid inhaling for four or five days?  If you
think it might be too difficult, I suspect a liberal application of
Krazy-Glue to your mouth and nostrils would probably prove helpful.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: "Indeed they are."
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:33:37 GMT

The quotation in the subject line is attributed to Barbara Bush.
That was her response when asked whether abortion or homosexuality
were a 'personal choice.'

I've always liked Barbara.

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
 "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -- Benjamin Disraeli
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,co.politics
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: How many Republicans support their abortion plank? (Re: Another ...)
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:23:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.204044.4955@wuecl.wustl.edu>, dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
	[re the Republican platform stand on abortion]
> The plank calls for a constitutional ban on abortion, no use of
> public funds for abortion, and appointment of anti-abortion judges.
> 
> Bush's frequently stated position is that he opposes abortion,
> except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life.
> However, the constitutional ban called for by the platform would
> allow no rape or incest exception.  Only endangerment of the mother's
> life sufficient to warrant abortion in "self-defense" would permit
> it to legally occur. 
> 
> Apparently Bush does not support the platform position.  How many
> Republicans do?  I know Rep. Henry Hyde does.  How many others?  I 
> would be surprised if a majority actually supports such an extreme 
> position.

Well, here's a data point.  The Colorado Republican primary pitted 
pro-choice and pro-life candidates against each other, and the pro-life
candidates generally won.  This has been attributed to several things:

1) Low turnout favors candidates with narrow followings, because their
followers will vote in greater relative numbers.

2) Much anti-incumbent sentiment;  two (I think) of the pro-choice 
candidates who lost were incumbents.

3) Most people who identify themselves as pro-choice are registered
Democrats.

It is not expected that the large primary pro-life victory will translate
to a victory in the general election, although it's possible that pro-life
Republican candidates will unseat pro-choice Democrat incumbents, again
because of anti-incumbent sentiment.

Note that Colorado passed one of the first and most liberal state
abortion laws.  Incidentally, the current Senator (Brown) (the other
seat is being contested) is Republican and pro-choice (although he is
opposed to the use of federal funds for abortion).

[I have xposted to co.politics as an experiment, since that group
seems to have returned somewhat to the actual topic of Colorado politics,
and I'd be interested in seeing what others thought of the primary
results.  Please watch your followups!]

-- 
/\        Ilana Stern DoD#009 | Whoever first said, "Things are seldom as they 
  \_][    ilana@ncar.ucar.edu | seem," was wrong.  Things are usually as they
      \_______________________| seem.  Otherwise, they wouldn't seem that way.
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy (was Re: BIBLE THUMPERS - ALLIES OF CHOICE!)
Keywords: Cough. Cough. Cough Man.
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:51:22 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug15.213334.11065@csus.edu>, Stephen Chaney writes:

> We don't oppose choice by using any bible. We seek to protect human
> life from abortion-death by proving just how human and alive the fetus
> is.

So the fetus is alive and human; so is the woman.  The fetus couldn't
care less if it was aborted or not.  The woman, on the other hand,
might care a great deal.  You lose, monkey-man.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Polls show Republicans favor abortion rights
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:56:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.160053.19590@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# In article <1992Aug18.002629.19010@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
# >chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# ># dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# ># >bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
# ># >> The polls show that the majority of Republicans favor choice.  
# ># 
# ># - Epitaph for John Campbell, pro-abort Republican US Senatorial
# ># Candidate in California, who got a new asshole burned for him by
# ># pro-life Republican candidate Bruce Herschensohn, in the June primary. 
# >
# >Idiot.  If Herschensohn had lost by the margin he won by, he would
# >have demanded and got a recount.  I seem to recall the margin being
# >something like 3000 votes.
# 
# Doesn't sound like Campbell was in the majority. He lost nonetheless.

So, you want to be called an idiot, too?

Campbell lost, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with his position
on abortion.  See my response to Michael Loomis's post for an
enumeration of the reasons widely believed to be behind Campbell's
loss.

# >Perhaps you were thinking about how Big Bill Dannemeyer was taken to
# >the woodshed by Republican voters, who got like 17% of the vote in a
# >three-way race in which he came in second. But then, Dannemeyer's a
# >mutant pro-lifer from beyond the stars, and Seymour's been pro-choice
# >for, what? -- four, five years now?
# 
# Dannemeyer was one. Would you care to tell all of talk.abortion about
# how almost all of Pete Wilson's hand-picked pro-abortion Republican
# candidates, lost to pro-lifers in the primaries? 
# 
# Where was THEIR pro-choice majority? Flocking to Florida, I bet..

Care to name Pete Wilson's `hand picked' pro-choice candidates? I'm a
registered Republican, so I made a point to be very careful not to
cast my vote for the screwhead Christian right candidates in the local
races. They all lost.

I don't have a detailed clue what's going on in other local races
throughout California, but I do know that in Bill Dannemeyer's old
district, the guy that won is Jay Kim, who isn't a raving pro-lifer
(in truth, I don't know his position, but I have read his propaganda,
and abortion isn't something he harps on).


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

Tired of `short, shameful confessions?'  Too old for `one line bios?'
`Rictus Hep' just too bizarre?  Try *NEW* ----> `I resolve...'  It's
the latest craze!  Tastes great!  Low in saturated fat!  And!!  It
doesn't leave you drowsy like those other brands!  New `I resolve...'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Subject: Re: I Tend To Ignore Wes Orr Because.
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:20:16 GMT

In article <28651@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.134619.931@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu
>(Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes the usual nonsense:
 I appreciate the nonjudgemental attacks on my sensibilities.>
>>I wanted to agree with the poster who said that there are pro-lifers,
>>like myself, who do believe in doing all that we can as a society to
>>remove the need for abortion.  This includes financial, emotional and
>>spiritual guidance (if desired).
>
>Great.  Good luck in trying to persuade women that they do not want to
>abort their /z/e/f/s.  As a pro-choice person, I too favor doing all
>we can to avoid abortion; my personal preference is to work on
>preventing unwanted pregnancies.
i too want to prevent unwanted pregnancies but sometimes they still happen.
When they do there should be a point where an abortion is no longer an option
and that this point is based on a more compelling argument than viability.>
>>I believe the fetus to be unquestionable human.  
>
>I assume you mean unquestionably human.  An egg and sperm are human
>also.  So is an appendix.  What's your point?
Obviously, biology 101 and you never met.  Since when does an appendix
grow into a living breathing human being?>
>>I believe in its
>>right to life.  I believe the right to live supercedes the right of
>>another to kill it.
stuff deleted>>>>
>>  If only it were possible to take fetuses from 
>>their unwanting mothers and give them to homes where they are wanted.
>>I probably will adopt someday for this reason.Wes
>
>What a wonderful thought.  Unfortunately, the same neo-fascists who
>are your allies in oppressing the reproductive rights of women will
>never allow you to adopt because you are homosexual.
>
>SJM
Thanks for broadcasting something I stated about myself in passing.
I would appreciate it if you wouldn't constantly bring up my sexuality
in this newsgroup.  If I feel it appropriate to bring it up then please
allow me to do that.  BTW, I am bi, not gay.

Also, those who are pro-life are not fascists.  They believe in their
convictions.  Those who argue unlimited abortion on demand, although 
few, are just as extreme.

Wes


-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:42:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.021123.7696@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <23256@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>
>>Chaney, some news for you, some of us don't take the net seriously, ...
>
>Is the Instant Self-righteous Indignation crowd reading this, I wonder?
>
>								- Kevin

Well, I don't take it seriously, except as a grounds for catching and
webbing in pro-lifers with the Internet.pro-life.newsletter. More than
a few pro-lifers post, who don't know about the newsletter. That and I
train on pro-abortion arguments presented here; I have never
considered any argument of mine "strong enough" and am always testing
it for any holes through which pro-aborts can possibly weasel their
way out of. 

Unfortunately, I also stumble upon some folks who have nothing better
to do, than to try and tear my guts out on this newsgroup, and as a 
result, I spend my time battling them. 

Which is what you end up seeing most of the time. 

===============================================================================
"I smoked... but I didn't inhale." - Bill Clinton 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion