HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rumors,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Bo GritzDIR
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:42:45 CST
Followup-To: talk.rumors
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <95624@bu.edu>, mwise@acs.bu.edu (Matthew Wise) writes:
> 
> Bo Gritz: presidential candidate, highly decorated vietnam vet, hostage
> negotitator, etc, etc.
> 
> what gives with this guy?

	It's hard to tell because it looks like the media and government
have a pretty good blackout going on third party candidates unless
they have a few billion.  I have heard that he was decorated for valor
some 62 times during the Vietnam war and that the movie character
Rambo was in part based on some of his Vietnamese exploits.
> 
> what is his connection with the White Supremacist groups?
	I would say apparently none after listening to Gritz on
shortwave in the aftermath of the Idaho/Randy Weaver affair.  That's
not to say that some such groups might not be attracted to Gritz since
they are sometimes paramilitary in orientation and might tend to like
war heros.
> 
> why did he 'just happen' to show up on that hill in Idaho [his own words to
>  "A Current Affair" last night] ?

	Randy Weaver knew Gritz from his special services training
camp days during the Vietnam war, had respect for him, and had contacted
Gritz about a month prior the shootout and asked his help in defusing
the bad situation he thought might be developing.  Gritz was too busy
and did not come.  When the situation exploded, he dropped everything
and went to Idaho apparently feeling somewhat concerned that he had
not taken the matter seriously enough before.  Also Weaver is reported
to have cried out from his cabin during the siege that he wanted to
speak to Bo Gritz.  (By this time the area was said to have been wired
for sound).
> 
> What's cookin' Bo?
> -- 
> mwise@acs.bu.edu                                     _Pryck_:a bodyart magazine
> student: Can essential Buddha-nature be destroyed?
> Coyote: Yes. Do you have an eraser?
> 

	Joe Gaut
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Freedom of religion
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:41:31 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) does his SOP[1]:

> That's why they hurried up and made the z/e/f a "non-person." 
> As a person, abortion would be highly illegal.

Bullshit.  Z/e/fs have never had the status of legal persons
in this country.


[1] 'Standard Operating Procedure' or 'Stupidity on Parade':
     you be the judge.


-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:59:57 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

In article <Bu6HMy.Ft2@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Don Dodson) writes:
# The other day I met a young lady and her 5 week old baby, Dalton
# Brooks.  I held little Dalton while his mother told me his story:
# 
  [ Happy happy joy joy tale of abortion hesitancy and adoption ]
# 
# I look forward to the day when families like this one as well as
# individuals being responsible in their actions will make abortion
# a thing of the past.

If responsible individuals and charitable families don't make abortion
a thing of the past, what then?

I recommend a hunger strike.

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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Observations
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:39:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.143636.26067@advtech.uswest.com>
stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Sep01.193909.24105@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>In  <1992Sep1.165853.11816@advtech.uswest.com>
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>>> Which is a statement of personal belief, not fact.  My belief is that the
>>> woman should be aware of the possibility of pregnancy, and be prepared to
>>> carry through (just as the man has to) in the event of a pregnancy.

>>> My beliefs are just as valid as yours, so if you tell me what I 'should'
>>> do, then I take it I have the right to tell you what YOU should do.

>>Naturally.  As long as you don't try to enforce it against my will.

>Nope.  They are still just as valid when I try to enforce them.  This is
>called law.  And right now, you are enforcing your beliefs on others.

>You will not admit that.  You keep conviently side stepping the difficult
>questions, or ignoring pertinent facts.

Pertinent fact: your "father's consent" wished-for-law ignores the
woman's right to control her body, since it divides control over her
body equally between the two people who have created the z/e/f and
ignores the fact that the body is hers.

Difficult question: doesn't this make this position the most
miogynistic position around, as its premises are misogynistic (women
don't have a right to control their bodies)?

>>Note that I said *should*, not *must*.  Just like if you wanted to give
>>someone a gift, but control how they used it, I'd say you should come
>>to an agreement *before* giving them the gift.  You're free to do what
>>you like, but if you give them the gift with no strings attached, then
>>whine because they threw it out, I'm free to think you're a fool for
>>doing so.

>Except that once again, you conveniently ignore the facts.  Agreements that
>attempt to enforce maternity OR abortion OR excusing the father from
>child support payments are unenforcable legally.

>Hence my desire to change the law.  And yes, in changing the law, you
>might end up having somebody elses beliefs enforced on you, but how
>does that differ from today?  Already, there exists a large body of
>law that enforces other peoples beliefs on you.

You ... hypocrite!

Child support contracts are unenforcible, which creates an
infringement on men's rights, so instead of changing this you want to
destroy women's rights to control their bodies?!!

Excuse me if I think this shows total disregard for women's rights.

>Are you trying to call into question the entire body of law?

Yes.  Both Larry and I have said that child support contracts should
be enforcible as a general rule long before you poked your nose into
talk.abortion.

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:01:21 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  <1992Sep14.164010.5645@acd4.acd.com>  wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> I honestly do not "hold the same view of all the people who
> have suggested that DODie, or chaney, el.  al.  could benefit
> from therapy."

Well, it's possible that they're beyond help, but it's worth a shot.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 07:30:35 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa

<1992Sep10.035504.12774@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
><1992Sep2.205935.9428@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>><1992Aug31.145731.12606@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
...
>>Please answer this simple question directly:  If you come to me with a
>>problem and I say, "It's your decision, your choice", how does that
>>qualify as imposing my belief on you?  I'm speaking in the context of
>>abortion, ok?
>
>I've answered this so many times, I'm begining to be quite certain that
>nobody reads my replies.

Possible.  There are over 1300 articles in t.a. right now.  I know I'm not
going to read every one of them.

>In your above example, it does not impose a belief on me.  But this example
>is poorly chosen.  Try: if there is a problem involving you and me, and
>you make a decision on how to deal with that problem unilaterally, you
>enforce your BELIEF of the appropriateness of your actions on me.

I agree, but then, this example has little to do with abortion.

>>You're beginning to sound an awful lot like Tommy Kelly.
>
>And you are begining to remind me of a fundamentalist preacher who argued
>against evolution by simply ignoring anything that he couldn't explain
>away.

Could you point out where I've ignored something you've said?  I admit to
trying to keep the discussion on the relative topic: abortion.  But I try
not to ignore other's comments altogether.


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.
-- 
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:36292 talk.religion.misc:16162
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:49:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In  <nyikos.716340103@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

> [1,2,3]. I accuse Joan Campbell, and most of the dozens of Church leaders who
> wrote the letter, of [being atheists, unbelievers in the afterlife, and
> unbelievers in a God who intervenes in the physical world...]

Why, Peter?  Because they disagree with you and Bush?  Because you once
encountered a church leader who dismissed the afterlife?

Complete brainlessness.  My sister and her husband are about as born-again
as they can be (to the point of sheepishly saying, yes, I am bound for
hell if I don't accept Jesus Christ as my Personal Savior.  By the way,
in answer to your previous slur in my general direction, I am not offended
by their belief, even though they're convinced I'm going somewhere horrible
after I die).  

They are witty and fun-- she a photographer, he an illustrator.  If I
ever get "saved", they will probably be the reason.  They 
both found the Republicans' convention and blatant attempt to claim God 
as their own personal mascot as abhorrent and scary.  They think 
Buchanan is a Nazi.  They will be helping to give the pink slip 
to George and Danny Boy in November.

And though they are Baptist church going, youth-group teaching, devoted
followers of a personal Jesus Christ who in no uncertain terms promises
life-everlasting to those faithful who follow Him-- you would call them
atheists because they flick a different switch in the voting booth than
you do.

Keep in mind that the Bible slaps you and the Elephant Party upside the
head on this issue.  The disciples were constantly trying to hitch Jesus'
wagon to a political star (overthrow of the hated Roman rule), but they
failed to understand that Jesus had His own star-- to remake the world
from within each human soul.  Not from without.

You are such stuff as Pharisees are made on, Nyikos.  Face it, you have
*no* *idea* what relationship these people have with Jesus Christ or any
other deity.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:18:57 GMT

In <1992Sep11.003611.14506@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
In article <1992Sep9.192025.10291@acd4.acd.com>
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <Bu25r5.B0w.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>> 

>>>>> I'm starting to think that you just wanted to
>>>>> flame Jim and this was the only avenue available.
>
>>>> No, I'm not interested in conflict for its own
>>>> sake.
> 
>>> As Jim keeps saying, the fact that you chose to
>>> respond to his comments and no one else's seems to
>>> belie this, especially when one considers that
>>> this is the only thread to which you are currently
>>> contributing.
> 
>> I understand.  It's not easy to convince people that
>> your motives are honest.  
>
> i don't think your motives were dishonest bill. i think
> you honestly hold the same view of all the people who
> have suggested that DODie, or chaney, et. al. could
> benefit from therapy. 

Then you think incorrectly, Jim.  And as I've indicated,
many people can "benefit from therapy".  That, however,
should not be interpreted as an indication of pathology,
which was the basis of your implication.

> i mean, you'd really have to, wouldn't you?

Just the opposite.  In the absence of real, identifiable 
symptoms, I'd have to conclude that no significant pathology
exists.

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35301 alt.child-support:3060 misc.kids:22637
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.child-support,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Child Endangerment and parental custody.
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:11:40 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep3.114744.7679@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> 
> First the Question:
> 
> If a Parent 'allows' their kid to do anything they want,
> 
> AND
> 
> that kid has been arrested 42 times before her fourteenth birthday.
> 
> Is this time for someone in the Child Welfare Agency to
> step in and seek to make the child a ward of the Court?
> 
> At least to put that child in a foster Home, or 
> someplace where there will be people who will love her?
> 

I do volunteer work with troubled teens.  Getting a child like this into a
foster home is not always an option, there are very few foster homes available
for teenagers.  I have a foster son, he just joined our family about four
or five months ago.  He's doing just fine, while he did get into juvenile
problems when he was younger, he spent nine months in a treatment center
and is totally reformed.  

As for a county home, most of them have waiting lists for their beds.  

If just a few of you concerned citizens out there would please take in 
a teenager, lots of these kids could be saved.  As it is, most of them
*have* to stay in bad situations with bad parents, there just isn't any
place to put them.

Sue

> Now the post that caused this:
> 
> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> 
> ]      I would just like to say that I also had the opportunity to 
> ] watch that Maury Povich episode yesterday, and Susan Garvin's
> ] interpretation was quite accurate indeed.  It was frustrating
> ] to watch the pro-lifers on the panel spew their arguments without
> ] being able to tell them what was the matter with them (their
> ] arguments that is).  Brainwashing put aside, those children were
> ] and will continue to be abused by their parents.  I'm not sure
> ] if it's good parental practice to allow your 13 year-old daughter
> ] to be arrested 42 times, and say "it's ok, she wanted to do it,
> ] I didn't put her up to it."
> ] 
> ] Scary people.
> ] 
> ] Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
> 
> and a Sad commentary that no one has stepped in
> to protect these children.....
> 
> 
> ciao
> drieux
> 
> 
> ps: one also wonders if this daughter will still
> be allowed to decide to have an abortion at say, 
> sixteen years of age......
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
> To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
> Put them back in the Refrigerator.
> This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35460 alt.flame:12604 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:393
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 7 Sep 92 21:52:02 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

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to kebbin:
-> "Value the unborn so much more than the born"?  Do
-> you regularly misrepresent the pro-life viewpoint to
-> this extent?

of course he does! kebbin is famous across the net for
misrepresenting just about everything. as to why people
sometimes respond to his posts .....

        "Kevin, you try so hard to sound competent and
        intelligent, too bad it's an utterly wasted
        effort.  It is so much fun sometimes to beat
        the shit out of those who are intellectually
        unarmed.  This is why so many people find it
        such fun to beat up on you."
			Babs Woods
			<1991Apr10.223744.17188@jfwhome.FUNHOUSE.COM>



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES, NFP SUCCESS RATES
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:28:56 GMT

In article <xbnng8=.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>>   As you may recall, the method effectiveness of the model was 99.6 percent
>>in the Creighton-St. John's Mercy study conducted in 1980 (559 couples;
>>4,957 couple months of use) (see Table 1).  In 1985, Joanne Doud published
>>the results of her study at St. Francis Hospital of Wichita, Kansas.  The
>>method effectiveness was 99.1 percent (376 couples; 2,463 months of use).
>>In the most recent study, the largest to date, the method effectiveness is
>>99.9 percent (697 couples; 7,238 couple months of use).
>
>Very interesting numbers indeed!  Few questions though.  I'm not sure 
>what they mean by "effectiveness" or how they  are measuring it.  With
>"conventional" contraceptives effectiveness generally refers to how often
>the woman can expect to not get pregnant each time she has intercourse.
>(that is, if my memory is correct).
Your memory is wrong. Contraceptive effectiveness rates are for
a year of use.

This is part of why one should be suspicious of this study. It's meaningless
without knowing what percentage of the time one must be abstinence
in order to attain those effectiveness rates. Suzanne has repeatedly
refused to give this data. Two possibilities exist.

1) The data is in these studies but Suzanne refuses to tell us.
The only reason I can think of that she'd do that is because
one must be abstinent quite a high percentage of the time
in order to achieve the success rates she cites.

2) The data is NOT in the studies. Since any scientist worthy
of his degree would certainly have collected and published such
data, we are led to the conclusion that was suggested by the
fact that the studies were not peer reviewed, which is that
they are not to be trusted.

In either case, the studies should not be trusted as a good measure
of the effectivness of NFP.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Hey, Mr. Chaney!
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:08:19 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

Steve Chaney wrote:
# So that's why you're making all the retractions and I'm the one
# pounding them out of you, one at a time? 

You are overusing the violence metaphor.  In a major way.

Stop it.  Now.

I mean it.

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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Life... what a horrible joke.
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:49:30 GMT

In article <Btvs38.BFC@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> Warning:
> the following cases are depressingly tragic.
> They are provided as an antidote to the blind 
> cheeriness of the "Life - what a wonderful choice" ads.

[I'm only deleting them to save space, and I hope everyone
read the original article.]
 
> Life... What a horrible joke.
> 
> Needless to say, the state foster care agency is being revamped.
> 
> Sorry for the sad, but true, cases.  I am reminded of them 
> everytime I see one of these sacharin "Life" ads.
> 
> I don't think these cases are a strong argument for or against 
> abortion-rights, but they do make me worry about crack-addicts too
> oblivious to make choices and also about the probable increases in 
> child abandonment if the abortion option were to be outlawed.

This reminded me of a curious sequence of commercials on CNN
last week. The DeMoss blurb that says "Think of all the songs 
yet to be sung, all the games yet to be played, all the ideas
yet to be imagined, [etc.]" was followed by an ad for a children's
charity organization. Its annoucer started with something like, 
"They are the forgotten ones. The children of the poor." 

We're shown the white-bread world of DeMoss and friends, where
life for children is nothing more than songs, games, and ideas.
Immediately after that, we see the real world. "Hush, little
baby, don't you cry...."

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:11:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes ...
>Now, Ray; you've been in a pout ever since I blasted your suggestion that
>religion is nothing BUT good for this country...a rather dopey position.

???

You must be confusing me with someone else.  I'm the last one (as a
determined non-religiousoid) to make THAT sort of suggestion.  There
was a Roy posting here once - perhaps he?

You didn't _already_ get that operation, did you?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion