HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:30:50 GMT

In <1992Nov14.142652.29494@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <nyikos.721692137@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> 
>> Typical.  She makes allegations of the unreliability of the quote, does
>> not give her own quote, deletes Doug's quote.  I move that networkers
>> disregard such claims as "he had made unmarked deletions" by Ms. Garvin
>> until she shows where these were made and what they were [or at least
>> a sample].

>Considering your inability to figure out who said what in
>a posting, your comments on anyone else's deletions or posting
>behavior is highly suspect to say the least.  In fact, given
>your history, there is a presumption that what you say about
>anyone's quotes or deletions is incorrect.

Show me where I was unable to figure out who said what.

You seem to believe what others say about me instead of thinking for
yourself.

>Oh, and can you please explain why you think Susan shouldn't
>b eallowed to delete material from a posting?  She explains her
>reasons for the deletions and it is a reasonable explanation
>and the deletions are practical.

I won't argue with that, I'm just suspending judgment about the truth
of her allegations until she posts documentation.  You would do well
to do the same the next time you accuse me of something.

>I think Dr Giggles is back doing his "I'll just attack
>my opponents for no good reason" game again.  He made an ass
>of himself with Adrienne and now he has an urge to make an
>ass of himself with Susan.

You have not seen all the evidence in re the Adrienne game.  You don't
even realize that she started the attack, not I.  I wonder whether you
can take off your ideological blinders long enough to disbelieve
*anything* Adrienne says about me.

>I suspect that Nyikos isn't really teaching mathematics.  I
>think he's the NCSU Professor of Making an Ass of One's Self.
>In that regard, he holds th epost with great distinction.

Go on, Dean, make an ass of yourself, see if I care.

>> As far as I can see, this unsupported allegation ["you cannot assume..."]
>> by Ms. Garvin is her sole support for her word "*completely*" highlighted
>> above.

>Oh, and there is much more support for it than that.  The fact
>that actual practice supports Susan's statement is pretty good
>support.  As always, Peter, you prefer wild speculations such
>as Doug's, to the facts.

Funny how you deleted Chief Justice Burger's words from my post.
Would you characterize his lambasting of the actual practice of Roe v. Wade
with the "mere shallow rhetoric" of Blackmun as "wild speculation"?

>Dean Kaflowitz

The day you are an actual Dean of anything will be the day college
students are done a serious disservice.

Peter Nyikos



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh? (LONG)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:57:52 GMT

In <1dk57qINN72s@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:


>   If people like Peter Nyikos could grasp what it truly means to
>be an American, CHOICE would be a sacrament.

Explain why you think I cannot grasp this, please.

>-- 
>   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
>may not be both."
>                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Somebody recently had a lively pair of comments, whether this rabbi
is suggesting that racists should be deprived of the right to vote,
or shot down like dogs in the street.  What's your interpretation,
Mark?

I wonder whether Rabbi heschel can grasp what it truly means to be
American, or whether Mr. Blackshaw, who said racists are subhuman 
at best, does.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:21:21 GMT

steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes ...
>I wouldn't mind hearing what restrictions you'd support, and what penalties
>for doctors/patients you'd like to see enacted.

Many people have made compelling arguments against banning late-term
abortions, and so I'm not going to propose any such thing.  However,
neither do I see as justifiable any abortion which deliberately kills
a late term and viable fetus when alternatives exist.

What I would like to see are laws that allow a woman to terminate a 
pregnancy at any time, but requires that an attempt be made to save 
the life of the fetus when practical and when it does not place the 
mother at great additional risk.  Granted, this may not always be
possible, but when it is, it should be required.

What punishment?  I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime.  And yes,
that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she be so
convicted.  While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I don't think
that women should be treated like children just because they are
pregnant.  I expect _equal_ justice under the law.

Of course this is only a sketch and there there are many exceptions
and caveats; should anyone feel like picking nits, please consider the
practicality of the intent first.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: ray fischer and credibility
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:21:06 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->I'm annoyed because you're a dishonest slimeball who can come up with
->nothing better than lies and strawmen. 

now let's see if ray supports his claims any better
than Phoney.

->As an example note that I
->never said anything about banning abortions.

an example of what? you haven't showed i claimed you
had.

so are you going to support your statement?
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 6
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:00:42 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov17.065357.18024@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
writes more of the same:

>To repeat myself: the motivation for forbidding abortion is that the
>z/e/f has value.  The reason for an exception in the case of rape is
>that the law does not command that all good things be done -- it also
>requires that the person commanded to do the good thing be someone who
>may appropriately be assigned the obligation.  A common basis for
>obligation is that people are responsible for the forseeable
>consequences of their voluntary actions.  What's so hard to understand
>about that line of thought?

Who the hell are you to decide about the fertility responsiblities of
others?  If the /z/e/f/ is so sacred, why does the rapist's wrong
invalidate its sacred right to life?  Can you name any other situation
where another person's crime invalidates the right to life of some
second entity?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: To the discussionaries!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:49:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.010639.8793@iscsvax.uni.edu>, clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> What about the freedom to be a christian?  In acts Jesus told us to sread the
> news to all the world.  Being a christian means at least giving the others the
> option to know the truth.

You know, I've seen this cited as justification for witnessing
at the uninterested all over the net.  Every few weeks alt.atheism
becomes the target of the proselytizers and they often cite this
same justification for telling the atheists that they are going
to hell, that Jesus loves them, and a bunch of other stuff.
This is in spite of the fact that many of the atheists in that
group have frequently explained that they were raised as
Christians in various denominations, some of them in very
fundamentalist or born-again environments.  The point is,
the original instruction to spread the word was from a leader
to a small following that was confined to a narrow part of the
world.  Clifton, the word has been spread.  This is the United
States of America, get it?  Any day of the week I can turn on
the TV and see some preacher preaching Christianity.  Any time
I have an interest I can read soc.christian.  Every town in
the country has some sort of Christian temple.  You are
fantasizing if you think that Christianity needs spreading in any
but a small handful of the remotest places on Earth.  The
news has been spread.  What you do now is not offer an
option, but rather browbeat.  That is what the proselytizers to
alt.atheism do.  The atheists know quite a bit about your
religion, so all the proselytizers are doing is repeating the
same tired old arguments and witnessing, and the only way they
an win a convert is maybe if somebody is browbeaten into buying
into the preaching, because we've all heard it before.  I'll
tell you what.  You find me one, just one single lone person on
this newsgroup or any other who doesn't know something about
Christianity and has no way of learning any more about it
except through you or someone else posting about it to a
newsgroup that has nothing at all to do with Christianity
(like talk.abortion or rec.arts.movies) and I'll say that
maybe, just maybe (because I don't concede the point entirely
since there is a matter of the rudeness of subjecting thousands
to your proselytizing so that you might get one person you don't
even know exists to hear something he never heard before)
you have a point.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: To Lost Boy...Re  The thoughts of a fetus
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:50:40 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

In article <Nov.19.12.27.06.1992.15494@andromeda.rutgers.edu>, hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:
# I think this is who I'm sending this to... It's in response to your "what 
# really pisses you off about prolifers", or whomever.
# 
# Did you know that the human fetus can dream?  Recent studies have found that
# the human fetus can actually dream!  
# 
# "Think" about it.

Did you know that cattle dream?

Pass the horseradish.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48903 alt.rush-limbaugh:10113
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:54:47 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->In <s5k1nx=@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>i wonder why peter simply hasn't mailed adrienne his
->>apology and asked her to post it.

->The reason you are wondering is that you haven't bothered to read
->the evidence for yourself but are taking Adrienne's word for it
->that things are the way they are.

you're lying again peter.

the reason i wondered (way back then when i did wonder)
was because your error was evident upon first reading.
that is one reason i suggested you seek help from your
system administrator in my first response.

btw, i've stopped wondering and concluded that you are
simply very stupid. you are stupid because you not only
hypocritically and falsly acccused someone but you
didn't have the common sense to bail out and cut your
losses when you were exposed.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 7
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:25:52 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

More from <1992Nov15.190305.26198@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb):

>On what I view as very much a side issue, it seems to me that alimony
>jail and giving people convicted of a misdemeanor the choice of paying
>a fine or serving a short prison term are two situations in which our
>legal situation treats a financial obligation and a bodily obligation
>as convertible.  No doubt there are others -- if I contract to nurse
>you through an illness and then refuse, I suppose I have the choice of
>providing bodily services or paying financial damages.

How interesting that you compare a criminal and a pregnant women on
the one hand.  Pregnant women are not criminals, Jim.  They also have
not entered into a contract to bear the child by engaging in a sex
act.  If you want to require the pledge of all women with whom you
have sex, feel free.  I just fail to understand why you want to force
all women to behave as if they have entered such a contract by
consenting to sex.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Nov19.002242.6511@noao.edu> <1992Nov19.003606.19144@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 1992 03:37:20 UTC

In article <1992Nov19.003606.19144@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.002242.6511@noao.edu> 
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article <1992Nov16.030911.25233@watson.ibm.com>, 
by strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom):
>>> From the Jewish perspective, the "OT" God judged
>>> us for our actions, not our beliefs, and had
>>> mercy on the righteous of all nations.
>>> The NT God judges us for our beliefs only, and
>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Not at all.  This is only Protestant dogma.   For a fuller expression
>>of Christianity, see Catholicism.
>A "fuller" expression of Xianity, huh?
>Or maybe just a more bloated one....
>>It's really very simple folks:
>>In the OT, God teaches us right from wrong.
>>In the NT, He teaches us why what is right is right,
>>                     and why what is wrong is wrong.
>It would be really nice if he could make up his mind between the OT and
>NT about what's right and wrong. I mean, are we supposed to stone
>adulterers or aren't we? Are we allowed to get divorces or not?
>Which one is it, God?

I think Luke14:26 would be a good EXAMple of what Suzanne is REFERing
to.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Garvin tells a lie 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:15:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.224313.15438@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:

> I do recall that the only people whom you would accept as 
> moderators were people who share your belief that there is
> no right to abortion.  

This is a lie.  I suggested that Adrienne Regard and Muriel 
Nelson, among others, would be good moderators. 

(BTW, I didn't place myself in a position to
accept or reject moderators).

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:33:47 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?

all rights must come from god; i heard somewhere.
i guess this includes the right of government to ignore or
recognize the rights of the people.

but here is the kicker; god also is the ultimate
judge. 

wow, a righteous god with lots of power.
sign me up.

mark.

"a planet where apes evolve from man?!?!"
	-mst3k



>---
>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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!!
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:53:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.041148.5374@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>If DODie is an x-tian, he must believe that there is no such thing as an
>"innocent unborn child," since, according to x-tians, all humans are born
>with original sin which cannot be wiped away until one prostrates onself
>to their chosen deity.
Doug says he is not a Christian.
-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: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:08:54 GMT

In article <#ay10dk@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>->Funny - she doesn't *look* shrewish...  :-)
>her .gif had me fooled too, for a while.
Larry has seen CJ in person, I believe--unless someone else identifying
himself as Larry Margolis was representing IBM at Interop.(Thanks for
the t-shirt tips, Larry).
-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: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmin
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:01:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.030651.69140@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Nov21.003516.21632@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:

>> Here's the e-mail that Larry Margolis sent to my system
>> administrators, forwarded from one of the NCSU sysadmins.
>> I omitted the sender's address from the e-mail.

>>      To whom it may concern,
>>         Apparently someone at your site is "letter-bombing" various newsgroups
>>         with material previously posted to talk.abortion.  This was in soc.singles,
>>         alt.romance.chat, and other groups.  I think someone needs a talking-to...
>> 
>>      Sincerely,
>>      Larry Margolis

> I don't see any threats

You made a very serious and false accusation that I had been
"letter-bombing" various newsgroups with abortion-related material, 
when in fact, I had only made ONE post each to soc.singles,
a.r, and a.r.c.  The term "letter-bombing" implies that I had
been flooding newsgroups with material, and that my postings 
were a very serious problem to be dealt with in the harshest
manner.  To further suggest that my system administrator should
talk to me about my alleged "letter-bombing" activities is
threatening e-mail.  I don't care if you think it's innocuous,
because I'm on the one on the receiving end.  
 

>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Silent Holocaust
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:39:27 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <Nov.19.11.14.25.1992.12839@andromeda.rutgers.edu> hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:
>I just galnced through this group for the first time, and I sense a lot of
>hostility...

}choke{

This has got to be the understatement of the century.  This is easily
the most flame filled group on usenet.

>These are just few of my many thoughts...And I must note that I wouldn't be 
>able to voice these thoughts if my birthmother had opted to have an abortion
>instead of giving me up for adoption in Bogota, Columbia!

You wouldn't be here if your mother had opted for an abortion.  To you
this indicates that abortion is wrong...

You wouldn't be here if your mother had opted for abstinence, does this
indicate to you that abstinence is wrong?

>Also, I am a woman, if that makes any difference to you.

Yes, it does.  It means that I believe that if you get pregnant, you
and only you should be able to decide whether or not you will carry
the pregnancy to term.

Joe


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: twisting (Thans for life)Read!
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:35:56 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov6.211805.3125@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>Again, I make the point.  will an EGG become a cow or a horse?  No!  It will
>>only be a baby.  By preventing its development, you are taking away the 
>>potential for life.
>
>Its potential for a life such as we have been enjoying all these years,
>assuming you are talking about a zygote, and not an unfertilized ovum.
>Its life is nipped in the bud.  But it is a biological life.  The life
>of a sentient fetus is infinitely more of a life than even this.

A 'sentient fetus'?  Is there really such a thing?

So you're saying the life of a fetus is worth more than the life of a
zygote or embryo?  At what point exactly does this life become more
important than the life of the woman who carries it, is this point
identical in all cases, and whhat authority do you have to determine it?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 14:15:13 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In article <1992Nov21.222825.4882@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>
>>happened.  There have also been recent discussions of college men
>>doing things like getting women drunk and having sexual relations with
>>them while they were not sober enough to consent.
>
>If she knows that she's drinking enough to impare her judgement, beforehand,
>then she IS giving consent; knowing she won't give it later.

    I'm sure as hell glad you aren't a judge in a rape case.  A woman who
drinks with a man is, by that act, giving consent to sexual acts later?
Are you really this stupid, or do you post stuff like this to see how many
flames you can attract?

    Idiot.



-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame