HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!!
Date: 23 Nov 1992 14:05:32 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <lefty-201192180819@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1eg0utINN6g0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
>O'Dwyer) wrote:
>> 
>> I note that the Christian religions seem to offer salvation as a remedy for
>> original sin, and the penalty for original sin is not particularly severe.
>
>Beg pardon?  Eternal damnation, outer darkness, wailing, gnashing of teeth?
> Not _particularly_ severe?

The way I heard it, it was 'limbo'.  Neither heaven nor hell.  People who
believe in transmigration of souls believe essentially the same thing, it
seems to me.

>> The Church of Reason, on the other hand, offers a new kind of original sin -
>> a z/e/f is guilty of the crime of non-sentience, a crime for which it is
>> guilty until proven innocent.  And the techno-nihilists are not nearly so
>> forgiving...
>
>Nonsense.  Non-sentience is certainly not a crime, but neither is it any
>particular virtue.

Well it buys you out of personhood, it seems.   You just want to punish
women for having sex.

>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Use and abuse of drugs [Was:...unsubstantiated...]
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:46:11 GMT

In article <nyikos.721975975@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}I don't know about that.  I think that just as drunks are notorious
}for thinking they "can lick every man in the house," so pot smokers
}are famous for thinking pot makes them peaceful and benevolent.  I found
}out the hard way, from having a pothead as a roommate, that it ain't
}necessarily so.

All Indians walk in single file, 'cause the only Indian I ever saw did.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Nyikos and his sources or Justice Blackmun, you choose.
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:57:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In his most recent post in the thread Christian values or chauvinism
Petie <nyikos.722210537@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes that Justice Blackmun is a hack legal
scholar who based RvW on "meager and biased documentation,"
particularly an article by Cyril Means in New York Law Forum.  He
calls the Means article "obviously propagandistic" and wonders how
Blackumun could have mistaken it for "a serious piece of scholarship."
Instead we should listen to Joseph Dellapenna, a professor at
Villanova U. School of Law, who "thoroughly refutes" Blackmun's
history.  The main part of this argument can be read in his article in
an edited collection published by Georgetown U. Press.  To understand
the misguided nature of Means original article we need to read an
articel by R. Byrn in 41 Fordham Law Review, 1973.

Gee, Petie, wants us to dismiss a Supreme Court Justice as a hack, not
Clarence Thomas, mind you, but Justice Blackmun.  Even better he wants
us to accepts as more credible sources a `scholar' employed at a Roman
Catholic university and publications by him and others in sources
controlled by Roman Catholic universities.

Does this qualify as a thing that makes you go 
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

SJM
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sweety Petey Honey Nyikos lied about me, too!
Date: 20 Nov 1992 16:44:50 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov20.234528.27757@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

>Dr. Nyikos has yet to lie about me, and isn't for lack of trying on my
>part.  He simply ignores me.  <pout>

Let's experiment.

Tell him your name is Janice.

Adrienne Regard

PS, no really, maybe you just aren't good looking enough.  He has such rude
crushes on all of us, but that's because none of us are blonde (-:.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric (was: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:13:29 GMT

In <1992Nov06.232315.67382@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <13886@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>>In that particular case Mr Nyikos has bragged about how competent a debater
>>he is, and Mr Margolis replied back that Mr Nyikos had shown no skill in
>>debate at all:

I don't recall talking about my debating skills.  I hope Mr. Butler
documented what he said in ways other than the following:

>>>> I can run circles around most people when it comes to
>>>> science and philosophy.

As I explained in "The Genesis of this Whole Silly SAT Flap," I was NOT
comparing myself to the average talk.abortion regular, but rather to the
average Joe Blow, just as Eric Marsh, the self-appointed Dragon of
Philosophy, was doing in the post to which I was following up.  Of course,
Larry Margolis deleted the context to make me look like a stuffed shirt.

>>> You've certainly shown no sign of it; in fact, you've shown yourself
>>> to be rather ignorant of logic and set theory.
>>  ^^^^^
>>Mr Nyikos' reply to the accusation that he had shown no competence, 
>>was to list his credentials.               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Larry Margolis never accused me of that.  Had he done so, my reply would
have been "So what?  This is talk.abortion, not talk.set.theory or 
talk.logic."  You have missed the significance of Larry's words "to be",
or are you just playing along with his joke by pretending not to notice
them?

>>  That is not a valid defense to his claim that he "can run
>>circles around most people when it comes to science and philosophy," nor is it
>>a valid rebuttal to the claims that he has "shown no sign of it" (especially
>>in context of his use of fallacies). 

No fallacies were demonstrated.  Larry has better things to do than to
document his claims, such as documenting claims that he never made. :-)

>> Now, in his place I would have challenged
>>Mr Margolis for an example and thereby dealt with those accusations if that
>>were possible, ...

I have been doing just that with Dean Kaflowitz, but he just keeps
brazening it out by repeating his accusations and adding to them
ad nauseam without a speck of documentation.  

>In fact, I did give an example later on; for some reason Peter wasn't able
>to deal with it.  :-)

Note the smiley.  I leave it up to you to interpret what effect it
has on the foregoing sentence.

I've got better things to do with my time than reply to claims that
are totally irrelevant to abortion.  It is still fun to do it with
Dean Kaflowitz; it ceased being fun with Larry Margolis and Chris Lyman
a long time ago.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: False claim by usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:43:47 GMT

In <32323@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <nyikos.721004995@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual accusing me
>of falsly claiming the following:

>>>I'm always gentle.

>I didn't know this statement required strong indicators that it was
>issued tongue in cheek.  I'm sorry if some people believed that I had
>a perception of my talk.abortion persona as always gentle; I don't.

You were talking to a person who *identified* himself as a newbie,
you jerk.  

>>Trouble is, last time I e-mailed Mezias, he was anything but gentle
>>about it.  Fortunately, it is now November 5, past sundown, so I
>>don't have to run the risk of him flaming me again.

>If you had emailed me to follow up a post when I said I would be out
>of town, I would certainly have responded to you.  What you did was
>email to me regarding matters under discussion on T.a, and I made it
>clear that T.a was the forum for debate not email.  

Right, and I told you my netserver wasn't posting properly, and it 
was only *after* I said this that your real flaming commenced, you
insufferable "gentle-man".

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:15:01 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.
> 
> > It struck me as rather polite, actually. 
> 
> In your opinion.
> 
> > Even if Larry had asked them to threaten you, his email STILL wouldn't
> > have been threatening. 
> 
> In your opinion. 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> > Remember, Usenet is an anarchy.
> 
> Not when you're at a public University which can easily
> revoke net access. 

Let's see.  You cross-posted irresponsibly to a number of
inappropriate newsgroups and someone complained to your
administrators about it.  You see that someone as having been
threatening and wrong while you are perfectly correct
in cross-posting irresponsibly and inapproriately to
multiple newsgroups.  And you feel that saying that the
irresponsible cross-poster should receive a 'talking to'
is threatening.  Now, if you had done nothing at all
wrong, your administrators would recogize this pretty
quickly and you would have nothing to worry about.  I have
met, via email and personally, quite a few system administrators
and most of them don't give a rat's paw about net catfights.
They will take any misbehaviors seriously.  I conclude from
this that your administrators did in fact see your actions
as wrong if you were threatened by the email, since
innocent behavior would be no threat.

Now I wouldn't have emailed your administrators to complain about
you.  I'd just ignore you since these things tend to take care
of themselves.  But I don't characterize Larry's mail as
threatening since it contained no threats or requests for
disciplinary action more severe than a 'talking to.'  And
we're are most of us accessing the net through facilities which
can easily be revoked, so your point is irrelevant.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim's confused probability rankings.
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:48:28 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov19.171412.19686@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
writes in response to Adrienne's question about why women should be
forced to bear all pregnancies to term:

>The life is a forseeable (even if not probable) consequence of the
>activity, life is valuable, and destroying life is bad.

This is the same Jim who wants to dismiss planning for other events,
e.g., unique parent-child tissue/blood/organ need, because they are
`improbable,' improbable according to Jim.  Jim seems to use
foreseeable, probable, and various other words in any manner that
suits his purpose while shamelessly claiming that there is some
objective component to his line of argument.  I have already pointed
out to Jim that much research, e.g., Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky's
Judgment Under Uncertainty (1984, Cambridge University Press),
demonstrates two problems with this line of argument: First, the link
between actual probabilities of events and our beliefs about those
probabilities is weak.  Second, the link between actual probabilities
and whether we plan for the associated contingencies is quite weak.
More funadmentally, Jim seems to be implying that because an event is
rare we should not plan for it; this is also not always true.  Most
fundamentally, it seems to me that if Jim's real interest were in
taking action to preserve valuable lives, there are many things he
could be doing to save lives that would not involve passing
legislative chastity belts to punish women who have consensual sex.
If all human life is valuable, he would be working to help the people
of Somalia.  If he is more interested in American lives, he could be
working to reduce infant mortality among women in poverty or trying to
do something about the 25% of American children that live in poverty.

SJM



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49316 soc.men:19847 alt.dads-rights:2699
From: bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:38:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: U of Arizona, CS Dept, Tucson

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|> >Do you have any data that can help
|> >convince the reasonable persons on this net that we are facing a 'real'
|> >problem that needs a legislative solution?
|> 
|> I guess all those men who are being jailed, or their lives and/or careers
|> otherwise destroyed, are "invisible" to you, eh? How conveeeeeenient.

How many of those men who are being jailed for not paying child support
were men who would have wanted their partner to get an abortion _at the
time_ of her pregnancy?

My father was briefly jailed for contempt of court--refusing to pay child
support.  He says that the first two of us were planned, the second two
were accidents, but he didn't want Mom to have an abortion (which wasn't
legal then anyway).  What does this jail time have to do with "forced
fatherhood"?   

I'd be interested in knowing how many of the men who don't pay child
support after being ordered to do so wanted the child at the time it was
conceived, or decided he wanted it during the pregnancy.

-- 
--Beth Weiss
bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:20:47 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
->Nyikos seems to have heaps of fun misrepresenting people who aren't present
->to defend themselves.

actually, he seems to misrepresent those who are here
too.

->While I'm thinking about it, I cast an "AYE" ballot to include the Perfesser
->in the Net Council of Idiots.  Btw, wasn't La Forgach voted in last spring?

no. she was not. she received 1 vote; darcy received all
the others, less 1.

while this may be an unpopular statement, i don't think
you should run a net.idiot election for Phoney. he's
too new and hasn't earned the multi-newsgroup
disrespect over time that darcy, k*nt, t*d have.
conducting a vote for Phoney would be like giving a kid
who won a few golden gloves matches a heavyweight title
shot.

that being said, if you are going to do it, post a
first call for votes, specify a voting period, specify
an address to which votes should be mailed, state that
the vote taker will acknowledge votes receive and
specify that votes will be published at the end of the
voting period. and be prepared for lots of visitors
from across the net voting for their favorites.

but i recommend against it. really.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Let's Play Attributions, Take 3
Keywords: forgery, tampering with evidence, lying, false accusations, empty
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:03:06 GMT

In article <nyikos.722187039@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

  [ 4 lines deleted]

>In this post, I will repeat some parts of Susan's post, to better compare
>it with a later, more complete post that she made.  The excerpts will be
>split up to make comparison of the posts easier.  First the "topmatter"
>and attribution lines.

  [ 154 lines deleted]

>[Minor distraction: a column of #'s has been "replaced" by > s.  This is
>an innocent artifact explained by Scott Roby.  Susan Garvin explains it
>too, as I will quote near the end of the post.]

Well, I'm glad to see my earlier post wasn't a complete "waste" of 
your time!  :-)   (That's a joke!)

 [  75 lines deleted]

Ok, now that we have all shown ourselves to be totally anal (including 
myself) when it comes to worrying about attributions, can we please 
(Pretty Pleeeease!) stop this boring and incredibly long discussion???

I have become convinced that discussions of attributions are inherently 
fraught with ambiguities and therefore totally unsatisfying as a topic 
for discourse, except in the simplest of cases (e.g., "Hey, you just 
cut my attribute!  Put it back!").



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:46:25 GMT

In article <1efhvcINNcin@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.173850.14175@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>In article <1ead9cINN8a5@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>>>     One can not reconcile the OT God with the NT God without throwing out
>>>>all logic and rationality.  That is one of the reasons that I rejected 
>>>>Christianity.
>>>Did you all have the same problem with wave-particle duality?
>>>Lemme see.  Light is particle and light is wave.  I cannot reconcile these
>>>ideas without throwing out all preconceived notions.  You say wave and
>>>I say particle, let's call the whole thing off.
>>Sigh.  More quantum pseudoscience.
>>Light acts like a particle sometimes and like a wave sometimes.  
>You accuse _me_ of pseuodscience, and then you say this?
It's not pseudo-science. Ken is correct, though somewhat less than
precise. Under certain observations, light exhibits the sort of
characteristics that one would expect it to exhibit if it were a
wave, and under other observations it exhibits the sorts of behaviors
it would exhibit if it were a particle. These sets of observations
are pretty well defined and are mainly caused by the fact that particle
and wave are classical concepts that are inapplicable at the quantum
level. It is a failure of our normal model, mainly.

>>The problem
>>with reconciling the OT and NT gods is that God tends to be described as
>>being a certain way without qualifications as to "sometimes".
>And the problem with all of science is that there are vast numbers of
>completely unreconciled departments all saying apparently contradictory
>things about the universe.  Religion is one of those departments.  
That's garbage. Religion is not a subset of science(non-empirical.)
It's not like Biology conflicts with Chemistry, sir. Sure there are
unsettled issues but I hardly would characterize that as "vast numbers of
completely unreconciled departments all saying apparently contradictory
things about the universe. "

>I have absolutely no problem reconciling the OT and NT, and I'm not even a
>Christian.  How does a parent act towards a spoilt child?
Why does one set rules out for a child, sir?

-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."
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 17 Nov 1992 19:13:25 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <satdn4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
[...]
>When you rape, you involve the body of another person.
>That person, just like you, has control over what happens
>to his/her body.  The consent of the other person is
>what makes the difference between consensual sex & rape.
>
>When a woman obtains an abortion, she affects her own body.
>Nobody else's body is involved.  (Hint: if you think otherwise,
>you have to prove your case.)

The second statement is incorrect.  And it is trivially easy to prove that
someone else's body is involved during some abortions, just as it is
trivially easy to show that another person's body is involved in your rape
example (hint: no need to submit a rigorous topological proof in either
case).

>When nobody else is involved, nobody else has the right to
>interfere.

Unfortunately somebody else _is_ involved, hence the problem.  Fortunately,
this need not be an obstacle to a woman's right to a legal abortion.  Also
fortunately, many women hold private moral values which they do allow to
prevent them from obtaining abortions, by their own choice.

>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
From: dougm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: 100th trimester
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:54:07 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

What we need in this country is a good, cheap 100th trimester abortion
available on demand.  The contolling factor should not be based on viability
outside the womb, but instead should be based on whether the child has
left home yet.  In other words, any 25-year-old who has not left home
should be considered a likely candidate for the procedure.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48460 soc.men:19541 alt.dads-rights:2637
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:24:39 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Utterly pointless.  It has yet to demonstrated that you are a human
>>being.  So what?  Given that not much of anything can be proved
>>absolutely, you've got to get the data that's available and take your
>>best guess.  From all the evidence I have available, the pregnant
>>woman is almost always clearly a person while a 12-week fetus isn't.  
>>I might well be wrong, but I'm less likely to be wrong than one who 
>>claims sentience for a 5 week embryo.
>
>On what basis do you assign these 'likelihoods'?  Up there you said
>you were guessing.

Well gee.  Lets see.  A woman can actually say whether she wants to be
pregnant and can even say why.  A 12 week fetus not only cannot do the
same, but can't even survive outside of the mother.  A 5 week embryo
doesn't even have the needed equipment to talk.

That's a pretty good start.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion