HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Also Worth Noting about the Nykios/Siren confusion
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:06:36 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

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
-> keegan@crd.ge.com writes:
-> ] nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to patrick:
-> ] [...]
-> ] |>Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?  is her
-> ] |>address still a mystery to the net?  Why?  Your old nemesis, Chaney,
-> ] |>once said she was flamed off the net by the politically correct
-> ] |>pro-choicers.
-> ] 
-> ] you poor silly twit. you again display your ignorance of the
-> ] net and of this newsgroup. and, to make yourself look even
-> ] more foolish, you believed airplane boy.
-> ] 
-> ] Siren was originally a group of four people who decided
-> ] to post in a specific style. when three of the four had
-> ] departed, the last of the original group tried to carry
-> ] on the personna. she failed. she wasn't up to it. she,
-> ] for one reason or other, never posted in her own personna,
-> ] whatever that was/is. Siren wasn`t chased from the net.
-> ] she, like many others, appeared to be unable to cope with
-> ] her failures.
-> 
-> 
-> I must disagree with your conclusion jim,
-> She sort of went onto other things.....
-> I've had some email from her, off and on, and like a
-> lot of folks who post out of *.edu domains, getting
-> their thesis published and the like leads to changes
-> in lifestyles.....

good for her. i'm pleased she found life after usenet.

-> If we want to talk about folks running away from talk.abortion,
-> who can forget Phil S. who was such a major trumpeter of the
-> traditional 'thou shall not kill' moral dogma right up until
-> the Persian Gulf War..... Then His confussion about 'killing'
-> vs. the use of Air Power lead him to opt for other
-> tompics....

heh. i remember dear old phil. he's one of the
hypocrites who disappeared. some of them are still
here, posting regularly.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 22:01:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.190954.17494@ncar.ucar.edu> marcia@rap.ucar.edu (Marcia Politovich) writes:
>In article <jay.31.725734979@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:
>>>It has been said many times previously in this newsgroup (t.a) that the

>>It seems odd to me that some would say it's too bad for the fetus if it
>>can't survive on its own, but an infant is protected by law because it
>>can't survive on its own.  Isn't birth just a natural form of abortion? =)
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>                              No.
>
>>P.S. How about the Chicago couple that left their kids "home alone"?

>Personally I think they ought to be horsewhipped (I'm serious, too).
>Apparantly a lot of people do this and it's a sad comment on our times.

I like to horsewhip people. Where do I sign up?
>mkp
>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Holtsinger faced with own lie creates false consensus and insults.
Date: 27 Dec 92 23:21:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <34640@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
#In article <1992Dec26.191257.5575@ncsu.edu>
#dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes a new thread
#entitled `Was Mezias dropped on his head during his childhood?'  This
#is in obvious response to the fact that he is a prime net liar, and I
#had the audacity to point this out:

Come on now, surely you knew that DODie has a little fit each time
he's exposed.  (In other words, DODie has a little fit several times
a day.)  

#### How many times do I have to repeat myself?  I am undecided.
#### Try reading those three words slowly.  Hopefully it will sink in.
##
### Didn't [Mr. Holtsinger] just post his opposition to FOCA?
##
##Allow me to explain something to you.  When people on talk.abortion
##discuss ``legislation'', they are usually talking about legislation
##to restrict abortion.  Most people understand that.  Obviously you
##don't.  
#
#DODIE will not rely on the best-defense-is-a-good-offense strategy of
#insulting me.  He also goes on to declare a false consensus regarding
#what one means when one talks about legislation on t.a.  And here I
#was thinking the FOCA was legislation relevant to abortion.  Silly me.

It's becoming harder for DODie to lie about the consensus, too, since
people are speaking up and saying, "No, Reverend, that's not what
we mean."  He'll probably continue to set follow-ups to misc.test,
and he'll probably continue to try to insult you.  (Maybe he'll
even follow you from newsgroup to newsgroup - he does that, too, when
someone proves him to be a liar.  Welcome to the club.)

What he won't do is this - admit that he's lying or start telling
the truth.  I don't think he's capable of either.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 04:08:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.012155.3218@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.010225.29075@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <PATRICK.93Jan3183146@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan3.221447.8469@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>   In article <1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>
>>>   [Entire totally non-abortion related article deleted]
>>>
>>>   DODie, what the hell is this crap?
>>>   Why do you find it necessary to bring your religious arguments from
>>>   soc.singles to t.a? Neither of them is appropriate, but if that
>>>   concept is beyond the ability of your feeble mind to grasp, then at
>>>   least leave the dammed thing in the group where it started.
>>>   Do you practice being this stooopid, or were you born this way?
>>>
>>>I'd say he puts in quite a bit of practice at it -- for a good example, try
>>>fingering his account at eceyv some time.  Really cute .plan, if you ask me.
>>>(Not quite the artwork of Chaney's, but you can tell he exercised his single
>>>neuron to the limits in producing it...:-)
>>>
>>Well, I'm sure he practices, but don't you think it takes a certain
>>inborn (or more correctly, inbred) trait to be capable of such
>>astounding feats of stupidity?
>>
>
>Or, even more correctly, crossbred.
>
What do you think he is? Half monkey, half chiwuaua? (Or whatever that
little rodent looking dog is called...)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Killing a "wanted child?"? Seems okay if ONLY the man wants "it"...
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:25:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>>> In article <1fohrnINN47o@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah
>>> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> >>Every child a wanted child -- by *BOTH* of its natural parents.
>>> >
>>> >You don't mean that a child who is wanted by one parent -- who is
>>> >willing and able to provide for it -- should be killed, do you?

>>So are you REALLY saying that it's wrong for a woman to have an abortion when
>>ONLY the MAN, who is "one parent," wants the child and is willing to support
>>the child?

>I don't consider an abortion "killing a child".

Then why did you say, in response to Kevin's "Every Child A Wanted Child,"
that "You don't mean that a child .... should be killed, do you?"?

What else did you mean by "should be killed?", then?  I take it that you
don't think that Kevin was implying that children should be killed *after*
birth, because I have seen *nobody* here, saying this.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Bridgekeeper: What...is your favorite colour?
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In respect of Suzanne
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:27:56 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec30.003444.7408@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Dec22.182521.8808@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>(Speaking of cowards, you know, I really do have a hard time understanding
>> this cultural widespread fear of babies!)

Yes, Suzanne. I have nightmares of the 'Attack of the Killer Babies' gnawing
the breasts off of women and inserting sofas into their mouths and swallowing
them. How prescient of you to notice this.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:39:49 GMT

In article <1gttj1INNn7v@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.173425.11297@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1goj3iINN1ek@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>>I have freely admitted to this net, and to Don, that I do not have the
>>>archive to repost what I claimed that Don said.  While this doesn't change
>>>my *opinion* about what Don said, (and therefore I don't retract it), I
>>>cannot prove it, and I've said so.  
>
>>Let me see if I've got this straight -- it's okay to slander someone as
>>long as you conveniently lack the archives to back up what you're claiming
>>about them?!!?!?!
>
>CLUE FAIRY TIME, you stupid idiot.
>
>I have said that I do not have the archive,
>and thus I cannot prove what I said.

I have made the "archive" publically available for your benefit, 
and you still can't support your outrageous statements.


>I can *believe* what I choose to believe.

Painfully obvious.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: PRO-LIFE SEASON'S GREETINGS
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: super-Grinch, life, death, hope, fear, Birth
Organization: What's that?
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 20:41:53 GMT

In article <nyikos.725557125@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[Lots of meaningless babbling deleted]

>In neither case would I be likely to do much if anything to try to
>reduce the 1,500,000+ abortions annually in the U.S., of which well
>over 100,000 are past the first trimester and over 10,000 of which are
>past the point where the unborn child would be able to live outside the
>womb, albeit with intensive care in most cases.
>
You know Petey Honey, this claim is getting tiresome. You and your ilk
repeatedly make claims that abortions are being performed past the
stage of viability with no effort made to salvage the fetus. Either
provide some facts to support this claim, or admit you're lying about
it.
Start with oen case, and then we'll see if you can support your claim
of "over 10,000".

[Lots more of PHoneys babbling deleted to prevent net.nausea]

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52569 alt.society.civil-liberty:7006
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:39:15 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
# ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
# >Ah, another tax whiner.  Well bad news kiddo, you DO have a choice.
# >You're getting services; the government demands that you pay for those
# >services.  Seems fair to me.  If you don't like it you have two choices.
# >
# >1) Vote for different services.
# >2) Move out of the country.
# 
# How ironic. Now the LEFT are saying "AMERICA--LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT"
#
# Oust the bastards who feel that they are autonomous individuals who 
# have the right to be free from initiatory force, eh?
# 
# It's not so much the left don't want the government to use force against
# people, just not them, eh?

You wanna keep the pseudoanarchosyndicalist claptrap out of
talk.abortion so you don't arouse the ire of honest-to-God
non-right-wing civil-libertarians?

Arguments over whether the government should collect taxes, while a
fun topic for intellectual dick size warz, is a waste of bandwidth on
t.a.  However, if you want to argue about why government ought not to
spend a portion of public funds on family planning services (including
abortion), then go right ahead -- I love to see people make fools of
themselves.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+  
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53122 alt.abortion.inequity:6200 alt.dads-rights:3115 talk.religion.misc:24639 talk.politics.misc:65409
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Amazing Religious Bias?????
Date: 28 Dec 92 01:44:27 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper


In Light of the recent court ruling in california,
referenced in the FREE-L mailing list, that a man who
had become a monk in the roman catholic church was
no longer vulnerable to chld support payments, does
not the following appear to be more Proof of the
1. SeXularHumanist Konspirakii.....

2. Awesum Political Muscle of the roman Catholic Church.

or is this one just a bit of stark Irony?

ciao
drieux

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
] ======================================================================
] The Times-Picayune, 12/25/92, (B1)
] 
] AP - Baton Rouge.  A state district judge has ordered Kim Carmouche, 
] an anti-abortion leader and unsuccessful Baton Rouge mayoral 
] candidate, to pay more than $13,000 in child support or face three 
] months in jail.  
] 
] District Judge John Peytavin also ordered Carmouche to pay $250.00 in 
] attorney's fees to his ex-wife, Chris, within 60 days.  
] 
] Carmouche, the leader of Operation Rescue Louisiana, has been in and 
] out of court over child support since November, 1985, when he first 
] was found in arrears, court records show.  
] 
] This week, Peytavin adjusted Carmouche's $340 a month child support 
] payments to $227 a month beginning Jan. 1.  
] 
] Carmouche is financially responsible for seven children, his attorney 
] said.  He has three children from his previous marriage --- one is over 
] 18 --- and four from his present marriage.  Also his wife is pregnant, 
] expecting another child any day, his attorney, Vincent "BZ" Sotile, 
] Jr., said.  
] 
] In September, Peytavin found Carmouche owed $11,630, court records 
] show, and when Carmouche failed to pay, the judge found him in 
] contempt.  
] 
] Peytavin suspended the contempt sentence on condition Carmouche pay 
] $6,000 by Jan. 15 and the remaining $7,285 by June 21, the court 
] records show.  
] 
] Carmouche is employed by the Redeeming Word of Life Church in Baton 
] Rouge.  The Rev. David Diamond, pastor of Redeeming Word, said 
] Carmouche is paid by a coalition of churches, not just his church, in 
] his capacity as leader of Operation Rescue Louisiana.  
] 
] Carmouche was named leader of Operation Rescue-Louisiana shortly after 
] national anti-abortion activists ended their week long "Summer of 
] Purpose" protest outside the Delta Women's Clinic in Baton Rouge. 
] ======================================================================
] 
] -- 
] Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
] russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:05:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.202908.11125@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.170536.18455@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>... ask yourself "Does 
>>the term 'Kellmeyer and Darcy' denote a group, or an individual?". Assuming 
>>you pick the correct answer, then the ignorance dissipates, and all is well 
>>again.
>>
>I would say that it denotes two individuals. One named Kellmeyer and
>one Darcy. 

Equally valid, however, is to say that the term refers to a group, or set, 
of individuals, which happens to contain the members "Kellmeyer" and "Darcy".

I've never denied that the term _could_, in theory, be used "distributively", 
i.e. as applying to each individual separately. My point, however, is that 
the "collective", or "group" interpretation was equally valid, and, given the 
context, the one to be preferred.
 
Consider the command: "everyone in the room under 50 raise your hand". 
Obviously, "everyone in the room under 50" here is being used in a 
"distributive" sense, since there is no "your hand" to be "collectively"
raised. Each member of the group is being requested to raise their 
hand, individually and separately. However, compare "everyone in the room 
under 50 please form a human pyramid". Equally obviously, the same term is 
being used now in a "collective" sense, since it's impossible for an 
individual to "form a human pyramid" all by himself or herself. It has to 
be a collective effort. So, the same term can be distributive OR collective:
its scope is dependent on whether the governing verb represents a
distributive or collective effort.

Many terms are not so easily resolvable into "collective" or "distributive"
uses. The phrase in dispute was, essentially:

	Garvin requested Darcy and Kellmeyer to move their posts

Is that a collective or a distributive use? That hinges on whether compliance 
with the request a collective, or a distributive effort. If we reason that the 
request has not been complied with unless BOTH Darcy and Kellmeyer moved their 
posts, then we call it a collective use, i.e. that the request has been 
directed to the group "Darcy and Kellmeyer". If, on the other hand, the 
request could be complied with by EITHER Darcy or Kellmeyer moving their 
posts, then we can call it a distributive use, i.e. that the request has been 
directed to two separate individuals -- "Darcy" and "Kellmeyer". 

I favored the "collective" interpretation. Others disagreed. Unlike them,
however, I am willing to accept that opinions differ, without making
constant, ridiculous claims about their supposed "inability to distinguish"
between a group and an individual. Can your pals say the same? Are they
capable of simply disagreeing amicably on an academic point such as this?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Another long night at the keyboard in Raleigh
Date: 27 Dec 92 23:07:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Spatula City!


I just figured out why Reverend Doug's being so endearing today:  he's only
been logged in on five different TTYs at State for going on 20 hours
straight, now.  I wondered why he was starting to remind me so much of a
former classmate of his...can the pacing and clicking be far behind now?
:-)

--PLH, Santayana was *right*.
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Hone worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:16:30 GMT

In article <C030s1.652@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

[Deletions]

>>Sounds like you're suggesting that if the couple wanted a child, but their
>>financial situation changed after conception so that they could no longer
>>afford to have a child, the responsible action would be to get an abortion.
>
>This is a stupid comment on your part.  First of all, you and I both know
>the truth is that this is not how these situations arise.  Generally,
>poor families have more babies for one of two reasons.. 1. Stubborn insistance
>on exercising some authority over their lives by having children (ignoring
>the needs of the children in doing so)  or 2. Seeking to increase welfare
>payments from the TAX supported state by adding another starving kid to
>the litter.
>
>They should put it up for adoption and then be reimbursed the expenses
>of pregnancy and childbirth if the situation you proposed actually occurred.  
>
You're a truely cold hearted bastard aren't you?
You're publically stating that you would not only force women to give
birth to children they don't want, but you would also force peopel to
give up children that they *do* want, simply because of their
financial status?
Here's a clue, you twit.
Adoption is ared herring. Uless the infant is Healthy, White, and Less
then one year old when placed at the adoption agency, the odds of its
ever leaving are vanishingly small.

[More deletions]

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism