HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:28:31 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


dh>In article <1992Aug19.180053.21670@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
cl>In article <1992Aug19.133659.26279@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
dh>>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

dh>> I've never quoted you or anyone else out of context.

cl> What about Bill Clinton?

dh>"Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do it."
dh> -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention


dh>Bill Clinton obviously supports laws which would force parents 
dh>to take responsibility for their children.  Every rational person
dh>knows what he means by the word ``children''.  Obviously, you
dh>don't.  

I would guess either you fail your own rationality test or you forget
the context you used this quote in.  When you originally used this quote
it was with a header asking if Bill Clinton had embraced the pro-life
position?  This is a clear example of taking his quote out of context.  

In another post you take Bill Clinton`s words out of context.

In article <1992Aug18.191550.14616@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Here's my new .sig, pro-aborts, I hope you like it as much as the
>old one: ;-)


>  "I am opposed to abortion." -- Bill Clinton
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:13:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.182539.10504@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.175413.9267@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
> 
> >>>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
> >>> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
> >>> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
> >>> dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
> >>> plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
> >>> platforms.
> 
> >> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
> >> and incest, and for the life of the mother.   
> 
> > And for members of his own family.
> 
> This statement is not correct.

I see that once again the point I was making escapes you,
Doug.  This is puzzling, since the point is not all that
difficult to grasp.  Furthermore, it is not a posiiton that
I hold by myself, but has been mentioned in the past day or
so by a number of politicans and political observers.  Your
flat statement does nothing to refute what I said.  Bush
has stated that if his granddaughter wanted an abortion he
would counsel her not to get one, but that if she decided
to have one anyway he would support her, and indicated by
that statement, that the decision is ultimately her own.
That, my dear fellow, is the pro-choice position.  I
realize, as do all of us I think, that this is not the
same as a statement on what he would or would not ban,
but the point I was making (do I really need to explain this
to you?) was a political one, having to do with his willingness
to support the autonomous choice of his granddaughter while
striving to take that autonomy from her and others.

Shall I further elaborate or do you think you have it now?

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 14:20:40 GMT


   It seems that the tide is finally turning.It would seem that
the fundalmentalist contamination of politics is finally starting
to die off.  The Democratic Party is firmly on the side of choice
for women.  And even more telling is how out of touch are members
of the Republican Party platform committee with their party.  The
polls show that the majority of Republicans favor choice.  And it
also appears that they are sick of abortion as the dominant issue
in American politics.  Many republicans are seeing how much their
party has lost its conservative ways.  They see that conservative
thought has been replaced by a knee-jerk opposition to anything a
liberal might support.  Soon the Republican Party will not cringe
at the bellowings of the fundamentalists.  There are indications,
although few at this point, that the Republican Party will become
again a political party based on principle.  This will not happen
in this election, because they have cornered themselves in dozens
of ways.  When one considers the numerous lies that GHWB has told
to the American people, a vice president that is dumber than dirt
on my shoe, a failed attack on Iraq that left Sadam Hussein right
where he was before we attacked, an ecomony in shambles, the lame
attempt to ditract us from things that REALLY matter by making an
overblown issue of flag burning, one can easily see that American
voters have had it with this guy.  And it is too late to alter it
enought to change what is going to happen in November.  GHWB blew
so many chances to do the right thing that Pee Wee Herman will be
able to beat him.  Maybe this loss is just what the GOP needs.  I
hope that it finds its way again.  Because these days they appear
very stupid.
-- 
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished by the blood
of tyrants and of patriots."                    Thomas Jefferson
"Hello? Information?  Would you please give me the home phone of
Pat Buchanan?...Yes.  His address as well, thank you very much."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Pro-Life? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:27:46 GMT

In article <Aug07.053015.8119@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  
sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
> In article <BsJ5x3.DK8@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>, wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com
> (R. Cage) writes:
> 	And you cannot even state what I actually said; how can you  
possibly
> claim to understand what I mean?  And if you don't even know what I'm
> saying, how can you possibly presume to critique it?  In fact, if I did
> not believe in a right to life (as you, incredibly, seem to be saying),
> why must a woman have a child when she voluntarily has sex?  She must
> because she ENDANGERED THE LIFE OF SOMEONE WHO HAS A RIGHT TO LIVE AND
> IS NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THAT LIFE. 

Uh, pardon me. If she has not had an abortion, how has she endangered 
the fetus' life?

> >>	No, not as punishment.  If she killed the baby she should be
> >>punished. But merely requiring a woman not to kill the person whose 
> >>life she has endangered is not punishment.

Are you saying that by _conceiving_ a child, she is endangering 
it? In a sense, that's correct, since anything that lives will 
die eventually. 

> 	But if I do something which causes a person to appear in my house,
> I am responsible.  Right?  I cannot kill them to get them out, for their 
> very presence is MY responsibility.

I disagree there. The fact that a person whom I thought was a friend 
turned out to be a thief ("Thanks for dinner, Jenni...nice silverware
here!") does not mean I'm responsible for the theft. And it certainly
doesn't mean I can't defend myself or my property by turning him or
her out.

Stupid? Maybe. Responsible? No. Stuck with the situation? NEVER!

> Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    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....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Good Bumper Sticker
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:56:36 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article by deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc):
> 
> "If you don't trust me with a choice,
> How can you trust me with a child?"


Common Pro-Life bumper sticker around town here:


                        "It's a CHILD,
                         not a choice."
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:53:04 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

cj@sgi.com writes:
-> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu writes:
-> |So, people, if Keegan attacks me and I don't
-> |respond, it's not because he's right and I don't
-> |have a defense; it's because I didn't see the
-> |attack in the first place.
-> 
-> Wise move, and one that will greatly help your peace
-> of mind.

i agree. doing so was a wise move for ms. bartley.
announcing it was like a child saying my eyes are
closed so i can't see you.

-> That debate would be just as stupid in reruns as it
-> was the first time.

it's kind of characterless of you to post a criticism
of material you haven't read, isn't it? then again,
maybe not. you've done worse in the past.
-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:04:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.232059.4755@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

> My source?  Republicans For Choice claims that 71% support the
> side of choice.  

Only about 30% of Americans support unrestricted abortion on demand,
which has been defined by Keegan et. al. as the only position which
is truly "choice".  Your 71% figure is obviously way too high. 
Many Americans do support abortion in certain restricted instances
(for example, life of the mother, rape, early abortion), and that's
where I believe you got your figure from.  So your claim is pure
bullshit as I had originally suspected.   

[.. rant deleted ..]


Doug Holtsinger
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:27:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


   Mr. Mike has suggest that women be allowed to get an abortion,
if she was raped, the victim of incest, or her life is in danger.
With regard to the rape and incest exclusions, is the embryo less
a "person", simply because YOU don't approve of how the z/e/f was
conceived?  Where is the consistancy in that position?  And if it
is NOT a person, then there is no controversy.  And as far as the
woman's life being in danger, apparently you do not know too much
about pregnancy.  A pregnant woman is ALWAYS at risk.  Many women
in America die in childbirth EVERY DAY.  And since pregnancy will
ALWAYS involve a degree of risk to a woman's life, she should not
be compelled to bear young against her will.  Since a man's being
is never at any risk, he must never be allowed to force that risk
on someone else.
   And maybe you should examine your own motives.  If a woman can
get an abortion because she was raped, why should she not be able
to get one if she enjoyed the sex?  Punishment for having a swell
time?  Is the z/e/f less a "person" if the sex was forced?  There
must be some principle here that I am failing to grasp.  I simply
want to understand what sexual encounters make the z/e/f a person
and which ones do not.  If the woman agreed to have sex while she
was drunk, but sobered up the next day, and wished that it hadn't
happened, would the z/e/f be a "person?"  The z/e/f is either not
a person, or it is.  If it is a "person", how can you allow it to
be disposed of, regardless of the manner in which it was created?
And if it is not a "person", how can you compel a woman to endure
the dangers and rigors of pregnancy, against her will?
   Most of us that support choice do not like abortion.  But that
does not mean that we oppose the right of a woman to deicde to do
something that she feels she needs to do.  It is simply not right
to force women to bear young against their will.  And it is truly
callous of you to discuss the consequences of sex, as if they are
the same for both men and women!  When you can get pregnant, then
you can talk about consequences.  But until you understand that a
forced pregnancy is the most vile form of slavery, you will never
understand this issue.
-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
From: ck10322@china.medtronic.com (Cameron Kaszas)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Only God Can Help Us!
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:56:32 GMT
Organization: Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN


   gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

   > The life or death of the "unborn" should never hinge on politics or 
   > legislation.  Darned if I can figure out why some people who claim 
   > so much understanding think that is a clever idea...


This is one of the few intelligent things I read when I scanned this
group recently (IMHO).  

I`m a Christian, thus pro-life.  But I don't think I have the right
to force my beliefs on anyone by saying that they CAN'T have an abortion. 
(Incidently, it was partly due to email with a few people from this group that I 
thought more about my views, and softened from thinking that outlawing 
abortion was part of the solution).

Christians, please read and think about this...
I think that we need to stop trying to tell everyone
what to do (it's a waste of time, they won't listen to us), and pray that
God will work his will through us.  The causes of unwanted pregnancy and the reasons
to abort/not abort are so complex, that no human "solution" will ever be
found (maybe it COULD be found, but I doubt it...)  Only God can help us 
out of this mess!  If we put as much effort into prayer as we do "fighting
the enemy pro-choicers", I believe God would work wonders.  I think most
of us are guilty of not truly beleiving that 

      he "is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask 
      or can imagine" (Eph. 3:20).

Non-christians...
The hope that comes from knowing the power of God and the promise of
salvation is the only thing that keeps me from getting truly depressed 
given the state of world these days.  If I had to rely on the outcome of
an election, or a Supreme Court decision, etc. Boy, does that ever 
seem hopeless...  

Cam 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Laszlo Toth)
Subject: Re: The Man With No Brain (Was: The world...)
Keywords: kebbie's jealous of us that have 'em.
Organization: Darcy Meta-Busters, Ltd. 
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:14:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.070559.4635@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) tries, and fails miserably:
>In article <1992Aug12.015507.4422@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>[Oh, boy.  This is gonna be such fun....]
>>
>>In article <1992Aug8.211228.6510@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug5.233416.17391@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <BsEyL8.Cr9@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Elvis) writes:
>>>>>   Linda, your mastery of the English language NEVER ceases to amaze me.
>>>>>Only Linda takes 4 adjectives, strings them together (separated by
>>>>>commas of course) and turns them into verbal music! Bravo maestro!
>>>>
>>>>Let me guess:  it's the same type of verbal music you make when Kevin's trying
>>>>to find his miniscule penis so that he can put it into your anus, right?
>>>
>>>Just what we need... another damned homophobe crawling out from under his
>>>rock... sheesh, where do these neanderthals come from anyway?
>>
>>Um, Kevin.  Go find your mother, and ask her to explain what the word
>>"homosexual" means.  I'll even give you a *FREE* clue.  I don't hate myself.
>
>Then why do you spew homophobic shit that ranks with the Artimus Pages and
>Phil Stromers and Danny Karneses of the world?

Uh, kebbin -- someone here is in need of a *large* fucking clue, and it's
not Keith, it's not me, it's definitely not Linda, and it's almost not even
Steve-who-thinks-he's-Elvis.  You keep saying Keith is "homophobic", but
trust me -- it doesn't mean what YOU think it means.  

>Ever hear of a racist black? An anti-feminist woman? An anti-semitic Jew?
>
>Homophobic shit deserves as much criticism regardless of its source. Or is
>it your claim that it was all just playful sarcasm? Yeah, right.

So far, you're the only one who seems to have detected any homophobia in 
Keith's statement -- but that's hardly out of fashion for you.  This time,
though, not only are you not on the same page as the rest of us -- you're not 
even reading the same book.

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
    +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home.  916 777-9311 - yeah, right! 

              Will someone please change the air in Darcy's head?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: A crack in the iron curtain? (was Re: Who takes care of the unwanted mother?) 
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:01:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.210314.8636@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.234546.6461@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
># 
># As you can tell, while the flamewar articles receive a general 30
># minute to 1 hour response, this kind of post receives none in over 3
># days. 
># 
># Pro-lifers might want to take note that the same group who is trying
># to flame me (and unsuccessfully since I'm prepared to deal with them), 
># had also been responsible for blowing Siren (one of their most
># intellegent allies) off the net with their negativity, and is the same
># group which is ignoring this article. 
># 
># That's because this article fails to meet their Steve Hall Dennis
># Chaney Numbskull Raving Lunatic propaganda requirements, and they
># can't twist this post into a flamefest. So they don't respond.  
>
>And if you would just make a point of writing *all* of your posts in a
>similar vein you wouldn't have to read my mewlings about how you're a
>deranged, low-minded bigot.

Well, that depends on whether or not we hear the last ravings of
deranged, low-minded bigots like Kaufman, Humphrey, Novak and Garvin.

Deal? 

>What were you expecting?

I was expecting what I got: proof, via this thread, that the only
thing that pro-aborts want, on this net, is a flame war. They slam
pro-lifers with their deranged attitudes, and then cry "deranced
low-minded bigot" when the exact same treatment comes back at them. 

When pro-lifers drag the issue over to things like this thread, they
have to pause, as you saw, for several days, to find a way to fit it
back into their own agenda. 

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

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: "Indeed they are."
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:46:36 GMT

> = (Chris A Lyman) writes:

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

I did, too, in '88.  She was too mouthy for the Republican Aryans though,
speaking in favor of choice and against assault rifles, and other things.  
I thought then, as some do now, that, post-Reagan, the 1980 George would
re-surface, finally ready to stand on his own two feet; and I figured
Barbara would be a prime mover in this direction.

But within weeks of Georgie's inauguration, she'd been silenced.  Any 
reference to abortion was most carefully couched, and to me she sounded as 
if she'd changed her mind like her husband had in '80.

Now suddenly, scared to death of the polls and the conservative idiots
Bush is stuck with courting, they trot out Barbara to lend moderation to
a far-right party platform that almost assures Bush's defeat.  Finally 
her muzzle is removed.

If Bush manages to get re-elected, I have no doubt she'll retreat back to
flipping out because anybody DARED question how Neil Bush was left off
the hook in the Silverado scam.  (I realize most any mother will defend
her son.  But her bitter, nasty remarks were way out of line, as if she
couldn't see ANY reason why people were picking on the little creep.)

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 18 Aug 1992 11:22:00 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
 <1992Aug14.210314.8636@wdl.loral.com> <1992Aug15.190117.5666@csus.edu>
 <1992Aug16.010943.11121@midway.uchicago.edu>

In article <1992Aug16.010943.11121@midway.uchicago.edu> says:
>In article <1992Aug15.190117.5666@csus.edu> Stephen A Chaney writes:

>>I was expecting what I got: proof, via this thread, that the only
>>thing that pro-aborts want, on this net, is a flame war. They slam
>>pro-lifers with their deranged attitudes, and then cry "deranced
>>low-minded bigot" when the exact same treatment comes back at them.
[...]
>>When pro-lifers drag the issue over to things like this thread, they
>>have to pause, as you saw, for several days, to find a way to fit it
>>back into their own agenda.
>
>No, Mr. Chaney.  They saw nothing major they disagreed with and
>nothing major that had to be said occured to them, so they went on.

Ms. Bartly could you please not speak as if you know the
minds of t.a readers, or at least not this reader.  I
disregard the majority of Chaney's ravings and only see
his comments in people's follow-ups. I personally find
the man a fool and his writing style so atrocious that
it is painful to read.

In my case, at least, lack of response has nothing to do with
agreement or disagreement with anyone in this newsgroup,
particularly Chaney.  While I don't know about others, I do
not appreciate being implicated as such via the royal "they".



Linda
--
They're complicated people leading complicated lives, and
he complicates their problems by telling complicated lies
     The Flag, Barenaked Ladies
Newsgroups: talk.abortion