HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Look what the NetMail brought this morning...
Summary: Posting private email, Patrick?  Tsk, tsk...  :-)
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:29:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>-------start Fidonet mail, 1-------
>Patrick:
>
>Get lost, asshole.

Whoops.  He sent you the first line of his laundry list.

And there's STILL an extra comma there.

>I don't even believe you're married. No woman in her right mind would
>marry a man like you. 

Fine...I guess I have to call Houston now.  Patrick, your phone number is
in your finger entry, right?

To the net at large: Sometime over the next week, I will call Houston,
without warning Patrick first, and will ask for Dale Ann.  If they act
confused, or otherwise don't respond within normal parameters, then
I'll post that.

Patrick, this OK with you?  (Yes, I may be overreacting, but hey -- that's
nothing new.)

>(And I insult all men on Earth by grouping you among them...) 

Untrue.  I'm not insulted.  QED.

Actually, I suppose I'd better forestall the obvious retort.  Steve, how
exactly am I *not* a man?

Physically, I've pretty much stopped growing, I have all the characteristics
of a fully-grown human male past sexual maturity, and I shave every other
morning because I'm lazy.

Mentally, I have made up my mind about most issues, but am willing to hear
opposing arguments which aren't utterly inane.  Further, I'm capable of
reasoning out a problem, given enough time, and have been shown to not be
deficient in a medical sense.

Legally, I can drive, vote, drink, enter into contracts, own property, go
to jail for my actions, and, yes, engage in sex without sending my partner
to prison.

Am I missing something, or are you just slandering me?

>You are a habitual LIAR - both in your lies about me and
>your claim that you aren't a racist. Only a racist would make the comment
>you made about my race, in addressing me.

What comment?  He said you were black, or, more specifically, that your
fat ass was black.  Well?  Isn't it?

Now, if you're upset about the "fat ass" part of the comment, that's a
just complaint, IMO, but calling Patrick a racist is quite a stretch.
(Calling me one would be just as much of a stretch, at least according to
my ex-SO.) I think the comment was ill-advised, but that's all I intend
to say on the issue -- it's OVER.

>And even if I do believe what I say about your wife, you can do
>nothing about it. Comprende, straw boy?

Point?

>I don't want to see your e-mail around here, Patrick. Scan my account
>and read my .plan all you want to and bitch and moan about how I won't
>read yours, but keep your filthy presence OUT of my mailbox.

Pot.  Kettle.  Iron.  (why take chances?)

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion to Remain Legal in Maryland .......Question 6 passes
Summary: And Arizona... 
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 06:09:22 GMT

In article <1d8ne0INNsqp@haven.umd.edu> spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:
>
>Just thought I'd drop a memo here, in case anyone missed the results.
>

The Abortion initative in Arizona (the one Suxanne was crowing about,
that would ban all abortions except to save the life of the woman, and
"written with RvW in mind") was defeated, 68% No, 32% Yes.

Gosh, Suxanne, how does it feel to live in such a pro-choie state?

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When we're free to love, anybody we choose; then we shall be free.  We shall=
=be free" - Garth Brooks, paraphrased. Still a RadikalFeministLesbianBitch....=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:53:25 GMT

sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>Yeah.  But I guess the point is that it's not so obvious that the
>brain is the seat of personhood, much less "consciousness" and other
>fluffy stuff.

Try the argument from the other direction, then: does there exist
anything which you would call a "person" but which lacks a brain?  If
so, then how is this thing similar to an adult human person?

Sure, it might be possible to fashion a computer brain.  But then the
computer's logic circuits would function in the same capacity as a
human brain.  Can you think of anything which lacks any sort of brain,
organic or cybernetic or electronic or what-have-you, yet still
appears to have consciousness?

-- 
_/_/_/  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.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Duality of wave/particle, human/divine [Was:... or chavinism?]
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:12:21 GMT

In article <lfvspoINNq39@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.023147.16197@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: In article <lftfnvINNhgj@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
: : nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
: : As far as the EXPLANATION about the particle/wave nature of matter, that would
: : involve a lot more time and effort to describe than the fact that it *has* been
: : explained.  If you haven't seen the explanation and are really interested in
: : knowing about it, get a Quantum Mechanics textbook and/or take a course.
>
: >How about giving us a brief layperson's explanation?
>
: 	Although I am not Peter Nyikos, I will happily do so.
>
>[description deleted]
>
: 	Anything more on this subject?
>
>The way I read Nyikos's statement was to say that the _reason_ for
>the particle/wave duality was explained, not simply that there was
>such a duality.  Perhaps I misunderstood what he was trying to say,
>but if indeed the reason for that duality has been explained, I have
>not heard it and would be interested in knowing what it is.

	I guess Peter Nyikos will have to speak for himself on what he
thinks the explanation is. A quantum-mechanics textbook or course will
probably focus in large part on the sort of descriptions I presented,
without making much effort to "explain" wave-particle duality. I know,
because I've actually studied the subject.

	For my part, I've yet to see a definitive, let alone
intuitive, solution to the riddle of the Incredible Shrinking Photon
and other such quantum-mechanical riddles. But if anybody has one, I'd
like to see it also.

	I wonder if Peter Nyikos is trying to defend the doctrine of
the Incarnation (that Jesus Christ was a man/god half-breed) by
pointing out the acceptance of quantum mechanics and its result of
wave/particle duality.

	He could be having something else in mind: if one is willing
to put up with scientific paradoxes like wave-particle duality, then
one has no right to complain about theological paradoxes, an
apologetic that goes back to Bishop Berkeley and infintesimals, the
"ghosts of departed quantities".
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who to listen to?
Date: 10 Nov 1992 14:13:18 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: nyikos and juries and guilt

In article <4ap1-sc@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to
>->I think the jury is still hearing evidence on this one.
>
>whereas, in the case of your lie about adrienne's
>"forgery," the jury's decision is clear.
>so when are you going to post your apology petey honey?


Probably after posting a bunch of OTHER crap harping on my name, wherein
he doesn't bother actually quoting the argument or anything else, just
spuriously popping off at the mouth because he's got a crush about
T H A T   big, another few times.           

Then his newserver will go down again......

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:38:09 GMT

In article <1dbgs0INN5gh@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <Bx8vup.5tH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1d9ad0INN32u@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <Bx7G3r.2M2@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>>>So you are saying there have been no cases where a judge has told a man 
>>>>to pay childbirth expenses, when the man is not married to the woman?
>
>>>Scuse me, please, but Don I think I indicated before that I was neither
>>>blind nor stupid.  Of course there have been a few occasions where a judge
>>>told a man he had to pay expenses.  Is that the GENERAL CASE?  No.  Were
>>>those orders limited to SPECIFIC situations?  Yes.
>
>>I'm trying to learn from your debating style.
>
>Oh, this should be fun.  Let me return the favor.
>
>>So, in other words, these judges were ignorant of the law and
>>made mistakes?  Or they intentionally went beyond the bounds of law?
>
>"So you are saying that no judge has ever disagreed with another judge,
>and that no ruling of one court has been overturned by any other court?"

Your claim +seems+ to be:

. Some judges think the law says they can order an unmarried man 
  to pay pregnancy/childbirth expenses;

. the law is otherwise;

. so other judges would disagree or overturn these "few occasions."

. Therefore unmarried men are not liable for any costs other than 
  child support.


I fail to see how "SPECIFIC situations" argues against the question
of whether unmarried men are liable for costs before birth.  It seems 
to argue in favor of saying unmarried men are liable.


>Don, why do you insist on being foolish?

I'm just trying to keep up with what I see.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47866 alt.flame:14754 misc.legal:19908
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Keegan demonstrates his control tendencies yet again
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:49:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: lefty.lefty-131192101237
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Nov13.153005.14596@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-121192142516@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov12.033956.9468@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
> >Darcy) wrote:
> >> 
> >> In article <lefty-111192113534@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >> >
> >> >So, when are you planning to bill me for your "archival services"?
> >> 
> >> I'll let you know, off-line, *IF* and *WHEN* I plan to bill you.
> >
> >Gee, Kevin, I hope its going to be soon.  
> 
> Anytime you want to make a formal request for a bill, you may do so, Lefty.
> 
> But be forewarned that the request could be interpreted legally as an 
> admission of liability and/or the existence of a binding contract between 
> us.

Gosh, Kevin, I don't see that to be the case at all.  I can't imagine why
you should feel that it were necessary for a person whom you felt owed a
legitimate debt to "formally request" a bill.  I further can't imagine why
you believe that such a request could in any sense be interpreted as an
admission of anything.

Does Chrysler Financial require that its clients "formally request" that
they be tendered a bill on the first of the month?  Are they somehow not
liable for their car payments if they _don't_ formally request a bill?  You
certainly do have some interesting theories.  Not that they hold even a
molecule of water, but they _are_ interesting.

Just out of pure, perverse, idle curiousity, what would constitute a
"formal request" for a bill?  Clearly, you don't feel that my wondering
when you are going to send me this purported bill constitutes a "formal
request".  Would one need to send physical mail?  Certified?  Registered? 
A telegram?

Suppose one were to send you a registered letter saying "Please send me a
copy of the so-called 'bill' for the amount which you have, without any
basis whatsoever in actual fact, claimed that I owe you."  Would _that_ be
a formal request?  Do you imagine it would constitute an "admission"?

> Care to take the plunge, Lefty? Or is all this "when are you going to bill 
> me" verbiage just more empty, impotent blustering?

There is certainly "empty, impotent blustering" going on, but it isn't
coming from _me_, pal.

> >I can't wait to see what your "archival fees" are.  Have you paid Q for the
> >legal advice yet?
> 
> Q has not rendered me any advice which I could reasonably consider valuable. 
> Plus, I rejected his/her/its offer of services within a reasonable time 
> after it was made. No contract exists between us.

Just as no contract exists between _us_.  Or do you feel you have some
tangible proof that this "offer" you feel you tendered was accepted?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Should Keegan disqualify supporters of the FOCA from using "prochoice"?
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:00:50 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

The FOCA would supposedly permit the states to place restrictions
on abortion after viability[1].  If a person supports the FOCA, then
they would be implicitly acquiesing to the restrictions that many states 
would inevitably impose on abortion.  James Keegan has disqualified anyone 
from using the "pro-choice" label if they do not oppose all restrictions
on abortion. It seems to me that James Keegan should disqualify anyone 
from using the "pro-choice" label if they support the FOCA, since this
legislation would supposedly allow restrictions on abortion. 


[1] The FOCA doesn't permit restrictions, but the pro-aborts insist
    that it does.  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:03:59 GMT

In <1992Nov07.061227.103583@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com 
   (Larry Margolis) writes: > 
In <1992Nov2.194806.1031@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com  
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>At any rate, the incidence of such problems is widespread enough
>>that one certainly doesn't have to work in my profession to have
>>come into contact with it.
>
>Do you think that the fact that in your profession the only users you
>come in contact with (at least, where you *know* that they're users) 
>are *abusers* might have anything to do with the problems you seem to 
>have distinguishing the two?

I am not an addictions counselor.  I come into contact with 
many *users* and their families.  The distinction between "use" 
and "abuse" is quite *moot* if the impaired individual is un-
able to function in a supportive capacity for a spouse or a
child.  "I'm sorry, Sally, Daddy is wasted right now but I'm
sure he'll tuck you in some other night".

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:14:26 GMT

In article <dvk1sf-@rpi.edu> cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Right, pro-choice really means pro-abortion, because prochoicers
>> aren't interested in supporting women who choose to remain pregnant.  

> surely you've seen one of the many posts I've made
> about the fact that when _I_ faced a problem pregnancy, _all_ the
> support I received was from pro-choicers.  The pro-"life"rs simply
> turned their backs and walked away.

I seem to recall seeing a post from a pro-lifer who said that
she could provide the name and telephone numbers of people in
your area would be glad to help you with your problem pregnancy. 

> is that old memory going?  

I don't know, is yours?

> And I hear there's a
> shortage of SIMMs, too.......drag.

I prefer surface mount, thanks.  

>-rocker


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date:  9 Nov 92 19:31:36 GMT

In <92306.185328ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>In article <1992Oct22.054349.14132@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>>In article <92293.000446ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>>
>>>What Mr. Holtsinger failed to mention in his little diatribe
>>>was that the original thread had to do with the imposition of
>>>legal and criminal sanctions against abortion.
>>>
>>>Canada has no legal restrictions for abortion.  There have been
>>>no abortion laws in this country since 1988.

You mean there are no legal restrictions all the way to the moment of birth???

>>>Are you suggesting that we are a nation of radical pro-aborts?

Sounds that way, or is your "no" yet another instance of your 
"phantom universal," Ms. Birmingham?  I really ought to start collecting
these, and post them all at once, so people will see what I mean.

Wait, I just thought of a loophole.  The encyclopedia Britannica defines
abortion so that the word simply does not apply to a viable fetus.
Does Canadian law do this too?  Roe v. Wade does not.

>In a national poll conducted this July 83% supported the
>statement that abortion is a decision left to a woman and
>her doctor.

A pity so few women consult their doctors before going to an abortionist
whom they may never see again after the abortion.

Or did the poll make it clear that "her doctor" means "the abortionist
to whom she goes"?

>Linda
>--
>We know from the public outrage over the Barbara Dodd and
>Chantal Daigle affairs the summer before last that Canadians
>do not want to see any more individual women wanting abortions
>dragged through a process of court-sanctioned harassment.
>  CARAL Brief to the Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Com. 1990

Could you give a brief clue as to what this is Dodd-Daigle case was
all about?

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:07:55 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: ignorant pro-forcers
Summary: Nyikos avoids the mainstream press

In article <nyikos.721430753@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

#Why do you think the Congress dropped FOCA after Democratic leaders
#announced that they had almost enough votes to override a veto?

I understood that it was because anti-abortion legislators had 
succeeded in adding so many amendments to the FOCA that no one 
wanted it to pass, and that the sponsors had decided to wait until
the new Congress was in session.  With Clinton as president, there
is no need to try to make the bill attractive to a veto-proof
majority.

#(My guess: 1. They did not have the votes they thought they had.
#2. They were afraid the public would learn just how extreme FOCA was,
#and that would have hurt Clinton's chances.)

I wonder why Petey Honey ignored the reports on television and in 
the newspapers and chose to guess about it instead.  Maybe he
likes looking silly - asserting that "they were afraid the public 
would learn just how extreme FOCA was" when, in fact, the FOCA was
rejected for being too watered down, is absurd.

Susan

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47986 soc.singles:30713 alt.sex:36255 alt.flame:14779
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Telling Tales Out of School
Date: 15 Nov 92 06:22:06 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

katy@clipper.ingr.com (Katy Yanda) writes:
] 
] Uh, I think I agree with Gordon on this one:
] 
] drieux DOES talk the way he writes.....


Madam,

You have me at a disadvantage, as I can 
not recall making your acquaintance, but
I wish all the best for your house.

ciao
drieux


ps: form letters, some days they are a solution.


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hi Diddle, Diddle, the Cat and the Fiddle,
The Cow Blew Up on the Launching Pad
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice CAN justify calling infanticide murder
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 19:25:04 GMT


sm>In article <1992Nov9.075659.778@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
te>From article <19240.2afd3caf@levels.unisa.edu.au>, by 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon):
 
te> Once a child is born, anybody can take the responsibility

sm>And if no one does?
 
If you are unwilling to make any sacrifice for this child you feel is
important what makes you think it is any of your business?

sm>Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: more unsupported data from DODie
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:35:52 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->> i wanted to see if you would have the courage to admit
->> that you rejected her offer and the honesty to admit
->> whether or not you had even given her the courtesy of a reply.

->I did reply.  

prove it.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion