HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Dan King for Congress!
Summary: I'll settle for being mayor of Houston.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:27:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.123719.3563@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.014238.5614@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>> Baileys distortions don't even compare to Budweisers.  I go and crack
>> open a cold Bud, and I never get surrounded by a bevy of bathin' 
>> babes.  Okay maybe one or two, but never a bevy.  
>
>That's nothing.  How about that Miller commercial where they
>pop open a Miller on a hot day and it starts snowing?  Now I
>like Miller Draft a lot, but if I'm sweating my butt off and
>I crack open a Miller, most times I keep right on sweating,
>and no, no snow falls.

That's something I've pondered, as well -- and I have a lot more opportunity
to ponder it at times, what with the summer lasting six months or so down
here along the Gulf coast.  I've seen snow fall down here *twice* since
1965, and I think that's too long.

>How many babes in a bevy anyway?  I know there are seven geese in
>a gaggle.
>
>Dean Kaflowitz

I've been trying to find the answer to *that* question for years -- but
since I've been married for two years and change now, I don't think I'll
have much need to investigate it further.  I'm passing the torch on to you.
:-)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

              Hit this .sig and win a free trip to Dewalt, Texas!
From: ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:21:40 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

[Stuff about becoming one with your hang-gliding harness]

"That is correct your honor.  I merely shot a hole in a
hang-gliding harness.  No your honor.  There was not a
person inside.  It was merely part of the harness."

Don
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:18:26 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <__wnybq.bskendig@netcom.com>  bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> a fetus isn't a child.  In fact, I personally don't consider a fetus to
> be a person or anything more than a mass of organic tissue until eight
> weeks after conception, at which time the brain and nervous system
> begins to form.  Until then, the fetus is incapable of feeling
> pain, and in fact has no consciousness.

And for a long time after then, as well.  Certainly not before
myelination in the brain begins, which is at 24 weeks.  And
neuroscientists have placed the minimum point for personhood
at 28 weeks.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: give a z/e/f the Turing test (was: Roe v. Wade and abortion)
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:50:44 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|In short: one is, in your arbitrary opinion, a human being 
|sufficiently like you to deserve a right to life, while the 
|other (again in your arbitrary opinion) is a human being not 
|sufficiently like you to deserve a right to life.

It's a rather well-accepted arbitrary opinion.  How will we
recognize intelligent computer programs or intelligent aliens,
other than by noticing that they're "sufficiently like us" in
some way?  Not some physical way, but some mental way.

|Prove, if you will, that walking and talking and thinking are
|prerequisistes to personhood.

I don't think walking & talking are prerequisites for personhood.
Parrots walk & talk.  I believe thinking is, though.  Parrots
don't think.  I have a heuristic for deciding whether something
is a "person" or not.  That heuristic is something like the
Turing test, which is so well-known among educated people as to
be a cliche.  Have you heard of it?

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Date: Tue,  8 Sep 1992 22:33:11 -0400 
From: Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: SIMPLE ANSWER


It seems to me that everyone needs to back off from the abortion issue
and think about it.

Abortion is a matter of a conflict of rights - the right of a woman to
have an abortion, and the right of the fetus to come live a life.

One thing everyone can agree upon is that no one can agree.  The obvious
answer is - compromise!  How do we compromise on this issue?  Well, you
start by shooting the anti - abortion lunatics and the pro - abortion
lunatics, because they only cloud the issue.  In the end, what most
people want (according to just about every poll - CNN Gallup, ABC
Gallup, and a number of others) is that most people favor restricted
abortions.  People want for abortions to be legal but not used.

That doesn't quite work, so look somewhere else, like to Pennsylvania. 
The Pennsylvania Law which was kept mostly intact by a
moderate-conservative Supreme Court still makes it illegal for a state
to ban abortions.  However, it supports the constitutionality of a
number of simple restrictions, all of which are based upon simple tenets
of thought in our society.

For example, the waiting period.  What's wrong with making people wait a
day for an abortion?  Nobody has any problem with it for guns.  A day's
wait would save many people's lives in the case of voluntary
manslaughter, a similar case of something done in a heat of passion, or
any kind of emotional rage.  Forcing a person to wait at least tries to
insure that they think about their decision.

The same goes for abortion alternatives information.  Providing
information is something that is easy to do.  Give women pamphlets to
read during their one-day wait.  They don't have to read them if they
don't want to, and then they at least have the opportunity of making an
intelligent choice.

How about the parental consent law.  Parents should be allowed to know
what their child is doing.  If the child goes ahead and has an abortion
with a judge's consent, the parents can punish that child for their
decision if they wish.  This is such a simple concept it is hard to
believe anyone should be opposed to it.

Americans don't want abortions banned outright, they don't want
pregnancies to be free of responsibility, and they don't want to pay for
other people's abortions.  Find a middle road.  It's hard to believe
anyone can't like the Pennsylvania Law.  It should be made national. 
How about it?

Erik Witte
   - Open your eyes, the solution is before you. -
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35778 alt.abortion.inequity:3658
From: pierres@microsoft.com (Pierre Stromberg)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's rant letter
Date: 08 Sep 92 17:51:56 GMT
Organization: Sausage, SPAM, Baked Beans, and SPAM Incorporated.
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

     Could someone who has Pat Robertson's letter please post it in its
entirety ? Thanks very much.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Pierre Stromberg         Microsoft Corporation         Redmond, Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
uunet!microsoft!pierres   pierres@microsoft.UUCP   decvax!microsoft!pierres
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" - Samuel Johnson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Larry Margolis
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 22:42:29 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep4.211113.16015@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep04.194313.9503@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> Why should anyone accept your pro-abortion sources, like the Alan
> >> Guttmacher Institute and the National Abortion Federation, if
> >> you're unwilling to accept unbiased sources from anyone who
> >> disagrees with you?
>
> > I'm willing to accept anything, regardless of source, but take it with a
> > grain of salt.  I won't accept speculation as fact, and if I don't believe
> > things presented as fact are correct, I might investigate.
>
> I'm sorry, but you're really weasling here.

No, I leave that to you.  I notice that you still haven't answered the
questions.

> If you wish to
> label the work of a respected Georgetown University law professor
> as "speculation", then I'm entitled to label the claims of
> the National Abortion Federation as "speculation".

Sure you are.  But I'm not claiming that you didn't support your somewhat
bizarre beliefs regarding Roe v. Wade, I'm just pointing out that you
supported it with speculation.  And I pointed to evidence that showed the
speculation to be baseless.  You, on the other hand, are now claiming that
my support is speculation while at the same time you're claiming that my
statements are unsupported.  (How you can reconcile these two conflicting
beliefs is beyond me.)  And you've not shown any evidence to the contrary,
all you're doing is attacking the source.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 21:11:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes ...
> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>  mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>> }        I backed it up all the way to two cells--two distinctly human
>> }cells that in just 9 short months will be ...
>> 
>> Why stop there?  Why not back it up before then?  Why not back it up
>> to the lustful gleams?
>> 
>Get serious.

What makes you think he or I are being any less serious than are you?
You make up some arbitrary point for the beginning of humanity then 
expect everyone else to accept without question that you decision is 
correct?

Bzzzt.  Wrong.   Try again.

>> }Then I decided that abortion is wrong.
>> 
>> Good for you.  You did not, however, explain why it should be illegal.
>> 
>If it wasn't obvious from what I said, it should be illegal because it is 
>killing (by torture) an innocent human being who has no choice in the matter.

Several more blatant and unsupported assertions from the Gospel of Stokes.

It wasn't obvious.
It isn't torture (in part, because torture implies pain)
It isn't innocent.
It isn't a human being.
It cannot make a choice.

Now then, I don't doubt you disagree with these statements.  If you're
going to say so, please keep in mind that you should try something more
convincing than your own Edicts For Humanity.

>Yes it should be made illegal.  Yes I am pro-choice--for the baby.  Let it
>(via nature) decide if it is going to live or die.  The one person in this
>world it should not have to fear is its mother.

Well then, since Nature is to be the Ultimate Arbiter of Human Endeavour,
perhaps we should all eschew clothes, cars, houses, computers, and Bibles
and go back to a hunter/gatherer existance?  After all, all of the above
are clearly contrary to the wishes of Nature or else they would have been
supplied for us.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Doug, this one's for you! (Re: Question for Larry Margolis)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:26:03 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <24635@oasys.dt.navy.mil>  bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
> In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >Why should anyone accept your pro-abortion sources, like the Alan
> >Guttmacher Institute and the National Abortion Federation, if
> >you're unwilling to accept unbiased sources from anyone who
> >disagrees with you?
>
> Doug, I've asked once, now I'm asking again, what sources? Or will you
> continue whining and not answer, for what ever perversion that may satisfy
> for you.
>
> Of course, I might have made your killfile, or iritated you to the point
> of ignoring me, but others will see this request (I know Larry has,
> whom you read) and perhaps repost it for your perusal. I'm not sorry
> that I blasted your whining misquotations. Just to clariify things.
> :)
>
> Ron

Well, since Doug has continued to whine and not answered (I don't know about
his perversions), I've decided to repost it as asked in case he did killfile
Ron.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What if???
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:36:21 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article <j1moody-010992232532@lafmac15.lafortune.lab.nd.edu>, by j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty):
> What if the human fetus developed on the outside of the mothers stomach,
> where everyone could see the eyes, ears, nose, etc. forming?
> 
> I'm not talking science here, I'm talking psychology.
> 
> We humans have a tendancy to disregard with ignorance things we cannot see.


Will not see, Humpty, will not see.   Sonography has been around for decades
now, as have books like "A Child Is Born", and Nova's "Miracle of Life" video.



> How tragic future generations will view our blindsided stupidity.

Much of the current generation already thinks so, too.


S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: "Anti-Abortion" is a DEAD label. It's PRO-LIFE.
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:19:28 GMT

In article <BuFs3u.F90@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.155048.10814@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:
>
>
>>Proposition 119, the Euthanasia bill of the century, in Washington state:
>>wiped out by pro-lifers at the ballot box.

Yeah, the pro-lifers were soooo effective last year, weren't they?  I happen
to LIVE in Washington state.  I saw first-hand the propaganda they distributed
to counteract proposition 120--the pro-choice legislation.  The people saw
right through their lies and voted it down.  Now, if the pro-forced-birthers
can't mount a logical, truthful campaign to stop their pet project, just
how effective do you think they can be in stopping other types of choices.
Proposition 119 was defeated not because of pro-life forces, but for the
simple fact that many people DID NOT READ the legislation and believed
their fears, not the facts.

Jennifer
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Selfishness (was  Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be...)
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:22:37 GMT
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago):

[Vickie's post deleted to avoid news reader choke, but it was about
 Suzanne's great-aunt -- I'd be happy to fill any new readers in.]

>All I can say, Vickie, is that this is twisted twisted twisted.
>
>There's nothing in you that even understands family love at all.

On the contrary -- Vickie seems to understand that the concept of family
can easily transcend mere DNA.  Isn't that why you keep offering to adopt
all these poor fetuses being sent to the slaughterhouse?

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."
                                                  Au revoir, *ma* cherie.
                                                  (Sorry, kiddo.)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:58:01 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

>How do I explain this, it's rather like having to explain why life has any
>value at all. 

Naah, not at all.

>You once asked me if I had an analogy for why abortion is wrong.  I
>thought about it a lot, so here goes.  Do you think that it is ok to
>remove a person from a life support system? (Many people say yes!).  Now,
>however, do you think that it is ok to remove a person from a life support
>system if you know that in 9 months they will be fully living on their own
>again?

Yes, I still think so, as there are no gaurantees, and if the individual
had been capable of making their wishes known, then their wishes should
be followed as much as possible. You see, the individual "getting the
plug pulled" really shouldn't be able to make others "pay" for supporting
him (surely you agree with that) so go ahead and draw the parallel.
(Note here that most insurance, as I discovered, caps out at $50k lifetime
benefits, and at ~$800 per day for a bed, not including anything else,
works out to ~63 days, or less than ten weeks.)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Next: Mark Kaufman
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:55:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.221324.27848@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
## Mark Kaufman
#
##   I could be wrong, but I think I've been insulted.
#
#Quite the contrary.  It is a mark of pride to have earned the temper tantrum
#of an attention-starved, power hungry, deluded child who has become obsessed
#with the fantasies he must turn to for comfort.  I am only sorry that I have
#not intimidated him sufficiently to have received a barrage of petty, 
#juvenile insults myself.


All you have to do to induce a tantrum in Chaney/Hall is tell the
truth.  Facts seem to drive the Airplane Boy into a frenzy.  Two
other factors increase his rage - he attacks Jews more violently
than Christians (or, rather, *perceived* Jews and *perceived*
Christian), and he attacks women more violently than men.

He did confuse you with rocker when he was bragging about his
"KILLfile" a while back, though.  He'll probably get around
to attacking you soon.

Susan
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SOUTH CAROLINA INCEST-ABORTION LAW
Keywords: incest, consent, emancipated, abortion
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:06:41 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <nyikos.715968465@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>	One bottom line to the South Carolina law on abortion is: it is
>perfectly legal for an uncle who has gotten his underage niece pregnant
>to bring her in to an abortionist and have an abortion done on her
>without the consent of her parents and WITHOUT HER OWN CONSENT.

What a disgusting law.  What is the address of the South Carolina legislature,
do you know?

Blaaaauugh.  This is the hideous flip side to what happened in Ireland.
No choice here.  (But... um... is this law a reason to outlaw choice?  Why?)

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro B
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:35:49 GMT

In article <18o0utINNa4q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>In article <lav1kaINN7u9@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>.In article 15914@csus.edu, chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official researcher of USENET's Astro_Boy virus) writes:
>.. 
>.. Rumor has it, he's got a TV show coming soon. 
>.. What does Gloria Steinem have? 
>.Hmmm, that's a toughie.  Well, I'll start the list with
>.1.  Dignity.

Rush has tons of that. He's also got: 

1) Pride
2) Fame
3) Lots more fans than Gloria Steinem 
4) Lots more $$$$ than Gloria Steinem, probably. (Though that's pure
speculation.) 

> 2.  The freedom to control the use of her body, for the time being at least.

Too bad marijuana users and hungry folks on the street, don't have
that. 

>Adrienne Regard


-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You Should Have Known I'd Do This (to Galen et. al.)
Keywords: hang glider, rights, harness, viable
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:50:20 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.716154519@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes: 

Post deleted.  Was this intended as humorous?  Was there supposed to
be some analogy to abortion buried in this muddle?  Does anyone get
it?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The 91% Regret Rate
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:21:21 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


Another bizarre place in which you can read the results of Reardon's
WEBA study is in the West Virginia University _1990 Annual Report
of the College of Agriculture and Foresty_.  

Seriously, Reardon and Wanda Franz have an article entitled 
"Different Effects of Elective Termination of Pregnancy on
Adolescents and Adults" in there.  It's the same old WEBA
survey, though.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:24:33 GMT

In article <sx5ymla@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
#chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
#
##Isn't it you and Rocker who continue to push the evils of men being
##involved in the debate against abortion? 
#
#No.

It does make you wonder if Dennis actually reads the newsgroup
or if he merely assumes what people have argued based on his
stereotypes.

#
##Or Rocker's "I never knew of men who got abortions.." 
#
#Please produce a citation for this exact quote, or retract it.

Indeed.  I've never seen you express yourself so poorly.

##Either Rocker was stupid (because the person debating her said men are
##half responsible for pregnancies and Rocker answered "I never knew of 
##men who got abortions..")
#
#Please produce a citation for this exact quote, or retract it.
#
#              -rocker
#               wondering how my articles escaped borgie's
#               much-publicized killfile


I think that Dennis does have a killfile, and that he allows
it to run.  I also think that he then goes back and reads
all of the articles which were killed.  

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion