HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The Best of Enemies - John Dee
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:37:02 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>  [.. biographical sketch of an abortion opponent ..]
>> 
>> Dee was recently sentenced to a six-month jail term for violating the 12-
>> person limit at the Robbinsdale clinic.  He will start serving his term on
>> the day after Thanksgiving.

> What is the meaning of a "12-person limit", and why does a person
> deserve six months in jail for violating this limit?

The abortion protests at the Robbinsdale clinic got rather rowdy this 
summer.  In the interest of keeping the peace, a judge issued a temporary
restraining order saying that no more than 12 people from each side could
demonstrate in front of the clinic.  The wording of the ruling says that
all other demonstrators must be at least 1500 ft away, but local police
have allowed demonstrating across the street and in an adjoining property,
with the owner's permission.

As for Mr. Dee, he has been arrested many times at abortion protests, and
as a repeat offender, merited the extra time.

Btw, residents and business owners in the neighborhood of the clinic have
filed an affidavit with the court asking that the numbers of demonstrators
in front of the clinic _not_ be increased, as requested by representatives
of the anti-abortion demonstrators.  The chances are good that the temporary
restraining order will be made permanent as written.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power."  -- Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:54:43 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: U of Arizona, CS Dept, Tucson

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|> Getting back to the fraud scenario, what if she not only claims to be on the 
|> pill, but refuses to have sex with him if he insists on wearing a condom? 
|> Doesn't that get us back to the old "you could have always abstained" crap 
|> that we flame to a cinder when a pro-lifer spouts it? Why should I tolerate 
|> the same crap from a pro-(female-)choicer? It still smells the same no matter
|> the source.

Am I the only one who sees a difference between "you shouldn't ever have
sex if you don't want a child", and "you shouldn't have sex with someone
you don't trust or won't let you wear a condom"?  I don't think they're
quite the same. 

Thinking you should refuse to have sex with someone who doesn't care
enough about you to let you wear a condom to protect yourself from
possible disease and/or parenthood  doesn't mean that the person thinks
you should always refrain from sex.

--Beth Weiss
bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48904 soc.men:19694 alt.dads-rights:2663
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 20 Nov 1992 16:27:39 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov19.024423.15804@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
>
>Adrienne, 
>
>You are missing the point completely.  There simply is no legal recourse
>for a man out of a forced fatherhood situation.  No matter what that
>situation might be.  Take for instance, the case of a predatory woman
>using the child as a vehicle for extortion. 

Uh, Frank, using Larry's (?) recent example:

"Take for instance, the case of a predatory woman jumping into the sun...."

Do you have any information, data, studies, ANYTHING that will help us
here on the net understand how big a problem this is?  Is it a 'real'
problem except in the anecdotal sense?

I'm not merely picking nits here, Frank.

I happen to know of an anecdotal case myself where this very thing happened,
but what I'm trying to get at is this: is it a big enough problem that our
whole society should step in to solve it by completely changing the current
definition of 'family', is that stepping in a 'good' thing, and who has to
end up paying what for whom?

>(story deleted).
>How many women are out there making babies to prevent or discourage men
>from leaving them? 

I don't know. Do you?  Does anybody?

And, of course, the follow on question that folks like Karl and Don force
us to ask is:  "does it make any sense to outlaw abortion in these cases?"

>You honestly wish to make me believe that ANY
>behavior by a woman is fair, and it's just the dumb man's fault (all
>of it!) and his bad luck, as it were, for making her pregnant?

Don't be a horses ass if you can possibly help it.  I don't believe I've
ever been asleep at the wheel to the extent of so badly misrepresenting 
my own beliefs as the above.

Put some numbers to it, man!  Make a *real* case, not some "my wife knows
a hairdresser who's housepainter's daughter thought about this!"

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:08:11 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>> I really shouldn't bother refuting him.  However,
>> Since the Reverend insists on discussing the availability
>> of late term abortions under Roe once again, I thought that
>> I'd reproduce the following article.  The first time that
>> Reverend Holtsinger tried to argue this issue, he posted
>> his version of Tushnet's opinion.  (I looked up the source,
>> and I found that he had made unmarked deletions.)  Undaunted,
>> Holtsinger continued to argue the point, and surprisingly,
>> continued to quote out of context to support his argument.

>> ["quote" from Tushnet deleted]

> Typical.  She makes allegations of the unreliability of the quote, does
> not give her own quote, deletes Doug's quote.

Yo!  Newbie!  J. Greenfield showed that DearOldDoug made unmarked deletions
last summer!  I'll bet that if you swallow hard and apologize to Ms. Regard
and Ms. Garvin, some kind soul will email you Mr. Greenfield's posts.

Btw, DearOldDoug went on a tear of doctoring quotes last summer, all the
while whining that people were quoting him out of context.

> I move that networkers disregard such claims as "he had made unmarked
> deletions" by Ms. Garvin until she shows where these were made and what
> they were [or at least a sample].

Mr. Pot, you should really be more careful about disparging remarks about
Ms. Kettle.  Read on.

>> With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug 
>> Holtsinger writes:           ^^^^^^^^^^^^

These words were penned (keyboarded?) by J. Greenfield.  You have removed
that attribution.  Why, Petey?

>> As I have said *several* times before, *I* have never said that the two 
>> cases should not be read together.  What I said is that you cannot 
>> assume that the discussion of "health" in the Doe opinion applies to the 
>> "life and health" provision in Roe, regarding third-trimester abortions.

> As far as I can see, this unsupported allegation ["you cannot assume..."]
> by Ms. Garvin is her sole support for her word "*completely*" highlighted
> above.

These words (>>) were penned (keyboarded?) by J. Greenfield.  Do they offer
remedial reading courses for topology experts at USC?

>> Every objective indication supports this contention.

> The above sentence is rendered vacuous by the omission of all objective
> indications from the post to which I am following up.  The best she can
> do is show that *some* of Doug's quotes are *consistent* with her 
> contention. 

These words (>>) were penned (keyboarded?) by J. Greenfield.  Stop playing
dumb, Petey, we get enough real stupidity from you as it is.

[--the rest mercifully deleted--]

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "One of the HORRIBLE things of trying to defend a FREE REPUBLIC is
 that I get to support your RIGHT to say STOOPID THINGS." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:38:50 GMT

In article <1ead9cINN8a5@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>     One can not reconcile the OT God with the NT God without throwing out
>>all logic and rationality.  That is one of the reasons that I rejected 
>>Christianity.
>Did you all have the same problem with wave-particle duality?
>Lemme see.  Light is particle and light is wave.  I cannot reconcile these
>ideas without throwing out all preconceived notions.  You say wave and
>I say particle, let's call the whole thing off.

Sigh.  More quantum pseudoscience.

Light acts like a particle sometimes and like a wave sometimes.  The problem
with reconciling the OT and NT gods is that God tends to be described as
being a certain way without qualifications as to "sometimes".

If someone points out that OT actions seems to show God not acting good, and
you reconcile the OT and NT gods like you do light as particles/waves, you
would be saying "God acts good sometimes and acts non-good sometimes".  I have
not yet seen a theist claim this.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: please Phoney
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:35:24 GMT

will you lie about me too so i can get into the song
with susan, dean and adrienne and who knows how many
others?

thanks.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48363 soc.men:19493 soc.women:19816 alt.politics.homosexuality:7328
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:07:14 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1eb73dINN14q@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>The incidents you describe have as much to do with homosexuality as other
>forms of rape have to do with heterosexuality - that is to say none at all.
>These are crimes of violence, they have nothing to do with sex.

What can you possibly mean by saying that rape has nothing to do with
sex?  The contrary is true as a simple matter of definition.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 12:58:31 GMT

In article <9830@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> In article <h=x1ctd@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> #regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> #->And this from our own Sweety Petey Honey Nyikos who *just* before this
> #->article told James Keegan that he didn't lie about adrienne regard.
> #
> #hell, if he can lie about you and susan garvin, there's
> #no reason why he can't lie to me.
> #
> #perhaps he's displaying misogyny when he lies about
> #women and only lies to men. wait a minute! didn't he
> #lie about dean? never mind.
> 
> I think that he's lied about a lot more people than just
> Adrienne, Dean and I.  (And I really hope that Dean will
> write a song about the three of us - I like the way that
> sounded.)  I think that it's time for everyone else in
> the group to step forward.  We can form one of the most
> non-exclusive clubs in the world.

Just for clarity's sake, "Doctor" Petiehoney accused me of deleting
material from a posting.  However, the posting in question was
posted by Adrienne Regard as a follow-up to a posting of mine.
The "Doctor" still hasn't figured out that I was talking
about that accusation of his.

As for songs, well, I cannot write a song to save my life.
I'm not a bad poet, actually.  My fiction is okay, and I
am a competent tech writer, but I have yet to attempt a song
that didn't make me cringe in the middle of the first phrase.

I could attempt an "Adrienne, Dean, and Susan" poem, but then
I'd get all hung up trying to get the order right (who gets
top billing; should it be "Adrienne, Dean, and Susan," "Susan,
Adrienne, and Dean," "Dean, Adrienne, and Susan," and so on?).
After all, I want to be fair.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:56:48 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>  Larry Margolis contacted my
>system administrators and told them that I had been
>"letter-bombing" newsgroups.  He didn't even bother
>to contact me first to get the facts.  

I've seen this comment from you a couple times now, and it has brough
up a question that I haven't seen anyone else ask yet.

Why would anyone want to contact _you_ to get the _facts_?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama)
Subject: Darcy babble
Followup-To: news.net-cops.kevin-darcy
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:17:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.182731.18319@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Self-refuting.

Yep, that's our Kevin!



ps for Lefty:  how long as Kebbin been whining about this imaginary
contract?  One year?  Two? 



---------------
Actually, my main reservation at this stage of the game is that the
sobriquet "net.idiot" may not fully describe him.

"Lord High Fuckwit", maybe...
					-- lefty@apple.com
					<9108270050.AA04989@internal.apple.com>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: otis@opal.idbsu.edu (Otis Kenny)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Boise State University Mathematics Department
	<1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <Bxv81E.39s@ddsw1.mcs.com>
	<1ebuptINNcto@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:29:38

#In article <1ebuptINNcto@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

#   karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
#
#   >Seems to me that we have, as a people in America, reached a crossroads:
#
#   >	I posit that both of these situations are undesirable for the people
#   >	concerned.
#
#   >I propose we act together.  I propose that both women AND men do something
#   >historic -- act together as a group to secure reproductive and parental
#   >rights for both genders.
#
#   >What I envision is a law which provides all of the following:
#   [proposal deleted for brevity]
#

Details of the "plan" deleted

#
#   How does your proposal protect the interests of an unwanted child
#   (assuming it isn't aborted)?  How does it protect the interests of
#   a child who is wanted by a parent who is financially unable tp 
#   provide for said child?  
#
#							   --  Michal  

It doesn't.  Why should a parent who is financially unable to provide
for said child be permitted to force someone else to provide for said
child. The interests of the child do not come into the equation until
the child can be provided for by someone other than the woman who is
carrying (or carried) it.  If the woman cannot afford the child, why
should she have it?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Otis Kenny                        * US mail: Department of Mathematics
otis@math.idbsu.edu               *          Boise State University
				  *          Boise, ID 83725.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:24:50 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
# Jay Wise from Trinity College writes:
# 
# >First of all, the "taxpayers complaint" doesn't carry much weight.
# 
# Maybe to you the taxpapers complaint doesn't carry much weight,
# but to me, it degrades me to an accessory to murder. I rather
# not have the title irregardless of your viewpoint.

Heh.  Imagine how all those pacifists feel every time the military
projects force.  Now imagine how they feel when somebody says, ``Hey,
you don't like it? -- The border is that way, buddy.  You can renounce
your U.S. citizenship at any time and be free from the obligation to
pay U.S. taxes.  What's stopping you?''

This is why the "taxpayer's complaint" doesn't carry much weight:
Everyone has a taxpayer's complaint.  What makes yours so special?

# >Tax-paying pacifists are still forced to contribute funds towards, say,
# >B-1 bombers;
# 
# So. That is a matter of national defense.  It is not a case
# of murder, but rather self defense. Do you not know that killing
# in self defense is not murder?

Neither is abortion, lunkhead.  Abortion is not murder.  It never has
been.  Unless you're a grade AAA certified mutant screwhead from
beyond the ninth dimension, even *you* probably don't even think
abortion is murder.  Almost nobody with enough brainpower to write in
coherent, complete sentences thinks abortion is murder.  Why should
the State consider abortion to be morally equivalent to murder when
the *HUGE* majority of people simply don't believe it?


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: "Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand" is a lie
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it a few days ago...
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 23:32:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.013356.38066@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Nov20.215541.16604@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>Several thousand abortions are performed annually after the
>>21st week of pregnancy (viability starts around the 22nd
>>to 23rd week of pregnancy).
>
>You mean, the *possibility* of viability starts there.  How many
>22 week preemies survive?
>
Based on examples of infants in a level 3 neonatal ICU, 22 week
preemies have less then a 1 in 10 chance of survival. Of those that
survive, roughly 2/3 will have serious permanent defects. 

>>I'm not claiming that third-trimester abortions are performed
>>for "trivial" reasons;
>
>So you admit that your scare-tactics are groundless?
>
>>BTW, are you going to send threatening e-mail to my system
>>administrators for this post?
>
>Why would I do that, Dougie?  I've never sent threatening e-mail to
>*anyone's* system administrator.
Of course not Larry, but by posting that, he covers his butt for whenn
he flees from the argument. He'll be able to claim he lost his net
access because of your threatening email...

--
                  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,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: New Study: More Post Abortion Trauma Revealed!!!
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:46:25 GMT

In <1992Nov8.174625.26561@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>] Could Linda Blair tell that she had Post Abortion Trauma?
>] Could she waive the obtainment of an abortion, and simply feel
>] the Potential Post Abortion Trauma?
>] 
>] Very interesting!

>also, Anyone who is a FutureLife will have been Linda Blair in
>a Past Life, will also be able to clearly point to why they
>have had Post Abortion Trauma.

>This Simply requires a little PrePostPastLifeRegression Therapy.

What would be really scary is if this therapy were applied to a
reincarnation of the aborted daughter of Nancyjo Mann [a two-hour
torture from a strong salt solution].  Whoever it was could be
traumatized for life on re-experiencing this unimaginable horror.

BTW this daughter was at 23-24 weeks, when myelination is well
under way. 

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 18:12:28 GMT


cj>In article <sgcnaes@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
dk>dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:
rf>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
 
rf>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
rf>right of a woman to end the pregnancy?  
 
dk>No there is not.  At least not legislative. 
 
cj>What do you call Roe v Wade, then? 

My understanding of RvW is that it is not legislation and it does
not restrict abortions, but rather allows restrictions to third
tri-mester abortions.  It is possible that states could legislate
away a woman's right to third tri-mester abortions to protect 
viable fetus. Some have.  But I would not claim that this 
legislation ensures the right of a woman to end the pregnancy.

cj>Or do you agree with Holtsinger about Roe?
 
I do somewhat.  I believe RvW intentionally left the definition
of health to the mother somewhat vague.  They seem to have 
believed that health decisions were better handled by the 
woman and her doctor rather than legislators.  DOD and I
disagree because he believes that legislators should define
health (though he is scared to admit this) while I prefer 
it be left up to the woman and her doctor.  
 
I oppose legislation that would narrowly define health 
risks for the woman and I have no problem with a lack of 
legislation restricting abortions.  I see no problem with
women and her doctor ripping heads of fetus in the vagina 
like the example Ray brought up.
 
cj>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism