HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Let us Unto history Rewrite
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:15:34 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

ayr@gtech.com (Aleksey Y. Romanov) writes:
] In article <1992Oct7.165424.29965@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
] >Hardly.  Sorry if you're confused; take a look at the word "fascism" in
] >the dictionary:
] >
] >  "A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and
]                                                                    ^^^
] >  race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic
]    ^^^^
] >  government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
]                           AAAAAAAAAAA
] >  regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."
] 
] Just remove highlighted (by ^ and A) and you will have the goal set
] by all this PC people. BTW, dictatorial leader or not (highlighted by A)
] is just a matter of taste and cannot be par of definition.
] 
] >
] >There.  "Near-fascist".  We have no dictator yet.  Do you see tendencies
] >toward the rest of the definition?  I sure do.  Talk to me about
] >Buchanan et al if you see something in Buchanan, Robertson, Gramm that
] >I'm missing.
] 
] Real fascists are to left from mr. E.Kennedy. 

1. Having survived life under the Fascist Regime of Generalisimo
Francisco Franco, I beg to disagree with you.

2. It is True that Stalin, while alledging to be the head
of a 'leftist' organization did in point of fact establish
not the 'dictatorship of the prolitariate' but the simple
DICTATORSHIP OF STALIN. 

3. It is true that in the formative days of the NSDAP they
were considered a leftist organization, but by June 30th 1934
all such 'leanings' and ambiguity was cleared up.

4. Yes, it is likewise true of Benito, that He Started out
on the left as a form of Socialist.

with 12 years of the Glorious Reign of the Reagan Revolution
coming to reap its rewards, I can understand how some of this
may be very confusing. There is a very simple model that will
help you understand all of this. Attach the end of a line together
and you will get something approximating a 'circle.' Where the
'party on the right' meets the 'party on the left' you will
find that their Agents of State Security are playing HugsyKissyFace
and the remaining defenders of the Republic are going to the wall.

Is it any wonder that some of listen to buchann, Robertson,
et al, with their Call for Jihad, Their Call for a Cultural War,
and remember those who went down in the 'Great Prolitarian
Cultural Revolution' or who have survived SAVAK to be interned
again under the Immam....

ciao
drieux

ps: turning up the strains of that 'who anthem'
and wondering if the kiddies understood what
they meant about:

"we don't get fooled again."

Its Not Just Rock_N_Roll anymore...


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Circles of Influence (was Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:25:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.184345.5510@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
}In article <1992Oct7.121730.19860@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}>In article <1992Oct7.030332.8476@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

}>}If my social reasons are directly starving certain people (like me buying
}>}a better car at the expense of not getting my son or daughter some food)
}>}then my social reasons are definitely not going to take precedence over
}>}the life of my son or daughter.

}>How about the son or daughter of your neighbor?  The sons or daughters
}>in the next county?  The next state?  Another country?

}If your neighbor was starving their children to death, wouldn't
}you do anything about it?

Well, since you asked, the answer is probably no.  I don't know *any*
of my neighbors.  I don't even know their names.  I wouldn't have a 
clue if they were starving their children, in fact, I don't even
know if they have children.  I think the feeling is kind of mutual.

Seriously, Martin, where would you draw the line?  You express all this
care and concern, but for whom?  You have to think a little about how
far your resourses can extend, and you have to consider the distinction
between being helpful and just being a meddling busybody.  Think about
how your actions (all of them) speak about your philosophy.  Think about
trying to make your actions reflect your ideals.

What you see as "social reasons" may be a life-or-death struggle for
someone else.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:52:53 GMT

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

| Some would consider the email that Demitrio excerpted
| from to *be* a retraction.

Ooops!  I'm sorry!  I missed your point.

In posting the e-mail you were *posting* a retraction.

Of course it wasn't a retraction before you posted it,
because it was directed to the wrong audience.  You'd
made your initial misstatement to the Net, not to me;
sending correction only to me was merely redundant since
I already knew that the statement was false.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                          suzanne-lucia.demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu
 

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:23:27 GMT

Eric Rescorla (rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu) babbles:

| It is ENTIRELY within the realm of possibility that CJ
| retracted it, and you merely did not see it.

Ah, but location is everything.  The usual point of a 
retraction is correcting a previous statement.  If the 
retraction doesn't reach the readers of the original error,
then it's not much of a retraction, is it?

Archive Alert:  did anyone see CJ's retraction on this newsgroup?

| Proving the nonexistence of an object with an essentially
| infinite possible location space is very close to impossible.
| CJ's potential retraction is such an object.

And God is another.  Will you defend both?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                       suzanne-lucia.demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu
 
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:31:56 GMT

In article <QeqQIZm00WBOA3Z8Zz@andrew.cmu.edu> 
"Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> This is yet another reason why I think there shouldn't be any legislation 
> on abortion. It's a moral issue not a political one. To me there's no 
> difference in killing the child in the womb or at the age of 5. But the
> parent that beats the child has done more grevious harm to it than if it
> had been aborted in the first place. I don't think either is right. What's
> a person supposed to think when faced with a situation like this? It's a
> moral judgement that leads people to one conclusion or the other. And I 
> think it should stay a moral issue, and not be in politics.

But just about every law has some moral basis.  Child abuse 
laws are based upon the moral principle that it's wrong to 
cause innocent human beings to suffer.  Child abuse laws and 
abortion laws share the same underlying moral principle. 


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42458 alt.abortion.inequity:4403
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Untruths about Rush (WAS Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:45:33 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <92281.220604KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt
Ludwick) wrote:
> 
> A feminazi is defined as a RADICAL feminist whose purpose
> is to see that as many abortions as possible take place.

Uh huh.

Can you or Rushie-Poo or anyone name a single solitary human being who fits
the description given above?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 14:42:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <1992Oct13.123753.24018@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
[ ... ]
>Ah, but if it goes to the House, then the winner (BC most probably)
>can not say he has a "mandate from the people" to pursue his
>agenda. This may well make some Congresscritters a bit nervous
>about backing any radical new changes. It's pretty sad when the
>best you can hope for is four more years of governmental
>gridlock, but I'm coming to believe that is a better alternative

Since both major parties favor increasing the scope of government
(although they intend to do so by trampling on different sets of
civil rights), I think governmental gridlock is an EXCELLENT idea!

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:53:08 GMT

crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes ...
>In article <BD.92Oct7104850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>Reagan Bush have lied to you for twelve years!  Lied, lied, and
>>lied again!  They have come damn close to bankrupting the country,
>>and *you* talk about big spender liberals?
>
>What is Clinton going to do differently?

One of the most amusing aspects of this campaign is the technique used
by the Bush apologists of criticizing Clinton by showing how he's like
Bush.  Cracks me up.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:42:38 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <-0vzvb#@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>->What is this?  Politically Correct Sociology?  

>why don't you define "Politically Correct Sociology,"
>bill. then there will be little possibility that anyone
>could misunderstand you.

>->These may be your provincial observations, Nadja, 

>please list the criteria you used to determine that
>nadja's observations were "provincial," bill.

He has only one criterion for to determine anything, Jim. 
Does the statement made agree with his opinion.

Strictly binary.
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:32:38 -0400 
From: "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
	<adams.718636731@spssig>

Mr. Adams writes:
>>So once again we are back to legal definitions.  Legal definitions can
>>be changed if enough persons want them to be.  If the legal definition
>>of a person is changed so that it includes fetuses, then would not the
>>fetuse now enjoy a right to life.
> 
>That is correct.  But there are not enough people who want to do this.
>You'll have to ammend the Constitution, most likely.  Try it.  I'd be
>willing to bet that it fails.  Big.

I'm not sure that that would be the case. I don't think you would have
to put a legal definition of a person in the Constitution. That would
probably deal with the judiciary side of the government. That's why
the Supreme Court is involved to begin with, yes?

ag

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:27:26 GMT

In article <7201@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil (usenet) writes:

>>sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>> I just wonder why there are no female FFLA members on the net,
>>> or even any women who are willing to support the FFLA stand.

Dr. Jean Graham made a brief appearance on the net in support
of FFL's positions.  All of the FFL articles which I've posted  
have been written by women.  I believe that Ms. Forgach has 
stated her agreement with some of FFL's positions.   


Do you have nothing substantial to say about FFL's positions?  


>>> I have read posts from five different men supporting the group.

I believe that all women should have an equal voice in the abortion 
debate.  We need to listen to women from every perspective.  That's 
why I post articles from FFL.  I'm simply helping FFL to have a voice 
on the net.  Why does that bother you?


> No, although I do believe that people who think that men and
> women are equal are pro-choice, that was not the criteria that
> I was using in this example.  I was referring to men who oppose
> allowing women in combat, 

I favor allowing women into combat roles.  I also favor allowing 
homosexuals into the military.  

> who state that they do not think
> that women make rational decisions, 

I believe that women make rational decisions. 

> and who don't believe that
> women are capable of doing traditionally-male jobs.

I believe that women are capable of doing "traditionally-male jobs".

Are there any other criteria that you'd care to mention?  


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42062 talk.politics.guns:22004 alt.conspiracy:11178 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5253 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6682 talk.bizarre:33774
From: inspecti@ux7.lbl.gov ()
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Date: 12 Oct 1992 15:01:30 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Reply-To: inspecti@ux7.lbl.gov ()
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux7.lbl.gov

In article <BvtHx4.KvB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <1b1mngINNdh1@overload.lbl.gov>, inspecti@ux7.lbl.gov () writes:

>>I want both of you to scroll back to the header of this message.  Look 
>[...]

>>In this "Newsgroups:" line is a phrase.  This phrase is "talk.bizarre."

>	And, if YOU would look, there are lots of groups that are NOT
>talk.bizarre.  In fact, only one out of the many groups this is sent to is
>talk.bizarre.  If the poor writing stayed there and only there, there would be
>no problem.

Perhaps you failed to comprehend the meaning implied by my explanation.


>>In summation, one should never declare someone's words "meaningless" simply
>>because one is ignorant of the mode of speaking which the speaker uses.  This
>>kind of devaluation of language is evidential of a small, inflexible
>>intellect.  Please try not to make this mistake again.
>
>	If you understand it so well, perhaps you would like to translate what
>he keeps writing?  Not only on talk.bizarre, but on all of the groups to which
>he posts.

This was intended to be a learning experience.  I can only assume you made it
past primary and secondary school, and perhaps through the 
preliminary phase of college up to an undergrad degree.   Therefore, you
are now a grown-up, and should be capable of solving problems for yourself.


>I agree that "devaluation of language is evidential of a small,
>inflexible intellect".  If everyone used only their own words, that they made
>up, and ignored anything resembling a sentence structure, there would be no
>communication.  Nobody would be able to understand anyone else, and language
>would be valueless.

>	I believe that the way "drieux" treats language devalues it, because no
>meaning is conveyed.


"I don't get it, so it must be bullshit."  

Once again, applied to French, German (a language which creates compound 
words in EXACTLY the same way drieux does), or perhaps Farsi, this would
get you thrown out of the building feet first.  

I am impressed, however, at your willingness to shout "I DON'T GET IT!"
at the top of your lungs.  Such forthright honesty is to be commeded.
Perhaps if you gave me your US Mail address I could mail you a clue.

inspecti probably way too aggressive this morning

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 11:39:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.025137.16632@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.070011.27651@Princeton.EDU> 
> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >> A person who believes that there should be no restrictions 
> >> on abortion IS pro-abortion, just as a person who believes that
> >> there should be no restrictions on contraceptives (which I
> >> believe) is pro-contraception.  
> 
> > And a person who feels that Nazis have the right to march is pro-Nazi,
> > right, Doug?
> 
> Nazis don't violate anyone's rights when they march.  Abortion violates
> the rights of a human being. 

That is irrelevant.  David was showing how your personal
definition is specious and why.  Violation of rights has
nothing to do with the matter he was discussing.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: IN DEFENSE OF STEVE CHANEY...
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:34:56 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1b2e02INNnin@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

Okay, so the defense of myself is equivalent to your IQ level? 
You who live in a glass house should not throw stones at me. 

=============================================================================
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:26:21 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  <9568@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>  mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <1992Oct12.194428.4759@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis
>
> >In  <9535@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>  mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wil
>
> >> Suppose your house is a boat.  You invite someone onboard.  You go for a
>
> >Suppose you *don't* invite them on board.  Suppose you block off the
> >gangplank with a big rubber sheet, and you slather the perimiter of
> >the boat with stowaway-icide, but he still manages to sneak abord.
>
> This is only analagous if you were raped by someone wearing a condom.
> More analagous would be if the passenger was invited aboard but only if
> here were wrapped and slathered as above.  Now through some accident
> that was not your passengers fault the rubber breaks.

Wrong.  It's a pleasure craft.  You didn't invite anyone else on board.
If you left it at the dock, there wouldn't be any problem, but it's your
boat and you decided to take it out for a little fun.  A passenger was
neither invited nor welcome.

> >Now, suppose there's a limited amount of food on board, and you don't know
> >if there's enough to make it back to land.  If you let the stowaway share
> >your food, there's a good chance both of you will starve to death.
>
> Are you trying to say that the mother will die if the baby is not aborted.
> As I stated previously, I am not opposed to self defense.  And this case
> would fall within the self defense doctrine.

I'm saying there's a chance.  You just don't know, but if you wait until
you know for sure, it might be too late.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: INFO: pro-choice protestors deny freedom of speech
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:26:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct15.182156.25919@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> And in the meantime, I'm going to sign up to join my buddies who will
> be hitting ACT-UP super-hard, from now on. We'll get those buggers
> back once and for all. 

Get in touch with Ted Kaldis.  He might be willing to lend you a tire iron.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Not a flame
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:50:55 GMT

[ This is best read in your Bobcat Goldthwait voice. ]

In the interests of protecting the sensibilities of the fools in this
forum who can't see the difference between a faux pas and
institutional racism, I hereby submit that, in the future when the
infamous Lone Ranger joke is told, the punch line be rendered as it
was originally intended:

	``Whaddya mean *we*, kemosabe?''

Adherence to this guideline is not mandatory but arguably in the
interests of keeping the flamage in talk.abortion within the bounds of
the charter of the newsgroup and preventing peeved posts like this one
from arising to further degrade the signal-to-noise ratio.


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

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41075 talk.politics.misc:49977 alt.sex:32180 alt.rush-limbaugh:6731 alt.politics.elections:15438 alt.politics.clinton:8839 alt.politics.bush:8004