HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 21:11:44 GMT

In <1992Oct29.172404.10216@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>In <nyikos.720058194@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>In <1992Oct23.203346.4892@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>>>>}If someone has stated specifically, like Peter Nyikos has done, that he 
>>>>}doesn't appreciate being called 'Petey, honey', and a person continues
>>>>}to do it, then she is guilty of sexual harassment. 

>>The above statement was made by Andrea Gansley-Ortiz.  M. Price
>>conveniently edited out the relevant attribution line.

>>>I am stating specifically that if Peter Nyikos posts any
>>>more articles discussing men's and women's sexuality WRT the abortion debate
>>>1. I will not appreciate it, and
>>>2. I will consider it sexual harassment.

>>More sarcasm from the inimitable M. Price.

How did I know M. Price was being sarcastic?  Lots of ways, one of which
was the following exchange on the "...Christian values..." thread:

#> Nyikos
# Price

#>Get with it, Gordon!  Don't you see how Ivan has exposed M. Price's 
#>"castigation" for the hoax that it is? 

# Ummmm, well, actually, I don't either. I've had a sensible e-mail
#conversation with Ivan in which neither of us have mentioned exposing
#one another, appealing though the idea may be. ;-)

Note the gratuitous introduction of sexual innuendo by the inimitable
M. Price.

>>1.  There are far more explicit things said in talk.abortion about
>>sexuality than any you have seen from me or will see from me.  Look at
>>the "...lobotomy..." thread, directed at Chaney.

>>2.  The things I write on sexuality are not directed at M. Price.  [With
>>the possible exception of the following sentence, after which I will
>>forever hold my peace:]

>>I do not know whether M. Price is a man or a woman.

>     So why do you refer to me as "he"?

If I did so, and offended you thereby, I am sorry.  Which personal
pronoun would you like me to use when referring to you (singular) in
the third person?

Peter Ny.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Date: 13 Nov 1992 08:05:28 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.721598189@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Somebody deleted a lot of attributions before I came on the scene.  I
>wonder which is worse: deleting attributions or leaving them in after 
>having deleted everything in that particular article.

Worse definitely is being unable to tell what attribution goes with
what quote.

Definitely.

Adrienne Regard



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Jay Stein stops insinuating, and starts posting claptrap 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:24:16 GMT

In article <GoodBye.Doug.B0592.1133am@wam.umd.edu> 
judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- apply to inconspicuous area first) writes:

>> And I also do not approve
>> of Jay Stein's insinuations that prolifers condone these bombings. 

> Ah, but prolifers *do* condone these bombings.  Not *all* prolifers, but
> a plurality of pro-lifers.  How do I know this?  'cause I've asked a huge
> number of them, and a disturbing percentage of them think it's okay.

Gosh, Jay Stein says that a plurality of pro-lifers condone
abortion clinic bombings.   He even asked a "huge" number of
them to support his conclusion.  I'm really convinced now.

Just yesterday I went out and asked a "huge" number of 
pro-lifers what they thought of Jay Stein, and they all 
thought he had no valid arguments to support abortion.  



> Jay T Stein


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@launchpad.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Webster lost in MO
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:33:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.125233.6547@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>Since no one else has posted about this...
>
>William Webster (of Webster decision fame) lost in the race for
>Missouri Governor.  Mark down another big loss for the anti-choice
>side.
>
>	Mel Carnahan (D)	59% (pro-choice)
>	William Webster (R)	41% (pro-life)
	Yes, we had a good chuckle at that around *my* house (I live in
St. Louis).  In all fairness, though, you should know that part of what
defeated Webster was the vast amount of evidence of bribery and financial
wrongdoing in his office.  The pro-choicers can't take all the credit.

>
>
>-- 
>Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
>EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)


Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   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:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:03:26 GMT

<1992Nov7.211946.14256@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
><1992Nov7.083259.11133@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) :
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> So your argument then, is that infants can be killed when a 
>>> person can't immediately transfer custody of an infant to 
>>> another person.  
>
>> No, my argument is "infants" can be killed when they inhabit the body of
>> an unwilling host and the only way to remove them is to kill them.  
>
>But a child can be removed from the womb without killing them. 

If you got a child lodged up inside a woman then one of them is in serious
danger. I thought we were discussing abortion.

>>>> Part of the argument for abortion is inability to transfer
>>>> gestation to a willing person.  That argument does not exist for infants.
>
>>> Why restrict yourself to gestation? 
>
>> Why not?  It is the stage of a pregnancy that involves involuntary
>> servitude that preceeds many abortions.
>
>Yes, it's the involuntary servitude to a person's sex drive 
>which often precedes abortion and pregnancy.  

Spoken like a true prude.  So why _do_ you think that pregnancy is
punishment?  Did you have a bad relationship with your mother?  BTW,
"often" is grossly incorrect.  With over 150 million sexually mature
adults in the USA alone I'd have to say that pregnancy is the exception
more than the norm.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: The eternal pessimist
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:44:12 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# >  I think
# >it's unwise to stop concentrating on the legal status of abortion and
# >focus entirely on RU-486, though I agree RU-486 isn't receiving enough
# >attention at the moment.
#
# I don't think I said we stop concentrating on the legal status of
# abortion completely, just that doing so to the extent we have
# been so far is unlikely to achieve the effect we desire.

I think letting up on the struggle to keep surgical abortion safe,
legal, accessible and rare will be better served if the pro-choice
movement doesn't relax.  Opposition to RU-486 can only achieve so
much, and the anti-abortion crowd, I think, is not likely to get very
screwheaded about it, especially if they see opportunities to restrict
surgical abortion without having to fight as hard.

# >Furthermore, I fear that when widespread availability of RU-486 is
# >achieved, there will be an ugly mechanism operating in a lot of
# >people's minds:  ``you could have used RU-486 -- now it's too late.''
#
# I think that's a big improvement over "You could have used a rubber--
# now it's too late." don't you?

Depends.  People who are currently uncomfortable with taking such a
harsh stand might be comfortable enough to vote for measures that
allow RU-486, but outlaw surgical abortion.  Kind of a `so, I guess it
really is unfair to punish a woman whose contraception failed, but
there's simply no excuse for waiting until after RU-486 can't be used'
mentality.

The sex fascists won't be satisfied, of course, but they might be able
to get enough small-minded dixiecrats to go along with them through
this logic so as to build consensus for outlawing surgical abortion.

Of course, this all depends on the reversal of Roe vs. Wade, and FOCA
getting struck down... which I don't believe are terribly unlikely.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Democracy is the theory that the common 
| J H Woodyatt              |  people know what they want, and deserve to
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  get it good and hard.''
+---------------------------+                              -- H L Mencken

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47510 talk.religion.misc:20812 talk.philosophy.misc:2387
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Duality of wave/particle, human/divine [Was:... or chavinism?]
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:36:56 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

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.

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 21:58:05 GMT


In article <1992Nov12.162153.1591@panix.com>, jk@panix.com writes:
> In <23971@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon) writes:
|>"What any person chooses to do with their own body is
|>their own business!!!"
|This statement expresses much of what lies behind the pro-choice view,
|and I find it puzzling.  I can't understand why the fact that my body
|is involved in an action makes it inappropriate for other people to
|form judgements about the action.
|To give a few examples, if I commit rape, I am doing something with my
|body.  [...]

When you rape, you involve the body of another person.
That person, just like you, has control over what happens
to his/her body.  The consent of the other person is
what makes the difference between consensual sex & rape.

When a woman obtains an abortion, she affects her own body.
Nobody else's body is involved.  (Hint: if you think otherwise,
you have to prove your case.)

When nobody else is involved, nobody else has the right to
interfere.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"A moment's thought would have shown him, but a moment is a long 
time and thought is a painful process." -- A E Housman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Keegan excludes anyone from being prochoice if they support restrictions on abortion
Followup-To: alt.fascist.control.freaks 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:17:58 GMT

In article <csh1y=n@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James "Fascist Control Freak" Keegan Jr.) writes:

>dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> James Keegan has disqualified anyone 
>> from using the "pro-choice" label if they do not oppose all restrictions
>> on abortion. 

> this statement is not correct. 


    "that is why i thought it important to point out
     that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
     legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
     third trimester."

             <1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J.  Silverio)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 22:33:26 GMT


In article <32208@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>, smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU writes:
|I saw some of the detailed election analysis in Wednesday's NYTimes.
|The only available information on your question suggested that
|abortion helped Bush: Among those voters saying abortion was the
|decisive factor, a large majority supported Bush.

The analysis I saw suggested that this was true in Pennsylvania,
but that the opposite was true in NY.  In NY, of the people
polled who said that the abortion issue was important, most
voted for Clinton.

The economy really was the driving issue, though.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Cows are just plants that happen to move around a bit." 
    -- Thant Tessman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Why is Doodie Hiding Genocidal Murders?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:30:57 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
] dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] >
] >How does this case justify the annual slaughter of 1.5 million
] >human beings? 
] >
] >Doug Holtsinger
] 
] Does the UN Commission on Genocide know about this?  How about Amnesty
] International?  1.5 Million people killed every year????
 
Steve,

clearly since doodie KNOWS of this,
and is not reporting it to the proper
authorities he is clearly an accesory after the fact.


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47710 alt.abortion.inequity:5043
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:05:25 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <BxKF1J.Asq@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1draroINN4q7@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>You aren't really interested in the
>>outcome of male-choice, you merely want to restrict women.

>You are right in *exactly* one sense:

>I want to restrict women from restricting men unfairly.

I get it. Allowing women to make decisions restricts men unfairly.

What a lovely insight.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The answer!!!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 18:33:30 GMT

<1992Nov2.224040.8360@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu said:
>We all hurt from the pains of this world.  Well, we won't get over the pain
>till we see the problem
>
>The problem is not women's rights.  Under current law women can do all that men
>can.  This real problem is getting everyone to use the law correctly.  We don't
>need more useless words.  We need to educate the people.

I see the problem this way:  if people would allow others to live their
lives *their own* way there would be a lot more peace in the world.  If
people respected others rights we'd be much better off.  Of course,
education is the only way to achieve this solution.

>The problem is not the death of unborn children(they are not cats or dogs, you
>know).  

They are also not children.

>        It is the lack of respect for life.  

Are you a vegetarian?  Are you suggesting everyone should become a
vegetarian?

>                                             The counter for this is the
>lifestyle of the mother.  Ok!  Let's work on that.  Let's make it so that
>women's lifestyles are good enough to have children(sorry birth control use of
>abortion is still out).

Why not allow the woman to choose her own lifestyle?  Don't you think they
are capable of deciding things for themselves?

BTW, abortion is the *only* birth control method, technically.

>The real problem in the world is the debates of people not really looking for
>the answer.  

We wouldn't need an answer if we didn't have a problem, now would we?

>             The answer in my opinion(you may have others) is Jesus for he can
>help with the bad times and give us more of the good times.

He doesn't appear to have done much toward this end.  Could it be that he
is not aware that there is any problem?  Seriously, why do you think a myth
is going to have any power to help when there is no evidence that he can?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth, 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: To the discussionaries!
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 20:55:11 GMT

In article <adams.721594875@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>>---Clinton is not the enemy. --- Just because he is the president that supports
>>many anti- christian ideals (gay rights, abortion on demand, etc.), he is only
>>a tool that God uses to wake up his children and to shake the fence that people
>>are trying to balance on.  We need to love our brothers and sisters (even
>>clinton) and hate the sin.  This also is true for hating abortion but loving
>>those who had them.  We need to tell the truth but not judge, that is up to
>>God.

And how do you plan to love the sinner and hate the sin? Reinstate the 
inquisition? Imprison everyone who doesn't believe in what you do?

>>I think that is good for now.  Peter -- stay in there and all you others for
>>the unborn.  Maybe people will wake up soon.

We have. That's why we don't care in the least about 'Pie in the Sky.'

Another song from circa WWI that fits in...

You will eat, by and by,
in that glorious land beyond the sky,

Work all day, live on hay,
There'll be pie in the sky when you die (and that's a lie - sung by chorus)


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Peter says Doug is pro-choice
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:03:16 GMT

In article <nyikos.721587670@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> 
> Here's another such exhibit.  I have noticed, BTW, that Doug is no
> less pro-choice than Elizabeth Bartley, possibly more since Keegan has
> not noticed him come out in favor of punishing women who get illegal
> (post-myelination for Elizabeth, post-viability for Doug) abortions.

Please justify this assertion, Peter.  I await your statement
of Doug'd position on abortion legislation, Elizabeth's
position, and a definition of pro-choice.  These should
prove adequate for you to justify your statement.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:57:03 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes ...
>|>>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|>>Preventing illness- I am a firm beiliever in preventative medicine. You
>|>> should treat the problem before it arrises.Example- use birth control
>|>> so you don't get pregnant.
>|>
>|>Or use abortion so you don't give birth.
>|>
>Or use abortion to so you don't have to face the results of your actions

Given that the pregnancy is a result of having sex (probably), I fail
to see how getting an abortion can possibly be done _without_
acknowledging that one is pregnant.

>See above preventative medicine(i.e. birthcontrol) so as not to go
>thru the hazards of birth

Vasectomy has a 0.1% failure rate, as does tubal ligation.  The Pill
has a 1% failure rate.  That means that 1/100 women having sex while
on the Pill will be pregnant at the end of a year.

>|>Here's a clue: Everybody who was ever born started out as an
>|>unfertilized egg.
>|>
>You are missing my point!

You are missing punctuation!

> Yes that is true but you are not dening life
>if that egg is not fertilized you are denying life if you abort a 
>baby.

Gee.  Seems that a deliberate attempt to avoid pregnancy by using
contraception or abstinence is clearly a denial of life.  Even the
Catholic Church says so.

>|>The difference is, that you think that _you_ are entitled to medical
>|>care and women aren't.
>|>
>Both are entitled to medical care.Don't pregnant women consult doctors on the
>health of their baby?Did I deny them medical care? What I am denying is
>a medical procedure that is garunteed to kill the baby.

Ah.  Denying someone access to a medical procedure is not the same as
denying them access to medical care.  Well then, should you get in an
auto accident, I'm sure you'll feel much better knowing that I, and
not your doctors, will be the one to decide which procedures they will
be allowed to use.  And no, your health will NOT be taken into
consideration in choosing which procedures may be performed.

>|>So for that reason you feel justified in stealing the woman's uterus
>|>and giving it to the fetus to use for nine months?
>|>
>I didn't steal it she gave the fetus permission when she had sex.

You mean the _nonexistant_ fetus?  You mean that despite using
contraception, despite a wish to get an abortion should the
contraception fail, despite a clear and unambiguous statement that
she doesn not want to be pregnant, and despite never having said,
written, or implied anything that could be construed as permission for
the nonexistant fetus to use her body, she gave the fetus permission
to cause her harm?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47367 alt.abortion.inequity:4985 soc.men:18959 alt.child-support:3621