HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:25:21 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes about Jesus:

[--much deleted--]

>>>>> Oh, yeah, He really crucified them.

>>>> I am disgusted. I find this lighthearted treatment of the Savior's
>>>> agony on the cross appalling and blasphemous. I demand an apology!

>> You don't fool me for one second, M. Price.  I wonder if anyone doesn't
>> see you are being sarcastic.

[--much deleted--]

You know what; I tried reading Mr. Price's comments several ways: sincere,
satirical, ironical, sacastic.  His words worked extremely well regardless
of how I read them.

> Christianity is something I have done an enormous amount of reading
> and thinking and discussing about.

All for naught, as we shall soon see.

> I know, for example, that crucifixion was a common method of execution
> in Roman times.  Right with Jesus there were crucified two thieves,
> and to one of them he said he would be that day in paradise, but he
> said no such thing to the other thief.  Only someone who knows little 
> about Christianity thinks it glorifies crucifixion to the point that
> joking about it is blasphemous.

You might want to work a little harder on reviewing the Source Text for your
little narrative.  Like your story about Dr. Mildred Hanson, you've left a
few things out.

One thief said to Jesus something like, "If you're so great, than come down
off of that cross."  The other one said something like, "Remember me to your
Father."  It seems like the second thief had a completely different perspective
about his impending demise, not to mention that of Jesus.  Christ answered
the second one, saying something like, "you will be with me in paradise."  

> People who believe in the main tenets of Christianity (which is something
> quite different from people who call themselves Christians) do not use
> the word blasphemy lightly.   This is one of the main points of a post,
> "J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL" that I will be making today.

"J'accuse," as in the big headline story in the Paris newspaper about what 
the French army did to Captain Dreyfuss?  This should be rich.

> Some of them might very well take the comment about "white hot rages" to
> be blasphemous, calling into question the divinity of Christ by the
> implication that he was out of control.  M. Price's failure to comment
> on this really gives him away.

Regardless of how I read Mr. Price's statement, I see nothing that he needs
to apologize for.  On the other hand, Ms. Forgach's comment was hateful and
stupid.  In other words, exactly what we've come to expect from her.


-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
       "I ain't man enuff to be a mudder!" -- Robin Williams as "Popeye"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 16:39:02 GMT

In article <fzmnh9k.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>> And abortion is not a matter of "trust", it's a matter of what's "right".  
>>> Of course it is!  If abortion isn't right for you, don't have one!
>>And if slavery isn't right for you, don't own a slave!
>
>Here is one difference between slavery and abortion.  A slave is a walking,
>talking, thinking person that can actually say that it doesn't want to be
>a slave.

Gee, that sounds remarkably like the woman involved in a forced pregnancy,
doesn't it?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney
Organization: Not around here.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:50:04 GMT

In article <29674@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>, smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>Personally, I would never use fat black ass to describe an African
>American.  I believe that Chaney is deserving of all the put downs and
>contempt directed at him; nonetheless, I think the use of this
>terminology is an inappropriate racial slur.
>
>SJM

So do I -- and I was the one who first used it, in the article that started
this whole sorry mess, and I apologized for it -- but you should note something:
I did not describe Chaney in such fashion.  I told him to get his down here 
and see just how hateful he'd be to me in person.  There is a large difference
between the two usages, and Chaney is lying through his teeth as usual when
he says I described him as one -- so you can see why Chaney isn't going to
be getting an apology from me, when he deserves it more than anyone else.
He had his chance -- and he threw it away.  

-- 
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. 
             The opinions presented herein are *mine*, not Rice's.     
  (Except for this one:  BEAT THE *&^%$#@! OUTTA TEXAS!!! We both share that.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 20:00:37 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa

<Sep12.071229.20901@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
><1992Sep2.205935.9428@coopsol.com>, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> <1992Aug31.145731.12606@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
>|> >In article <a3andz+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|> ...
>|> >And everybody wants to impose their belief system on the rest of the
>|> >country through the use of law.
>|> 
>|> Please answer this simple question directly:  If you come to me with a
>|> problem and I say, "It's your decision, your choice", how does that
>|> qualify as imposing my belief on you?  I'm speaking in the context of
>|> abortion, ok?
>
>	If I told you I needed money and I wanted to rob a bank: what do you
>think?  And if you said, sure, go ahead, it's your decision -- you have, of course,
>NOT imposed your beliefs on anyone.  But if I went and robbed the bank, *I* would
>certainly be imposing my beliefs on others, and that would be impermissable. 

Yeah?  So?

>Relating it to abortion, when a woman has an abortion she is taking the life of
>her unborn child, and is therefore imposing her beliefs on her unborn child to
>the point of killing the baby.  This is a pretty serious level of imposition.

There is no child or baby involved in an abortion, except those cases of
an underage girl having an abortion.  You can't impose beliefs on a fetus
(as in make them obey or follow you belief system).  You can *apply* your
beliefs on a fetus, but then, so what?

>|> Another question:  In the above simple scenario, would it be better if you
>|> came to me with a problem and I said, "You can *only* do such-and-such,
>|> you have no other choice"?  Which would you prefer, if it were you?
>
>	It would certainly be better if you had advised me not to rob the bank;

Don't go robbing any banks now Steve. Unless you are prepared to face the
consequences.

>or in the case of abortion, if you advised the woman not to destroy her child.

No child to destroy.  You analogy falls flat because you equate a fetus,
*barely* the complexity of a brine shrimp, with a child.

I was speaking of _personal_ decisions and choices.  You are using an
analogy where those decisions effect other people.  This is an improper
comparison.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36625 alt.abortion.inequity:3774
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Steve chaney, hypocrite??? Naaahhh (Re: Questions about "consensus")
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:23:20 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>I would like to know where the idea came from that laws are made
>simply because the majority decided something was wrong.

>By the way, this is a trick question.

I have a much better one....

>|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
				     ^^^^^^^^
My "religion" states that an abortion must happen if the pregnancy threatens 
the life of the mother-to-be. It also requires an abortion in cases
where a new baby cannot be afforded or wanted, provided that in this
case the potential mother does not wish to carry this fetus to term.

Would I be free to practice this religion in your world? You claim to
be pro-freedom of religion, after all.

BTW, in case you claim that this is not the tenants of any religion,
some have claimed that logic and science are no more than beliefs, and
therefore a type of religion.

>|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice    Registered Democrat |

Pro-privacy? Then leave me alone. Leave everyone alone. If you are really
pro-privacy, then you wouldn't be sticking your nose into others business,
even for the sake of that fetus, as the fetus' thoughts and feelings
wouldn't be known to you unless they are talking to you, which is the
only case you could claim intervention. Or are you moving up/down (???
he is incapable of moving up, and nothing is below him, hmmm) ahhh,
using Frau F's "I hear the fetus talking" stance now?

Let's forget the rest of the hypocritical nonsense you espouse in your
.sig. You stand for every thing these things are against, and the only
reason you'd be a registered democrat is in an attempt to undermine
the Democratic party.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:29:46 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <Bu8Kr6.LJ1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
##In article <ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu> (ata boy) writes:
###I have read Planned Parenthood's study which shows that 91% of all
###women who have abortions suffer from Post Abortive Stress Syndrome.

Have you really?  It appears from below that you have only
read "New Dimensions"' out of context quote from the
study.

#Happy to oblige
#
#From the October, 1991 issue of a magazine called 
#_New_Dimensions_:_The Psychology_ Behind_the_News_.  
#On page 21 it reads:
#
#In a shocking admission, Planned Parenthood recently acknowldeged what the anti-abortion camp has been insisting for years: Nine out of ten women who have
#"safe and legal" abortions suffer from abortion-induced traumas.  "A number of
#anti-choice studies and surveys (including the Reardon/WIC Study and the Grant
#Survey) have shown that the incidence of post-procedural trauma for abortion
#clients may be as high as 91 percent of all cases," says Planned Parenthood.
#"While recent unpublished reports from the Alan Guttmacher Institute [Planned
#Parenthood's research division] indicate that the scope of the problem may have
#been accurately tabulated in these studies, the effect of those same anti-
#choice forces in creating the trauma in the first place has not yet been
#effectively measured."  *  In other words: We admit that nine out of ten women
#who have abortions are traumatized by the experience...but the pro-lifers
#are to blame.
#
#
#*Planned Parenthood's "Department of Education 3-Year Plan and Long Range
#Program Goals, 1990-1993," page 29.


I guess there is some hope for Holtsinger's cause, after all, since
some people will evidentally believe anything.  

If one reads the original study, one sees that the PP paper
discusses that some studies funded by anti-abortion groups
are not accurately tabulated.  The quote cited in the
"New Dimensions" piece is referring to the fact that
the numbers cited in Reardon's survery of WEBA members
were apparently accurately tabulated.  This in no way
implies that PP accepts these results as generalizable to
the entire population of women who have had abortions.
(Most thinking people realize that members of a group
called Women Exploited by Abortion can never be called
an unbiased sample.)  It merely says that Reardon didn't
make tabulation errors.  

Susan







Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: NEXT: PatricKKK Harumphrey
Summary: Okay, NOW what?
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:19:14 GMT

In article <=aznyan.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Sep9.034022.4931@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (??)  writes:
>...
>>Everyone now knows just how severely I've pounded you, and it would
>>really be luney for me to continue to heap more verbal and emotional
>>abuse on your already troubled self. 
>
>Excuse me, perhaps you'd better list everyone who you consider to be
>"everyone".  I've never seen you "pound" anyone or anything.  I have,
>however, seen you heap scorn and abuse on anyone who disagrees with you.
>
>Your tirade against Patrick's wife speaks volumes about your morals and
>"honor".  Remember when you posted here that "honor" was very important
>to you?  I've asked you before, and you've neglected to answer, but what
>did you mean by that?  I see nothing honorable in attacking a person's
>spouse and wishing bad things on them.  Do you?
>
>Can you give us an example showing us how "important" honor is to you?

Thanks for the help -- asking him questions he can't answer just may keep
him quiet for a while, and I'd appreciate that.  The following bit occurred
to me yesterday, while noticing our favorite Borg doesn't seem to have had
anything to say over the weekend (but he *was* logged in for some time
yesterday):

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I saw Steve Chaney wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
It looks as though he's run away.

:-)


-- 
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. 
                  Support term limitations for politicians:
                 two terms -- one in office and one in jail.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:37:26 GMT


In article <1992Sep10.221722.8254@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU writes:
|Uh, you don't smoke it, you eat it, and I'll bet you only do that
|once.  Talk about a self-limiting drug.  Come to think of it,
|I've never seen a peyote addict.  I hope I never do...

You won't.  I think that like most psychedelics of that kind, it
produces a short-term tolerance.  If you dose, you have to wait
a week or so before the same amount will have much of an
effect.  (You could just do double the amount, but plant drugs
tend to discourage such behavior.  <ralph!>)  Psychological
habituation is another matter, but habituation is a risk with
every hobby... golf, exercise, movie-going, voting Republican,
controlling women's bodies...

				JUST SAY KNOW
---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
``Is it really true that strychnine typically contains small traces 
of LSD?  I want to poison somebody but I wouldn't want them to die
tripping.'' -- John C. Baez
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 10:50:54 GMT

In article <43531@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

}Let's vote.

Uh, Tommy, you haven't shown that any law would be either necessary
or effective.  Let's decide what to vote on before we vote, ok?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:24:33 GMT

In article <bt1y=zc@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>
>>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>-> 
>>-> As a concession, in exchange for a permanent,
>>-> irrevocable protection of the Right to Choose in the
>>-> first 2 trimesters? Maybe there is a need...
>
>>you're quite casual about trading away women's
>>rights, aren't you?
>
>We've seen quite a bit of that lately, haven't we?

Where? In this group, I have only expressed opinions about what I would
support, what I would oppose, and what I would neither support nor oppose.
I've never claimed to be empowered to trade ANYONE'S rights except my own.

Besides, if I'm "trading away rights" by speculating that maybe a concession
is needed in the area of abortion rights, how is that any more antecedently
rephrehensible than the strategy of the Extremist men around here who would 
bet EVERYTHING on an all-or-nothing gamble? I guess it's easy for them to take 
political risks when it's not the rights to THEIR bodies that may be put up
for grabs, eh? The worst that would happen if my desired outcome fails is that 
we'd be left with the status quo. The worst that would happen if the 
Extremists gambled and lost, however, might make the pre-RvW days look like
a picnic. 

So, who is the real friend of women's reproductive rights? The guy who wants
to secure a permanent, invulnerable 2-trimester abortion right, or the 
bumbling crusader who doesn't mind gambling all 3 trimesters of women's
abortion rights, and could easily leave women much worse off than before
(but of course HIS rights will always be the same regardless)? Choose your 
allies carefully...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Sorry guys, still uncalled for.
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:12:48 GMT

From article by patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
> In article tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>>In article gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>
>>>You are now aware of why Doug has such a "sterling" reputation in this
>>>group.  Patrick didn't call Chaney a "fat black ass".  He told him to get
>>>his "fat black ass" over to Houston if he wanted to see him.
>>
>>Eyuuuiilllk.  Still pretty racist if you ask me.  Apologise and get it over
>>with.  Sheesh.
> 
> Already did.  

Not.

> Just not to Chaney, though, because he wouldn't accept
> anything from me in anything but bad faith, anyway.  Watch and see how
> Chaney is the only one who keeps bringing it up -- mainly so he can *brag*
> about it...

Humphrey, you did not insult me, so I don't want your apology.  You insulted
Chaney, so I want you to apologize to _him_.   Chaney is NOT the only one
who brings it up.  He IS the only one you slung your insult at though, and
the only one you owe your apology to.  Because you apologized to a bunch of
other people you didn't owe an apology to anyway, doesn't count for beans.


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 08:12:18 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  <nyikos.715652202@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <vvyyfw@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
> >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> >>In <1992Sep2.223616.17088@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU
>
> >>>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.e
> >>>(Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> >>>}   ...but a fetus is not part of her body...
>
> >>>Just when you think you have things figured out.  Doggone it Peter,
> >>>where do you suppose those little buggers are?
>
> >>You know the answer as well as I do. That's not the issue.
>
> >[An inflammatory paragraph deleted.]
>
> >>>       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu
>
> >>Would you say you are a part of your hang gliding harness?
>
> >Is his hang gliding harness using his body?
>
> No. His body is using the hang gliding harness.  Can't you follow
> a simple analogy?

Let's see...  You're saying that if the hang glider was a person, it
would have the right to kill Galen if it wanted him out and that was
the only way to get him out?  I don't think the analogy holds, since
it's possible to just unbuckle some straps and get Galen out alive
and well without causing any trauma to the hang glider.  Did I miss
something?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35713 alt.abortion.inequity:3647