HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:48:57 GMT

In <ssgz25g@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
In <1992Sep25.141839.708@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <y5czbd_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >>>

>>> by "non-substantive," i think bill means posts with
>>> content along the lines of "Energizer bunny" and "Pee
>>> Wee." i wonder if he's ever considered the meaning of
>>> "physician heal thyself."
>
>> By non-substantive, I mean your consistent refusal to 
>> answer direct questions pertaining to your "opinion" 
>> that Doug Holtsinger needs to "see [his] therapist". 
>
> you're lying, bill. i answered your question(s)
> several times. you responded to my answers. why
> are you lying, bill?
> 
> here's one such answer of mine, bill. do you
> remember replying to it?
>
>	Message-ID: <1992Sep18.234833.12160@crd.ge.com>
>
>	since dean expressed this with such clarity and flair,
>	he can speak for me in response to this specific
>	question (sorry galen).

I thought this was "one such answer of [yours]", Jim.  
Looks like it's from Dean to me.  

>        dean> Yes, here we come to the nub, the rub,
>        dean> the pith, the inner core, the leafless
>        dean> artichoke of the matter.  My powers of
>        dean> inference are, in fact, greater than
>        dean> yours, dear William.  Unhampered by
>        dean> training that tells me I must refuse to
>        dean> believe what I see and hear unless
>        dean> textbook that permits me to do so, my
>        dean> powers of inference have grown far beyond
>        dean> the average.  Reminds me of a time when
>        dean> some birdpwatcher told me I couldn't have
>        dean> seen a Lapland Longspur on a bird-feeder
>        dean> in my yard, a mere half mile from the
>        dean> beach, because Lapland Longspurs don't go
>        dean> to bird-feeders a half mile from the
>        dean> beach.  Well, I have pictures of the bird
>        dean> and it's a Lapland Longspur all right.
>        dean> Unhampered by knowing better than to know
>        dean> what is right in fron tof my eyes is
>        dean> real, I accept what I see as real.

Heh, heh.  Dean's clever response is the equivalent of 
responding to a "Why?" question with "Because!".  If that
is how you wish to characterize yourself, so be it.  You 
(in your inevitable response) may have the last word.  I
am done with this nonsensical conversation.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:27:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.215742.19812@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <lv0na2-.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
>Kendig) writes:
>> 
>> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) wrote (in article <1992Sep25.170000.19435@nntp.uoregon.edu>):
>> >In article <r69n15#.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>> >At the moment of conception you have a person.  Just because it may or may
>> >not
>> >split at some point after that (either naturally or unnaturally) is
>> >irrelvant.
>> >
>> >It is still a person.
>> 
>> Ah, okay, then.  So you're saying that if a fertilized egg divides
>> into three individual developing humans, then only one of them is a
>> 'person'.  After all, there was only one 'person' to start with, and
>> since there was only one conception between one egg and one sperm,
>> there was never the opportunity to bring more 'people' into the
>> situation.
>
>No.  You would have three persons...but unless and until it splits, you
>only have one.
>

A-hem.  I'll try to type slowly as I'm sure you can't understand this.
If only one person exists at conception how can there possibly be more
than one person born?  If the fertilized egg splits, then isn't there
TWO persons?  But, how can there be two persons from one?  Therefore,
the only logical way it to acknowledge that a being isn't a person from
conception, but a POTENTIAL person or persons.

Let me try again.  If "John" is a person and "John" is conceived at 7 pm,
on March 5 of 1993, then when and how does "Mark", his identical twin, form?
If _conception_ is the one and only rule for personhood, wouldn't "John:
and "Mark" be the same person?  Isn't that STUPID?

And, if _conception_ is the one and only rule for personhood, why aren't
members of other species considered persons, as my two schnauzers were
certainly conceived!

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.consciousness
From: bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
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: Mon, 28 Sep 92 05:10:14 GMT

In article <9tgz#dh@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>I question your sincerity here.  I invite readers to ask themselves 
>>whether they'd ever seen a fetal pig, or a picture of one
>
I have !  I have!  And I've seen a rat embryo (lots of em too)
and a fish embryo and a buncha others that I just can't remember!
Do I get a prize, Peter?  (sorry I don't know what the point is here)

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:51:36 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>->BTW, would you mind proving that CJ has lied about people who considered
->>->her a friend?
->>
->>bingo! i was hoping you'd be the one to answer this.
->>
->>ask suzanne lucia. she was cj's victim, or one of them. ask
->>me if you need her current email address. if you want some
->>details from me, send me email at keegan@crd.ge.com.

->Please POST the details, Mr. Keegan. You made the assertion publicly,
->I believe it to be appropriate that you support it publicly.

your entitled to your belief. some of the details were posted
publically. i can't remember if you were posting then or not,
althought i thought you were. in any case, i don't feel like
going through it all again. so, if you are really interested
in the facts, you can ask suzanne lucia as i suggested. if
you'd really prefer to hear from me, send me email. i'm not
going to get into it further publically.

->>->BTW2: Followups to misc.test? Pretty low.
->>
->>so you noticed that cj did that to susan garvin earlier
->>today!
->No, I didn't. I think it's pretty low that she did it too.

i did too. that's why i did it in reply to her post.

->> you should really express your criticism of cj
->>to cj and not to me eric.
->Why? You did it too. 

you expressed your criticism to me, eric. see it? it's
still included above.

->>unless you have different standards for different people.
->Not in this case. I simply didn't notice that she had done it.

that wasn't very observant of you. don't worry, we all make
mistakes.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dr. Mildred Hanson Wins Lawsuit
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:38:14 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Thanks for following up on that, Chris.

I'll remind people who don't know which case this is - this
is the one in which the woman alleged that Dr. Hanson had
four staff members hold her down on the table, gave her
no anesthesia, threatened to have her committed, and 
refused to stop the abortion.  It made a nice story for
Nyikos - too bad it wasn't true.

I'll be waiting for Nyikos' reaction.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:29:16 GMT

In article <-kmzsa-@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>but if you're not going to do so, repost the evidence,
>don't bother repeating yourself anymore.
Why should I repost the evidence. Mr. Keegan? If is your job to prove
my statements to be inconsistent, not my job to prove otherwise. If you
fail to understand this quite basic norm, then I suggest you read
some philosophy of science and let me know when a clue enters your
skull.

However, I suspect you will not be substantiating your assertion. Since
it would appear you desire the last word, I can only assume that
you will followup to this post. If your followup contains only evasion
and not proof, I will simply ignore it.
-Ekr








-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: This Christian "Thing"
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:25:50 GMT

In article <BvGIwC.1C3@nic.umass.edu> 
csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:

> I certainly enjoy how discussions about abortion seem to revolve around
> the "Christian" perspective.

But have you noticed that it's usually the pro-aborts who 
raise the issue of religion?  Your post provides another  
data point to support that observation. 

> I am not Christian, but in very many ways this majority runs all over my
> minority religion. 

What does this have to do with abortion?  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:49:12 GMT

ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes ...
>>>If she really didn't want a pregnancy, she shouldn't have risked getting it.
>>
>>If you really didn't want to get hit by that car, you shouldn't
>>have risked crossing the street.
>
>Sarcasm intended, truth emitted.  Anybody who doesn't want to risk getting
>hit by a car when crossing the street shouldn't cross the street.
>
>But can you really equate the odds of getting hit by a car crossing the street
>with the odds of getting pregnant by having sex?

I don't see why not.  It is hardly inconcievable to have sex hundreds
of times and not get pregnant (I've never been pregnant, for example)
while crossing the street just a dozen times before getting hit.  It
depends rather on how one has sex and how (and where) one crosses the
street.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:22:02 GMT

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes:

>In article <adams.717464976@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>>
>>>In article <adams.717449100@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>[speculation about removing ectopic pregnancy and saving fetus]
>>
>>>You are, of course, aware of research happening right now that relates to
>>>this.  It will happen.  
>>
>>Perhaps it will.  I expect that at some point it will be.  I may not live
>>to see it, but then again, I might.
>
>So, what's your point?

Dealing with the here and now, not some future speculation.  We need to
address the issues of today.

>>>One other thing you should understand is that I feel core beliefs should be
>>>based upon something so solid that advancing technology could never upset 
>>>them. 
>>
>>>By saying, "when science gets to that point, then we'll worry about it" 
>>>only goes to demonstrate how arbitrary your beliefs really are.
>>Not at all.  My beliefs are rock solid.  I oppose abortion.  But, I also
>>refuse to impose *my personal beliefs* on anyone else.  See the difference.
>>So long as someone wants an abortion, I can't interfere.  If and when
>>science makes abortion uncessesary, then I won't have to worry about it.
>
>How am I imposing my personal beliefs on anyone else?

If abortion is made illegal, you will have succeeded in imposing your view
on the issue on everyone here.

>Also, why do you oppose abortion?
Because I personally believe, based on religious conviction, that life
begins at conception.  Since I came to that conclusion because of religion,
I won't try to make laws based on it...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Ms. Adolf on NFP and masturbation. [Was:...fundamental...]
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:17:14 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <nyikos.717799928@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep24.020456.3329@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>
>>I really can't resist coming back to this one. If you REALLY wanted
>>women to 'learn about their bodies' and not simply be servants of
>>their cycles, then you would encourage that the sex educators
>>teach masturbation to young girls.

>Don't some of them already do that?

>Anyway, you are proposing to insert yet another "cake course" into
>an already watered down curriculum.  Masturbation is best handled
>as an extracurricular activity, like glee club.  [If this term is
>no longer used for group singing, it would make a perfect moniker
>for your activity!]  A class of normal, up-to-date adolescents
>can probably teach each other a lot better than a lecturer, anyway.

Let them eat cake! (Or muffin, as the case might be.)

>NFP on the other hand, is a tricky thing to master.  Telling the
>various kinds of mucus apart, telling the various levels of the
>cervix apart, telling fever from "basal" temperature rise, all
>call for a lot of training, and the presence of a trained advisor
>is indispensible.

Last time I checked, more women surveyed said they practiced NFP than
said they successfully masturbated. :-) Learning NFP could be a 
great side result of learning to masturbate.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:57:07 GMT

> = nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>**** Fetal pigs is pigs, but fetal humans is only potentially human. ***

Don't count your chickens before they hatch :)

If we could settle the semantics, we could get on to the real issues.  IMO: 
o Fetal pigs is pig 
o Fetal humans is human
o Fetal humans may or may not be "persons"

I propose a definition of "person":

  Defn (1) "person": anything that is "fundamentally the same as" a 
  "normal, born person"   Ie. identify the subset of "persons" that are 
  "indisputably persons" ("normal, born persons") and attempt to complete 
  set of "persons" by expanding the subset of "indisputably people" using 
  the criteria of "fundamentally the same as" ""normal, born persons".

Why does this definition make sense?  Because The word "person" will 
retain it's colloquial meaning -- by definition it won't apply to things 
(possibly a human fetus) that bear little or no resemblance to what is 
colloquially refered to as a "person".  Of course there will be 
disagreements as to what "fundamentally the same" means, but at least
this will force people to make some justification as to why they consider
X to be or not to be a "person", some justification other than they 
arbitrarily defined them to be a "person".

But this definition of "person" exists in a specific context, underlying 
the argument of what is or is not a "person" is the natural concept:

  Concept (2): ASSUMING "person" is reasonably defined (eg. as above),
  it is natural to think that the rights that belong to most "persons"
  should belong to all "persons" or anything that is "fundamentally the 
  same as" a "person" (except in specific circumstances).

Seems to me the whole reason for calling a fetus a "person" is to invoke 
this natural concept (2).  Unfortunately this natural concept is based on 
the assumption that the word "person" is similar to definition (1).

Of course one is free to choose a definition of "person" that is arbitrarily 
broad, but then that definition may not work in natural concept (2).  It is 
very UN-natural to automatically extend the rights of "normal, born persons" 
to some arbitrary group of things that bear little resemblance to "persons".
That group may very well deserve some rights, but there is no *natural*
*automatic* extension of rights to this group.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Suzanne "It's a child" versus Brian "No it's not"
Organization: Rice University  
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:21:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.160053.17716@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Sep23.152940.23813@nuchat.sccsi.com> lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.717204801@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <3v6nc#l.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>One final question: Would you still insist that abortion is not an
>>>>option if you knew for a fact that the baby, once born, would have to
>>>>stay in its mother's apartment all day alone because she can't afford
>>>>day-care but couldn't bear to put it up for adoption?
>>>
>>>>If you answer 'yes' to this, then I really don't know that we have any
>>>>common ground on which to debate.
>
>My answer is yes. I guess we have no common ground. Oh, well. Not that I
>care. Actually, I'm glad - when the tac nukes start flying, I'd hate to
>share the same ground as the enemy when the MIRV's drop in on their front
>doorstep. (Well, in PatricKKK's case, the tac nukes he lobs, keep coming
>back at him...)
 
Hey, SteveDennis...if you're boycotting my articles, why are you so
frequent with the comments about me, eh?  Another case of "do as I
say, not as I do!", perhaps?
 
(I can see why you and Nyikos have the mutual admiration society...
with a benighted attitude like yours, friends are definitely hard
to come by.)
 
(Since we're on this tack, I'd just like to throw in, for no other
reason than to irritate you, my opinion that you've backed off from
responding directly to me for one reason:  you've chickened out and
run away, once again.  Have fun.  ;-)
 
Patrick L. Humphrey (HUMPHRY@RICEVM1) Networking & Computing Systems
713 527-4989 at Rice  713 776-1541 at home  713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub
This is your brain: o  This is Steve Chaney's brain:
This is Steve Chaney's brain at nextnet.ccs.csus.edu:    Any questions?
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 06:47:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>> > Do you understand why?  If not, let me explain again.  Left seperated, the
>> > egg and sperm will _never_ develop in a child.
>> 
>> Left by itself, the zygote, the embryo, and the fetus will *never* develop
>> into a child.  Do you understand yet?  If not, please reread until you do.
>
>Left by itself would be classified as bad interference.

So then without "bad interference" (aka "left by themselves") an egg & sperm 
will never develop into a person.  Therefore, an egg and sperm _are_ people?

>Also, left seperated is completely different from left by itself.  I do not
>feel this needs further explanation, but if you or anyone else would like
>one, I can do this.  

Is it really?  Naturally and without interference an egg and sperm will
join, grow, and become an adult.  By your definition this makes them people.

Time to add another layer to the house of cards supporting your premise?

>> > I am not making up definitions of words to suit my whims...I've thought
>> > about these definitions and argued them over a few years with many people.
>> > They are not new to me.
>> 
>> They may not be new *to* you, but they're new *with* you.
>
>And...?
 
We on the net generally speak english.  I suggest that doing the same
will make what you say much more understandable.

>In addition, the terms that are familiar to everyone are inadequate for
>what I am attempting to get across.  What do you suggest?

Buy a dictionary and a thesaurus.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 23:26:33 GMT

In article <r6mzslc@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>
>nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>->rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->>I merely wish that Mr. Keegan publicly substantiate a publicly
>->>made accusation.

>i really didn't expect this kind of newbie blunder from you.

What's for dinner? Red herring!

>hell, you were once a legitimate t.a. participant
>so i'll bring you up to date. eric is asking me to
>substiantiate an accusation that i made of cj. in that
>accusation i called her a liar.

OK. (I'm not sure what my parents marital status at the time of my
birth has to do with this, but do continue...)

>->If rocker is to substantiate Mr. Keegan's claims, she 
>->should either post her evidence  

>don't you mean "repost" rather than post? after all
>if you read rocker's post, or mine, you would know that
>we both declined to repost material which was posted
>months ago.

Please do repost. If this was posted months ago, most of us either
have forgotten it, and have had our machine's newsfile flushed, or
possibly weren't reading at that time, and have had our machines newsfiles
flushed.

>->All that I have seen so far is the alleged willingness 
>->of rocker to support Mr. Keegan by email, but a refusal
>->to post the alleged evidence to the net. 

>aha. that's what i thought. you hadn't read rocker's
>post, or mine. do try to catch up so you can be a
>relevent participant again soon.

Ummm...rocker sent me email in which she said she couldn't post since it
would violate the rights of others. If this was posted then, what has
changed such that it would now violate the rights of others...

More to the point - you are an interesting person when you post, at least
most of the time. When endless battles go on about facts known only to
a few people, it tends to be boring and annoying to the people who only see
the net.flames.

Why don't you or rocker email the evidence to me?
 
>->Whenever someone plays this game, I wonder if their reluctance to post is
>->out of the fear of being the loser in a slander suit if the alleged 
>->evidence is posted to the net.
>
>goodness, the last i read something like this was when the
>muffin threatened to sue patrick. now that i think of it,
>maybe it was kevin threatening to sue lefty. no matter.
>both threats were ridiculous. they were also quite entertaining.
>do you think someone will threaten to sue me?


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion