HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Dear Klansman PatricKKK:
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:59:53 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet


PatricKKK Humphrey: 

I read your article which says you apologized to everyone else but me,
because you want me to be all nicey and bend over whenever you start
in on your lies and flaming. Which you know will never happen because
I am one of few pro-lifers who will, rather than be flamed off the net
by your people, turn around and intensely flame you back.  

It seems you're just trying to tell people you were sorry that your
racism accidentally got out of the closet there for a moment, and that
while you're sorry that it offends them, you're not going to apologize
to the person it was directed at. 

PatricKKK, "your fat black ass" is a racist statement no matter where
it's said. Common decency requires that you apologize to the person
you said it to, and if you can't do that, you aren't half the man you
claim to be. And that ain't much to begin with. 


 
===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31409 alt.flame:12019
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:45:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>In case Pat Roby didn't notice, the point was, no, there was no way I
>could have had any form of a bad childhood at home. 

"No way"?  Don't you have the strange-o parents that threw their children
out of the house and wouldn't let them back in?  Right there, you have
lack of love for your children.

There's "no way" you could've had a GOOD childhood, and Stevie, it shows
so badly in your pathetic shouts for attention and psychotic episodes
that we really no longer need _your_ opinion on the matter.
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:22:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.172947.3242@ncsu.edu>, dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# In article <Bt9q3K.As@rice.edu> 
# patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
# 
# >chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# 
# >> Come on, Steve.  Let's see just how much of a boy you are.  March your
# >> fat black ass down here and tell me I'm a liar, to my face. 
# >> 					- PatricKKK L. Humphrey  
# 
# > That's right.  I wrote it, and I apologized to anyone else who was offended
# > by it.  The only apology you'll get from me is when you show enough backbone
# > to come down here and get it in person.  If you're too chicken for that, hey
# > -- you're the one that has to live with that...
# 
# I'm offended that you did not apologize to Steve Chaney for that remark.
# Apologize and get it over with.  Nobody is going to hoot and holler over
# it.  I will continue to ask you to apologize to Steve Chaney.  

Far be it from *me* to suggest that Mr. Chaney deserves the courtesy
of an apology, but I would like to express my desire to see Mr.
Humphrey issue an unconditional apology for said remark for the
following reasons:

	A.  Chaney could fairly be flamed into oblivion should he
	    refuse to accept it.

	B.  I can't think of anything less interesting to read than
	    fights over whether Chaney does or doesn't deserve an
	    apology.

	C.  This whole thread has been nothing but an opportunity for
	    everybody involved to demonstrate a fundamental
	    misunderstanding of the dynamics of race and racism.  It
	    serves as Yet Another Reminder that the struggle against
	    institutional racism is far from over, and, being that
	    there is already plenty of depressing news to occupy idle
	    minds in this forum, we all might be substantially better
	    off if this thread would simply die die die.

Additionally, I would call for Mr. Chaney to refrain from race baiting
with his nonchalant bandying about of accusations of Klan association,
if he expects his grievances to be taken seriously.

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

"So I've got my eye on you, punk, because I - let's face it - am the
Sole Representative of Law and Justice, nay civilization itself, in
this MY GOD NO.... BASTARDO!  you did it, that's the end, you've
doomed us all..."
                           -- Curtis Yarvin (impersonating Raoul Duke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW    (personhood)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:36:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.125625.26818@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> 
>   Point of order from the peanut gallery: If a creature is sentient, then it
> is not an "animal".  It may not be "human" (species-wise), but calling it an
> animal would be misleading at best (and certainly insulting).

Point of information back at you.
How are you defining "animal" and "human"?  Unless they lied
to me in bio, humans are animals.  I understand that there are
common usages that separate human from animal, and I think
that's where you're driving, but if you're driving there
you need to show the rest of us the roadmap.  I think Eric and
Dougie were being stricter in terms of the biological definition.

I also think that species other than human may very well be
sentient.  I rather think there are animals that are self-aware
other than humans.  Dolphins come to mind most immediately.  I
am told by a friend who is very much into dolphins that they
give names to themselves and, if they meet a human in the water
whom they like, to such a human.  I rather think that the
act of naming a creature, of assigning an identifier, is something
a sentient species does.

Dean Kaflowitz
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Wednesday, 19 Aug 1992 20:24:09 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
 <16drfkINNbst@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
 <ohgc6so@fido.asd.sgi.com> <RJOHNSON.92Aug17132102@conus.shell.com>

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug17132102@conus.shell.com> Roy Johnson says:
>
>In article <ohgc6so@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)      :
>writes
> >- The fetus takes precedence over the woman's financial needs?
> >(no abortion in cases where the woman can't afford to support
> >      a child, would lose job, etc.)
>
>Does a woman have the right to throw a child she can't support into
>a dumpster?

She has the right to give the child to someone else.

> >- The fetus takes precedence over the woman's mental wellbeing?
> >(no abortion in cases where the stress of continued pregnancy
> >would impair the mental health of the woman)
>
>The woman's mental health appears questionable already.  How frequent
>an occurrence is this?  I can't imagine any serious madness resulting
>from carrying a child to term.

90% of pregnant women will suffer post partum depresison,
10% to a degree they require hospitalization and/or
medication.

> >- The fetus takes precedence over the woman's health?
> >(no abortion in cases of danger to woman's health)
> >- The fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's
> >right to life?  (no abortion in cases of danger to the
> >woman's life)
>
>These are frequently regarded as self-defence.

So is protecting one's physical and mental health.

> >I want to make sure I understand what you mean by "take
> >precedence".
>
>Imagine, if you will, a human life, and what rights a person has to
>take that life.

Threat to bodily security and property.



Linda
--
"We've become a nation of peeping Toms.  People should get
 outside more and look in their own windows" Rear Window
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:07:22 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug12.163616.22514@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> I can move on from where I work now (which means you're doubly
> wrong because I am already hired, selling and working with CPU's),

Oh, you're _selling_ _computers_.  Very impressive indeed!

> to Egghead Software, a local store, and begin selling for higher wages &
> komish.

And you're going to move _up_ to a job at Egghead Software!

Wow!

> And I'm months away from being a viable $35/hr computer
> consultant.

Thirty-five bucks an hour!  Please, please, stop it, Dennis!  My sides
hurt!

> I could do that already if all I did was help people with UNIX. I may not be 
> as good at it as you, but I already write workable and worthwhile programs 
> on UNIX (BSD).

Let me guess: "hello, world!"  Or are you working with "artifishul
intellegence [tm Stephen Dennis Chaney-Hall]"?  Personally, I think natural
stupidity is more up your alley.

> Heck, I already help people with it, so who knows? In a year or so, I, too, 
> might be getting paid to hack Unix. And MS-DOS.  

In a year or so, you'll probably be asking people if they want fries with
that Whopper.  Hey, it'd clearly pay better than what you're doing now.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Chaney/Hall for President (was Re: Revised consistency check)
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 04:33:22 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>That's if you listen to Scott Humphrey/Roby. The _real_ world don't
>work that way. 

My, this IS rich.  The Borg is lecturing us on "the real world".

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: politics
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 04:22:07 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:


>It's obvious that money is your God, CJ.  You would kill human
>beings to save your tax dollars.  I can't respect those values.

That's right, CJ.  Support the Republicans, who kill human beings 
for no discernible reason whatsoever!

>Doug Holtsinger

                       -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:02:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.000626.16177@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

}Well, if it is not prying, I would really like to know about this experience
}that leads you to this bitter conclusion.

Nah, it isn't prying.  My whole experience with my reluctance to kill
(especially with the military) has shown me that the world is something
you work with and make do with, playing by its rules, and not something
that you can mold according to your wishes of how the world should be.

As for the bitterness, I have a little trouble reconciling that my current
physical ability is not what I would choose to make it.  Some would say
that it is "God's will."  That isn't exactly how I would phrase it, however
it does point out that the world is not what we make it, rather the world
is somethig that we deal with.  I understand the distinction, I would 
always like to be accepting of it, but sometimes the frustration makes
me a bit bitter.


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:26:26 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <og33a8g@fido.asd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes:
> |rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

> ||HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
> ||ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
> ||tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
> ||dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
> ||plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
> ||platforms.
> 
> |Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports
> |exceptions for rape and incest, and for the life of the mother.
> 
> And, of course, for his own family.
> 
> This morning's news had a lovely story about Bush's reactions
> to a question about how he'd react if a grandchild of his sought
> an abortion.  In his reply, he said that the woman was the only
> one who could decide, ultimately.
> 
> Either he's pro-choice but not above shameless political pandering
> to the extreme right, or he's pro-life-for-everyone-except-himself
> and a shameless hypocrite.

Given that Bush was pro-choice until 1980 (when he needed to pass
the "pro-life" litmus test to get the VP nod), that Barbara 
is pro-choice, and Bush mom has been involved with the CT Planned
Parenthood for the pas 25 years, and Bush will do whatever it takes
to get elected, I guess that Bush is pro-choice.

>                            Whichever-- it doesn't matter to me.
> He can't be trusted, and he's not getting my vote.

Ditto.  If (somehow) Bush gets re-elected (and does not have to 
pander to the right any more), it will be cool to see him flip-flop
back to pro-choice.


-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:35:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.134619.931@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
>I wanted to agree with the poster who said that there are pro-lifers,
>like myself, who do believe in doing all that we can as a society to
>remove the need for abortion.  This includes financial, emotional and
>spiritual guidance (if desired).
>
>I believe the fetus to be unquestionable human.  I believe in its
>right to life.  I believe the right to live supercedes the right of
>another to kill it.  If only it were possible to take fetuses from 
>their unwanting mothers and give them to homes where they are wanted.
>I probably will adopt someday for this reason.Wes
	Just a quick consistency check here: do you also oppose capital
punishment and all forms of organized (or disorganized) warfare?  And if not,
how do you reconcile this with the third sentence in your credo above?
	I mention this only because (as current events in Houton have reminded
me) I am always interested in the logic employed by those who are pro-life and
yet who enthusiastically support a aprty which calls for capital punishment for
a range of offenses (over and above murder), massive arms expenditures, and
the widespread availability of nearly all forms of weaponry to nearly
everyone.
	None of this takes away from the sincerity of your beliefs, I'm sure,
but I am curious as to the reasoning involved.

>
>-- 
>Wes Orr, Dude
>GVSU
>orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
>--------------------------------------------------------
	You realize, of course, that this .sig does little to lend credence
to your opinions.
Chuck



--
   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.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Reposts for Peter Nyikos
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:34:10 GMT



These are reposts for Peter Nyikos, who's been having trouble with his
"Distribution:" line.


>The threads addressed:
>
>"Impact of abortion bill on other religions?"
>"Good bumper sticker"
>"Enough of these lies (Was: creating real choices)"
>"Why shouldn't sentient animals possess rights"
 [a couple origional threads]
>"I'm back, sort of"
>"Fetal experimentation (Misdemeanor, eh?)"
> 
>Thanks in advance for all your trouble.
>
>Peter

You're ever so welcome Peter!  It's no trouble at all!

Suzanne.


From nyikos@milo.math.scarolina.edu Thu Aug 13 11:08:26 1992
Received: from noao.edu by orion (4.1/SAG.tucana.10)
	id AA18549; Thu, 13 Aug 92 11:08:25 MST; for forgach
Received: from milo.math.scarolina.edu by noao.edu (4.1/SAG-Noao.G81)
	id AA16480; Thu, 13 Aug 92 11:08:21 MST; for forgach@orion
Received: by milo.math.scarolina.edu (5.57/mathstat-28NOV1991)
	id AA05945; Thu, 13 Aug 92 14:08:12 -0400
From: nyikos@milo.math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Message-Id: <9208131808.AA05945@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Subject: no subject (file transmission)
To: forgach@noao.edu
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 14:08:08 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Status: RO

>From talk.abortion Tue Aug 11 19:21:16 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Impact of abortion bill on other religions ?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: uscar
Date: 11 Aug 92 14:25:14 GMT

In <1992Aug9.050617.5632@tamsun.tamu.edu> gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal) writes:


>If the anti-abortion bill is implememnted,

What do you mean by "the anti-abortion bill"?  Is this a Federal, or State
bill? what sort of provisions does it contain?

> is it not an 
>infringement on the lives of religious groups who believe
>abortion is sanctioned by their religion. Does this not 
>go against the `freedom to practise religion (?)' part of 
>the constitution ? 

Volumes could be written on the non-absolute nature of the First
Amendment.  Let me just throw out two examples.

1. Laws against polygamy are an infringement on the rights sanctioned
by Islam, the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, and many others.

2. Laws against ritual human sacrifice are an infringement on the rights
sanctioned by the religion of the pre-Cortez Aztecs, and many other 
religions, including perhaps several contemporary satanic cults.

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"
				--pro-abortion [not just pro-choice] slogan
"If men could have abortions, pregnancy would be a sacrament"
				--Peter Nyikos

>From talk.abortion Tue Aug 11 19:22:07 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Good Bumper Sticker
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: uscar
Date: 11 Aug 92 14:37:04 GMT

In <1992Aug10.050615.24966@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- @link sausage) writes:

>What: <1992Aug09.180304.110291@cs.cmu.edu>
>Who:  garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)  [quoting a bumper sticker]

>>"If you can read this, thank the doctor who didn't abort you."

>I've seen this bumper sticker too.  I was struck by the thought that
>the mother was not even mentioned.  Not 'thank your mother' but 'thank
>the doctor.'

>What was that someone was saying about people not seeing women in the
>abortion debate?

I think the person who coined this one was all too aware of women,
especially like the victim of COERCED ABORTION described in my post
of the same title, and also of pro-choice feminists who would bite
the head off [standard figure of speech, not meant literally] 
anyone having the effrontery to suggest that 
women who abort are murderers.  Like Frances Kissling, of Catholics for
a Free Choice, said in an earlier post, "these people scare me". [That is, 
the ones who think an aborting mothers commit murder, or even "child
abuse, however unconsciously," or even just anyone who would pass laws
to keep any woman pregnant against her will.]

>--
>For soon the dark of night will fall, summoned by your own hand...

The dark of night for fetuses fell in early 1973, with the publication of
the Roe v. Wade decision.


>From talk.abortion Tue Aug 11 19:22:55 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Enough of these lies (was Re: Creating Real Choices
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: uscar
Date: 11 Aug 92 14:53:18 GMT

In <Bsq8qE.3or@chinet.chi.il.us> katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:

>In article <1992Aug7.201121.523@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>>In <1992Aug6.174437.28913@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com writes:

>I couldn't handle 20,000 >>>>>>>>>s so I'll just respond to this...
> 
>>> Why don't you use "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life", there's a lot
>>> less potential for confusion.

Because almost pro-lifers are also against euthanasia, and they see the 
two issues as very close to each other.

>>  Well, so far, nobody has been all THAT confused.  My personal stance is 
>>funky enough that no label seems to easily fit.  If you've got a short and
>>catchy one, I'd like to hear it.

>Pro-choice, Anti-choice

Whose choice? Not that of the z/e/f, that's for sure!  
In a more serious vein, there is a recent feature by John Leo in U. S. News
and World Report explaining, albeit briefly, how unacceptable "Anti-Choice"
is as a "neutral" term.  And even he missed the fact that TIME magazine,
back in February, used it twice in the same article as a supposedly
objective term.

>(Except for Pro-fetus Zealots, who need their own classification)

Would you class them with the "Nigger-loving Zealots" of the Civil Rights
Movement of the 1960's?

>>  Truthfully, I drifted too.  This all got started when you jumped the
>>guy for using "pro-abortion" to mean "liking" abortion. 

I say, what else could "pro-abortion" mean?  [Yes, I know pro-lifers often
use it the way pro-choicers use "anti-choice".  My terminology is more or
less the same as that of Reardon in _Aborted Women, Silent No More_.]

>Vickie
>Anti-abortion, Pro-adoption, Pro-birth control, Pro-sex education

>                     *** PRO-CHOICE ***

I see nothing logically inconsistent with the above list, though some
pro-lifers do.  Whether it really applies to Vickie is another question,
but I'll accept her word until I hear otherwise.

Peter Ny.



>From talk.abortion Tue Aug 11 19:23:34 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion