HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos scores 749 and 745 on SATS!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:16:29 GMT

In article <nyikos.718314787@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <BvCF8q.8sM@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> 
> >In article <6430@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >>In article <BvAx7x.GC2@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> >>#In article <1992Sep28.181026.10388@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (The
> >>#*official* Usenet virus) writes:
> >>##In article <1992Sep24.033225.22205@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> >>#Poor ol' Chaney -- never stopped to think Susan might have gotten out of
> >>#high school before he was born.  Actually, make that never stopped to think,
> >>#period... 
> >>
> >>Your second sentence is obviously correct, or POC meant to post
> >>this little dribble to alt.non.sequitur.  
> 
> >He's not qualified for alt.non-sequitur...you have to have *some* kind of a
> >sense of humor to post anything in that group.  POC's repeatedly
> >demonstrated that's one other thing he's missing.
> 
> >>##Perhaps you'll get into Steubenville. As a test chimp, that is. 
> >>#
> >>#Not until you finish up *your* contract there, at least.  See you in
> >>#2003...:-)
> 
> I'm surprised Chaney did not call Susan a racist for using the word
> "chimp" there.  Must have been in a good mood.
> 
> Peter Nyikos

Or it might have been because it was Chahallney who said it,
not Susan.  I'm not surprised that our resident expert in
set theory has difficulty following the attributions and
no idea what's going on in the thread he quotes.

Ah, but he is so anxious to find an excuse to call Susan
a racist he'll attribute racism to her because someone
else said something insulting.  Yes, that must be the
much vaunted logic for which he has claimed expertise.

He must have been in a dumb mood.  So far I haven't seen
him in any other.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:31:25 GMT

In article <lcsomiINNcv2@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.195925.1206@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> So what you are doing is putting the welfare of a potential
>person (read potential, "doesn't exist yet") before the welfare of
>a real live, sentient being (the pregnant woman). 
>

Unfortunately (in some people's minds), it isn't just potential.  Human life
exists at conception (not just potential) which is not the mother.

>Sorry, but I don't buy it. What's more, I consider your attitude damn
>cold. 
>

If I didn't believe that there exists human life at conception, and that 
the pro-life people were merely trying to protect "tissue" then I suppose
you can say that.  However, because of what seems to be true and because
of what the scientific community says (at this moment), we can say that
human life does not begin at birth or 7 months or anything like that.  Human
life begins at conception.  With this, it is easy to also say that the 
pro-choicer's attitudes are also "damn cold."

>You can continue to attack the rights of people in this country if
>you like. Just keep in mind that there are alot of people like me
>who take those attacks very seriously, and will fight as hard as
>necessary to see that you don't succeed.

Unfortunately, some of us also think the right to life or our children
are also being forgotten.  Not only forgotten but squashed and destroyed.

So just as you are worried about certain rights of people, some of us
are worried too.  We want mothers, and their unborn children, and every-
body else to work together and not against each other as in the case between
the mother and her unborn child(ren). 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:35:30 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct6.012239.4811@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>In article <1992Oct6.001448.19558@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>And unborn pigs are living pig beings, too.  So?  Does the humanity of
>>a human fetus alone make it more important than a woman?  If not, then
>>what other feature of a human fetus (not what it WILL become, but what
>>it IS NOW) makes it so crucial?
>
>What it is now?  A Human life.  Pure and simple.  Is the destruction of
>that human life worthy of the reasons for aborting?  I don't think so.

I do.  The human life in question has most of the same biological
systems as a pig or a human being does, except for a functioning
brain.  As such, it hasn't really begun to take on the qualities that
make us (as people) special and more worthwhile than pigs.

And I haven't even heard you address any of the reasons for aborting,
yet...

>By the way, why switch species on us?  Steve refered to Humans.  You
>referred to pigs.  In your mind, is a pig comparable to a human?!?

Not really; the pig's more biologically advanced than a fetus (until
the fetus is near the end of its gestation).  The pig can live quite
happily as long as it can find swill and mud.  The human fetus can't
survive for a moment without a woman's body to use.

>If so, then perhaps the stand of those who want legal abortion is 
>a bit easier to understand.  

Thank you.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.consciousness
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:13:17 GMT

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

No.

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:04:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.061432.4873@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
speculates:

}Has lack of veracity _ever_ impeded their agenda?

Uh, what agenda?  Really.  I didn't know there was one.  

}Heh. I'm still chuckling over Galen's inept attempts to cover up this leak by
}pretending that CJ was talking about some stupid hang-gliding mailing list.

Chuckle away, but the reference was that the mailing list that CJ talked
about was hardly the only mailing list, not a cover up in any way, shape
or form.  Hope I didn't spoil your reason for mirth.  Some of us find
our outlet for our stupidity on mailing lists, others express it
on the net.  Kevin, I suggest you find a mailing list...


       TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
           T         S             A       A      K  K     C
           T         S             A       A      K K      C
           T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
           T                S      A       A      K K      C  
           T                S      A       A      K  K     C
           T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:41:29 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

> I have been politiely asked in email to 'dumb down'
> my posts for the folks in alt.fan.dan-qualye
> and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh....

> So I will work on typing slower, and using only 
> big block letters, so as not to intellectually 
> stress their Over Workded little Minds....

Hey, drieux, none of the riff-raff at the Globe Theatre
ever asked Shakespeare to 'dumb down' his stuff.  It's
just a cryin' shame what depths our public education
system has come to since the 16th century.  No wonder
Our Boy Dan with his public school education doesn't
have a chance against privately-schooled Al Gore.

> ps: are their any TechNical Writers out there with
> prior experience explaining things to MangleMent who
> will be able to offer me some assistance in this area?

Just ask questions.  MangleMent people just _love_ hearing
their own answers. (The implications of this statement on
the abortion debate is best left as an exercise for the
reader.)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 00:44:19 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


Okay so I bought a copy of Rush's book "The Way Things Ought to be".
Let me just tell ya'all, I just read a bit of it at lunch today and 
just the chapter or two I read today was worth the price of the 
book.  It is funny stuff.  For all those local that may want to, 
Tower Books in Mountain View had a ton of them and they were selling
them for 15.40.  That's 6.60 off the list price.  I think anyone
as funny as the Rush-dude deserves as much cash money as he can get.  
 
Anyway I read his chapter on abortion.  It seemed like we were 
just going through our September new mindless college dweebs 
but this year it may be more than that.  It's amazing how many
silly little arguments put forth here by our latest batch of
fetus fanatics came right out of Rush's book.  It really isn't 
surprising the someone like Martin would argue person hood starts
when he says it because he says it does, or Simon would argue
hey lets just give life a chance, when that is what they read from
their leader.  Sure they are totally mindless arguments, but
thats what their leader supplys them with.  You can't expect
any more than that.  

Anyone want a real good laugh, take a look at page #57, the
second paragraph.  Now this is a truly mindless statement.
I'd post it in it's entirety, but I'm sure some of Rush's
legions would try to make trouble for me doing that.  What 
he says is that pro-choicers are scared to put abortion
legislation to a vote.  He uses the abortion initiative 
on the Washington State ballot.  He claims their were 
more votes against the measure than for it, but it lost 
because they counted the absentee votes.  Um, Rush, hate
to have to be the one to tell you this, but absentee 
votes count as votes.

He writes about his brilliant idea to abort callers.
He says on occasion he would abort a caller, by playing
the sound of a vacuum cleaner and then a scream and
then hang up on the caller.  He claims he received 
tons of call and letters complaining about this and how 
all these listeners were disgusted by this.  I find it
difficult to believe there were really that many people 
upset by such a lame stunt.  He even claims a station 
in Seattle cancelled his show over this.  Does anyone 
know if this is true, and if so what station it was?  I'd
love to talk to someone at that station to verify Rush's
story and if it is true, find out their reason behind 
cancelling.  

As much as I enjoyed the book so far, I might just have 
to miss some of the baseball playoffs tonight, to get
back to reading it.
 
Dan King
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 03:15:45 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <c6_pr7k.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>In article <c!#ptlb.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Besides, an egg exists before _and_ after fertilization, as does the
>sperm.  Both are alive before _and_ after fertilization.

What do you mean?  The genetic material of the two is combined into
a new entity.  

If I were to take what you say literally, the sperm and egg
that combined to form you are still
alive in you.  Or are they?  Just when do they stop being alive?

{Restorations}
>>>>But do Sarah and Joe have any difference in value?  I don't really think
>>>>so.  "Choosing" one to live and one to die is certainly a terrible decision.

>>>Life & death decisions are made daily.  Most people don't notice.
>>>Terrible?  Nah.  No more so than is the universe.

{End of restorations}

>>In the near future, I shall visit you with a an uzi with a silencer, as well
>>as some other goodies and shoot you and kill you for arguing with me.  
>>Terrible?  Nah.  Life & death decisions are made daily.  Killing you is
>>not more terrible than is the universe:

>Nor you.

>And why do pro-lifers resort so often to images of murder?  Sheesh.

To shock you into thinking about what abortion does to the
unborn, and see where your reasoning about abortion being not
wrong because "That's the way the universe is" logically leads.  

Now that I have
restored the original context above, which you in your mendacity
deleted, readers can see clearly where the "images of murder" 
come from.  And you knew it all the time, because what I have
restored is a conversation between YOU and Martin.

>First Forgach, now you.  Both in the space of a week.  Pro-life my ass.

Pretty sick, Ray.  And pretty damned hypocritical.

Peter Nyikos
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:42:09 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <44991@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
|> In article <859n2sm.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
|> 
|> >Abortion kills an organism whose only similarity to an adult human,
|> >for many weeks after conception, is its DNA structure.  
|> 
|> Nonetheless, such organisms continue to be killed up till birth, when they 
|> have much more than a simple DNA-similarity.

	Besides, Brian's statement is exaggerated, anyway.  Unborn
children have one thing in common with every born human being: we
are both LIVING HUMAN BEINGS.  That is a MEDICAL FACT.  If you
require sources, I'll give you a list the length of your arm; if
you deny my assertion, I challenge you to provide ONE reputable
source who will say that the unborn child is NOT a living member
of the species homo sapiens from conception until death.
	At any rate, operation-type abortions never occur prior to
eight weeks, simply because the uterus is too small for the
scalpel and there is too much risk of cutting the woman.  By two
months' pregnancy, the unborn child looks remarkably like an
adult; it has a heartbeat, brainwaves, its own blood with a unique
blood type, etc etc.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:10:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.211326.29359@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <SCOTTS.92Sep24115441@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep23.234208.28188@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>   >In article <1992Sep23.012619.28726@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>   >[text deleted]
   [more text deleted]

[Chaney]
>>>   Prove 
>>>   3) That I am Dennis Hall. 

[Safier]
>>Prove that you are Steve Chaney.

Ooh, I like where this is going!  :-)

[Chaney]
>Check my From: line and then e-mail to that address. I'm there,
>alright.

That doesn't prove a thing.  I believe you are Steve Chaney, but you 
have hardly proved anything.  One day your "From: line" says Correctus 
and the next day it says Chaney.  No proof whatsoever.  

Sure someone could email you and they would get back email with 
Chaney typed on it, but no signature.  And since they don't know 
what your signature looks like even a signature wouldn't be proof.
(Now let's watch and see if Chaney confuses his signature with his 
.sig file...  :-)

No, I don't think you have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that 
you are Steve Chaney.  Lucky for you that some of us choose to take 
your word for it.  It all comes down to credibility, plausibility, 
and strength and coherence of argument.  There is no such thing as 
absolute proof on Usenet.  Only typed words from some phantom 
keyboards.  Scary, ain't it?  :-)

>>   Please show posts, dates of posts, and documentational proof. 

Please show *documentational* proof that you are Steve Chaney.

Can't do it via Usenet, can you?  I thought so.
Do you begin to understand how silly such a request is?

You want proof you have to go into the real world and leave 
Usenet behind.

I talked to your sys-admin on the phone (real world) back in April 
after you tried to get my account fried and he told me that the 
"Dennis Hall" account was issued to you.  *For me*, that is proof.  

(Note to Rush fans: believe it or not, Steve's "Dennis Hall" hoax and 
fiasco was far more bizarre and entertaining than anything Rush has 
shown yet on TV.  IMHO.)


P.S. I saw Rush stating *unequivocally* that a volcano created the hole 
in the ozone.   

Yeah, right.  And trees cause pollution.  Duh...

(It was the *unequivocal* part that really bugged me.)


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:21:43 GMT

Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de () writes ...
>In article <x98n8hc.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Birth is the first point at which a human is autonomous and clearly
>>not part of, nor wholly dependent upon, another person.  It is also
>>the first point at which a person begins to breath, to vocalize, to
>>eat, and is the first time people actually see the new person.
>>It is also an unambiguous moment and has the advantage of being a
>>reasonable compromise of conflicting rights.
>
>Birth is not unambiguous.  It takes a while.

So does conception.

The point being that it is a damn sight easier to tell when a person has
been born that to tell when a conception has taken place.  Birth is
routine, but the routine detection of conception is presently utterly 
infeasable and probably irrelevent.

>When only the head is born, how many people are in the room?

Don't know.  You tell me.  Five?

>May I use the face of this half-born human child to test cosmetics?
>If I get the woman's prior consent by paying her $250K, then may I?
>If I do all of this the name of science, possibly to find a cure for Aids, 
>then may I subject the face of this human child to an acid treatment?
>What happens when the legs are born first?  Are these the legs of a 
>person but the head of a non-person is still inside the woman?
>May I inject this child's head with a lethal chemical in the name of
>science, in order to develop a fool-proof contraceptive, since the head
>of the baby is still inside the woman?  Always assuming that I don't 
>harm the woman, that I have her prior written consent, and that I pay
>her handsomely, of course.

Pretty disingenuous.  Do you know anyone who at any time has proposed
anything like this?

>I'd just like to be sure that you've thought this through, and that you
>are not one of those misguided people who think that they alone know what 
>is best.

The former.  And you?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Eric Gorr on Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:36:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.181459.16450@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.150407.19495@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>Since Eric's Bible is on CD, I'm not surprised that he would find verses
>>on this new(er) medium that no one has ever heard before.  After all, when
>>Glenn Gould's piano recordings were transferred to CD, it was discovered
>>that they were actually vocal recordings[1]!!!  When I use Bach's Goldberg
>>Variations for their intended purpose[2], I find that Mr. Gould's crooning
>>has quite the opposite effect.  For this reason, Mr. Gould's piano recordings
>>have been nominated in rec.music.classical as one of the five worst classical
>>vocal recordings ever.
>
>So, I guess I can add you to the list of people attempted to
>harass me off this board.  How does it feel to feel so much
>rage towards another person?  
Uh, Eric. He's not harassing you, he's making fun of you.
Try to learn the difference. If he actually felt rage towards
you, he would just call you a Nazi in true net.tradition.

-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."
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Wow, isn't MissBitch just *SO* caring???
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:00:45 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Sep24.230246.4794@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) wrote:
> 
> From article <lefty-210992131050@lefty.apple.com>, by lefty@apple.com (Lefty):
> > In article <1992Sep18.195615.9737@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
> > Forgach) wrote:
> >> 
> >> From article by HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.):
> >> 
> >> > But quotes out of context should be treated with contempt. 
> >> 
> >> I agree.
> > 
> > Hmm.  You seemed to feel that Doug Holtsinger's quoting Bill Clinton out 
> > of context was just fine.
> 
> I thought it was extremely FUNNY!

Hmm, again.  A quote out of context is a quote out of context.  Should they
be treated wth contempt, as you suggest above, or only in those cases when
you don't think they're "extremely FUNNY!"

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, Ms. Forgach.

> You're just mad 'cause you didn't get the joke right away.

It wasn't a joke.  It was a quote taken out of context, and it should be
treated with contempt.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.