HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:26:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.222118.2794@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <am023-d@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>>And of course you know I do not threaten people
>>
>>This statement is not correct.
>
>Oh, there's the PROOF! Oh, gee, I have been proven wrong! She SAYS it is
>not correct. Oh, gee, my butt is on fire now. I better go bang my head
>on a guitar and be just like Rocker. 

I just posted an earlier response where I quoted threats you (and the 
"other" you) made publicly last spring.

>>    [racist .sig deleted]
>>
>>I bet you're getting love letters from the KKK, you appear to be
>>their biggest supporter on the net.  (though "Nyikos" is contending
>>for the title)
>
>No, PatricKKK is getting their love letters. After all, HE made the
>statement. 

Steve, you remind me of the idiot Roman Centurion in Monty Python's 
Life of Brian.  He found some Zealots writing an anti-Roman slogan 
on a wall.  They mis-spelled some words and so he taught them a lesson 
by having them repaint the anti-Roman slogan (spelled correctly) on 
*ALL* the other walls of the city.  What an idiot.

I agree with Rocker - you have single-handedly given more visibility to 
the KKK than any other poster on these newsgroups.  Once again, you 
prove to be your own worst enemy....

>
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>		                   /\
>     		                  /  \
>		                 /    \
>		                /      \ 
>		               /  KKK   \ 
>		              /          \ 

The above advertisement for the KKK is brought to you by Steve Chaney.



-- 
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*
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:18:29 GMT
Distribution: na

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Dec29.235055.18645@mksol.dseg.ti.com> 
>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:

>> 4) Those who hold that abortions are ok for everyone.

>These people must also condone infanticide in all cases in order 
>to be consistent.  

This statement is not correct.

>Doug Holtsinger

                     -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55021 alt.birthright:541
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: James Keegan's morality
Date: 10 Jan 93 01:21:35 GMT
	<1993Jan9.232008.19391@ncsu.edu>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: TSAKC, dammit!

On Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:20:08 GMT, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:

>In article <1993Jan9.214823.6779@crd.ge.com> 
>james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> We haven't yet heard whether James Keegan condones the
>>> remarks of a pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-
>>> lifers. 

>> prove it, 

>Do you condone remarks from a pro-choicer who suggested that
>female pro-lifers should be raped? 

Rev, when you get the chance, have an adult explain to you precisely what
"prove it" means, will you?  Keegan didn't ask for your parrot act -- if
he'd wanted that, I expect he'd have said as much.

>> since you seem to have defended suzanne's attack of
>> patrick's wife, do you approve of her tactics?
>>
>> do you approve of chaney's tactics in attacking
>> patrick's wife?

>You posted an article which suggested that the absence
>of criticism implies acceptance of a person's remarks.
>Since we haven't heard your criticism of the pro-choicer
>who wished rape on female pro-lifers, it seems logical
>to conclude from your post that your failure to criticize 
>that pro-choicer implies acceptance of his remarks.  My 
>approval or disapproval of somebody else's remarks is 
>irrelevant to the current topic. 

Good for you, Rev -- since they were aimed at my wife, I'll ask you myself.
Do you or don't you approve of Suzanne's tactics?  (Of course, being the
gutless wonder you are, I know you won't answer me directly, but I'm asking
this just so the newcomers can see from what cloth you're cut.)

Now, as to your demands of Keegan -- how about providing some helpful
details, like:  who was the pro-choicer, and in what article did s/he say
it?  Or is your inability to provide those details an indication that you're
lying, as usual?

--PLH, if I could sell clues to DOD at a nickel a pop, I could retire at
38...


--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
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: Thu, 7 Jan 93 03:28:35 GMT

In article <markp.725905183@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1992Dec31.191949.27148@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>
>>A justice system employing capital punishment will inevitably
>>execute some innocent citizens, no matter how well-designed.  Supporting this
>>system is therefore inconsistent with an ethical system that places primacy
>>on the sanctity of human life.  Ditto for all forms or organized warfare,
>>widespread availability of firearms, 
>
>widespread availability of kitchen knives and ball-peen hammers, ...
>
	Which merely amplifies my initial point (largely deleted by you)
regarding the rarity and generally impractical nature of a genuine pro-life
ethic.
	As opposed to merely being anti-abortion.

The_Doge
ObQuote:	"Human war has ben the most successful of our cultural
		institutions."	-- Robert Ardrey



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Followup-To: misc.test
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:52:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.162410.10074@netcom.com> 
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>>> But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.

>>> (1) Hold your breath for ten seconds.  Did you die instantly?

>> She said "ceasing to breath" as in "permanent cessation", not
>> "temporary cessation".  It may not bring instant death, but
>> it's close enough for horse-shoes and hand grenades.

> She said "ceasing to breathe brings instant death."  I figured she
> means "ceasing to breathe brings instant death."  You interpreted her
> as saying "the moment you stop breathing PERMANENTLY, you're dead,"
> then admitted that death doesn't come the MOMENT you stop breathing.

I don't care about your interpretation.  I thought most people 
would understand what she meant.  Clowns such as yourself can't 
leave well enough alone, and they feel compelled to manufacture
the tiniest misunderstandings, just so they can score some meaningless 
points. 

> Do either of you even _think_ before you post, or is your knee wired
> up in such a way that when it jerks, a flame is generated and posted?

Flame?   What flame?   Please do point to the flame in either my 
original response or Ms. Forgach's post.  
 

>Brian Kendig                             


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:04:51 GMT

In <30DEC92.17224243@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () wrote:
>>smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>Once again, Ms. Smith went and had sex without using her brain.  

>Once again, consent to sex, with or without using brains, does not equal 
>consent to nine months of pregnancy.  

Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.

>You keep refering to a woman who 
>consented to sex.  What kind of punishment would you hand out to men who 
>consent to sex?  Do you think only women should suffer bodily harm for the
>horrible "crime" of consenting to sex?

The father has an ethical responsibility to meet his child's needs. That 
he doesn't experience the same physiological responsibility as the mother
is, again, a simple fact of biology. (Is this "inequitable"? Would you
rather reproduce by sporulating? Go complain to Mother (!) Nature.)


Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The usual back-and-forth
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 06:25:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.142820.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.153510.1062@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan5.094401.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>
>  [discussion of two definitions of "child" deleted -- cdp]
>
>> 	Demonstrating that non-medical dictionaries have slightly different
>> definitions of the term "child".  This hardly constitutes overwhelming
>> evidence for calling zygotes, embryos, or fetii something else in order to
>> score rhetorical points.
>> [...]
>
>     Just wondering -- what do you call the class of "beings" composed
>of zygotes, embryos, and fetii?  Moreover, what do you call the class
>of *human* zygotes, embryos, and fetii?  I refer to this class as
>unborn children -- based on Webster's definition.  
>
We call them exactly what they are/ Zygotes, embryos, or fetus,
depending on the develomental stage we are discussing. If we are
discussing the entire pre-birth stage, we use the term z/e/f to
indicate clearly that we are refering to all stages of development that
take place prior to birth. Simple, accurate, and avoids dragging in
unecessary emotional baggage.

[Lots of deletion. But who cares?]

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:02:22 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

> In article <markp.726100849@dragonfly.wri.com>
> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

> [Deletions]

>>I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
>>AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
>>for more than a few years.

A commentary on the relative value of human life.  Some will
respond to the implications of comparing "healthy person"
with "AIDS patient".  My opinion of the statement, regardless
of the political content of the people being weighed:
	1. Sad.
	2. Sick.
	3. Frightening.

Have a nice day.


--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:29:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.212721.22962@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>
>But how can women approach economic
>parity without reproductive freedom?  Do you not see how
>unequal reproductive rights would hamper women in the
>workplace?

Pray tell, how would the mandating of certain abortion METHODS, e.g. 
C-section versus D&E, "hamper women in the workplace"? This discussion 
_is_ focussed on late-term abortions, isn't it?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: What The Supreme Court Said
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:31:07 GMT

> = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
mh> = Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mh> Therefore, a woman who wants an abortion during the last trimester of
mh> her pregnancy need find only one doctor, the abortionist himself, who
mh> will say that the pregnancy endangers the mother's health, using the
mh> meaninglessly broad definition of health quoted above.  

>> What illusory world do you live in? Do you have any idea how few
>> doctors there are who will do third trimester abortions? There are
>> several states that have none. 

> Do you have any idea how few murders of people named "Robert 
> Johnston" have occurred?  There are several states where no "Robert
> Johnston" has ever been murdered.   Why do we need laws which 
> protect the Robert Johnstons of this country from being murdered, 
> when it hasn't been shown to be a problem?  

OK, let's examine this further.  Consider
A) "laws which protect the Robert Johnstons of this country 
    from being murdered" and 
B) laws that prevent unjustified (or all) 3rd tri abortions 

And suppose these laws provide little or no benefit, due to the fact that 
murders of Robert Johnstons and unjustified 3rd tri abortions are 
virtually non-existent.

Then let's consider possible (unintended) negative side effects.
Law (A) is unlikely to have any significant negative side effect, whereas
law (B) could *easily* result in the death of women.  It seems there
are already well known cases of women who have almost died because of the
severely limited availability of 3rd tri abortions.

So it seems that law (B) would have little or no benefit but could
easily result in unnecessary death.  This explains why many who are
against "unnecessary" 3rd tri abortions oppose restrictions on 3rd tri 
abortions.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: holtsinger perpetuates an old lie
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:15:54 GMT

[... note follow-ups to talk.abortion ...]

In article <1993Jan9.215557.6939@crd.ge.com> 
james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
>> all the way up to the point of birth.

> in fact, this specific claim has ben debunked
> repearedly in talk.abortion over an extended period
> of time. 

I have provided documentation which demonstrates that
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand all the
way up to the point of birth.  I shall not repeat it
here, as I believe some people are tired of seeing it,
but I will gladly send it via e-mail to anyone who 
requests it, and let them decide for themselves. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:57:11 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Michael P Noonan (noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>I'm still trying to get a handle on who the sides are in the abortion
>debate.  The way I see it so far, there are four groups:
>...
>3) Those who are against abortion for themselves, but its ok for others.

I'd like to respond to your comment on this case.

>3) Those who are against abortion for themselves, but its ok for others.
>
>Why is abortion wrong?  

If the person believes abortion is wrong because their religion has
decreed that life begins at conception, they could take this stand if
their religion also indicated that it isn't possible to *force* 
their religion upon others.  As an example, one might note that the Amish
believe in what they do, but they don't see it necessary to force it
upon others.  

>...If it is a person, why is it ok
>for others to have abortions?  Because they don't believe it is a person?

Perhaps another way to phrase this the belief would make it more
consistent...

 "Those who are against abortion for themselves, but allow it for others."

I think you'll find that most of those who state it is wrong for themselves
will say it is wrong for others, but that they do not feel they have the
right to force their belief upon others.

>If it is ok for others to have abortions because they don't "believe"
>fetuses are persons, then why can't they own slaves if they "believe"
>slaves aren't persons?  

Whether or not it is logically consistent, this point of view was held
during the period of slavery in the United States.  Many felt slavery
was wrong, but it wasn't until after it had existed for a few decades
that slavery was abolished.

>...What if you try to prevent slavery by lobbying
>your state to pass a law against it?

It seems that this would be the approach most likely used by those
who take position 3, though some may not take that approach.

>In summary, positions 1 and 4 seem logically consistent to me.

I may not have made position 3 any more consistent with this post, but it
may explain it some.  Of course, those who take positions 2 and 3 may not
feel it necessary to be logically consistent.

Mark Runyan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54387 alt.fan.q:709
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.q
Subject: Re: Thought for the day
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:21:41 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Dec30.010750.24385@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> If only alt.fan.q could be put out of its pathetic misery so easily...

So, it seems you're still bitter about Q's having kicked your ass up and
down alt.flame about eight months back.  Have you paid the bill you were
tendered for legal advice, or are you still a deadbeat?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:06:31 GMT

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>I heard a feminist on television say that the reason the government opposed
>importing ru486 was because the leaders of this country did not want women
>to have control over their own bodies.  As a man, the reason I am against
>abortion is not because I don't want women to have control over their
>own bodies- its because I don't want women to destroy their children's
>bodies.  

RU486 does not destroy anyone's body.

>Link

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,talk.bizarre
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:07:34 GMT

In article <jfRcs*aO0@prolix.apana.org.au> dac@prolix.apana.org.au (Andrew Clayton) writes:
>
>Kevin Darcy - Anagram.
>==============
>Ar, dick envy!
>==============

Ho hum...


Andrew Clayton - Anagram.

===============
Yon rectal wand 
===============

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: close enough
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:56:28 GMT


Doug seems to think that 5 minutes is close enough for horseshoes
and hand grenades.  Not so.  5 minutes is hardly close enough
for either, with the possible exception of discussing longitude
very, very near the poles.  It is hardly close enough in time
for either example.  Doug is encouraged to prove this with hand
grenades.  It isn't even close enough for atomic bombs.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:11:09 GMT

<1idavcINN5dp@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
><C0EHs2.169@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1icftuINNopf@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>However, since my definition of equitable standards could quite sensibly
>in this context be presumed to fit as a definition of affirmative action,
>I don't quite see what your problem is.
>
>>In what way is your position on "equitable standards" any support of
>>AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for men in custody decisions, in any sense whatsoever?
>
>Dear me.  Since you have failed to provide any definition of affirmative
>action that argues with my 'equitable standards', I'm at a bit of a loss
>to figure out just what the heck you want to fight about, Don.

That is because I don't find "equality" or your "equitable standards"
(whatever that means) to be the same as "affirmative action."  And you've
evaded AA by talking about 'equitable standards.'  If 'equitable standards'
means the SAME to you as 'affirmative action,' then why haven't you just
said so?  Does "quite sensibly in this context be presumed to fit" mean
that you are offering 'equitable standards' as a definition for AA?


>Care to provide a *definition*, as was originally requested?

One of your obvious smokescreens, Adrienne, is to avoid any 
real contributions in favor of "requesting" statements for you
to pick apart.  The spotlight is on you, but you delay making
any statements as long as possible, because you'd rather get
your attention through flames from the back row.  Here's a challenge:

Adrienne Regard's personal dictionary:
affirmative action (n):  ________________________________________


>>Put your money where your mouth is, Adrienne.  *You* claimed to be
>>a feminist whose views contradicted Karl's statements about feminist
>>positions on affirmative action.  Support *your* claim and your flame.
>
>Hmm.  KARL has yet to provide a definition, either.  So, since I'm the
>only one who has (though of course, I'm perfectly able to understand that
>it fails to meet your UNSPECIFIED definition, thus your harrangue), I am
>again unsure about what your problem is.

You based your harangue against Karl on your being a feminist
in favor of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.  You, of all people, should now
accept that the burden lies on you to defend your claim.  But then,
consistency never comes easy, does it, Adrienne?


>But then, the cause of your particular problem isn't much my concern is it.

That much is evident.  So why do you bother to make so many 
objections (ie. flames)?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion