HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 06:27:53 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <pgqz6_j@rpi.edu>  keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
> ->I'm not sufficiently interested to pursue this any further.
>
> i didn't think you would be.
>
> funny how things change, isn't it?

Nothing's changed.  I was mildly curious, so I asked.  The effort to get
answers has proven to be more than I feel is worth the satisfaction of
seeing this answered.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 06:14:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.182010.21304@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1ykzq+b@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>
>>>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>>>> If you can't--or won't--perhaps you should consider retracting
>>>>> the accusation.
>
>>>> sure i'll consider it. but i really don't think my position
>>>> will change. why don't you ask cj? i'm curious if she'll
>>>> tell you the truth.
>
>>> And I'm curious to see if you will have the intellectual honesty
>>> to support your position--or retract it.
>
>> _I_ will support keegan's position on this.  But as keegan has posted
>> that he does not want the details public again, you'll have to email
>> me for the story.
>
>I e-mailed you for the story, and I'm still waiting to hear from you.
>I also e-mailed Keegan for the story, but he explictly refused to give 
>it to me.  Perhaps there is no "story". 

As near as I can tell, this is the alleged "lie" that TSAKC is getting
so frothed-up about:


Subject: Re: Strange Bedfellows
Date: 28 May 92 18:41:05 GMT

>This is really unlike you-- you're usually more thoughtful than
>this.  I know that Keegan used the mailing list to try to get
>people to post in support of him.  Are you letting friendship
>take precedence over thoughtfulness?  I'm sorry, Keegan!   I
>like you, but I won't agree with you if I think you're wrong.

I find it difficult to believe that this could even be _taken_ as a "lie",
since it's reasonable to assume that SOMETHING was said on "the mailing list",
and, beyond that, it's purely a matter of interpretation what its use was...

Then, again, a "lie" tends to be whatever TSAKC wishes to call a "lie", I guess.
Has lack of veracity _ever_ impeded their agenda?

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.
What a loser...

								- Kevin
From: spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (J. Skorecki-Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Steve vs. Patrick
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:10:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.211442.10398@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu  
(Stephennis Chahallaney, the Borgoid Propeller Idiot) blathers on a bit  
with drivel about how Patrick is a Klansman, etc. then actually says  
something that would seem to apply to reality, and himself:
> Someone is missing a bunch of their marbles there, and whoever it is,  
needs
> help.

Absolutely true, Stevennis, how true that is. It's a relief that you've  
finally acknowledged what just about everyone from BOTH SIDES has been  
saying for some time (with the exception of the NetClowns, Petey and  
Cinder). Since you seem to have missed this vital bit in the past [and at  
the risk of flames from Mr. Overpeck, defender of the medical profession  
extraordinaire], lemme reiterate for ya: a person who thinks that he is 
1. a propeller aircraft
2. a jet aircraft
3. a fictional cyborg-type creature

is most likely not dealing with a full deck. That is to say, there is a  
strong possibility that the individual in question is coping with some  
sort of mental deficit [Mr Overpeck: I spoke to Mother about this [didn't  
mention names, just asked "hypothetically". She's a nurse who has worked  
at not only St. Elizabeth's, but also several locked wards in local  
hospitals. While she declined to diagnose you without further examination,  
she did say that the behaviors described (paranoia, pretensions to  
Borghood, etc)could well indicate the need for treatment of what is  
generally known as a mental deficit.
In any case, Stevennis, the first step to recovery is to acknowledge that  
a problem exists. So take that next step, my child, and seek help  
immediamente, if not sooner. Although We would miss the [unintentional]  
humor in your postings, We would be happy to know that you were on your  
way to rejoining the rest of humanity.............



hoping you seek the help you've acknowledged that you need,

jeff skorecki-weiss

-Yon Laird of Graverobbing for Fun and Profit [Archaeology]
former Dread Accountant
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:26:47 GMT

In article <19qpavINNlq3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Borg Name: Doofus) writes:
>In article <nyikos.717270316@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>The Lady High Executioner And Lady High Everything Else of talk.abortion
>
>Note please.  I ask you not to use these terms.             

Then we'll give you a Borg name: DOOFUS. 


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:33:02 GMT


I am upset at the fact that there are instances where an abortion takes
place simply because a child would be an inconvienience to the parents.

I'm also concerned about the eugenics aspect to abortion (see my previous
posts)

Simon
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40771 alt.abortion.inequity:4263
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Not a flame
Date: 6 Oct 1992 09:54:45 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BvpJJ8.A5p@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.000647.26246@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>>I'm not stretching, and I found it to be a reprehensible remark
>>>not even worth a reply.  
>As for Adrienne Regard, she wrote, *without* a smiley-face (the usual
>indicator of humor):
>    Who's "we", white man?

By which we see you were talking through your hat when you indicated that
once you understood the joke and therefore the comment that you would 
revise your opinion of my hatefulness, hmmmm?

I didn't use a smiley because in the context of some fellow telling me
what *he* figures *we* should do about some OTHER PERSONS pregnancy, the
comment *isn't* a joke.  I'm not joshing with people who would remove 
from a woman they don't even know the right to make personal decisions.

Maybe that's hateful, I dunno.

>>>If indeed there is a common joke, then
>>>I'd be "happy" to change my conclusion -- although there wasn't 
>>>any context to suggest otherwise.

Adrienne Regard
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39389 alt.abortion.inequity:4125
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 06:34:46 GMT

In article <98PLRB12w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> In article <23SEP92.20083018@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>> >Also, in the U.S. a woman is raped every five minutes, not every other day.
>> Hang on one second...
>> Isn't the standard figure for rape that 1/3 of all women will be
>> raped at some point in their lives?
>
>If you define rape as "sexual intercourse without consent", then I believe
>recent studies suggest that approximately 40% of female university students
>in the UK have been raped.  I would therefore suspect that your figure of 1/3
>is a big underestimate.
Ok. Then what's this every 5 minutes stuff?

-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: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Question, especially for Religious Pro-life
Keywords: surrogate motherhood
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:18:06 GMT


usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:

>My sister asked me to post this question:

>What do you think of surrogate motherhood?  Is it moral, or
>not?  Should it be legal or not?

This question got me to thinking.  All these laws making surrogate
motherhood for pay illegal....

Is this what Suzanne was talking about when she talked about
society "devaluing the fruit of women's wombs"?

>Lori Kent Rothman

               -rocker
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 28 Sep 1992 09:24:40 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1047@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.220609.5948@news.acns.nwu.edu>
>lls@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lori Smallwood) writes:
>>I object to the term "Pro-Abortion" (thank you for including "Pro-Choice") 
>>in a big way.
>If there is nothing wrong with abortion, I wonder why so many Pro-Choice
>get so angry (I'm not saying you do Lori) when they are called
>"Pro-Abortion"? 

Because it's wrong.
Because it's used to mislead people.
Because it's used as an emotional ploy.
Because it's a gross misrepresentation of an honest position held by many
people for the political manipulation of their opponnents.

Would you like more reasons?

Adrienne Regard
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne "It's a child" versus Brian "No it's not"
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:14:22 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Sep29.160053.17716@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> And for all you "Oh, cut that out fetuses weren't ever kids" - why is it
> that all abortion laws made in the US were based specifically because the
> fetus had legal rights and recognition under the law?

That's simply not true.  The fact that it was legal until the AMA
decided they wanted to be able to control it should prove that.

> The AMA referred to it in the 19th century as wanton destruction of
> human life, a solid contradiction to your claim.

What does that have to do with *legal* rights and recognition?  If you want
to claim it had *legal* rights and recognition, why not quote us some *laws*.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
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: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:38:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.233035.21569@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.221838.7773@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>}In article <1992Oct4.154347.17433@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>}>In article <1992Oct4.022619.21355@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
>}>writes:
>}>
>}>}I'll meet you halfway on this.  I'm all for letting women know what
>}>}they're really doing when they go in for an abortion; I'm in favor of
>}>}showing them a chart of the development of a human fetus and letting
>}>}them see what they're un-making by having an abortion.  But I DON'T
>}>}want to see people feeding them subjective propaganda like so many
>}>}pro-lifers seem to like doing.
>}>
>}>Halfway?  You're going to meet this guy halfway and confer upon
>}>women some special knowledge that you seem to think is known or
>}>discovered only by those with a Wand of Wonder?  Shoot, let the
>}>women figure it out for themselves.  They can, you know.  
>}>
>}
>}Just a side comment: The idea that women can figure it out for themselves
>}(abortion, and the unborn being human)...  For some reason, this reminds
>}me of reasons for ALLOWING abortion.  Some mentioned that those
>}who have sex or use contraceptives don't really know much about the
>}consequences or something like that.  Since they don't know much
>}about the consequences of sex or else some of the consequences of even
>}"safe sex," these people should not have to go through the birthing
>}process.  Then in this post, it is suggested that women can figure it
>}out for themselves.  What's the deal?
>
>Not only will I suggest it, I will assert it.  I think women can figure 
>"it" out all on their own.  Even pregnant women.  I know it may be
>quite a blow to your ego, Martin, but they can think even without you!
>That's the "deal."  Sorry if it rattled some of your conceptions...
>
>

The point was that in the pro-choice side I see two possible ways of looking
at things:
1) Men and women have sex without knowing much about the consequences or
  even if they did have "safe sex" they wouldn't know that you could get
  pregnant.  Because they didn't know the possible consequences, they 
  shouldn't have to carry the baby to term.
2) You then say that women "can figure it out for themselves" concerning
   the unborn.

Number one assumes the woman *not knowing.*  Number two assumes the woman
can *know everything.*  I was just wondering about the slight contradiction
here.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep20.161051.10835@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Sep20.061524.23716@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep19.192036.2411@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep19.174550.20240@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>You will notice that I did not say that it was false, Kevin.
>>
>>Yeah, right, Eric. You just implied that he didn't know what he was talking 
>>about when he made the statement. Is this functionally distinguishable from 
>>questioning the statement's truth directly?
>Yes.
>I could be questioning the value of the statement as you indicate in
>the segment I deleted.

Then all I ask is that you indicate the same. Instead of saying (in effect)
"you don't know what you're talking about", which implies lack of veracity,
say instead "can you statistics on that?" or "I think you're overstating".
Attack the VALUE of vague, nebulous statements, not their VERACITY.

>This meta-argument is boring, Kevin.
>If it will make you happy, I'll concede victory to you.

It'll make me "happy" only if you learn from the experience.

								- Kevin
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 05:23:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...

>>>Abortion treats our fellow humans, our own children in similar fashion.  
>>>The value of those we abort becomes virtually set to zero.  Some would say,
>>>the value of those we abort is actually negative.  Let us put human life in
>>>a better position lest we ourselves become victims of those who look down
>>>upon human life.
>>
>>"Us?"  I suggest you start with yourself.
>
>Us, as you might expect, means "you, I, and everybody in this place."
>(Someone, is that the right PWEI quote?  I mean from the song "Can U Dig It?")
>This means WE are working on this together, and not separately.

Thus far the only evidence of your "caring" for other people is an
insistence that women be forced to suffer unwanted pregnancies.  There
are many ways of caring for and saving people that do not involve
force of any kind.  Before you criticize others, look to yourself.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 21:19:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>In article <k6#p4qd.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>> >Well, then don't you think that's rather silly?  The baby is in fact
>> >totally and wholly dependent on the specific person who happens to be
>> >taking care of him/her at the time.  

>> If you really can't see the difference between being pregnant and being
>> a babysitter for a few minutes, then you must either be exceedingly
>> stupid, exceedingly naive, or think we are stupid enough to buy into
>> this argument.
>
>Oh, there is a difference.  But the different you have pointed out is not
>valid.  I have explained why.  If you disagree with me, then please
>point out both where and why.

The mother is the only person that can care for the developing child for 
nine months.  She cannot surrender this duty, no matter how uncomfortable,
how risky, it gets.  A babysitter can surrender care of the baby on a 
moments notice, can decline to become involved, _and_ gets paid for it.

You don't think the differences are important?!?

>You totally missed the point.  I stated quite clearly that the baby WILL
>DIE is the baby sitter does not save its life it will not "survive days on
>its own."  The baby is totally and wholly depending upon that baby sitter
>for its life.  It you want me to be more specific, then lets say the
>disaster is a fire of some sort.  The baby cannot crawl out on its own.  It
>will die in this fire if the sitter does not remove it from the house.

With very, very, few exceptions, everyone is dependent on other people.
Let's suppose the disaster is an earthquake, and the house is collapsed
so that YOU cannot get out on your own.  You will die without assistance.
By your argument, you are no more competent to care for yourself than a
four week embryo.  This argument is nonsense.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39020 alt.consciousness:530
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:22:04 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1a7911INNdlg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.051014.10293@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) 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, have you seen a human fetus?  

>Comparisons don't work if people haven't two things to compare.  I notice
>that Mr. Nyikos asks how many people have seen fetal pigs, but not how many
>people have seen fetal humans....

And their is damn little difference between a fetal pig and a fetal human
on macroscopic examination. (Wouldn't that be a thrill in biology class?)

>Adrienne Regard
>


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 10:37:24 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>When taking away human life becomes normal, accepted, and sometimes, even
>seen to be the "right" thing to do, then human life everywhere suffers.

Yep, that's been the situation for, oooooh, 10 or 20 thousand 
years now.  Can you convince me that outlawing abortions will
change human history?

                       -rocker
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:27:56 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <1992Sep28.053157.108880@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
<margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> In  <1992Sep27.214638.15941@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> > In article <1992Sep26.092317.127931@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> > <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

> > Also, left seperated is completely different from left by itself.
> 
> Left by itself, or left separated from the woman; take your pick.

Sorry for the bad wording.  I should add a few more words so that it would 
be clearer. 

"Also, if the sperm and egg are left seperated from each other, they will
never develop into an adult human.  Very different from the way you are
talking.

> And you *did* make them up to suit you.

correct.  So, if you understand them and disagree with them, please explain
why.

I will do what someone suggested and not use my one word definitions.  I
don't mind the extra typing.
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:26:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.014923.6328@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM 
(Nadja Adolf) writes:

}Oh, goody. How about "You don't plow the corn under just because it was
}planted with the neighbors shovel." Are you aware that comparing women
}to farmyards is sort of dehumanizing...?

No, you don't plow the corn under because of anyone's shovel.  You
plow the corn under because the farmer didn't want corn in that field.
That doesn't mean the farmer doesn't ever want corn there, nor
does it mean that the farmer is in favor of plowing corn under.
It simply means that the farmer didn't want it there, for whatever
reason.  Some people, however, insist that if a farmer finds
corn growing in the field, the farmer must grow it, no matter 
how hard the farmer tried to keep it out.

[btw, note the comparison I'm making is with women and farmers, not 
farmyards...                            :^]


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...