HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: The fundamental question of KillFiles
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:20:57 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
] > chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] 
] > I think that Nyikos just figured out what a killfile is and
] > feels a need to talk about it.  (I think that Dennis showed
] > him his, and now Nyikos wants one that's BIGGER than Dennis'.)
] 
] We should ask drieux if killfiles are a valid metric in a
] DickSizeWar.


Actually there is an Inverse Factor to be dealt with in
terms of KillFiles, RealMen[tm] do not need them as they
do not have any problem constructing, on the fly, the
necessary Regular Expression, as they are RegularKindaGuys[tm],
and hence have no Need For them at ALL!!!!

so only persons with small PeePee's use KillFiles.

This is also based upon the clear fact that those persons
who are at home with Regular Expressions, Sed, Awk, and
Standard Traditional Family Valued Unix Tools, to do not
need to go wandering with the Herd of Gnu and Bison and
use those Hideous Abominations to deal with News!!!!

RealMen[tm] Use vi and rn!!!!!

RealMen[tm] Have Bigger Members!!!!

RealMen[tm] are For WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues

		and the restoration of our God given Right to concubines.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:41:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Oct5.193821.19644@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

}The point was that in the pro-choice side I see two possible ways of looking
}at things:

Perhaps your view is limited.

}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.

The point is, whether you like it or not, that women don't need you,
your cohorts, your anything, neither do they need me.  They don't
need either a law or a regulation to look at the charts you might
think are important, they don't need a list of books.  We hardly
require charts, books, counselling by an MD, or whatever for any
medical procedure performed on men.  While recomendations may be 
made, they are hardly mandated.  You seem to think that in this 
particular instance women need something that you can provide.

I'm hardly saying they know everything.  I'm not saying that
anyone knows everything.  I imagine the world would be a better
place if everyone knew a little more about sex and abortion,
but damn your insinuation that women need a bit more education
before they can make a responsible decision.


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40852 talk.politics.misc:49808 alt.sex:32074 alt.rush-limbaugh:6647 alt.politics.elections:15334 alt.politics.clinton:8684 alt.politics.bush:7885
From: v106qjh9@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (THE HAT)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:55:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct6.155623.11239@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes...
>> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> = Faustus writes:
> 
>>> [...] Its sure is nice you aren't a woman.. You never will 
>>> experience doubts, fears or trepidations of not being able to afford 
>>> an unwanted child..
> 
>>And you will never face being torn to pieces by an abortionist's curette 
>>or his vaccum cleaner.  
> 
>Neither will an unaware fetus, DODope.  The way some of you pro-lifers
>try to commiserate with a fetus being aborted is sorta...weird.  Like
>Quayle sending flowers to Murphy Brown.
> 
>>But when you get old and senile, and you become a burden to society,
>>would you mind if we tore your body to pieces with a giant vaccum 
>>cleaner and dumped your body parts into a garbage can? 
> 
>Um, that's *murder*, Dougie, plain and simple - like you.  Especially
>stupid in the above statement is, "...and dumped your body parts..." - I
>mean, ANYthing that dies doesn't give a damn what happens to its "body
>parts".

If that's true what's the point of having cemetaries?  Look when I'm dead I
want to be remembered, not dumped in a dumpster and forgotten.
Alas, that's just me...

||  ||  ||			 THE HAT	 		||  ||  ||
----------			   /V\				----------
||  ||  ||			  /   \				||  ||  ||
----------			 -------			----------
||  ||  ||	"There goes a king"				||  ||  ||
__________	"How do you know?"				----------
||  ||  ||   	"Hasn't got s$%@ all over 'im"			||  ||  ||
			-Holy Grail	
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BITNET:V106QJH9@UBVMS
INTERNET:DSCHEN@BUFFALO.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Tommy Kelly and the Law (was Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:12:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.015921.21948@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}In article <1992Sep29.173840.9672@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

}> Besides, you are proposing enacting a law.  It is up to you to 
}> demonstrate that such a law would be effective (generally that 
}> involves examples or statistics) not up to me to demonstrate that
}> other laws don't have "some effect."  I'm not saying that you can't
}> get an ineffective law passed, merely that your embrace of legislation
}> should be based on some personal conviction (besides faith) that such
}> an action would be effective.

}What do you mean by an "effective" abortion law?  

Doug, I think you may have answered your own question here.

}Obviously, no abortion law would be 100% effective for stopping abortion.  

Well, obviously, how effective would it be?  5%?  25%?  75%?  And which
law?  Some consider preventing implantation to be abortion and would
want to make that illegal.  Others would draw the line somewhere else.
Would it be like Guam or Oooootah?  

}Or are you saying that abortion laws would be ineffective
}for reducing the number of abortions?  I think that would be 
}difficult to prove or disprove.  

The argument I keep hearing again and again is that abortion laws
should exist for their deterent effect, and not as a retribution
or punishment against women.  You say that you suspect that the
deterent effect would be difficult to prove or disprove.  Yet
you still want a law for this effect.  Why do you think it might
have your desired effect if you can't prove or disprove it?  
Is it just a warm feeling you get?  Is this a good basis for law?

}But if the issue is merely a question of formulating an abortion
}policy which would reduce the number of abortions, then doesn't it 
}follow that abortion could no longer be considered an unrestricted
}right?  

No.  It doesn't follow.  It is unrelated.

--
       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...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40692 talk.politics.misc:49656 alt.rush-limbaugh:6585
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:17:30 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<9441@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) :
><1992Sep30.183947.28189@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>>That's kind of silly.  Abortion solves the problem for the only person
>>involved: the woman.  Since it solves the problem, and it only effects the
>>person choosing to use this solution, it appears to be very responsible.
>
>This only works if you do not consider the fetus to be a person.

And by all accepted and legal definitions the fetus is not a person.

>I do, and so do a lot of others.  

Really?  Gosh, I'm so surprised.  Seriously though, you're going to have
to convince me if you want me to support your position.

>                                  You are going to have to convince me
>otherwise if you want me to support your position.

For starters, read the Constitution.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
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: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:50:35 GMT

In article <ld3bm7INN2um@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.023143.20915@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <ld1pc0INNqg2@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct5.233320.503@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>>>>The topic involved eggs/sperm etc. being human life.  I said
>>>>the sperm/egg isn't human life.  Since the sperm/egg isn't human life, then
>>>>you can't terminate it as a human life because it never was a human life
>>>>right?  
>
>>>So a sperm/egg isn't human? If not, what is it?
>
>>Sperm/eggs are specialized human cells which acts as messengers.
>
>>>So a sperm/egg isn't alive? If not, what is it?
>
>>N/A
>
>What do you mean, N/A? This is a very simple question: is the
>sperm/egg alive or not? If it is not alive, then what is it?
>
It is alive.

>>>If a sperm/egg is human and it is life, then does that not mean
>>>that _by_definition_ it is human life?
>
>>Certainly, you wouldn't start calling sperm/eggs human life would you?
>
>Your darned right I would, because it _is_ by definition human life.


My definition involves being a member of homo sapiens.  The sperm/egg doesn't
define a new human individual.  In and of themselves, the sperm/egg, can
not be called members of homo sapiens.  Since they cannot be called members
of homo sapeins, then they cannot be human life in my definition.

Your definition of human life you are trying to tag on me involves merely
being alive and being a PART of a human being.  I do not hold that.  One
cannot be merely part of a human being, like a skin cell or a sperm/egg,
alive and be called human life in the sense of being called a member of homo
sapiens.  One must be a new human life, genetically "created" by the 
combination of a sperm and an egg.

>
>>You do know that you cannot call a sperm/egg members of homo sapiens.  Doing
>>so would be a very big leap.  By human life, I do not mean that which is
>>alive and is merely a messenger cell from a human.  Messenger cells are
>>not members of homo sapiens and therefore, cannot be called human life,
>>for the umpteenth time.
>
>Again, this is truth by blatant assertion. You have admitted that the
>sperm/egg is human. Now, is it or is it not alive?
>
See the above.  The only battle is terminology. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Article to read
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:53:53 GMT

I just got my October/November issue of _Exceptional Children_, a
journal published by the Council for Exceptional Children for teacher
of Special Education.

In it was a *very* interesting, and frightening, article entitled
"Early Pregnancy and Academic Achievement of African-American Youth".

The entire article is worth reading, but I don't have the time
to type the whole thing in.  A few of the things that jumped
out at me:

(The group interviewed consisted of 10 women who were aged 15
to 19.  Each of them had at least one child)

8 out of 10 described themselves as happy, but only half expressed pride
in motherhood.

Half or less recieved Social Security, Aid for Families with Dependent
Children or financial aid from the father(s) of the child(ren).

8 out of 10 had a mother who had been a teen parent.

2 of them had *planned* their first pregnancy: both at the age of *16*!


"Adolescent pregnancy and subsequent parenting can create major 
obstacles to any student's achievement in school.....Students in 
special education classes, or those otherwise labeled as have 
disabilities, are of particular concern. Furthermore, sexual development
in these students may be as healthy and normal as in other
adolescents.  They are very capable of conceiving and
bearing a child, although they may not understand the
process of pregnancy, birth and delivery."



This topic is important to me, because I teach special education
students.  I want to know how some of the rest of you feel
about this issue, and an important related one: that of 
sterilization.  Should the parent of a mentally retarded child
have the right to sterilize their child, without his/her consent?

  
-- 

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

a computer is nothing but an autistic savant...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:02:37 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  <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) writ
>
> >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.

Yes, and I don't have a problem with that if the alternative is that the
woman would die.  Do you?  (I certainly hope you're not suggesting that
abortions happen just before birth for frivolous reasons, since that's
not the case.  In fact, most abortions occur in the first 8 weeks of
pregnancy.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:31:02 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>but if you're not going to do so, repost the evidence,
->>don't bother repeating yourself anymore.
->Why should I repost the evidence. Mr. Keegan? 

to demonstrate two things: that you contracticted
yourself and that you have a shred of intellectual
honesty.

that's why i was pretty sure you wouldn't do it.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:50:46 GMT

In <1992Sep27.054945.28826@sfu.ca> probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:

>In article <9tgz#dh@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>>I question your sincerity here.  I invite readers to ask themselves 
>>>whether they'd ever seen a fetal pig, or a picture of one
>>
>>No.
>>
>yes. dozens. and a dead adult one, fresh-killed for food. and a dead
>calf, dragged out of its mother by me and two others with our hands. and
>lots of other things. what of it?

Like so many people, you are replying to a cut-off question, and I can't
say much for people that will cut off a question like this.

As long as we have this problem, let me ask two questions.

1. Has anyone seen a fetal pig in a comparative anatomy lab, or a picture
of one used for dissection in comparative anatomy courses, that looked
like anything but a pig?

2. Has anyone come up where a context where the fetus of a pig was called
anything but a fetal pig?

What started this all was a satirical statement of mine:

**** Fetal pigs is pigs, but fetal humans is only potentially human. ***
From: bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean)
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
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: Sat, 26 Sep 92 04:53:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.004716.7846@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne For
ach) writes:
>From article by sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu:
>> 
>> Since when did any suddenly get the right to tell anyone else
>> what to do with their bodies??  If my fiancee got pregnant at this poi
t
>> in time she would definately get an abortion.  
>> Why? You ask?  Because of the fact that she is an important source 
>> of income in our relationship..  
>
>
>Boy, you sure got it made in the shade, bub, don't you.   You're
>gettin' her money and her sexual favors too, and you ain't even signed 
>on the dotted line yet.  Let me guess, Mr. Sleeze Bucket.  You ain't
>even set a date yet, right?   


I must say I resent every one of your statements Suzanne.  The same
facts about my relationship with Lisa are completely true as
sparker stated above.  I resent the fact that you would presume that
a man in this situation would not follow through with his
comittment.  You don't even know the guy.  Lisa is my soul mate.
We are inseparable.  Death shall not do us part (and no, we are not
satanists).  You have never said anything so infuriating to me
as this.  Sure, you weren't speaking to me, but you were speaking to a
person who is in exactly my same position.

I must concede that we would not likely go through with an abortion,
but would definitely consider it.  Without abortion, our lives
would be greatly handicapped.  Zachary would not enjoy the
life he deserves to.  He would grow up like any other starving
"white trash" kid.  I would never become a doctor.  Lisa would
never become a social worker.  Our lives are fragile enough
as it is.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39161 soc.men:17056 alt.abortion.inequity:4114
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
Date: 29 Sep 1992 08:28:22 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep27.222601.548@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
>DK> I will not give Will the benifit of the doubt.  Will Steeves has threatened
>DK> to kill women that do not show him the proper respect.
>
>For the third or fourth (or ...) time, I did *not* threaten *anyone*, Dan.  I
>believe that I have made this point abundantly clear.  Also, I was referring
>to my *thoughts* about *ONE* woman, NOT "women" in general.  I repeat again,
>that even though we have all had violent *THOUGHTS* of one sort or another,
>as a result of highly stressful situations, very few such thoughts result in
>actual violence.  Why are you reading the disclosure of my private thoughts
>as a declaration that I had threatened her?

I'm sure Dan King will include this disclaimer in his warning to women
who might make the mistake of dating you.  What do you think they will
make of your original statement and this feeble rebuttal?

MAYBE you shouldn't make such statements, Will.


MAYBE you shouldn't even think things like that, Will.


MAYBE you should come to the realization that women are separate individuals
from you and actually do have thoughts, feelings, and wills of their own.
And are not answerable to *you*.


Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:14:47 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>(Stephen A Chaney) writes of steve novak:

>>-> I say we should boycott this dolt. 
>>i can't wait to see how many net.readers jump to
>>your support on this one.
>
>No more, probably, than the ones who supported a boycott on me. Two calls
>for a boycott, that is.
>ZILCH.

Yup.  I don't think you should be boycotted.  After all, your usual stuff
is so funny.  But just to show them who's boss, I think you should boycott
everyone else.

That'll show 'em.	:-)

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:12:27 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>So, tell me something.  Was Hurricane Andrew "good" or "bad" interference?
>>Was Mount St. Helens "good" or "bad" interference?  Is a miscarriage "good"
>>or "bad" interference?
>
>Natural disasters are a different category from willed actions. [I do hate
>to belabor the obvious, but Mr. Cochran's disingenousness is a little too
>heavy-handed for me to stomach.]

If you had actually been following this thread you would have realized
that this was a valid question, since Mr. Gorr has used as one of his 
definitions for interference anything that prevents an embryo from 
implanting.

Since this interference has included a natural failure to implant, the 
huricane analogy was apt.  Next time you want something to criticize
Mr. Cochran for, please make sure you have a valid criticism, lest 
someone accuse _you_ of being disingenuous.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40251 talk.politics.guns:21665 alt.conspiracy:10935 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4868
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 3 Oct 92 14:31:00 GMT
Reply-To: /dev/nul
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

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....
>

I have a better idea.  Why don't you try something intelligent, like editing
your follow-up line and removing a.f.d-q from the list, sparing those of us who
don't really care what you think from having to read it.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre