HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:59:11 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug24.234134.8819@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> Your whole case is dust: I am known for bashing assholes like Kaufman and
> Humphrey (who continues to lie and threaten and then make racist statements
> about African Americans) with their OWN tactics.

Untrue.  You are known for being a loud, vituperative asshole who harbors a
variety of delusions suitable to an extremely unpopular third grader. 
Messrs. Kaufman and Humphrey are capable of writing coherently.  With the
exception of one single posting (which I personally view as a fluke), you
have failed to demonstrate any ability whatsoeverr in this direction.

> I have enough logic to handle your posts.

I don't believe you "have enough logic" to reason your way out of a pay
toilet.

> Scott Roby, PatricKKK Harumphrey, Steve Novak, and a bunch of other liars
> on USENET, have a far weaker grasp of reality than I could, even if I drank
> a whole case of whiskey.

This from a fellow who claims to be the "founder" of something called the
"Borg Operating Space System"!  From here it would appear that all the
"space" you're "operating" is situated squarely between your left ear and
your right.

In fact, maybe that's your whole problem.  Overpressure.

> Mark the Irate Cough Man could never, ever match me in a flame fest. You
> probably mistake his comments for mine and then mistake mine for his, which
> probably is what (mis)leads you into thinking he can actually outflame or
> outthink me.

Well, you just go right on believing that.  Your seemingly bottomless
capacity for self-delusion is one of the many charming qualities about you
we've learned to appreciate _so_ much.

You have yet to produce a flame capable of toasting a marshmallow.

You have yet to demonstrate that you can outthink a slime mold.

So, when do you expect that _your_ brain will myelinate?  Not too soon, I
hope.  It would probably detract from your ability to sell those PC clones.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:57:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.013426.26602@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.204637.20295@ncsu.edu>
>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.005011.3902@menudo.uh.edu> 
>>HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>
>>> Consider yourself corrected.  Meet the anti-abortion but pro-choice person
>>> that does more than pay lip service to the first part of his stance.
>
>>Wait just a second.  Didn't you once claim that most pro-lifers do not
>>agree with Steve Chaney's remarks?  If you're now claiming to be pro- 
>>"choice", then what business do you have saying such a thing?  
>
><YAWN>
>
>Guess what?  "Life" isn't spelled l-e-g-i-s-l-a-t-i-o-n.

Guess what? Civil rights IS spelled l-e-g-i-s-l-a-t-i-o-n.  That's the
only way discrimination can be banned or eliminated, is by
legislation. 

It IS civil rights that we are fighting for, WRT the unborn child,
right, fellow pro-lifers. It's discrimination against the unborn that
we are trying to legislate against. 
"Life" not being "legislation" is as foolish an idea as civil rights
not being legislation.  

To loosely quote Martin Luther King, Jr., he said, "I can't force a
person not to hate me, but I can prevent them from carrying it out." 

>--
>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

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

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:34:09 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
>pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
>simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
>"pro-choice" label.

Peter, you have evidenced everything short of actual action that you
are a misogynist. You show zero regard for what women think, only considering
your own opinions with regard to the fetus. Maybe some intro-spection
into your dark soul will show you the reason why others have such a
black opinion of you. BTW, this has nothing to do with your being pro-life,
there are pro-lifers out there who are not considered misogynists at
all.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:02:12 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  <1992Aug31.171256.4802@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.020408.40457@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> >>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>>> The transcript does not mention the source of Stahl's claim
> >>>> about the "three doctors".  I may write to 60 Minutes to ask
> >>>> them for a source.  It doesn't appear that Mr. Margolis is
> >>>> willing to track down the source.
>
> >>> That's right - I'm not.  As far as I know, it's true.
>
> >> In other words, you're unable to admit that you were wrong
> >> when you stated that 60 Minutes supported your claims,
> >> and now you've fallen back on ``truth by blatant assertion''
> >> to support your claims.
>
> > I didn't even see 60 Minutes.  You asked for a source, and you had just
> > quoted someone (Steve Arnold, I believe) stating they saw it on 60 Minutes,
> > so I pointed out that you appeared rather foolish.  I got the information
> > off the net long ago.
>
> Are you willing to admit that 60 Minutes does not support your claims?

No.  If they said that there were only X number of doctors who specialized
in heart transplants, I wouldn't assume that there were a number of
additional doctors who specialized in, say, podiatry, but performed an
occasional heart transplant on the side.

> > I note that you deleted the following, as you have every time you've
> > been challenged.
>
> I'm just trying to delete extraneous material.
>
> >  If you can list more doctors that perform third tri abortions, or you can
> >  document for me cases of women getting third-trimester abortions for
> >  "frivolous" reasons, I would of course change my tune.  Unlike some, I
> >  don't knowingly pass on lies.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Keywords: lies, Dennis, Chaney
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 01:20:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.003937.28175@cfctech.cfc.com>
kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <Bsz6qn.1yo.1@cs.cmu.edu>
>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>I have never written Chaney's sysadmins.  I did report his forgery
>>to my sysadmins at CMU, as policy here requires.  

>"As policy requires"? Why does this sound faintly reminiscent of "I was only
>following the Fuehrer's orders" (sorry, Nora)?

Buzz off, Darcy.

Look, there are good, logical reasons (obvious to everyone with a
picogram of common sense) for a policy requiring forgeries of computer
articles to be reported to the people who run the site the forgery
with purportedly from.  Comparing following said policy to complicity
in genocide is pretty ridiculous, not to mention offensive to people
besides Nora.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:19:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug31.150147.12678@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.204749.4281@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> >In  <1992Aug25.182118.13682@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
> >> In article <1992Aug23.235355.8281@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jenni
> >> >In article <1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mi
> >> >
> >> If it's my z/e/f/child that she is carrying, it IS partially my decision.
> >> As it's partially my z/e/f/child that would be aborted.
> >
> >Is it partially inside your body?
>
> Nope.  It is, however, partially my body.

Nope.  One cell was produced by your body, but is no longer part of
your body.  And if you didn't want to donate it without strings attached,
you should have contracted for what uses that cell could be used before
providing it.

> >Getting it out of *her* body is *her*
> >decision.  What you do *after* it's out of her body is a joint decision.
>
> I disagree.  Obviously.  Getting it INTO her body was a joint decision.
> Getting it out, should also be a joint decision.

So if she feeds you a grape, and it gets lodged in your throat, getting
it out should be a joint decision.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:52:52 GMT

In <Btrr8A.4GJ.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715038115@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>#Jim, I apologized to you in private even before I saw this, but let me
>#go public now.  When I made my original comment, my mind was exclusively
>#on the temporal (= pertaining to time) dimension of how late you would
>#allow abortions.  But in the moral dimension there is a gulf between you
>#and Tiller which I cannot begin to fathom.  My apologies to you and anyone
>#I might have misled by my remark.

>I think that there's a "moral gulf" between Nyikos and Dr. Tiller
>as well.  From everything that I've read about the man, George
>Tiller is a principled man.

You obviously haven't read what one of his former employees, pro-choice
Luhra Tivis, has written about him.  But don't despair.  A post will be
coming your way on this in a week or two.

As for your implication about me, I suspect you wouldn't recognize a
principled man if you met one.

>Susan

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: M21164@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:45:08 GMT

In article <fcknh0m.gordons@netcom.com>
gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
 
 
                                    .... The supreme court basically said
>that up until a certain time in the pregnancy a woman may choose for
>herself whether or not to have an abortion.  How is that forcing anything
>on any one?  Unless of course, you mean offending the delicate        >sensibilities of the pro-lifers.
>
 
For a long time similar logic was used to defend the practice of owning slaves.
"You think slavery is wrong? Well, then don't own one! But don't try to force
*your* belief system on me"  Slavery only offended the delicate sensibilities
of the prohibitionists.
 
This brings us quicky to the crux of the abortion argument, because it will be
pointed out that slavery involves the rights of another person but, according
the pro-choice view, abortion does not.  Well, pro-lifers believe it does,
and unbelievable though it may seem to some, there are numerous thoughtful and
resonable people in the pro-life crowd.  This is why the issue of abortion
belongs not in the judicial, but in the legislative arena, where resonable
people can argue the merits of each side.  That's what democracy's for.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 23:08:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes ...
>In <czbna2q.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com writes:
>> I've seen the term "potential" life used several times and I'm still not
>> sure what it is supposed to mean.  Could you please explain what a potential 
>> life is and its relevence?
>
>  A potential life is just that -- a life that *could* be.  A fetus is at least
>a potential human being/person/citizen.  That is not, so far as I know, in any 
>doubt.  It is relevant because if there were no potential people concerned in
>the abortion question, there would be no debate.

By similar reasoning one could require all sexually mature people to have
as many children as possible, arguing that to do otherwise is to effectively
kill off all the "potential" human-beings (or "innocent babies", if you 
prefer) that might otherwise had a chance at life.

"Potential" person for that, and other, reasons is a pretty much useless
distinction in this discussion.

>  Now as to the next stage, one could easily say sperm and ova are potential
>people too (or at least half-people(?)), I can only say we all draw our lines
>somewhere, and the purpose of this forum should be to bring them closer to-
>gether.

Some humans make it into adulthood without realizing their potential
to become people.  :-)

And no, I was NOT thinking of you.  Rather, someone who thinks he's the BOSS.
(I know, it's a pointless dig, but I had fun doing it)

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: The Stork Brings Them...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:01:07 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

] In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] 
] }   ...but a fetus is not part of her body...
] 
] Just when you think you have things figured out.  Doggone it Peter,
] where do you suppose those little buggers are?


The subject line says it alll.....

ciao
drieux


-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34293 misc.legal:16782
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:02:27 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>Well I don't know, but I've been told: in Texas you can shoot a guy
>walking down the street if he came from your house and you think he
>might have taken something.

You're right. You can. Although they generally tell you that if you
do, even if they are running away from you, to go get the guy and drag 
him to your front door. (This came from a cop after our house had been 
broken into in '83) Another thing, you can shoot anyone on your property, 
if you believe or have evidence of them comitting or attempting to commit 
a crime, including plain vandilizing of your property. (MAybe they don't 
need a stalker law down there, you can shoot them if they become a problem.:)

Also, these laws were liberalized (that's right) to give homeowners
greater protection from prosecution when they did exercise their rights
to protect their homes and belongings.

Another weird thing, in Houston, due to the number of idiots masquarading
as cops on the highways and robbing, raping, and sometimes murdering
their victims, people were told to *not* stop for anything other than
a fully marked police car. Only place I know of where unmarked cars
are not used to enhance revenues.

>possibly naive Brian McBean

Not in this case.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Abortion vs. Adoption
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:50:04 GMT

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug26090204@conus.shell.com>
rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:

>3. Adoption is an option.  The difference, from the mother's point
>of view (as I see it), between adoption and abortion, is that giving birth
>brings home the reality of the child and the choice is more real.

Then, imnsho, you don't see the mother's point of view very
accurately.  There are many differences between abortion and adoption
which seem much more important to me than a vague "the choice is more
real".  Among them:

1) In order to give your child up for adoption, you must go through
pregnancy and birth.

2) If you abort a e/f, you never *have* a child in the first place; if
you give a child up for adoption, you do have a child (and for better
or worse, will probably think of him/her for the rest of your life).

3) If you're unmarried or for any other reason don't want your family,
friends, neighbors, etc. to know, it's much easier to conceal an
abortion than birth and adoption.

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne finally sees the light
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:27:33 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep04.132227.35654@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <pbknt6j.gordons@netcom.com>  gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>> <1992Sep2.021850.24928@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
>
>Don't be silly, Gordon.  They also teach him more advanced come-backs, such as:
># Liar liar pants on fire.
><1992Sep2.011454.22569@csus.edu>

Steve Adams wrote a one-line insult: 
"Liar." 

So I added 
"Liar liar pants on fire." 
As a PARODY. 

Go check the dictionary and read the meaning of the word PARODY, and
then retract that nonsense of yours. 

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


=============================================================================
>##       "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>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34111 alt.abortion.inequity:3344
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:21:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not if I can help it.

In article <1992Aug26.232347.9763@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.174902.898@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>[Delete.  Delete.  John Stevens is an asshole, as if everybody didn't know that
>already...]

Surprise!  Everybody now knows that YOU are an asshole.  As if everybody
didn't already know it.

>>So, yes.  If you are not willing to sacrifice your education (drop out of
>>school, get a job, or at least slow down, work more, study less), then
>>you should not have sex.  Why is it that people think that they have the
>>right to have sex?
>
>Why do you think you have a right to tell other people how to run their lives?

What makes YOU think you have the right to tell me what believe?  Hypocrite.

>Might I suggest you get a book called "The Joy of Gay Sex"?  And read the
>chapters on bondage and fisting very closely.

Are you volunteering to be my love slave?  Thanks, but my dance card is
full.

Besides, I only have sex with human beings.

>This last sentence gets my vote as most mysgonic sentence of the week.
>(out teenage boys). Whatta maroon...

You need a dictionary.  Or at least remedial reading lessons.

>Are you up for human sacrifice?  I'll volunteer you...

Yeah, this is real on-topic here.  Having trouble connecting with reality,
aren't you?

>>[ EVERYTHING carries a price tag.  So ask yourself, "can I afford it?" ]
>
>And the wages of sin are death, blah blah blah...

The above in [] is not a religious belief.  It is a provable fact.  Unlike
the drool you leak all over your keyboard.

>=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
>=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=

It figures.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 05:55:58 GMT



I'd just like to say that while I strongly disagree with Beth
Bartley on the subject of late term abortions (and probably
on a variety of other issues), I have seen absolutely no
evidence that she is dishonest.  My disagreements with her 
have been philosophical, not factual.  

I certainly don't blame her for wanting Suzanne to apologize.
I also don't mind if she reposts the article once a day.
Then again, I know how to press the "n" key.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion