HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Keywords: Cough Man  
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:50:01 GMT


Oh, this is great. Mark Kaufman is going to engage in a flamewar with
the arguably most well-armed and accurate artilleryman on USENET.
Cough Man is begging for abuse, so abuse he shall have. 

In article <1992Aug14.192935.3672@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) backpedals:
>
>This was ACCIDENTALLY posted here.  It certainly does not belong.

Isn't that what they said about you the last time they mentioned
intellegent life in general?  

>But if it annoyed Chaney, it was not a complete error.  To all of
>the HUMANS here, sorry about the error.  Sorry about the error...
>Hmm.  Isn't that what Steve Chaney's mother should have said?

What, and steal your _wife's_ patented words? Not hardly. 

You're still a loudmouthed, can't-back-up-a-word-of-what-you-say,
king-of-the-400-meter-backpedal, two-faced hypocritical, scum-sucking
piece of radioactive USENET.manure that ever got flung in the faces of
USENET.readers.  

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:03:41 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  <1992Aug21.162927.15275@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.033037.30154@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> Also, it wouldn't hurt for you or Mr. Anderson
> to tell me where 60 minutes got these so-called facts.

If I knew, I would tell you.  Since I don't, I feel no obligation to
do your homework for you.

> > What there is is paranoid speculation - anti-abortionists are using scare
> > tactics, trying to raise the specter of women in their ninth month of
> > pregnancy obtaining abortions because they want to fit into a swimsuit.
>
> I've never raised the "specter" of women obtaining late-term abortions
> because they want to fit into a swimsuit.

I said "anti-abortionists", not specifically you.  You are, however, using
scare tactics.  Not to mention dishonesty.

> >I note that you cut out:
> >> > For you to claim otherwise, you'd have to document for us some
> >> > third-trimester abortions for other than medical reasons.
>
> I don't have to prove anything like that.  All I have to do is
> show that it's legally possible.

Which, of course, you can't do.  You can show some opinions with one
interpretation, and I can show opinions with another, but only the
Supreme Court could clarify which is correct.  And as I pointed out,
there is a de facto nation-wide ban on third-trimester abortion for
other than severe health reasons, which goes *further* than RvW
(which would leave these restrictions up to each individual state).
Therefore, I believe the question to be moot.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another reason to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:08:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.214108.28288@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug16.002117.980@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> > Rights in the United States are based on the COnstitution of the United
> > States.  This was not a democratically arrived at document, but the
> > product of rather an elite group of the landed gentry.  
> 
> That's funny, I always thought the preamble to the Constitution said
> "We, the people...", not "We, the elite group of landed gentry....". 
> 

Oh dear.  Dougie doesn't understand what I said again.

Do try and learn something about something, Dougie.  Did "We the
people" write or vote on the Constitution?  Did women vote on the
COnstitution or did women vote for the representatives who ratified
the Constitution?  Did black people vote?  Did anyone who was not
white, male, and propertied have anything to do with the writing
of the document?  Were there many who were not white, male, and
propertied vote for ratification?

I realize that, by taking my remarks out of context (Doogie's favorite
tehnique) you are trying to put me in the position of sounding like
I am attacking the Constitution, which I am not nor was I doing.
In fact, the article from which you extracted my remarks specifically
praised the COnstitution.  So you fail there too.

I do wish you had some character to assassinate, Doogie.  If you
had any character at all it might not be so damn dull, always
having to point out that you are a deceptive little cretin with
little of worth to say and many lies to tell.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: So Bush does not hold that abortion is murder?
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:28:36 GMT
Reply-To: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
>
>] Clearly Herbert believes that the fetus is a human being.
>] Therefore Herbert also believes that it is guilty, without trial,
>] of being an accessory to the rape.
>
>
>rape is NOT always considered a capital crime
>for the perpetrator, let alone an acomplice....
>

Rape may not be a capital crime for an adult but, according
to Herbert's reasoning, it is for a fetus.  Warped, isn't it?
Humans can be so inconsistant and illogical.  If you say a
banana is blue, I'll agree to that as long as a lemon is
also blue.  Let's have it one way, or the other.  Law's will never
be respected when they make no logical or practical sense.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:57:43 GMT

> = (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>> = (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>> = Doug "Lies for Free" Holtsinger writes:

>>> It appears that the radical pro-abortionists in the Democratic party 
>>> have forced Mr. Clinton to embrace a minority-held position. 

>>Really?  Do you have any evidence to support your statement?

[...]
>Still, Clinton's "evolution" is topped by Al Gore.
>He went from pro-life Hyde Amendment supporter in '85 to
>total no-restrictions pro-abortion-rights in '88, during
>(you guessed it) the Presidential primaries.

Still, Gore's "evolution" is topped by George Bush's instant about-face.
He went from total pro-choice in '80 to
total pro-life in '80 (seconds later...), because 
(you guessed it) the Vice Presidential slot was offered to him and he needed 
to suck up to Ronnie and conservatives, which he's been stuck doing ever
since.

I hope, Mr. McGuinness, you weren't insinuating that _Georgie_ could
change his mind, and Al Gore can't?  Maybe you were.

You saw Clinton refuse to suck up to Jackson, and Mario Cuomo; you saw the
control he had of the well-run Democratic convention; do you _really_
think he was "forced" into embracing a *majority*-held position?  "I don't
think so, Tim."


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:12:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug12.205610.16241@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.201356.13906@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
> >>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>>> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for
> >>>> rape and incest, and for the life of the mother.
>
> >>> And for members of his own family.
>
> >> This statement is not correct.
>
> > Your flat statement does nothing to refute what I said.
>
> This statement is not correct.

Actually, it is.  "Refute" means to disprove.  You (incorrectly) said
that "And for members of his own family." was incorrect, but you did
nothing to *prove* it.  Therefore, Dean is correct in stating
> > Your flat statement does nothing to refute what I said.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:06:31 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
margoli@watson.IBM.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>> If you disagree with this *reality*, then please provide documentation
>> showing that third-trimester abortions are taking place for trivial
>> reasons.  Otherwise, admit that your scare tactics are just that.

> I believe there was a case recently (last 5 months or so?) of a
> woman who was accosted for going to an abortion clinic in the
> midwest somewhere....the story was on CNN. But what caught my
> notice was that she testified that she was in for a THIRD
> TRIMESTER ABORTION!!!!! And that my friends is murder by
> mutilation In My Opinion! Abortions must remain available ONLY
> while the fetus is still just a fetus.

Did it ever occur to you that the woman in question just might be
suffering some health complication that puts her at risk if she
continues the pregnancy?  I didn't know that the woman's health
(which is the reason for most third-trimester abortions) was such
a trivial concern.  Btw, the fetus remains a fetus throughout the
pregnancy.  

[--rest of clueless opinionating deleted--]

What a maroon.

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:15:50 GMT

In article <oms9am4@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

>In article <1992Aug16.184201.5867@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu writes:

>> Killing an innocent child can never be done in a humane fashion. 

> Now, what does your statement have to do with abortion?

I don't know, I guess that all depends on the meaning of the 
word ``child''.  

I often wonder why the pro-aborts get so excited about my Clinton quote
on taking responsibility for ``children''.  I guess they apply two 
different meanings to the word ``children'', depending on the context.


"Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do it."
 -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention


Here's my new .sig, pro-aborts, I hope you like it as much as the
old one: ;-)


  "I am opposed to abortion." -- Bill Clinton


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:42:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.224746.15878@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> 	"Dennis Hall" was reportedly sexist and arrogant? I guess that
> being sexist did not endear him to the abundance of female
> pro-choicers here.
> 
> 	I wonder if us pro-choicers can start a boycott of Steve
> Chaney, just as we had done of David J. Rasmussen.
> 
> 	Say, what's happened to DJR? I haven't seen him post in an
> awful long time.

I heard he got a job as recreation director on a Carnivale
cruise ship.  Yup, Ol' David's cruising the Caribbean right
now, sucking down Pina Coladas, clicking and whistling past the
shuffle-board courts, and trying to repress his deep sexual
yearnings for Isaac the bartender.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:45:54 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division

>>>>> Regarding Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush; dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) adds:

dsholtsi> In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
> dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
> plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
> platforms.

dsholtsi> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions
dsholtsi> for rape and incest, and for the life of the mother.

The plank in the Republican party platform calls for banning *all*
abortions.
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:44:36 GMT

> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>>>One year, and Patrick Kaufman and Scotty Dog are vying for the Gold in
>>>the Assholympics. I guess Astro Boy Dan could shuttle down here from
>>>Mars (where he's obviously testing the effects of a thin-air environment 
>>>on his brain) and collect the Bronze. :)  

>>I don't get it.  Just Friday you said I was a lock for the Silver.  If
>>you don't explain this, I'm gonna tell everyone here about your momma!

>Well, the race almost always changes leadership. You guys always seem
>to want to top each other, almost daily. 

>By the way, I was kidding about the anonymous e-mail. You can now say
>you're sorry for hurriedly firing this off along with your whining, to
>my sysadmin.

Chaney, you are insinuating that I, Steve Novak, sent something to your
sysadmin.  I've never sent anything to anyone's sysadmin, much less a
colon amongst t.a. text like you.             

Would you like to clarify?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32676 alt.politics.elections:11074
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: politics
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:35:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Aug20.162941.23743@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

[ stuff about Bush appointing supreme court justices and Bush's and
the Republican Party's mixed messages on abortion-rights  deleted ]
>If elected he may well appoint another such justice. 

Blackmun (I think) has all but said that he will retire during the
next presidential term.

david redish
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:37:37 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Larry Margolis:
>>> = Earlier DJR...er, Doug:

>>> I've never quoted you or anyone else out of context.

>> This is a lie.  You've done so many times.

>That statement [the Clinton quote]  was not taken out of context.  Everyone 
>knows what he's talking about.  

Man, I get fed up with lying sacks of shit.

Find out the meaning of "out of context", then apologize to everyone on
t.a., you raving fool.  


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Badges of Honor
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:41:30 GMT

From this article by (Peter Nyikos):

> Note to all networkers:  You may, if you wish, call me a "Friend of the
>         
> Fetus."  It's a badge I wear proudly, just as I would have worn "Nigger
>         
> Lover" back in the 1960's--and, for one brief shining moment, I actually
>        
> did.
>                                                                            
> Peter Nyikos                                                                    

You know Peter, any friend of fetuses is a friend of mine :-) :-)

And I'll tell you, wearing a sign around your neck that says
<"Former Fetus"> at a protest picket in front of a Right-to-Choose
fund raiser REALLY shakes up the people going in and out.
No, it wasn't me, but I've seen it done, and I wished I'd thought of it
at the time.


Suzanne <Former Fetus> Forgach

<and a friend of them too!>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:35:05 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: L. L. Bean allows anti-choice candidate to use company property
	<1992Aug14.200531.17582@crd.ge.com>

smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
-> Linda Loraine Bean, a candidate for Congress from
-> the First District in Maine, was allowed to use the
-> premises of L. L. Bean, the boot stitching factory
-> to be precise, to film a television commercial for
-> her campaign.  She is adamantly anti-choice, as well
-> as anti-gay rights legislation and anti-gun control.


My understanding is that L. L. Bean did not permit the almost fascist
women to run this ad, but I could have been misinformed.  This needs to
be more throughly researched before any decides to boycott L. L. Bean.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Subject: Re: The "abortion on demand" myth:  anti-choice scare tactics
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Houston, TX
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:18:25

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
 >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

 >> In this country, we do have abortion on demand throughout the term
 >> of pregnancy.

 >My challenge in my previous post, which you deleted, was:

 >Given that there are only 3 doctors in the US that perform 3rd trimester
 >abortions, and then only for medical reasons, it seems obvious to any
 >reasonably intelligent observer that "abortion-on-demand throughout
 >the term of pregnancy" is simply a myth.

 >For you to claim otherwise, you'd have to document for us some
 >third-trimester abortions for other than medical reasons.

 >So, Doug, do you want to address the *reality* of the situation, or are
 >you going to implicitly admit that you're wrong by continuing your scare
 >tactics?

I think Doug wanted to address the *legality* of the situation, which
is what the abortion debate is about.  Would it be OK with you if we
were to legislate the status quo: no third-trimester abortions for other
than (serious) medical reasons?  If not, do you support the "abortion-on-
demand throughout the term of pregnancy" that Doug is concerned about?
--
Roy Johnson, who is not Kibo
Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32121 alt.flame:12137
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: sticky fingers
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:20:35 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

the hallchaney thing, posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> You might hence be surprised to see me abandoning
-> other flame wars, to concentrate on roasting
-> Kaufman.

do you mean you're going to contact his employers like
you contacted kodak to have dan bredy's net access
restricted?

do you mean you're going to start posting as dennis
hall again?

or, are you going to follow-up all of his posts,
cutting out all that he writes and appending your .sig?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 23:20:59 GMT


   My source?  Republicans For Choice claims that 71% support the
side of choice.  Don't you read anything but this group, Doug?  I
suggest that you get your head out of your butt, and faced facts.
There are millions of Americans that dislike abortion, but accept
that it is not proper to FORCE women to give birth.  This is what
is meant by CHOICE.  It is a concept that is clearly outside your
range of understanding.
   As for the figure of 71% given by RFC, I don't believe that it
is far off.  I personally know many individuals who are genuinely
conservative, and they ALL are pro-choice.  Most of them find the
idea of abortion objectionable.  And if the 71% is bullshit, then
it is REPUBLICAN bullshit.  The problem for both the Republicans,
and other intolerant assembledges, is that most Americans are not
children anyomore.  They are capable of doing their own thinking.
They are capable of tolerating the peaceful but different choices
of others.  And most Americans are sick of the fundalmentalism of
the right.  It is NOT conservative.  And it is NOT American.  The
people in this group that not only dislike abortion, but have the
gall to force someone to give birth against her will, represent a
dangerous throwback in the American experiment.  They evoke times
when abortion was mostly illegal and lethal.  These puritans have
no concern for the ghaslty number of women that will die.  People
such as these are repugnant to any true American.
-- 
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished by the blood
of tyrants and of patriots."                    Thomas Jefferson
"Hello? Information?  Would you please give me the home phone of
Pat Buchanan?...Yes.  His address as well, thank you very much."