HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Who Framed Baby Herman?  (Was: All Caps Implications)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:18:58 GMT

kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

> Let me go put on my tutu, Steve, and I'll play clue-fairy for you today.

...and...

> Now, hang on for a minute while I change out of this silly pink thing...

...and...

> Damm.  Now I've gotta put that tutu back on again.

Gee, Keith, you'd look a lot better if you shaved your legs.  You'd fit
right in with the bike racers too!!! :-)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
T.S.A.K.C.   /  "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" - Art Hoppe
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a question for gaylord (re: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer)
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:21:36 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Apr7.185312.23197@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu writes:
>In article <19862@castle.ed.ac.uk>, tommyk@castle.ed.ac.uk (T Kelly) writes:
>|> In article <1992Apr6.171806.12636@crd.ge.com> keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>|> 
>|> >-> >name one law that forces a belief.
>|> 
>|> In the USA today, there is a law against most forms of killing of persons.
>|> That law is based on a belief that it is somehow "wrong" or "undesirable"
>|> for people to go around killing other people.
>|>
>
>Thus, the belief the law tries to codify is that 
>under certian conditions, it is wrong for people to kill one another.


Uhu.  As I said, there is a law against *MOST* forms of killing of persons"

>The laws do not force anyone to act in any fashion. They simply state
>the penalties that will be incurred if an individual takes an action
>that is prohibited by the law. 

True of course.  As you will see from the rest of my post - that is what I 
meant. (see the 4th and 5th paragraphs of my post).

>Do the laws that restrict speed limits, keep you from speeding, or
>is it the consequences that occur if you get caught that keep you
>from doing it?

It's the consequences.

>I may disagree with a law (the method), but not the belief 
>behind it. 

Why can't I disagree with the belief?

If I believe that it is OK for me to kill anyone, and the murder law
is based on a belief that it is NOT OK to kill anyone, surely I 
disagre with the belief behind the law?

tk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:58:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.013917.279@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>here we go:
>A large portion of women who have abortions are promiscuous and/or
>sleep around and/or are sluts. You're in college. Look around you.
>Why is it that every relationship has to have sex????? I'm not
>against sex in relationships, but if you have it in every one
>(whether that be 2 or 100), you're a slut.


But, it's a *grand* idea to force these sluts, these sleeparounds, these
promiscuous people to become PARENTS isn't it?  

Parenthood as punishment.  What a wonderful, wholesome, family-strenghtening
ideal!

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 08:43:48 GMT

<1992Apr11.183238.9244@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) said:
><1992Apr7.002431.20509@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Apr2.054719.10599@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) said:
...
>>As for "reasoned justice"...  this situation doesn't
>>quite fit into our current legal system.  However, we can mimic the system
>>to a degree.  We can use a "jury of his peers" to determine "guilt" or
>>"innocence".  In fact, we have used a jury of his peers.  We have all
>>examined the evidence and the overwhelming "verdict" is:  GUILTY.
>
>What about jury selection? What about rules of evidence? What about adequate
>representation? What about swearing oaths? What about striking immaterial or 
>irrelevant evidence? What about holding a closed session to discuss delicate 
>matters? What about controlling publicity and carefully choosing venue? What
>about detailed instructions to the jury?

What about them?  I said we could mimic the system to a degree.  I then
defined that degree.  I don't for a moment believe we could approximate
our judicial system on the net.

>If this was supposed to be a court, I think it's one dominated by large
>jumping marsupials indigenous to Australia, if you get my meaning...

We should all adjourn for a Fosters?  Alright!  You buy the first round,
I'll buy the second.

>>No one is lynching him - his account hasn't been removed, there is no
>>boycott.  He was judged by the masses on the net based on the evidence
>>supplied: his claim of ethical behaviour and the direct contradiction
>>enclosed in his mail.  We are all a little wiser now.
>
>We were ALREADY wise before the breach. The only thing that changed was that
>people's voyeuristic/prurient inclinations were indulged, 

Yeah, and it was good for us all.

>                                                          and emotions were
>encouraged to rage beyond the bounds of objective reason. For some reason,
>most people posting to this group apparently see this as a Good Thing. Go 
>figure...

Well it seems that you have more of a problem with it then K Welch ever
did.  He apologized and we were willing to drop it in quick order, except
for your defense which kept things going for some time now.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

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: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
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: Sun, 12 Apr 92 19:05:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.165452.17782@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) says:
>
>>H******** when refering to pro-choicers too.  Usually we'll hear about the
>>guiding Christian influence that established this great country, and how
>>the evil pro-choicers are practicing a genocide of the "unborn".
>>Conveniently they forget what their guiding Christian influence did to the
>>American Indian, as in - near complete genocide of the indigenous
>>population on the basis of "heathenism".  The plight of the American
>>Indian is swept under the rug while these "caring folk" go off to Romania
>>to adopt children, send millions of dollars to Ethiopia, send millions fo
>>dollars to Israel, send food and clothing to Russia, etc.
>>
>>David Rasmussin once had the gall to claim that there were never any mass
>>geneocides carried out by a western democracy.  How soon we forget...
>>
>>
>
>Gordon.......................
>
>don't blaim past mis-justices on a certain group. You have no
>earthly idea what your ancestors did....so stop being "more-
>poltically-correct-then-you." BTW, what the hell are you doing
>to prevent world hunger?

Yea, sheesh, Gordon.  Just because the Catholic Church "did" the Spanish
Inquisition is *NO* reason to go around broadcasting that fact.  Just because
the early american settlers slaughtered the American Indian is *NO* reason to
say that they actually MURDERED any of them.

Just because Jeffrey Dahmer had all those body parts in his apartment is *NO*
reason to believe that he might have had anything to do with their untimely
demise...

Just because we have videotape of the Rodney King beating is *NO* reason to 
believe that the officers involved "actually did anything".

War is Peace.  Knowledge is Ignorance.  The Computer is your Friend.

(Note:  Insert as many smilies as needed to understand that this isn't a slam
against Gordon, or the respondent.  It's a slam against PC people who are
trying to sound like they're not PC...)
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:50:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Apr15.175027.22088
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>gee Ron.....your generation has done a whole fuckin' lot to
>make the world a better place. Now I have to deal with drugs,
>abortions, teenage pregnancies, etc.

As Yogi Berra once said, "It's like deja vu all over again."
Geez, I remember wailing in about the same tone of voice about
war, social injustice, pollution, etc.

Matthew, here's a free clue.  Every generation _thinks_ that it
invented a social conscience.  Every generation rails against the
sins of their elders.

Of course, with you being too young to drink in Minnesota, I wouldn't
expect much in the way of a historical perspective...

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
             /  "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything."
T.S.A.K.C.   /                                      -- Mark Twain
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:10:14 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

Keith I need to borrow the tutu and wand please, or do you have a more
powerful instrument than the wand?

>>Let's get something straight, Mr. Brawley.  The Nazis were pro-death on a
>>scale far exceeding anything any of us could imagine.  Using them in any
>>pro-life/pro-choice argument has the effect of watering down their impact
>>on our Jewish friends.  If you can't figure that out, shut the hell up, head
>>for the library and do some reading.

>"...far exceeding anything any of us could imagine."  Abortion has taken the
>lives of 30,000,000+ children.  So abortionists actually have to their
>credit more deaths toll than the holocaust.  Appears your first statement
>was wrong.

You really are Clueless, aren't you?

*******XXXXXXX**********  .... damn, the wand isn't doing the trick...

Nora, and anyone else, sorry I had to bring this up again...

Listen up Kevin, This Nazi business involves a hell of a lot more than
just the murder of 6,000,000+ people. Go read. They did not value human
life at all. I've been to Dachau, seen the barracks, seen the other
items they've restored. It's grisly. This was an operation that destroyed
the humanity of those captured. There is a HUGE difference between what
happened there and an abortion, which, even if you consider it to be
murder, is rather painless compared to the months of torture and suffering
imposed on these people that died.

I cannot believe you could even equate the two in your mind, even if
it is twisted. Charles Manson probably could, however...

>You second statement is opinion and nothing more.  I think murdering humans
>is a tragedy regardless of race, creed, color and age.

See above....

As for murdering, that is a tragedy that I disagree with. Go check your
definition of murder, I think you'll find it means something other than
what you have in mind.

>My personal library of the plight of the Jewish people would rival any
>average library.  Your callous assumptions aside, I have the greatest
>respect and admiration for the Jewish people.  And even more so for those
>courageous ones who have worked to forge a homeland out of adversity.

You're the callous individual, Kevin. I don't think you have any compassion
at all. As for your personal library, that is unprovable to anyone here
so don't mention it. After all, owning a book is far different than
reading and comprehending it. Illustrate that you've read and interpreted
something from a variety of sources, then your above claim will actually
mean something.

Ron
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: AntiAbortion as AntiChristian(crap)
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:08:56 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  <1992Apr8.172018.27693@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> >In <1992Mar23.193446.5347@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com
> >   (drieux, just drieux) explains to Joy Haftel: >
>
> >>1. every time that the antiAbortionists have been
> >>asked to defend their assertion of a 'christian'
> >>linkage on the abortion discussion they have
> >>proceded to show all that you attribute to blasphemy!
> >>
> >>2. They Procede to make Profane that which is DIVINE
> >>in all of their efforts to form a 'biblical' defesne.
> >>That to me shows a COMPLETE CONTEMPT for the bible
> >>and the God of the Bible.
>
> Okay, I can handle this one rather easily. Drieux,... no, I don't like
> Drieux, it's too hard to spell. I'll call you Bob.

Steve - no, that's too hard to type; I'll call you dickweed.

> We do not blaspheme the holy scriptures as you say.

You do, *exactly* as he says.

>    The bible tells us:
> 1) life in all forms is sacred
> 2) thou shalt not kill but to defend your life or your neighbours from
>    certain death

No, it says "Thou shalt not murder."

> Now, how do these biblical message relate to abortion?

They don't.  By twisting the bible to suit your own beliefs, you
are commiting blasphemy.  I don't object to blasphemy, since it's a
victimless crime - but that *is* what you're doing.

> Anyways Bob, please don't attempt to tell us that we defame the bible's
> word, and that we hold "contempt" for God's message. You clearly don't know
> a thing about us or our teachings.

He appears to know it better than you, dickweed.  If you want to argue
against abortion because of your own beliefs, that's fine.  If you try
to claim that the bible says anything about abortion, you're wrong.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 20:23:37 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Apr14.223223.18853@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>   Heh, I am not typical
>      anti-choice
>   Choice is great - you just can't choose abortion. Choose life 8)

There is no possible way that this statement could come from a real
live thinking person.  It just is to damn stupid.

Right now in talk.abortion we have two pro-lifers pretending to be
pro-choice.  They post real stupid pro-choice arguments in an attempt
to make the pro-choice side look bad.  Unfortunately for them, it hasn't
worked because they end up getting flamed by real pro-choicers that
can see their asinine arguments for what they are.  The only
explanation for someone to post such a stupid argument as that above is
that it must be a pro-choicers posting crap like this to make the
pro-life side look stupid.  So come on Steve, who are you really?


>aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl


Dan King
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: b r a w l e y withdraws? (was Re: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Date: 17 Apr 92 09:13:49 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  <1992Apr17.064114.13018@liebe.uucp>  kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>
> Here is a prime example of the difference between the Life/Choice
> sides of the issue.  I have proven my points time and again with
> LOGIC.  This post is what I get in response.

You wouldn't know logic if it sat on your face and shat in your mouth.

> "scream their opinion" as in "promote their ill-conceived ideas"
> "shut others out" as in "attempting to rid the group of people who disagree"

What we have here is a failure to communicate.  See, we thought that you
meant "scream their opinion" as in "scream their opinion", and "shut others
out" as in "shut others out" - what the anti-abortionists do outside
clinics.

> telling me it would be better if I didn't post any more.

Well, it would be better if you went off and learned some logic before
posting - perhaps you wouldn't come off as a fool quite so often.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:30:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.125259.22918@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca 
(Steve Franklin) writes:
}           ...but there will be thousands and thousands and thousands 
}of alive babies to show for it.
}   SOunds like a good trade to me

Far out [I can use hippie talk, cause I was one] a TRADER.  Thousands and
thousands...3000?  50000? 700000?  How many will we be able to show for
it?  A figure, if you please.  While you're at it, just how many dead
fetuses does it take to equal one dead woman?  Sounds kind of disgusting
to me.  I'd rather not trade at all.  I'd rather not go back to the
coathangers and the back alleys, I've lived through that era once.
I don't suppose you'd be in favor of ending abortion WITHOUT involving
cops and courts and politicians and what-have-you.  Are you interested
in eliminating an "evil," or just picking the lesser of the two (lesser
to you, I might add)?
 

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
    Don't put all your spilt milk in one basket, you might cry over it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
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: Tue, 14 Apr 92 23:21:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.233846.13880@csusac.csus.edu> cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:

Go home, Chaney.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Mr. President)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:50:21 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Regard
>Steve

>>   In any case, my point is : Not every method of birth control is
>>ok, or 100% effective. Try abstinence. Great way to end STD's, 
>>abortions, or any concerns about that missed period. 

>Wow, what a great Idea.  I'm just going to scurry on home and tell my partner
>of 9 years that from now on, it's abstinence for us!  I'm sure he'll 
>thank you for the wonderful tip.

And bipity-bopity-booo.  

Note how Steve says:  "Try abstinence."  Note how there is the word TRY in
there.  Note how the pro-choice side twists the wording around so that
Steve ACTUALLY says:  "Abstinence is for everyone, including me."

Get a grip, Ad.  Grab some down time.  Steve isn't forcing abstinence on you.
But you cannot disagree that it is the best form of contraception and that
it is 100% effective in preventing the spread of sexual diseases.

You know, not having sex does not mean isolation.  It just means not having
intercourse.  Be as physical as you want.  Have sex if you want.  But realize
and assume all the consequences of your actions.  Be abstinent if you want.
But if you want a sure way to avoid pregnancy and the spread of disease, 
abstinence is the best method.

>Adrienne Regard

welch

--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
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: Fri, 17 Apr 92 02:07:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.225741.25161@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>>But then again, that's why so many men like myself are fighting for a 
>>woman's right to choose her repoductive destiny, while many like 
>>yourself are fighting against it.
>
>The problem is your nearsighted inability to see the REAL issue.  If the
>fetus is human, it's murder.  If the fetus isn't human, then it doesn't 
>matter at all.  It's the ONLY issue.

Why do I always get that strange "they're not telling the entire truth" feeling
whenever anybody starts talking about the "ONLY" issue???
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, Linda, and Larry.  Damm Proud Of It, And FWA!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:17:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.220151.5322@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman):
>> Hi everybody,
>> 
>> I went to the "We Won't Go Back" march yesterday, and I had a terrific
>> time. It was quite incredible. I have never seen so many folks in one
>> place at once. The speakers were inspiring, I met lots of friendly
>> people, and I am more dedicated to the cause than ever.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Big Al  
>
>
>Yeah, you're grinning now, but yesterday's crowd of 1/4 million does not
>even come _close_ to the 1.5 million that died of abortion last year.
>
>
>Yup, those of us defending them are mored dedicated than ever too.
>
>
>Suzanne.

 1/4 million?  All news accounts I have heard so far put the LOW estimates
 at 1/2 million and range as high as 1 million.

 And 1.5 million *people* died of abortion?  NOT!  

 Or are you implying, that the of the 1/2 to 1 million people at the 
 Pro-Choice rally, 1/4 to 1/2 of them were pregnant?  :->
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.