HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: a Thank You Note to all.
Followup-To: alt.sex,soc.singles
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:12:56 GMT

cj@sgi.com writes:
] In article <1992Nov10.174712.27216@wolves.uucp>, news@wolves.uucp writes:
] |Casting aspersions on NCSU because you are technically out-of-date is
] |hardly conducive to you [sic] (already lacking) net.reputation.
] 
] "G. Wolfe Woodbury" needs a new clue.  Drieux has a healthy,
] robust, & well-established net.reputation.  The state of the
] net's uucp maps has no bearing on drieux's vast fame.
] 
] ---
] cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
] "A moment's thought would have shown him, but a moment is a long 
] time and thought is a painful process." -- A E Housman

It is my hope that we have all had a good learning 
experience about a few things:

1. what may or may not be a 'good forgery'

2. better ways of trying to trace down a problem.

3. the vitality of creative cross posting to get technical
assistance on an issue, that can be informative and useful.

My thank you for the various posts, and email that has
been helpful in this matter.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: DOD wants to be honest?!?
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:57:03 GMT

dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>I never said anything like this.  I've told you before that I've  
>never made this argument.  For the last time, STOP assigning this 
>argument to me.

WHAT?!?  You mean you don't like people attributing positions and 
arguments to you inaccurately??

Imagine that!

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47214 news.admin.misc:286
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
Subject: Clearly NOT a FORGERY
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:22:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: wetware.1992Nov8.192206.27224
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper


>>Path: wetware!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!decwrl!concert!rock!taco!csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu!dsholtsi
>>From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>>Subject: Keegan demonstrates his tendencies towards controlling people
>>Message-ID: <1992Nov7.224500.16255@ncsu.edu>
>>Followup-To: talk.abortion
>>Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
>>Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>>Organization: North Carolina State University
>>References: <1992Nov4.225241.18475@ncsu.edu> <a7h11h#@rpi.edu> <1992Nov5.201043.27862@ncsu.edu> <fgj1cjg@rpi.edu>
>>Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:45:00 GMT
>>Lines: 28
>>
>>


I present as an alternative case, to my former concerns:


Note, if you will that Doug Holtsinger's post here has
a 'correct' "Path:" line that does specify an ncsu.edu
host in it.

It is the absence of that 'data point' in previous
postings that has made me concern for ncsu.edu,
its staff, their users, and their fair reputation.

either:

1. someone is good at their forgeries, and has prudently
been able to inject them with ALMOST the right information -
note that they have the 'rock!taco' part correct.

2. Something at ncsu.edu is a bit amiss, and folks
are injecting their posts directly into the stream.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:43:06 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <nyikos.720825104@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>I do not know whether M. Price is a man or a woman.

M.Price asks:

>>     So why do you refer to me as "he"?

>If I did so, and offended you thereby, I am sorry.  Which personal
>pronoun would you like me to use when referring to you (singular) in
>the third person?

     How about you answer my question?


>Peter Ny.

                                                              MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: DODie's documentation debunked
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:52:20 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->Why hasn't anyone addressed the documentation which I have
->provided showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-
->on-demand?

probably because your "documentation" has been debunked
repeatedly. and really now, given your net.reputation,
you can't expect people to believe what you post.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Who owns sperm?
Date: 14 Nov 1992 19:40:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1e117hINN3oa@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[in analogy to sperm that is "left lying around"]
>>
>>Ah, but it does become the property of the finder if it remains unclaimed
>>for a period of time (usually 30-90 days).  Extrapolating from this legal
>>principal, I suggest that if the man has been out of the loop (with regards
>>to the woman's pregnancy) for a comensureate period of time, then he
>>has forfeitted any rights to control or influence the outcome of the 
>>pregnancy.

>I believe you'll find that, in the case of lost property, where the owner (or
>a legal representative of the owner) can be found and communicated with, 
>notification is necessary before the "clock" can start running on appropriating
>the unclaimed property. So if she doesn't TELL her lover that she intends to
>assume ownership of his sperm, it's not hers.

In California, if thae bank makes an error on your account and deposits 
an extra $1000, and does no correct the error for 90 days the money 
becomes yours.  I paid for a lovely trip to Costa Rica this way.    :-)

							--  Michal
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Question for the Pro-Lifers or Anti-Abortionists or whatever
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:00:49 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov3.211808.4035@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>I am relatively new to this net and while I consider myself pro-life I "try"
>not to force anything down anyones throat (although I'm sure it might seem 
>so at the time I try not to.)

Hi Jeff.  Until very recently I held views which were rather similar to
yours.  I'd like to try to explain to you what changed my mind.

Doesn't it sound unspeakably cruel to bring pressure to bear on an unwilling
woman - maybe your own daughter someday - in an attempt to force her to give
birth?  Pregnancy, and birth are not trivial matters to undergo - birth in
particular can be excruciatingly painful and humilating (I am told) and is
not something to be pressed on anyone against their will.

So why do pro-lifers seek to enact such legislation?  I hope that you are not
interested in doing that, now or ever.  Would you do it in order to save
lives?  The law does not force _us_ to save lives, why should it force
pregnant women?  For example, I've never encountered a pro-lifer saying that
people should be forced to give blood.  And _that_ is only a small jab with a
needle...

>As to your question I assume there will still be people blockading clinics
>or bombingthem(their prefrence) and there will be those like me that
>try and convince people that abortion is wrong(try futilly) and there will

Most people _are_ convinced that abortion is wrong.  Most people find
abortion repugnant, and even those few who do not would like to see it made
unnecessary.  To do that _peacefully_, and _humanely_ means not to do it by
bombing clinics or passing laws.   You might instead support measures which
make birth control and sex education more widely accessible - you could also
support measures which eliminate social injustices, especially those which
impoverish women.  This will bring many benefits - and one them will be a
reduction in abortions which are due to poverty and ignorance.

You can be - _must_ be - truly pro-choice in order to be truly pro-life.  The
right to give birth comes with a right to abort, however unpalatable.  The
right to save life comes with a right not to, however unpalatable.  And
indeed, many women have _no_ choice in the matter - they find that their
circumstances are such that their only moral option is _not_ to save a life
- not today, not this time.  We are not entitled to their reasons.

All the best Jeff, and may all your choices be good ones.

> - Jeff Price

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 19:19:00 GMT
Distribution: na


dod>In article <1992Nov7.205914.13604@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 
dod>I never said that I wanted to define the term `health', much less
dod>that I wanted to define it narrowly.  Before Roe v. Wade, many 
dod>states had abortion laws in which they had given a definition
dod>to the term `health' which was well understood by doctors. 
 
If I had opinions that were so intentionally cruel to such a
large number of women as yours are, I wouldn't want anyone to know 
them either.  Unfortunately for you, you are just to transparent 
to pull off this innocent act.
 
dod>Doug Holtsinger
 
Dan King
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Webster lost in MO
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:52:33 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


Since no one else has posted about this...

William Webster (of Webster decision fame) lost in the race for
Missouri Governor.  Mark down another big loss for the anti-choice
side.

	Mel Carnahan (D)	59% (pro-choice)
	William Webster (R)	41% (pro-life)


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46944 alt.abortion.inequity:4910 soc.men:18788 alt.child-support:3603
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.da
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:52:49 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

> 
> You equate a mug with political slogans on it with a pin-up
> calendar?  You think that if nude photographs consitute sexual
> harassment, so also must the political content of a mug?

The point to which makes pin-ups a negative is their degradation of
the female. A magazine which outrightly describes demeaning of a
gender is guilty of the self-same negativity.

> You just don't get it, do you.

I think he did. It's the same reason that many men's magazines have
been banned from places to accomodate the (rightful) discomfort they
effect on women.

The problem I see with threads like this is that they incite compet-
ition rather than cooperation. It's assinine to to take the position
that one gender doesn't need the other. Everyone has a contribution
to make, and anything which denegrates that is guilty of stupidity.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Organization: .
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:31:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.220133.16130@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>That's typical of the pro-aborts -- they're only interested
>in providing the choice to abort, nevermind about any other 
>choices.  

While not wishing to claim the title of "pro-abort", perhaps you
could explain to all of us just what other choices there are for
a woman who finds herself pregnant and wishes to terminate her
pergnancy without carrying to term?

-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A Brandon Pro-Lifer
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 4 Nov 92 18:53:08 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Just a new experience I thought I'd relate today:
A friend of mine today expressed disappointment when I told her
Clinton won the election because "he's a real jerk" (or something
similiar)... Not having much of an opinion of Clinton's jerkiness,
I simply tried to tell her that it wasn't all bad since Bush lost,
and had he won then abortions would (basically) be banned unless the
mother's life was at stake in all cases (I really am not sure if this was
Bush's exact platform, but it doesn't matter what it was, does it?).

So my friend says "well that's alright, I support a ban on all abortions."

I looked at her with unintentional disbelief and surprise, replying
"I don't."

THEN she proceeded to bulge her eyes and take a few steps back from me.
The girl beside her asked her what was wrong, and my friend said to
her "Brian is pro-abortion!"

To which I replied with disgust "No, I'm not!"

The other girl corrected her, and began assailing her with numerous
pro-choice arguments about cases of rape, incest, blah blah (the usual).

THE POINT was, my friend agreed with every argument the other girl made.
My pro-life friend quickly realized it was unreasonable to ban all abortions.
The only reason she initially said she supported a ban was because she had
really not given the subject much thought past "she consented to pregnancy
when she had sex"...

Just another example of a Brandonite pro-lifers that I happen to know, 
and the reasons she calls herself "pro-life".  She is very bright, 
and was not accepting the pro-choice arguments just because she likes 
to nod her head.  It all made sense to her.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Choice, what a beautiful life....!!
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:16:27 GMT

David Allen Markley <dm3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>You're happy that a minority of people (< 43%) in the United States have
>chosen an incompetent draft-dodging tax and spend extreme liberal?

Yes.

>OK. Just wanted to be clear on this.

Now you are.

>++David

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:01:56 GMT

i wonder why peter simply hasn't mailed adrienne his
apology and asked her to post it.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: A RISK IS A RISK IS A RISK....
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:01:25 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <ra_134b@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>>This analogy fails because no person is intentionally killed during 
>>>a medical procedure, other than abortion.
>>
>>This statement is not correct.

>How about this one, then:

>	No individuated human organism is deliberately and needlessly killed 
>	during a medical procedure, other than post-viability abortion

This is not correct.

1.  You have not yet shown a case of a post-viability abortion where
    a <blahblah> is "deliberately and needlessly killed".  Unless you
    can _show_ that such a thing has happened, I am as justified in
    answering "Mayan human sacrifice" as you are in asking the question.

2.  Often, a <blahblah> may be "deliberately and needlessly killed"
    to, say, obtain a kidney for transplant.  There is no reason why
    a brain-dead accident victim could not be kept alive indefinitely
    with mechanical assistance AFTER organs are removed.

>??? You have yet to answer THAT one, Cathi, 

Because it hasn't been _asked_, Darcy.  Even _you_ didn't ask a question
there, just made an assertion and then began screaming that I hadn't,
somehow, answered it before you posted it.

But just to set your mind at ease, Darcy: the output voltage of a
difference amplifier.

There.  There's an answer to a question that no one on the net has,
to my knowledge, asked yet.

>amidst all your empty bluster 
>about treating abortion "like any other medical procedure". And if you think
>my question is irrelevant or contrived, consider that "do no harm" is a
>central part of the Hippocratic Oath.

It's now answered.  Do you have anything else to rant about now?

>								- Kevin

                       -rocker
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I'm back, did I miss anything?
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:41:13 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov5.231822.15046@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes ...
>>After a very relaxing trip and a wonderful election, I'm back.
>>Thankfully, SFO managed to avoid a major shaker while I was out there.
>
>Better luck next time ...

It's not a question of luck...  Having lived in the Bay Area for five
years, including three earthquakes (6.1 in Morgan Hill, 1983), I'm
perfectly happy to have missed any big ones, especially since I left
SFO the day before the 1989 quake.

SJM
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:04:00 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <adams.720977803@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Any bill can be repealed...you won't have pro-choice leaders forever.  The
>price of liberty is eternal vigilance...

Can someone explain to me the status of FOCA?  Is it just a bill?  I thought
it was put to referendum - does this not give it a higher status?  How does
Roe vs Wade fit into this picture?

Please forgive my ignorance and all - but the only news in english that I get
here is the Irish papers and the BBC world service, neither of which have said
anything about FOCA that I know about.

Also, I have come to think that the proper place to affirm the right to
abortion is in a constitution - for precisely the reason that Steve gives
above.  You wouldn't want other basic freedoms to be placed at the whim of a
government would you?  Does anyone else agree?

> -Steve

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD)
Subject: Re: The answer!!!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University
Distribution:  world
Date:  7 NOV 92 14:40:34    

In article <1992Nov5.133158.8441@iscsvax.uni.edu>, clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes...
>If you agree what is with the flames?  God owns the world and is the CREATOR 

God owns the world?  He needs a better caretaker then.

>or all life.  Don't you think he had a reason for a baby.  We only go through

Do you believe that God personally watches over each and every last 
conception?  If so, why do fertilised eggs sometimes fail to implant, 
and why are there miscarriages and stillbirths?  Why does your god allow 
some women to die when giving birth?

>the process, but God gives the life.  The world needs Jesus.  That is a given. 

That is not a given.  Atheists do not need Jesus.
Moslems do not need Jesus.  Buddists do not need Jesus.  Many, many cults 
world-wide that have nothing to do with Jesus.  Are you arrogant enough to 
say that you are absolutely, positively right and they are all wrong?

I personally think that the Earth Goddess is getting irate with us and we 
had best prepare the sacrifices soon.  It may already be too late.

>If our 'freedom' as we define it goes against God's creative power, We DO have
>a problem.  Don't you agree?

Nope, I don't agree.  Then again, why should I agree with your god?

Lynn
  _____      The Darwin fish
\/    o\
/\_____/
  bb bb
I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:05:34 GMT

<1992Nov03.052939.28813@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
><1992Oct29.084242.24379@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>Again, since you state "by Storga's atheistic standards..." I assume that
>>you believe I have some special Atheistic standards that deviate from the
>>norm significantly.  Please explain what they are, or just confirm that
>>you did not mean that I had any special standards.
>
>Presumably, you have higher standards, since you can't resort on an appeal
>to the almighty, or invoke "And then a miracle occurs" in a proof.  :-)

Apparently "a miracle" occured:  Mr Nyikos has not responded to any of my
posts in days.  Maybe he actually has work to do....  Nah!


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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.
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Quote from Clement of Alexandria (Second Century)
Date: 11 Nov 92 05:01:06 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

" . . . for those who conceal sexual wantonness by taking
stimulating drugs to bring on an abortion wholly lose their
humanity along with the fetus."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:16:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.031537.26431@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.233500.17000@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> In article <d9k1p_b@rpi.edu> 
>> {noise}
>> 
>> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> 
>> >> You might
>> >> be interested to know that the Western ethic against infanticide
>> >> gained its roots from early Judeo-Christian thought.  
>>
>> {noise} 
>> 
>
>Leaving aside the quibble above, I just note that Reverend Doug
>is harping on religion again.  I didn't see the previous posting,
>but it looks like it was Reverend Doug who borught up religion
>first here, based on the phrase "You migh tbe interested to know."

Um, actually, religion was brought up much earlier in the thread, by
Jeffrey L. Sue: 

	"Look, for me this is not an issue rooted in religious beliefs."
					<1992Nov4.161050.10605@ncsa.uiuc.edu>

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47133 alt.abortion.inequity:4942 soc.women:19059 soc.men:18865 alt.feminism:3929