HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Peter Goofs (was Re: You Should Have Known I'd Do This (to Galen et. al.))
Keywords: hang glider, rights, harness, viable
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:42:32 GMT

In article <nyikos.716154519@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

A bunch of stuff that I can't make heads nor tails of, except that
I think it has something to do with hang gliding and from the 
news.froup name I think it somehow relates to abortion.  Darned
if I can figure out how, though.  Besides, Peter, I know you are 
lying and making this whole thing up about how you speak for my
hang glider because you couldn't.  No one could.  At this very time
I do not own a hang glider.  Neener neener.  Talk all you want, 
but if you think you are speaking for my hang glider you are
either seriously deluded or mistaken.

}	Your hang glider further informs you that, should you make 
}yourself potentially viable by wearing a parachute, it will not 
}expel you unless you endanger its health, as for example if you
}attempt to engage an eagle in a duel. 

}	Should you attempt such a foolish thing, your hang glider
}reserves the right to expel you with such force as to knock you
}unconscious and render your parachute's automatic opening
}mechanism inoperable.

Furthermore, parachutes are designed to carry both the hang
glider and the pilot to earth.  It is rare, if not unheard of,
for a pilot to disengage from the hang glider before throwing
or activating the 'chute.  Also, I know of no "automatic opening
mechanisms" currently used by any hang glider pilot.  (There is
a balistic style of 'chute, but it is quite unlike any of the 
altitude devices sometimes found on skydivers, who do sometimes 
employ AADs, I believe they are called.)

Peter, you really ought to get at least these simple bumps straightened
out before you post.  I think you mentioned that a close friend or
relative of yours was a pilot.  A simple conversation could
have covered a bunch of these things.  I would also suggest that 
you do a lot more study should you yourself ever get the desire
to commit avaition...
--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:09:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.004200.28459@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <SCOTTS.92Sep5142954@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>, by scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier):
>> Suzie, we've been through this before.  Gay men do not hate women.  We
>> are just not sexually attracted to them.  Get it? 
>Since so many gays are pro-abortion, and since abortion is so harmful to respect
>for women and for mothers, (not to mention also physically harmful to them), a case
>can be made that generally as a group, they do hate women.    There is only the
>occasional exception.
Unbelievable. Let's examine the logic here:
1) So many gays are pro-abortion. (Unsubstantiated premise).
2) Abortion is harmful to respect for women and for mothers. (Unsubstantiated
premise.)
3) Abortion is physically harmful to women. (Unsubstantiated premise)
4) Therefore gays as a group hate women.(non sequiter)

If this logic were true, we would be forced to conclude that anyone who
is pro-abortion hates women. I'm not sure who SF considers to be pro-abortion.
Conservatively, we would conclude that Gordon Storga hates women.

However, I find it improbable that most gays are pro-abortion in
the sense that Gordon Storga is. Therefore, let us be charitable and
assume that Ms. Forgach means what we normally refer to as pro-choice.
Therefore we come up with the funny conclusion that Adrienne Regard,
Susan Garvin, rocker, and Kathi Mills hate women. (Must be because
they're straight and won't have sex with them.) In fact, a very
large number of women in this country seem to hate women by
Ms. Forgach's definition.

Questionable logic indeed, Ms. Forgach.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Date: 5 Sep 92 10:31:15 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Nyikos
>> Adrienne Regard

>>You would feel quite free to stake a WOMAN's life on it, but funny thing,
>>your OWN life doesn't fit into the equation.  Pretty cheap rhetoric, Peter.

>Who said anything about staking her life on it?  I wish you, who know
>my views by now, would stop misleading readers about what they are.

Not misleading.  I believe Adrienne realizes that beinng alive is more than
simply having a heartbeat.

-- 
"We have seen pictures, where there are canals, we believe, and water.  If 
there's water, that means there's oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can 
breathe." - Dan Quayle, talking about Mars.
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR MOTHERS (Case 1)
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: Wed, 16 Sep 92 03:44:43 GMT

In article <nyikos.716593107@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

1)  Where is this from?

2)  Salene abortions are no longer performed.  Is there a point to all this?
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 16:46:41 GMT

In <1992Sep5.000145.17464@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:


>[Peter mentioned that t.r people don't want cross-posts, and I'd like to
>apologize for this one.  It' short, simple, and followups have been set
>back to t.a, so hopefully you won't be seeing too much of it.  Sorry.]

>In article <nyikos.715613094@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>[Peter apologizes, and attempts to show how this stupid thing is "revelant" to
>both t.a, and t.r.  Who does he think he is kidding? 

I'm not trying to kid anyone.  I'm very serious, and future posts will
make this even clearer.  Some of them will be to talk.rape alone, but 
I will let people on talk.abortion know about them.


> And what the hell does
>"forced abortion" have to do with Peter trying to smear "Pro-Choicers" as evil
>satanic voodoo docters anyway?]

I haven't used the words "satanic" [except in a context having nothing to
do with abortion] or "voodoo".  You must have me confused
with someone else.

>>
>>>>> >What ARE you going on about?  How many women decide at the last moment
>>>>> >that they have changed their mind and are forcibly held to the table
>>>>> >while the doctor performs the abortion?
>>
>>A scenario reminiscent of some rapes.  I believe it is generally the case
>>that the woman has the right to change her mind at any point before
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>intercourse, and that if the man does not comply, it is rape.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Sorry, Peter, but you lose.  The woman (and the man involved) have the right
>to say, "No", or "Stop" AT ANY TIME.  I almost feel sorry for a man who thinks
>that just becuase he and his ___ are having intercourse that she doesn't have
>the right to say no.

I was speaking of legal rights, and did not want to go out on a limb and
be charged with "speculation" by a dozen or so pit bulls on talk.abortion.

Morally I am with you 100%, but do not know whether any state would regard
refusal to stop in the middle of previously consensual intercourse as 
felony rape.  Does anyone know what the situation is?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mimir@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 07:32:51 GMT

In article
<nyikos.715901588@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter
Nyikos) writes:  
>  
>So does my statement that I am completely in the dark as to why Wicca 
>is not a subset of the feminist movement.  Could you please enlighten me? 

 How about because Wicca predates the Feminist movement by a minimum of 20
years and was founded (publically) by a man, not a woman? Gerald Gardner
was hardly a feminist and Wicca is not a sub-set of anything other than
the set called "Religions."

Wassail,
Grendel, Gardnerian Initiate, New York Line

                           mimir@u.washington.edu
    /\  /\       +----------------------------------------+
   /__\/__\      | "I know that I hung on the windy tree  |          |
  /\  /\  /\     |  all of nights nine, wounded by Gar,   |          |
 /__\/__\/__\    |   given to Odhinn, myself to myself,   |          |
    /\  /\       | upon that tree of which none can tell  |          |
   /__\/__\      |      from what root it rises."         |    ______|______
                 +----------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 16:03:58 GMT

In <1992Sep5.144124.4731@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>[re: will steeves]
>-> In fact, I wrote of him in soc.men that he is
>-> exactly the kind of person I am glad is involved in
>-> the abortion debate.  I feel the same way about
>-> "Jammer Jim" Miller and Elizabeth Bartley.

>of course you do, silly. they're all anti-choicers who
>agree with you.

I've got news for you, buster.  If you call everyone who does
not agree with your ideologically pure position of abortion for
any reason, at any time up to birth "anti-choice", then you 
are slurring right around 90% of the people in this country, 
including all 9 Supreme Court Justices, Bill Clinton, ...

And I do disagree with both Jim and Elizabeth about when, and 
why, abortion should be allowed, barring direct threat to the
life of the morther, or a number of carefully circumscribed
circumstances.

[Could it be that you spend too much time peering through the
wrong ends of binoculars and telescopes?]

  Jim puts the cutoff point
at viability (or is it 3rd trimester?), 
and so does Elizabeth.  I put it at 6 weeks, though I am
open to persuasion about moving it up to 8 weeks, or
down to conception.

I'm not sure of where Will Steeves would put it, maybe at birth.

BTW would you also classify Brian McBean as "anti-choice"?  He is
another person who fits my description.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.IBM.com>
Subject: Nyikos' amnesia
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 03:56:09 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  <1992Sep08.032047.23921@watson.ibm.com>  Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> In  <nyikos.715732551@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter
> >
> > Sorry, missed them all. On which thread should I have looked?
>
> On talk.abortion.  What the subject line was, I have no idea; it rarely
> relates to what's being discussed.  But, wasn't it *you* that I was
> responding to?  I could swear that it was you that objected to the
> data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, so I responded saying "Perhaps
> you'll like one of these [sources] better".  Didn't you say that you
> were looking in to them?

I was right.  I gave you a number of unbiased sources, and you
acknowledged seeing them:

In <1992Aug27.191315.36800@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis
<margoli@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
# It's not clear that you're interested in learning, if you automatically
# dismiss facts because you don't like the source.  Perhaps you'll like
# one of these sources better.

In  <nyikos.715300439@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
% Thank you.  I saved the info you listed below, although the first
% table is extremely suspect, and there's nothing to go on.  But I will
% study the rest of the info very carefully.

How do you reconcile "missed them all" with "I will study [it] carefully" ???

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Is Peter going to be enrolling at NCSU? (Was: Badges of Honor)
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:12:30 CDT

In article <nyikos.716336496@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>
>My point was simply that my mother's freedom to do what she normally
>did was essentially untouched by the pregnancy.  Granted, the birth
>and its aftermath did tie her down considerably, but my brother who
>was born on the day in question has repaid his "debt" to my mother
>many times over.
>
How sweet. I suppose it has never occurred to you that not 
all women who experience pregnancy are as fortunate as your 
mother.  For most women, pregnancy involves some compromise
in normal activity levels.  For others, it's profoundly
disabling in the short term.  For some of those, it's also
profoundly disabling in the long term.  For some, there is
no long term.  

Perhaps it is our inability to stifle the visible effects
of this difficult life process in the manner that Peter's
mother did that has incurred our disfavor in his eyes.
We just don't live up to Mom's standards.

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:26:40 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <4efqWEC00iUx42F1NT@andrew.cmu.edu> ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Karl Witte) writes:
>Notes on a few disingenuous arguments from Mark Ira Kaufman:

[deletia] 

>If you take your point of view, every law and every regulation and every
>suggestion anyone has every passed or made is a slap at poor people. 

But Erik, we must consider that part of Cough Boy's reasoning. 

I mean, to save the hungry and the poor, we have to legalize theft.
You know - go into a store and take out the food they need, to keep
them from starving. 

Of course, we'd have to do the same across the entire economic
spectrum - forcible redistribution of corporate and individual money,
to help the poor and hungry. 

All of which is known as the fundaments of economic Socialism. 

>Stop dodging the issue.  Nothing can ever be totally equitable, but
>that's the price you pay for living in a free society.  The simple fact
>is, nobody has to have an abortion.  There are alternatives all along
>the way, starting even before conception with the purchase of a condom
>or a spermicidal jelly or anything else.

Aw, come on, Erik. Be more open-minded to the implications of
Kaufmeister's arguments. By his standards, we need socialism in
America. 

I'm glad we don't go by Kaufmeister's standards. I'm a die-hard
Capitalist. 

-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 21:01:01 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<Sep14.171054.18972@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
><1992Sep12.170820.26844@crd.ge.com>, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> ->      Nobody on the pro-life side (that I know of)
>|> -> proposes to enact state controls over the womb.
>|> 
>|> are you suggesting that you know of no single
>|> anti-choicer who supports legislation to prohibit or
>|> restrict abortion?
>|> 
>|> please.
>|> 
>|> mosogyny is one thing; out-and-out lying is another.
>
>	Did you read the whole article, or just that one line?  I myself would
>outlaw most abortions, by which I mean the intentional or criminally negligent
>killing of an unborn child.  This does not mean I wish to control the mother's
>womb.  As far as I'm concerned, she can remove the child from her womb at her
>pleasure provided she does not kill it.

Cool.  So Steve Arnold is pro-abortion, since no abortion ever kills an
"unborn child".  Glad to hear it.  "You know, I'm against incest any time
it involves people who are related."  It sounds like Quayle-speak.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and 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.
From: katy@clipper.ingr.com (Katy Yanda)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dan King for Congress!
Summary: equal rights....yeah!
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:19:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: not if you've seen my house!

In article <1992Sep8.014809.5957@nas.nasa.gov>, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
> 
> sg>In article <Bu392u.77x.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> sg>I don't think Dan can run for congress.  After all, he's the
> sg>monarch of a different country.  Can people simultaneously
> sg>rule Canada, Coyote California, most of Pennsylvania and
> sg>Texas and other states and also be elected to congress?
> 
> Don't really see why not.
> 
> sg>Speaking of that, when Scott and I were in Houston last month,
> sg>we saw lots of billboards for "Microsurgical Vasectomy
> sg>Reversal," which made us start thinking about reversible
> sg>sterilization again, and made me realize that I'm still in
> sg>prison.  I want out.
> 
> I thought Scott and I worked that out ions ago.  Come on Scott,
> I gave into every last one of your demands:  Let My People Go.
> 
> Since the Microsurgical Vasectomy idea has come up, and I kind
> of like the subject heading, why not mandate vasectomys?  You
> know if the government can determine what your gonna do with 
> your body, why can't they force young males to get vasectomys?
> This would solve the problem of un-wanted pregnancy and 
> abortions.  The male would be allowed to get the Microsurgical 
> Vasectomy once he has written approval from his wife or SO.
> So all you pro-lifers who want governmental involvement in 
> women's bodies, would you also allow it in men?
> 
> Dan King

*I* like this idea...

Just think of all those wild oats being sown, but not reaped!

But I think it should be limited to 2 children, then back to
vasectomy. I mean some guys are real smooth talkers and could
rack up a number of children after the reversal (doesn't
happen now? hah!)....them being the non-supporting kind of
person.

Katy

....childless by choice....
-- 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36488 alt.abortion.inequity:3729
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:10:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not bloodly likely.

In article <1992Sep08.051249.41378@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep7.185405.21784@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep3.191051.13478@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com write
>> >In article <1992Sep3.152443.26511@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John St
>> ># The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman can
>> ># have babies without the kindness of a man.
>> >
>> >You didn't really mean to write this, did you?
>>
>> >I'll pay you $5.00 if you post it to talk.rape.
>>
>> Why would I post this to talk.rape, when it has no relationship to rape
>> at all?
>>
>> Why do you think this would offend anybody, as it is the literal truth?
>
>Do you believe that if a man rapes a woman and a child results, that the
>man performed an act of kindness?

This is pure, vintage MARGOLIS.  As any body can see, I made no reference
to rape at all.

If a woman bears a child, then steals her away from her father, is
this an act of kindness?

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

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Is Peter going to be enrolling at NCSU? (Was: Badges of Honor)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:43:56 GMT

In article <nyikos.716074092@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Elizabeth thought the umbilical cord was a part of the mother's body.

Wrong.  I thought that the umbilical cord *connected* to the mother's
body, and if the part of the mother's body it connects to was
surgically removed, the fetus would die.

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

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: There is no bottom to this pit -- is there?
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:21:48 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
# I've never harassed a woman for being pregnant.  I usually congratulate them
# for achieving it.

Do you also congratulate men for successful insemination?

``Damn fine work there, Billy Joe.  I say I gots to admire that.''

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Doug Holsinger: Anti-Semite?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:59:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.140235.202730@uctvax.uct.ac.za> wnljam01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
> 
> Any Jew who knows the Bible will remeber that King David refers to the Lord as
> having formed  him.  David goes on to say, "surely I was sinful from the moment
> I was conceived'!  (in the Psalms)  Interesting isn't it.  He didn't consider
> life to begin one month after conception.  Nope; as far as the Lord Jehovah is
> concerned conception brings into this world a new person!

Any Jew who confuses David Melech Yisroel with the Lord of All
Hosts ought to take a sedative and sit in a darkened room for
an hour or so until the little bells stop ringing.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion