HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Gennifer Flowers: Transcript
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:24:25 GMT

popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>> Working on the world's largest legal/news database has its advantages.  I jus
>> thought it was timely to note that Clinton has a history of giving government
>> jobs to people who have no qualifications other than that they are a FOB
>> (Friend OF Bill).  I wonder how low Ron Brown would rank on a skills test for
>> Secretary of Commerce.  Is this the "change" you voted for?

>This was also a little habit of none other thna Ronald Reagan.  There was 
>lot of comment about this in the press in 1980, remember?  If not, go to 
>the library and check out a few issues of Time and Newsweek.  A lot of 
>peole ended up in high office simply because they had been with Reagan 
>for years, some before he was govenor of Cal. Theses were often mainly 
>political operatives rather than aides or such.  Bill Casey was another 
>case of this. My how soon we forget these things.  

I don't think he forgot iat all.  In both cases it was inexcusable.  His last
line asks you if you think you truly voted for 'change' or more of the same.  I
myself am beginning to wonder, but my Clinton vote was based on ethical and 
freedom considerations, not cabinet choice.  I knew I was screwed no matter what
I did on that one.

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Call for a moratorium on fisting offers (Beth take note)
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:57:56 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1993Jan22.005446.12570@midway.uchicago.edu>, eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu writes:
|Most recipients of fisting offers go away afterwards, but Keith had a
|valid point wrt Kevin Welch....  CJ, if you read this, could you
|insert your Kevin sig?  You know, the time when he said to me
|(paraphrased, which is why I wanted CJ's exact quote in her sig):
|"Elizabeth, none of us men know what pregnancy is like first-hand.  We
|do know that it is often painful and unpleasant.  It is like a
|harmless slavery of sorts." [...]

No problema.  Aqui estan las palabras del idioto.  

					--cj, in broken Spanish

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Elizabeth, none of us men out here "know" what pregnancy is like and what 
it does to the woman psychologically.  What we do know is that often it is 
painful and unwanted.  It is like a harmless slavery of sorts." -Kevin Welch
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:28:03 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan21.215507.10830@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>Unlike you, however, I live in the Real World (tm) and this just is
>not going to be a reality anytime soon. If you want to leave it open
>to *incredibly* expensive metal mommas, then in perhaps 50-75 years,
>we might see something. But an inexpensive one? Kibble, a vaccine
>against the mumps will cost you $50 in most pediatricians office. And
>the cost certainly is not going down. If you can envision an
>inexpensive metal moma in the near future, you're either desperately in
>need of a reality check, or merely woefully ignorant about life
>support technologies.
>But since it's you, it's quite possibly both.

A workable, relatively inexpensive computer seemed unlikely in the near
future around the 1930s, until the Army jumped on the chance to make
possible a machine that could make their shells strike more accurately.
One thing leads to another, and now we have Sparc Workstations for a measly
five thousand bucks.

(Well okay, so it's been fifty years since the Army invested in it.
At least it was on the low end of your estimate, Mark.  :)  )

My point is that the turmoil caused by the abortion issue could speed
things up incredibly.  Being a non-medical person, I can only sit by
and hope.  (If it needs a program to run, though, gimme a call!)  If
not a "metal momma", maybe something else.  We'll come up with something.

Remember when they said it was definitely impossible to discover the
chemical makeup inside a star?

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: CLINTON DISMANTLES BUSH AND REAGAN RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:48:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.182126.8180@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <74214@cup.portal.com> 
#L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
#
##	Copied without permission from:     
##	The Los Angeles Times, January 22, 1993
##
##	CLINTON DISMANTLES BUSH AND REAGAN RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION
##
##	By Karen Tumulty and Marlene Cimons
##
## By executive order, Clinton:
##
##	- Ended a five-year ban on fetal tissue research, which scientists
## believe holds the possibility of benefiting patients with Parkinson's
## disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, Huntington's disease, spinal cord
## injuries and other conditions.
#
#This is an incorrect characterization of the Bush administration's
#policy on fetal tissue research.  There was no ban on fetal
#tissue research as the paper suggests.  Rather, the Bush 
#administration prohibited the federal *funding* of fetal tissue
#research which used the remains from *elective* abortions.  
#Researchers could obtain federal funding for research which
#used the fetal remains from *spontaneous* abortions. 

I hope that DOD continues to point this out.  I see no reason to
whitewash the idiocy of the former administrations, and I'm
amused to see so-called conservatives applauding the practice
of government-funded, worthless research.  

Susan










Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers are trying to get rid of pro-lifers on USENET
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:21:26 GMT

In article <nyikos.727468604@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>A lot of this stuff goes on behind the scenes, like the events behind
>the Dennis Hall libel.
>
>Peter Nyikos

Peter:

You may consider that stating what one knows to be true is libel, 
but I do not.

Once I discovered it, I felt a duty to expose the Dennis Hall 
charade, so that innocent readers would not be misled by this 
deception.  

Is it better to let such deception continue in order to protect 
the reputation of the perpretrator who sees nothing wrong with 
deceiving others?
I think not.

I posted the details of my discovery with the foreknowledge of 
his sysdamin at the time who said, "he made his grave, 
now he gets to lie in it".

Incidentally, I kept Steve Chaney's name out of the initial 
Dennis Hall expose.  It was only after I was informed that he 
was sending threatening Email to others, that I decided to 
divulge his name as the person who was issued the "Dennis Hall"
account.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:18:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.114716.2152@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:

[Massive deletions]

>But why should abortions be made rare if they are not wrong?  And why 
>should they be legal if they are wrong?
> 
Sue, you started this conversation appearing as a resonably
intelligent person. Questions like this go far towards dispelling that
image.
We recently (within the last 24 hours) saw Kurt from PSU ask this same
silly queston. Allow me to paraphrase some of the many responses he
got.
Brain surgery is not wrong. Sure would be nice if it wasn't needed so
often. (Ditto any other surgical procedure, Sue, of which abortion is
one). For that matter, medical treatment in general is not wrong. Sure
would be nice if it wasn't needed so much. Beleive it or not, some of
us would *like* to see the need for our positions ended. I'd *love* it
if there would never be another sick preemie born.

There are *lots* of things in this world that are not wrong, but which
it would still be nice to see less of. 

The pro-life side needs more intelligent suporters (just ask Steve
Matheson, he's commented a number of times how badly some of the
'pro-life'ers here embrass him). It certainly doesn't need somebody
else to ask silly questions. 

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 09:40:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In <Jan.22.21.30.55.1993.6007@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.021421.24486@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>
>> Better we should [kill an innocent unborn baby] than to have an
>> innocent child beaten, starved, maimed, or killed.  But then, that's
>> just my thinking.
>
>It looks to my like your thinking is faulty.

Looks to me like your editor is faulty, Toodles, or you're a lying scum-sucker,
since the above is *not* what was posted.  The statement was
>> Better we should abort a z/e/f than to have an innocent child beaten,
>> starved, maimed, or killed.

In other words, better that that child never come into being in the first place.
But, that would deprive others of the fun of going after it with a tire iron -
no wonder you're opposed.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58503 talk.politics.misc:70469 talk.religion.misc:27814 misc.legal:23512
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:26:11 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1k3i10INN1d5@gilligan.East.Sun.COM>, mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
> In article <14044@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #What caused the sexual revolution?  The availability of birth
# #control pills, and an abolition of laws restricting access to
# #birth control.  So why has the number of unwanted pregnancies
# #gone UP?  This is quite the opposite of what you would expect,
# #isn't it?
# 
# Well, I'm not so sure I agree with your definition of the cause.
# 
# I think it was more that women began to assert themselves, and
# both birth control and the sexual revolution were offshoots of
# the feminist movement, among other things going on at the time
# (social upheaval, dissent over war, anti-establishmentism).

Can I ask why it is that "feminist" was a word almost never heard
before the Pill was on the market?  Can I ask why it is that the
sexual revolution predated the widespread notion of women's equality?

# Why have they gone UP? Well, perhaps because people aren't taught
# enough about their bodies, and don't understand how to use birth
# control properly (or in some cases, at all).
# 
# I'm not really sure what I'd expect... My point is that legali-
# zation of substances on your personal "Evil list" aren't the

"Evil list"?  Huh?  I think the expansion of availability of
birth control is a great good for individuals and for our society.
The Pill turned out to be a mixed blessing, because by eliminating
barrier birth control, it increased STDs significantly.

# only reason the unwanted pregnancy rate has gone up. You're
# neglecting alot of social and cultural events that happened in
# close proximity to these events.
# 
# -- Mike

Which came first?  If birth control pills appeared after the
sexual revolution, you could argue that the revolution caused
the Pill.  But research into the Pill was started in the 1950s,
and the sexual revolution became apparent several years after
the Pill was available.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:05:37 GMT

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

>At least the "Illegitimate-conception Tax" proposal would spread 
>the cost of that behavior over a wide base of "irresponsible" unmarried, 
>fertile, sexually-active and unlucky adults, and leave them thar good, 
>upstanding, married, abstinent, lucky and/or sterile/barren folks economically 
>unscathed. Valid state objective, no?

Nobody seems willing to state the obvious... "this is a joke".

First I don't think it qualifies as a "tax" but rather a fee and if you're
trying to raise money through fees then start one called a "breathing fee"
and the money can go to cleaning up the air.  Anyone who doesn't want to
breath doesn't have to pay.

Then there is the "finger fee" since people with fingers potentially can
hold a gun and shoot other people.  If you'd like your fingers removed
you won't have to pay the fee.

I've got it... the government can set it up so if anybody wants to have
sex they pay a fee regardless of whether anybody gets pregnant.  It can
be called the "Pimp Act".

Your idea is mindless.  You know why they don't "just pass a fat people"
tax ?  Because it wouldn't pass and nobody would pay and anyone who
tried to enforce it would be screwed...  If you're trying to devise a
way to place 30% of the American population in jail you're on the trail
if you're trying to solve a problem your engine has derailed.

tom

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:18:13 GMT

In article <markp.728239212@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan26.234749.12467@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan26.222122.26394@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan26.152124.8182@seachg.uucp> 
>>>chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>>>> No one is "pro-abortion".  
>>>There are several self-described "pro-abortionists" on the net,
>>Quite true.
>>>along with a few pro-choicers who believe that infanticide and
>>>abortion are not immoral. 
>>Don't know to which you're referring. If you're referring to
>>me, you should really note that I don't believe that there exists
>>any act X of which one could truthfully say that X is immoral.
>>Therefore, it follows that I do not believe that infanticide
>>or abortion is immoral.
>What if X = "prevent a mother from having an abortion"?
What did I just say?
!(exists(X):immoral(X)).
Are you calling me a liar?

Just to make you happy, I do not believe that it is immoral to
prevent a mother from having an abortion. Or even to to
prevent a non-mother from having an abortion.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.drugs,alt.magick,alt.pagan
From: aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu (Anthony Ankrom)
Subject: Re: Smart drugs
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, 22 Jan 93 18:02:44 GMT


About L-Dopa. I don't think you want to take this for a "smart" drug at
all. Quite the contrary. In fact L-Dopa has quite a bit of anticholinergic
effects. Certainly _not_ the action you'd want for a smart drug. In fact,
several purported "smart" drugs are cholinergics. 

St. Anthony (apologies for using the phrase "in fact" twice in the same
paragraph... ;-) )

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57513 news.config:520 alt.config:8569
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.config,alt.config
Subject: Re: Want to adopt
Date: 23 Jan 93 02:24:56 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1993Jan22.043120.9730@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.164220.26602@clpd.kodak.com> hammond@stimpy.serum.kodak.com (Kevin Hammond (x37516)) writes:
>>I realize that this may not be the appropriate forum for this post but here
>>goes...
>>
>>My wife and I would like to adopt a baby.  We are in our very early 30s and
>>are financially secure.  If you know of someone that is pregnant and would
>>like to consider adoption, please put them in touch with us.  Of course 
>>we would pay all of their legal and medical expenses.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>Kevin & Lynn 
>>Call Collect: (716) 723-3585
>>
>>-- 
>>--
>>Kevin Hammond
>>work phone: 253-7516 email: hammond@serum.kodak.com
>>home phone: 723-1295
>
>
>
>Doesn't Kodak have a very strigent policy about company computer resources
>being used for non-company purposes?

Trying to get someone in trouble, eh, you little control freak?

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:28:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan06.183612.32611@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <C0F98p.1B9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>Foreign visitors to our
>>country are accorded the same rights as our citizens without being
>>defined as such.
>
>Nope - e.g., they can't vote.  They're accorded the rights of *people*;
>citizens are a subset of people, and have some rights that non-citizens
>do not.

Where is it written in the Constitution, that citizenship is limited to
persons (hint: not in the 14th Amendment, since those words don't LIMIT
the scope of citizenship, they only EXPAND it -- "if X then Y" does not
imply "if (not X) then (not Y)").

Actually, Larry, I have a killer counter-example for you: diplomatic immunity.
That's a right that some non-citizen residents have that citizens DON'T have. 
So apparently "citizens' rights" and "persons' rights" are sets that INTERSECT
each other -- neither is a contained subset of the other.

Give it up, Larry. The "citizenship" argument is specious.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Ethics, absolute and otherwise
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:17:34 GMT

In <1993Jan16.173326.13148@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <markp.726772902@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <1993Jan10.215310.28728@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>
>>>In article <markp.726677398@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
>>>Pundurs) writes:
>>
>>>>In <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>
>>>>>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>
>>>>>>In <1993Jan8.164325.8820@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com
>>>( Steve Novak) writes:
>>
>>>[deletia]
>>
>>>>>>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least in the U.S.  Where are you from?
>>
>>>>>>Fine; make that, "...she may not ethically choose..."
>>
>>>>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least by my ethics.  Which ethics are you
>>>>>using?
>>
>>>>Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards
>>>>get involved in debates over ethical standards? Isn't it either
>>>>pointless or self-contradictory?
>>
>>>Not at all. There are no absolute ethical standards because no single
>>>system of ethics can possibly cover all 5 billion+ people in the world.
>>>Individuals, however, do have personal systems of ethics by which they
>>>live their lives--by which they _should_ live their lives. 
>>
>>But why DEBATE them? 

>Because humankind thrives on social interaction, and exchanging 
>information and expressing beliefs is a form of social interaction.

>By the same token, I could ask why YOU debate these issues. Surely, if The 
>One Truth is already known to you, 

It's not. (I do think I have a better approximation than anything I've
seen from t.a pro-choicers -- but that's far from having TOT.)

>								- Kevin

Mark Pundurs