HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Summary: Doug continues his whining.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:57:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.064023.28693@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.182957.25544@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>>> But are you admitting that you sent e-mail to my system administrators
>>> asking that someone should talk to me about my posts?  You don't
>>> call that threatening?  What were you expecting them to do? 
>
>> Even if your sysadmins threatened you, that would not make Larry's
>> email threatening. 
>
>That's easy for you to say, you're not on the receiving end.

No, but maybe he's *been* on the receiving end at one time or another, and
has some faint idea of what he's talking about.  I agree with Eric (and
Larry, obviously), and I've received just a bit of e-mail that was
unequivocally threatening -- like from your former classmate.  Compared to
what I (and my admins) got from Wavy Davy, Larry's mail was about as polite
as it's possible to be in e-mail.

>> It struck me as rather polite, actually. 
>
>In your opinion.

In mine, too.  That's 2-1 you're down, now.

>> Even if Larry had asked them to threaten you, his email STILL wouldn't
>> have been threatening. 
>
>In your opinion. 

In mine, too.  You're really having trouble figuring this out, aren't you?

>> In fact, I fail to see how any threat Larry
>> would make against your system admins would be anything but laughable.
>
>You and Margolis obviously have far more control over your posting 
>privileges than I do.

I suppose we're supposed to feel sorry for you?  Here, have a clue -- I'm at
a private school, and I don't have much more control over my posting
privileges than you claim to have at State.  The difference is, I make more
than just a cursory effort to actually play by the rules.  You decided you
were too good for some of the rules to apply to you, you got caught, and now
you're whining about how unfair it all is -- so what?  Try taking a little
responsibility for your own actions, once in a while.

>> Remember, Usenet is an anarchy.
>
>Not when you're at a public University which can easily
>revoke net access. 

So find an alternate means of access -- there *are* quite a few available
even in an urban area as small as Raleigh -- and quit your crying, already.

--PLH, spare the rod and spoil the child, indeed...


-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: NBC News Blackout on Black Senatorial Candidate
Keywords: slavery, pro-life
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:24:02 GMT

In <lg5julINNa1b@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>|> 
>|> >>	  The notion that slavery is wrong, that one human being
>|> >>	cannot have property in the life of another, is today a 
>|> >>	fundamental tenet of the moral creed from which we Americans
>|> >>	derive our shared identity as a people.  It is therefore a
>|> >>	basic tenet of our civic morality.  If we abandon it, we
>|> >>	abandon ourselves.  If we assert our freedom in a way that
>|> >>	violates it, we undermine the very doctrine that allows us
>|> >>	to legitimate that assertion.  In short, we return to the 
>|> >>	state of fundamental self-contradiction that made the 
>|> >>	Civil War a tragic inevitability.
>|> 
>This from the same people that brought you 
>	"Hillary Clinton is a bad person because she believes children
>	should have legal rights."

Do you regularly put your misrepresentations into quotation marks?

I wonder if Susan Garvin can produce a misquote by Holtsinger that 
is one-tenth as reprehensible as the above.

>So parents should have no control over a fetus, but they should have
>ultimate control over a child. 

Wrong, bozo.  Parents should not have life-and-death control over
a fetus, but they should have *some* control over a child.  And they
do in connection with permission to have ears pierced, but not in respect
to abortion in most states, South Carolina being a partial exception.

Besides the usual judicial bypass clause, we also have a grandparent
bypass clause and a "60+-days in loco parentis" bypass clause, plus
a hidden loophole in cases of incest, where an uncle could drag a niece
he got pregnant and have an abortion legally forced on her, without
her parents' knowledge, much less consent.  And an incestuous father
could do the same to his daughter without the wife's knowledge or consent.

Now THAT is more control than I would want a father to have over his
daughter.  

What I say above is also directed at the following misrepresentation:

>Or even closer, society should not tell
>you how to raise your children, but they should tell you how to treat
>your fetus.

>But then again "religious consistency" is an oxymoron.

Who said anything about religion?   And what do you know about consis-
tency anyway?  Your remarks are about as inconsistent with what you are
supposedly attacking as anything I've seen in talk.abortion.  Even Linda
Birmingham and Susan Garvin could learn from you. :-)

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Conservative Position
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 16 Nov 92 13:37:14 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Nov13.163815.15429@midway.uchicago.edu>, eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.103010.5850@wetware.com>
> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> 
>>ps: Personally I still think that beth is a LIBERAL on
>>the matter of the right of Privacy, and that the 
>>state NEED SHOW JUST CAUSE for violating that right.
> 
> Mm....  Guilty as charged, if you're saying what I think you're saying....

Hmmmm.  What if he's saying what I think he's saying?  What if he's saying
what he thinks he's saying?  Do you need an attourney?  My brother's
almost done law school!

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 14:09:47 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In article <1992Nov21.222434.4570@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>kc2@doc.ic.ac.uk (K Campbell) writes:
>
>>After a recent spate of particularly vicious and violent male rapes
>>in London (men being abducted from tube stations by 3 or 4 men and
>>taken somewhere, blindfolded then forcibly penetrated), some of the
>>less oppressive newspapers in this country carried comment from leading
>>criminal psychologists about how it is unlikely that the incidents had
>>been carried out by gay men.  
>
>Doesn't that sort of show homosexual tendancies??  Male penetrating
>a male??  Sounds gay to me.

    No, it doesn't.  Think before you post.  Or at least try to.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.
From: hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: To Lost Boy...Re  The thoughts of a fetus
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:27:09 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I think this is who I'm sending this to... It's in response to your "what 
really pisses you off about prolifers", or whomever.

Did you know that the human fetus can dream?  Recent studies have found that
the human fetus can actually dream!  

"Think" about it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 02:56:32 GMT


In article <1992Nov19.155934.15998@panix.com>, jk@panix.com writes:
|cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

|>I would say, in fact, that the state shouldn't ever use "moral
|>rights" as justication for laws.  The state has no business
|>making any statements about "morality".)
|What do you mean by this?  It seems to me that judgements of good and
|bad are a necessary part of all action.  For example, if the state
|does something to promote economic growth it does it because it thinks
|economic growth is good.  How can the state act at all without taking
|positions on what things are good and what things are bad?

Why do you equate "good/bad" with "moral/immoral"?  I see no
connection (other than that "moral" can sometimes be a subset of
"good").

To give an example of laws utterly unconnected with any concept
of "morality":  the state might decide that traffic laws are
"good" because they promote order & reduce accident rates,
without making any "moral" judgments about driving through
intersections without stopping.  This is one of Adrienne
Regard's favorite examples, I think.

---
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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Sweety Petey Honey Nyikos lied about me, too!
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:45:28 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
# sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
# >I think that he's lied about a lot more people than just
# >Adrienne, Dean and I.  (And I really hope that Dean will
# >write a song about the three of us - I like the way that
# >sounded.)  I think that it's time for everyone else in
# >the group to step forward.  We can form one of the most
# >non-exclusive clubs in the world.
# 
# I'm proud to be a member of this club.

Dr. Nyikos has yet to lie about me, and isn't for lack of trying on my
part.  He simply ignores me.  <pout>

It's actually strange to me that, for all the posters that he follows
up who regularly issue forth with zero-content braindamaged flamage,
he can't take the time to come up with anything, even the most trivial
and banal deception, to write about me.

I'm sorta beginning to miss Chaney.  It's really too bad that he spun
out and started making veiled threats.  I mean, I knew he would.  And
I looked forward to it.  But it was sorta anti-climactic.

Besides, it doesn't seem likely that Dr. N is going to completely wig
any time soon.  He might be deranged, but at least he seems
functional.

Maybe I shoulda shortened this up and posted it to talk.bizarre as a
short, shameful confession...


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: To Lost Boy...Re The thoughts of a fetus
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 07:46:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.013130.5060@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <92324.145808U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>, by <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>:
>> In article <Nov.19.12.27.06.1992.15494@andromeda.rutgers.edu>,
>> hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) says:
>>>
>>>
>>>Did you know that the human fetus can dream?  Recent studies have found that
>>>the human fetus can actually dream!
>> 
>> I didn't realize that this "recent study" found the telepaths necessary to
>> ascertain whether a fetus dreams or not.
>
>Don't be stupid.  She's referring to the detection of fetal brainwave
>patterns consistant with the state of REM (dreaming) sleep.   And btw -
>this is not "recent" news.  It's been common medical knowledge for decades.
>

And of course the point of these brainwaves is that they are an indication
that a fetus ahs a soul.

So, if these brainwaves are not present, the fetus has no soul, and is there
fore not human by my definition.

This is not new theology. I got it from the Jesuits.
>
>Suzanne Forgach

Lost Boy

******************************************************************
* Sometimes I think my cat has more soul than some Biblebangers. *
*                                              -Karen Uru        *
******************************************************************

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:24:51 GMT

In article <1ebg8lINN3rh@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <satdn4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>[...]
>>When you rape, you involve the body of another person.
>>That person, just like you, has control over what happens
>>to his/her body.  The consent of the other person is
>>what makes the difference between consensual sex & rape.
>>
>>When a woman obtains an abortion, she affects her own body.
>>Nobody else's body is involved.  (Hint: if you think otherwise,
>>you have to prove your case.)
>
>The second statement is incorrect.  And it is trivially easy to prove that
>someone else's body is involved during some abortions, just as it is
>trivially easy to show that another person's body is involved in your rape
>example (hint: no need to submit a rigorous topological proof in either
>case).

No, Frank, CJ's statement was correct.  Just because your definition of person
includes fetuses and you wish that ours would too, we are not incorrect
when we use the standard legal definition.  Your personal definition of
the term can include anything you like and you are free and welcome to
try and convince us to accept your definition, but your wishing it
does not make it so.  For example, you may think of your pet dog as a member 
of the family and you may firmly believe that it has a soul and as much worth 
as any human person, however, it is still not legally a person and I am not 
wrong for refering to it as a non-person.  

Sarah McCabe
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Educating Peter (was: Re: Let's Play Attributions, Take 3)
Summary: Susan was right; Chaney was wrong; Petie remains clueless.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:09:57 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <nyikos.722187039@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

I addressed most of your nonsense in my response to your "Take 2" post,
but I'll clue you in on this other matter here.

>       ________________From Nov 1 post__________________
>From gatech!darwin.sura.net!wupost!csus.edu!nextnet!chaneysa Tue Sep 29 12:53:25 EDT 1992
>Article: 37309 of talk.abortion
>Path: pitt.edu!gatech!darwin.sura.net!wupost!csus.edu!nextnet!chaneysa
>~From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
>~Newsgroups: talk.abortion
>~Subject: Re: It's a bird, it's a plane, it's...
>Message-ID: <1992Sep29.155656.17489@csus.edu>
>~Date: 29 Sep 92 15:56:56 GMT
>~References: <1992Sep23.012619.28726@csus.edu> <Bv0Grt.9GG.2@cs.cmu.edu> <1992Sep23.160756.8470@wdl.loral.com>
>~Sender: news@csus.edu
>Organization: California State University Sacramento
>~Lines: 56
>____________________________end of excerpt____________________________
>
>A feature above that has never been explained to me: certain lines are
>preceded by ~ and others are not.  I hope someone can tell me why.

Note that the first line containing it is the From: line.  I believe that
some systems will break up anything containing a From: line in the body
into multiple posts.  Some people, when including an article without
quoting it, will indent part of the header in order to avoid this problem.

I don't know any more details about this, but I've seen the effects - someone
tried to post a summary of recipes he'd saved to rec.food.cooking, and the
fact that there were multiple From: lines in the body and that it went
through a system containing the above bug made it get posted hundreds of
times.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu  
Subject: Who is this fat white guy? Re: Rush Limbaugh makes my life a HELL!
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:10:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.005309.9356@ncsu.edu>, delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu (DERRELL EMERY LAROCQUE) writes...
| 
|   I have a gf with fundamentalist parents who treat Rush Limbaugh as though
| he has the answers to life's problems.... Can someone PLEASE give me some ideas???

	Really.  Why do we need some FAT WHITE DUDE to tell us how things
/should/ be?  

	Not that I'm coming down on fat white men.  I hear now that they're
a protected minority.

DCD
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48266 alt.abortion.inequity:5151 soc.men:19452
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:04:22 GMT
Organization: Software Engineering Institute

In article <1eb9ucINNjb0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>People lie.  We all know this.  We *all* know this.  Therefore, relying
>upon the word of another person is AUTOMATICALLY stupid.  That's where
>the whole growth of the legal industry sprang from.
>
>Now, if you want to be a disingenuous idiot, go ahead.

Life is full of hard choices, isn't it?  But, you know, if the choice
really was that hard, then yes, I'd rather be a disingenuous idiot,
than live my life in the manner implied by the above posting.

	If this be error, and upon me proved,
	I never writ, and no man ever loved.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil does not understand circular reasoning.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:30:38 GMT

In <32317@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720822858@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual nonsense in
>response to me (>>):

>Deletia about Blackstone's definition of infant, which (surprise,
>surprise) has nothing to do with the original post in reference to who
>qualified as a person that could be murdered:

That was not the only point you made, and not even the most
significant one.  You claimed that the unborn is not an infant.  My
post refuted that.

I see you have been taking lessons in creatively replacing deleted text
from Susan Garvin.

>>>I have made a statement of fact about how our legal system defines
>>>citizenship.  If you dispute this statement of fact, then I suggest
>>>you demonstrate how it is wrong.
>>
>>I don't know about the "citizenship" part, but Blackstone's uses of
>>the word "infant" are much to my liking.  It is right around 5 weeks
>>that the infant is able to stir in its mother's womb, in response
>>to various stimuli.

>I had originally posted in response to a claim that abortion was
>murder.  As to the definition of murder, it is a legal matter;
>therefore, the legal definition and not Blackstone's is the relevant
>one.

Blackstone was one of the great common-law scholars and is even
acknowledged as such by Blackmun in RvW.  There you can find that he 
said abortion "was by the ancient law homicide," [actually he meant
what we would nowadays call medieval law, for he cites a 13th century
treatise by Bracton, from which I have quoted before on talk.abortion]
but he went on to say that the "modern" law [by which he meant the 
17th and 18th centuries]
"doth not look upon the matter in quite so serious a light, but only
as a heinous misdemeanor."

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:02:34 GMT

In <s5k1nx=@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

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

The reason you are wondering is that you haven't bothered to read
the evidence for yourself but are taking Adrienne's word for it
that things are the way they are.

PJN


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48856 soc.men:19680 alt.dads-rights:2661
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Keywords: Garvin refuted
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: na
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:30:59 CST


In article <1992Nov20.204818.14291@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> They're not lies, it's the truth: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted
> abortion-on-demand throughout the term of pregnancy.  Abortions
> can be legally performed all the way up to the point of birth. 

From Roe v. Wade:
   "On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici*
   argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to
   terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for
   whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree."

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Tit for tat
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:11:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Nov23.113140.4147@wkuvx1.bitnet>, hargijk@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
|> In article <1992Nov23.151819.28582@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
|> > 	That was the late Nikita Khruschev.  Are all rightists that
|> > ignorant of history or is it just Limbaugh's groupies?
|> 
|> The TRUE Ignorance comes from LIBERALS like you. Rush was right,
|> Liberals have NO sense of humor. GET A LIFE! IT WAS JUST A JOKE!

Well, I'm laughing at your post right now.  I guess
it's just another conservative, Religious Wrong, far-right
of Rush Limbaugh, ignorant stereotype.


Jared "Mike Dukakis is the funniest guy I know" Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Hopeful Sign
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:58:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <+wt1!x-@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>Heard on CNN this evening:
>
>"About three dozen anti-abortion protestors tried to shut down a Boston
>clinic yesterday, but they were met by over 500 abortion rights 
>supporters..."
>
>CNN also reports that OR has announced a change of tactics.  Instead
>of trying to shut down individual clinics, they will now target Bill
>Clinton directly.  If this were the military, wouldn't that be called
>mutiny?  (resist temptation here, oh drieux...)
>
>                 -rocker

I guess; but it's not the millitary. Hell, the Lifers are private citizens..
what do I care if they demonstrate against the President? 

I've been at it since 1986!

Of course, there is one thing we all have to remember. In order to
have a sucessful mutiny, one needs enough people to go along with it
to get power and call the shots (didn't CNN say 36 antiabs vs. ~500
choicers? Can anyone say Custer?)

Hehehahahahaha! Wheeee!
Lost Boy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism