HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:09:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.194041.11683@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> If these people are "crazy", I'm unaware of it.

But we just explained you that they are.  How can you claim
ignorance in the same posting in which it is called to
your attention?  Trust me, Bill, some (not all) of the
ones mentioned are very ill.  They may even work for the
post office.

> Chaney
> (for example) is outrageous but certainly no more so 
> than Novak, who is never characterized as disordered.  

Oh Novak is disordered all right.  You can bet on that.
Sick man.  Sick sick sick.  In fact, there have been
special freight airlifts to get an adequate supply of
thorazine to him.  Right now he's stacking thorazine,
haldol, and Ben-Gay.  Does about 800 millis of each a day.
You ought to see what he posts when he's off his
medication.  NASA is thinking of using him to communicate
with Mars.

Chaney is just sicker, that's all.  Outrageous?  His
frothing fits and identity problems go beyond outrageous
and do more than hint at mental illness.

> I have to believe that armchair Usenet diag-
> nosticians simply have too little information to label 
> other participants as mentally disordered.

I have to believe that, for me, I have exactly the right
amount of information to make my diagnoses.  Not too
much, not too little.

You know, Bill, I sense a certain paranoia in your posting
here.  Hmmm...

Dean Kaflowitz

Skating away
Skating away
Skating away
On the thin ice of a new day
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 00:06:06 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Aug24.234134.8819@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney writes:

>I have stopped chasing that $100 bill. Dan King took fatal hits over his
>answer to my challenge, both from me and other pro-lifers who went after
>him on it, and still won't concede. It's better PR for my behalf to let the
>world know just how big a welcher he is.

Not that this should surprise anyone, but the little inturdgent fellow
is lying yet once again.  Inturdgent posted some silly ass challenge
saying something to the effect that all embryo's were  human life
and said if anyone could prove the little fellow wrong, he would pay
them 100 bucks.  I was the first of many to prove the little guy wrong.
He tried, unsuccessfully to backtrack his challenge, but unfortunately 
for him, many of us saved his stupid challenge.  Of course the kid
when faced with his loss first tried to pretend he didn't lose.  He
claimed to have my 100 dollars in his teeth while running around 
the computer center at Sac State.  We all assumed he was wearing
his propeller hat and trying to make airplane noises at the same 
time.  I never really expected the guy to make good on his challenge.
I figure he probably is scared to ask his parents for the money, and
how many months do you figure it would take him to save up on his 
paper route.  So I eventually let the little welch out of his 
challenge and dropped the issue.  Now apparently the little guy
is still trying to deny he lost the challenge.  

I would guess next he will be blaming congress for all his problems.

Hey Chaney, I must have missed where you retracted the lie you 
were claiming that your parents system administrator, Mr. Smith
was contacted by me.  How about re-posting it.

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:36:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep04.164504.39938@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>>> even if I did my own investigation and came up with the same answer
>>> reported on 60 Minutes and in the Minneapolis StarTribune,

>> The Minneapolis StarTribune quoted the National Abortion Federation,
>> which looks like a pro-abortion organization.

> I don't understand how you can be discussing sources which support my
> statements when you still claim that the statements are unsupported.

I don't understand how you can casually dismiss my unbiased sources 
which show that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout 
the term of pregnancy and then expect me to accept your pro-abortion
sources.  (And please leave the preceeding sentence intact, if your
honesty allows you to do so).  


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


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:34:28 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug28.210257.22644@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Aug27.203129.8310@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> 
>mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> I believe it's wrong to kill any person simply because they suffer 
>>> pain.  Who are we to decide whether any person is fit to live or
>>> not?  That's a judgement which I can't make for someone else, nor 
>>> would I want anyone else to make that judgement for me.  

>> I believe it's wrong to force a woman to undergo an unwanted pregnancy
>> simply because the fetus will become a person. Who are we to decide
>> whether a woman should give birth or not? That's a judgement which I
>> can't make for someone else, nor would I want anyone else to make that
>> judgement for me.

>Obviously you've highlighted the fundamental difference between the
>pro-life and the pro-choice positions.  However I should point out
>that few people want women to undergo unwanted pregnancies; pro-lifers 
>simply want people to refrain from killing innocent human beings whenever
>possible. 

    Right. And War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

>Doug Holtsinger

                                                           MP

Hmmm--I wonder if William Lutz reads t.a....
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DOES THE NUMBER THIRTEEN RING A BELL?
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:47:23 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <nyikos.714171851@milo.math.scarolina.edu> (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Aug18.002226.21765@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>>   Is it possible to enslave a person more than to force a woman,
>>against her will, to bear young?

>Is there a condition of slavery worse than that of a fetus, [...]

OK, Peter, you've convinced me.  Liberate each and every one to the outside
world, and... oh.  Gee, that wouldn't work, would it?  Guess your analogy
is pretty useless.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
From: act@csc.canberra.edu.au (Cyclops)
Subject: Re: been In Thearpy Long?????
Organization: University of Canberra, Camaroon
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 23:14:42 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

Isn't Thearpy the capital of Cahtasis?

act@csc.canberra.edu.au       ceteris paribus
Look Once...         .-)      
   Look TwEyece..    .-) .-)       
      Half See...    .-)         
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Choice and post-viability abortions?
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:00:06 GMT

In article <BtnIAv.1o5.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>I'll reserve comment on the rationale provided until I've read
>it a few more times.
>
>I do have a question for those who would prohibit third trimester
>abortions but would allow earlier ones.  Do you believe that
>a woman should be allowed to have a C-section before the due
>date?  

Sure. A woman should be allowed to sever the connection between herself and
any other organism at any time. The relevant question, however, is under what 
circumstances, if any, we are prepared to accept the not-medically-necessary 
slicing & dicing, strangulation and/or poisoning of a post-viable fetus _in 
utero_ as an acceptable part of this "severing".

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33074 alt.abortion.inequity:3229
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:28:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug18.233640.18908@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
>>
>>Standard response:  So does eating a steak.
>>

>YASR (Yet another standard response)

>Of course, the steak didn't come from a human being. . . I hope.

    Why is this relevant? What is so damned important about human beings
that people consider the death of a non-sentient (but human) blob of
tissue as a tragedy, but the death of millions of breathing sentient
mammals capable of emotion to be a delicious snack???

                                                          MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Observations
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:25:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.173838.8528@advtech.uswest.com>
stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.024720.23681@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com>
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>>>I would be much happier with a constitutional amendment that requires
>>>the consent of the father before abortion is allowed.

>>You do realize, of course, that this gives my lover (possibly my
>>rapist) control over my body equal to mine?

>Wrong.  It gives the father equal control over your reproductive system
>only in so far as to whether or not you are allowed to abort the child,
>and of course, that control can only be exercised if you are pregnant.

It gives my lover equal control over my reproductive system if I am
pregnant with our "child".  That specific enough?

I object to this not so much because it gives a man control over my
body (I don't like that, but that doesn't automatically mean I think
it's logically or morally worng).  I object to this because by giving
control proportionaly solely to what you perceive as our share in the
"child", you are impicitly refusing to acknowledge that the effects
pregnancy has on my body give my any rights whatsoever.

>And if you had read any of my other posts, you would realize that I
>support exceptions in regards to rape, incest and to save the mothers
>life.

Not any of your other posts.  Some of your other posts.

What about ccases where the mother's health but not life is in danger?

>>Hopefully that phrasing makes clear my objection to this proposal.

>Hopefully, my explanation outlines where you misread.

I only misread the rape exception.

>You took a single idea out of context, which of course stripped it of
>it's disclaimers and exceptions.

I left the idea in the context that I found it.

-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34347 alt.flame:12484
From: patrick@owlnet.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Halfwit!!
Date: 1 Sep 1992 18:46:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The South 40

In article <BtwrKA.BLG@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Sep1.151316.11437@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>
>>In article <BtvMtL.22B@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>
>>>   Oh now - coincedence? I chose it silly fool. I suppose I should upgrade
>>>my username, having undergone superpuberty, but I never really got around
>>>to it. Incedentally, you know I'm 19 Lefty - why the hell won't you answer
>>>me, and tell me how old you are (sorry, i just remembered to ask this question.
>>>Been a whil ain't it?) you gonna answer?
>> 
>>So Steve,
>>maybe you could clear up what the heck you were trying to say here.
>
>Yes, sorry Dan - you see, the drag about sifting through all the bull that
>Lefty and I exude, is that you sometimes miss vital points of discourse. One of
>these was the question of Lefty's age. Lefty knew exactly what I"m talking
>about, but of course, in the process, I left the rest of the alt.flame
>audience in the dark. Sorry ol' chap. Still, aren't ya a little curious
>to know how old Leftie is? My point is, that LEftie LIVES on USENET,
>replying to threads immediately after they're posted. I argue that 
>a) leftie can't have any other social life

Obviously *you* don't have much of a life off Usenet (of course, that goes
without saying if you happen to live around Halifax) if you have nothing
better to do than measure Dave's response times to your garbage...

>b) this is not a phase for Lefty (Usenet has become a compulsion for him,
>rather than a) a tool, or b) a teenage phase.)

5000 kilometers away, and you know that beyond a shadow of a doubt?  
(I used to be an insufferable little bastard when *I* was 19, too -- but
I survived long enough to outgrow it.)

>   Sorry - I'm just a curious George at heart, and can't wait for the answer.

So go investigate an electric fence and get back to us with the details,
will you?


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey(patrick@owlnet.rice.edu)Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 527-4989 at Rice. 713 981-5952 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
                   and we STILL have a drug problem???
(Pull a Steve Franklin and claim it's because drug users "have *no* life away
                          from drugs", no doubt.)
From: darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: Re: Suzanne finally sees the light
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:14:09 GMT

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>In article <1992Aug20.010011.16783@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>From article <+h6m50a.gordons@netcom.com>, by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):

>>Yes Gordon, I know you've had a vasectomy.  You've posted it to
>>the world before.  And for the sake of the kids you didn't have,
>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>I'm glad.
>^^^^^^^^^

>So here Suzanne says that no life is better than a poor quality of life.

Funny how that works, yes?  And, hey!  Suzanne!  Aren't you advocating a
SIN here?  Aren't you going to ramble on about the joys of parenthood and
the terrible waste of human life that results from any form of birth
control except NFP?

Alden 

FounderOfDrieuxidsForJesus

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35090 alt.abortion.inequity:3538
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:18:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes ...
>In article <vzlnjl-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>>>When should legal personhood begin?  And if it's before birth, does the
>>>>z/e/f have more rights to the mother's body than does the mother?
>>>
>>>If it's before birth, does the z/e/f have more, equal or less rights to
>>>IT'S own body than does the mother?
>>
>>How's about the _same_ rights?
>>
>>Currently no person may use the body of another person without that
>>person's consent.  
>
>I disagree with your premise, one counterexample (IMO) being child support.
>This reduces to whether one feels forced labor is a use of the subject's body.

Child support is not bodily servitude.  It requires no forced labor of
any sort.  It requires only money, which might just as legally come from
an inheritance as from breaking rocks.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Clinton == !Choice
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:20:32 GMT

In article <la0aoeINNr7r@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>
>	Seems I forgot to relate this more to this group.  With Clinton's
>economic/tax/health aide plan, we will all pay more taxes so that the
>government will pay for health care, thereby dictating to us where we can
>go.  So, under Clinton, women will have the choice to abort, but they will
>not have the choice of doctor.  If a woman chooses to have the child, then
>she cannot choose the school.  Boy, talk about odd.  Oh well, at least a
>woman can choose whether or not to bring this child into the world....
>

From what I understand of Clinton's plan (which, BTW, I've studied as much
as possible and am neither endorsing nor condeming), there is still a choice
of physicians.  I am not aware of how much choice, but you certainly aren't
assigned a doctor.

As far as choosing a school...There was no choice for me when I was growing
up as to what school I could attend---there was only one school in town.
Some choice, huh?  From what I understand of the public school system, there
isn't a great deal of choice involved, and since the state regulates
that particular subject, I wouldn't say that Clinton has anything to
say on the subject.

I will say this:  I am voting for Clinton.  I may not like everything
about the man (in fact, I don't) but I've seen what 12 years of Republican
rule has done to this country...sure my taxes are down, but look at the
cost--inner cities are in ruin because of lower and lower funding, crime
is up and all Bush as for a solution is more law enforcement (that's just
not enough, folks), the budget deficit is astronomical and shows no
sign of slowing (Yes, I blame Bush--he didn't propose a balanced budget, nor
did he even try to form a coalition with the Democratic Congress to get
one).

Bush is a leader who does not know how to lead.  As Harry Truman might
have said "The buck doesn't stop with Bush; he isn't even aware of a buck."
He's very good at blaming others.  Now it's Colin Powell's fault that we
stopped Desert Storm when we did (like he isn't the CIC!).  It's the
Florida Gov' Chiles' fault that Fed help didn't come sooner (did he even
offer?)

And, lastly, sure "GOD" isn't in the Democratic platform, but NEITHER IE
IT IN THE CONSTITUTION!  And I thank God for that!

Jennifer
REpublican for Clinton.

>
>Bryon Lape
>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Is your laundry phosphate free?  Help stop global pollution.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:07:38 GMT

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug20133305@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
> >   But what _are_ legitimate reasons to get an abortion???
>
>	Situations in which the trauma of childbirth endangers the mother
>	- unusual medical risk of carrying the child to term
>
>	Rape & Incest
>	- I would agree that the trauma of these would compound if the
>	  mother were to take the child to term, seriously impeding
>	  recovery.  These are rare cases (especially if the rape victim
>	  reports it immediately), though they are a mainstay of
>	  abortion rights proponents.
>
>Some situations I would oppose abortion for:
>
>	Scheduling children -- "I don't want/can't afford a[nother] child
>	right now." or "They would be only a year apart."
>
>	Birth control failure -- sorry, folks.

OK, fine -- now:

Exactly what requirements would you make women follow in order to qualify
for your exceptions and what punishment would you mandate for women who
lied to try to get an abortion?

Do you just take a woman's word?  (In other words, she goes into a clinic and
says "I was raped" and they perform the abortion.)

Do you require a police report?

Do you require genetic tests to verify who the father actually is?

What about spousal rape?

What about child abuse?  (In other words, the child is pregnant by her father.)

Well?

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

If I kiss you, that is a psychological interaction.

On the other hand, if I hit you over the head with a brick, that is
also a psychological interaction.

The difference is that one is friendly and the other is not so
friendly.

The crucial point is if you can tell which is which.
		-- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"
From: deh0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DARCY ELIZABETH HOWE)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex (was: myths about PP or something)
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:47:09 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Aug31.175813.20675@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen
 A Chaney) writes:
>In article <darkstar.715280662@milton> darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden
Hackmann) writes:
>>andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>>
>>>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>Jeez, Suzanne, where DID you get such a warped view of sex?
>>
>>>Probably from her first boyfriend.
>>
>>No, I'd say it was from her priest.  Confessionals are great places for
>>"non-contact" sex.
>
>Uh, Suzanne, do you notice more of that religious bigotry here?
>
>I guess it comes from all those times when poor Hacked Man ran up to
>women looking for sex, and got his face slapped off, so he assumed it
>was because they were Catholic.
>
>Of course, the rest of the world knew it was because he is an asshole.
>
>
>>FounderOfDriexidsForJesus
>
>
>=============================================================================
>                       Robert Casey for President '96!
>                        This Casey never strikes out.
>=============================================================================
>|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
>|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice   Registered Democrat |
>|                                                                           |
>|                      Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
>|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
>=============================================================================
>BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney
>B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu>
>BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS
>BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating
>BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0
>
>              The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
>
And one more post:  Robert Casey flat-out LIED about the state of PA's
economy.  Someone who lies is not a good choice for future government posts.

I live here, I know the state of PA's economy...