HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Suzanne admits that she lied about her newsserver problems
Organization: Two people and two cats, at Ranchester & Town Park
	<C19J41.7qK.1@cs.cmu.edu> <35738@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>
	<nyikos.728166121@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:17:39 GMT

On 27 Jan 93 20:22:01 GMT, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) said:

>In <35738@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>>In article <C19J41.7qK.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
>>writes about the latest emanations from Frau Forgach (>>): 
>> 
>>>>I never go away, you jerk.   I just ignore _you_ so much, it drives you
>>>>nuts.  And I'm glad.
>>>
>>>Does anyone else remember Suzanne claiming that she didn't
>>>see repeated requests for documentation?  She said each time
>>>that her newsserver crashed.  Now she says she never goes
>>>away.  Is she lying now, or

>Or does she never go away from a netserver that sometimes crashes (or is
>put out of commission by a sysadmin who keeps making comments like, "the 
>people inconvenienced by this are the same ones whose news is now 9 days
>late".)?

Maybe she should answer that on her own, eh?  Or have you appointed yourself
as spokesman for your fellow fetus fanatics?

>> these fetus fanatics feel compelled
>>to lie about their newsservers? 

>> Do you think PHoney is a transsexual laboring under the
>>same archaic behavioral code?

>>SJM

>Steve, you set the distribution to talk.abortion instead of alt.flame.

PHoney, you're an idiot.  You're talking about the Newsgroups: line, not the
distribution.  And why are *your* knickers twisted over his selection of
newsgroups?  If you don't like your stupidity being constantly exposed to the
readers of t.a, there's a simple solution to that:  quit doing stupid things.

>I'm keeping it here so you'll see this message and not flame me for
>e-mailing you, etc., but really, if character assassination is what you
>are all about, I suggest watching the distribution line more closely.

Why should he, when you make it clear you don't even know what it's used for?

--PLH, I figured it out inside of 60 seconds, and my degree isn't in anything
related to computers...so what's YOUR excuse?



--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Some more NFP discussion
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:20:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.061944.2743@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>problem.   As you well know, I have posted many times where and how
>>>other people can learn to live successful, self-determined, lives
>>>without messing their bodies up with contraceptives or slaughtering
>>>their children with abortion.
>>
>> Yes, and whenever anyone asks you for any real details you evade
>> the question. 
>I don't evade.  I tell'em "no" outright.  I am not trained as an
>instructor in NFP, and I will not take it upon myself to take that
>kind of responsibility with other people's lives.  They're either
>interested enough to take my referrals on resources, (or to look up
>their own resources), or they're not.
This is and always has been a bullshit excuse, Suzanne. I'm
trying to make the evaluation. I don't want to take a class,
I want papers I can read. I have no intention of practicing
NFP based on your description on the net, nor I suspect, does
anyone sles.

>> I will repeat the appropriate question about NFP
>> yet again. You have repeatedly claimed that NFP has a success rate
>> approaching that of oral contraceptives, and posted some statistics
>> which, although not peer reviewed, support this to some extent. What
>> you have not, and seem to refuse to do, 
>"Seem" to refuse?  I DO refuse!
Why? What would they show, Suzanne?

>> is posted the percentage
>> of time which one must abstain from intercourse to obtain such
>> effectiveness. Will you please do so?
>To avoid a pregnancy, a couple must abstain from intercourse for the
>entire time of their fertile period.  This of course varies very widely,
>even month to month for the same couple.
For about the 100th time, what is the average time for which the
couple must abstain from intercourse? Any study performed by
proper scientists would have this piece of information.
So, why do you refuse to give it?
-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
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:54:10 GMT

In article <nyikos.727627950@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <CORWIN+.93Jan19102546@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
[everything deleted except what I felt like keeping]
##Of course, Susan Garvin never called Reverend Holtsinger 
##Doug "yer fat black ass" Holtsinger, so you would be
##basing your idiocy on nothing.
#
#Did Susan put you up to this?

Did DODie teach you to lie?

#She altered an attribution line so it would read that way.  

No, I didn't. 

#Ron Bense
#agreed with this when he claimed that irony is lost on me.  

No, he didn't.

#Documentation on request.  

The only such documentation that you could post, PHoney, would
be a forgery.  It seems that neither you nor the Reverend 
Holtsinger can resist changing people's words to suit
your agendas.  Neither one of you seems to be smart enough
to figure out that the people whose words you alter are
likely to object when you attribute your words to them.

I have never written the phrase 'Doug "yer fat black ass"
Holtsinger' in an article.  

#[Make requests by e-mail, please. I cannot guarantee that
#I will see the request if you merely post it.]

I'll point out that you're lying publicly, thank you.  

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:15:56 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> The only attribute that the Holocaust and abortion share is that the 
>> numbers are real big.

> And that some people think those real big numbers are 'no big deal'.

When you typed in 'no big deal', were you in fact quoting someone?  If you
were, could you share with us who this person is?  Or does that violate
your professional ethics?

The last time I looked, A. Strawman and A. Nother Strawman were being quoted
in the *limbaugh newsgroups.

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:02:31 GMT

In <1993Jan17.021227.12102@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark 
A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1993Jan15.072510.10106@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com 
writes:
>>In <1993Jan15.012449.8814@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 
sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>>From article <JBATES.93Jan12211615@pinocchio.encore.com>,
>>>by jbates@encore.com (John W. Bates):
>>>
>>>> The thing is, just because neonates would not be considered persons does
>>>> not imply that infanticide is justifiable. It is entirely possible, and
>>>> in fact common, to protect with the force of law things which are not
>>>> necessarily persons or the property of persons. I would hold that as
>>>> developing humans, neonates are worthy of protection, even if it can
>>>> be shown that they do not fit some definition of personhood.
>>>
>>>Agreed.  Then we'd have to decide how to protect neonates while not
>>>protecting fetuses while not protecting embryos.
>>
>>We protect them by legally declaring them persons at birth, even if they 
don't
>>yet qualify for a definition of personhood which requires a certain level of
>>consciousness.  The moral difference, of course, is that they are no longer
>>inside a person, and violating her right to bodily autonomy if she doesn't 
want
>>to have a fetus inside her.

>And on a simply pragmatic level, any woman who goes through the
>trouble of giving birth has pretty well established that she wanted to
>give birth (and before DODie brings it up, I'll make exceptions right
>now for certain persons who would be better off in psychiatric
>treatment then in a delivery room). This assumes, of course, that she
>wasn't the victim of an OR blockade of her body.

>--
>                  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.

Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right to 
bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?

MAC

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:05:27 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->You mean the poet who actually had something _meaningful_ to say in all-
->lowercase? As opposed to the Usenetter whose dearth of capitalization
->accompanies an even greater dearth of content? Well, I've heard of both
->of them. What, pray tell, do they have to do with each other?

	[from talk.abortion to susan garvin]
        "Who needs this inept play-by-play commentary? Please
        discuss ISSUES, Sue, or simply conserve bandwidth..."
		<1992Apr18.204403.20087@rotag.mi.org>

        "Even if this were true (MASSIVE hypothetical here), what
        possible relevance would all of this tomfoolery have to
        the abortion debate?"
		<1992Apr13.231749.16652@cfctech.cfc.com>

        "Okay, Keegan, please justify this posting. It has
        NOTHING to do with abortion.  It has NOTHING to do with
        "exposing a lie" (your blanket rationalization). As far
        as I can see, it qualifies as nothing but hateful noise.
        Go ahead, try and justify its existence in talk.abortion.
        Just try."
		<1992Apr14.002702.18298@cfctech.cfc.com>

        "Your lack of character is abundantly clear from your
        actions, Kevin.  They're the acts of a desperate and
        despicable little person.  They're nothing but
        uncalled-for noise and bluster, and were you not such an
        annoying little fuckwit, I'd almost feel sorry for the
        sort of mentality that has to bolster itself with such
        personally embarassing measures."
					-- Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
					   <16764@goofy.Apple.COM>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
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, 27 Jan 93 23:56:59 GMT


[Slice.  Slice.  Kebbin continues to whine as his latest attempt to engage in
a net.vendetta falls down and goes boom.]

Suck on this one for a while, Kebbie.

I don't think women should have abortions.
--
=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???=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Followup-To: alt.dodie.lie.lie.lie
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:48:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.165605.25573@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <C19I0H.6p5.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## I wonder why it was so important to him to lie so persistently
## in this thread.  
#
#Garvin, you suggested that the *incidence* of illegal abortion
#in 1860 has "something to do" with the Roe v. Wade ruling in
#1973.  Now it looks as though you're back-pedaling from that
#suggestion.  Instead of whining about me, why don't you admit
#that you were wrong to begin with.

I wasn't wrong.  Blackmun did do research into the history of
abortion in the U.S.  Are you claiming that he didn't?

I hoped, when I saw this particular out of context quote,
that you would be explaining why it's so important for
you to lie so persistently in this thread.  I didn't
really believe that you had suddenly developed some
integrity and courage, but I did hope.

Susan




Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:07:41 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>You can tell that this is true by the was "pro-choicers" react any 
>time anyone tries to do anything that might decrease the number of 
>abortions that occur.

(Jamie opens his mouth, ready to say something sarcastic about all the
Planned Parenthood employees who picketed schools that handed out
condoms...then changes his mind.)

Ted, do you honestly believe that anyone--ANYONE--thinks abortion is a
good thing?  That anyone wants _more_ abortions to occur?  That
pro-choicers, upon hearing about an abortion, think "oh, good,
that fetus was killed, that's great"?

If you so think, I am amazed beyond words at your self-delusion.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 Modern dilemmas: "Why are so many people who claim to be 'pro-choice'
 against the right of an individual to use public money for their children
 to attend the school private or public of their choice."   - Craig Sivils
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: In respect of Suzanne
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: Fri, 22 Jan 93 04:09:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.190028.6962@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1993Jan08.064954.19911@watson.ibm.com>, by margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis):
>> In <1993Jan7.232142.6990@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>
>>>Gordon, all I did was state that you are missing quite alot by having aborted
>>>your child.   I am doing nothing but speaking from experience.
>> 
>> You've had an abortion?
>
>Not at all.  I'm raising my child, and therefore know what he is missing.
He's missing a rational mom, for one thing...
Oh, you meant what Gordon is missing...
Sounds to me like Gordon is doing just fine.
How's the mucous today Suzzie?

--
                  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
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: The pro-choice thought police in action
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:14:08 GMT
Summary: Now this one is a true riot

In article <1993Jan23.182821.8437@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>   "Lawyers have no First Amendment right to use whatever
>    language they want in a courtroom, the U.S. Court of
>    Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made clear July 1.  Thus,
>    a lawyer who was representing abortion protesters at
>    a criminal trial, and who contravened a court order
>    not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''
>    that went to defenses the trial court had excluded,
>    was properly held in contempt on 20 occasions.  
>    Zal v. Steppe, CA 9, No. 91-55579, 7/1/92."
> 
>    The United States Law Week, 8/4/92, pg. 2062
> 

If a lawyer were prosecuting a suspected murderer, he would
not be permitted to describe the individual so charged as
a "murdering sociopath," for example, when examining
a witness.  Lawyers are enjoined from using any language
they please during the course of a trial in order
to avoid prejudicing a case.  Were the lawyer in the
case described above allowed to use language as he
pleased, he would leave himself wide open to losing
the case on appeal, or at the very least to having his
opponent get an appeal granted.  Trials are not soap
boxes from which parties may make speeches.  They are the
means by which our society adjudicates disagreements,
punishes wrongdoers, or aquits those who have done no
wrong.  The court did nothing wrong in the case described.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:04:01 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>She altered an attribution line so it would read that way.  Ron Bense
>agreed with this when he claimed that irony is lost on me.  Documentation

Pete,

    A quick note to explain some basics to you. Claiming that irony
is lost on someone does not mean that the one stating so agrees with
anything said by those using the said irony. Please do not place words
in my mouth (I'm quite capable of forming my own:).

Ron
From: rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PREGNANCY
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:55:22 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech CERL/EE, Atlanta, Ga

>I am fed up with all this talk about catholic women and abortion.
>I feel that it is wrong for people to moralise about this subject as it is a
>situation that very few women will have to face and therefore will never have
>to consider .

Why, if so "very few" have to face it, is there number of abortions
about 20-30% of the number of live births.  I guess very few ever
give life birth, huh?  1,500,000 abortions a years =? very few, hmm????

>As a devout catholic women I had NO reservations about having an abortion at
>6 months into my pregnancy. 

I think most people would have reservations at this point.  You've
generally being "showing" for two months.

>I faced the situation where I had came to a cross roads in my life, I was
>offered my first job offer since leaving university which I was delighted
>to accept but found myself pregnant to my lover.

Do we always sacrifice morals/character for the sake of some supposed
achievement?  Got to get that specific job - forget everything else.

>That was the choice, a new career or to stay at home and watch a baby.
> I did not approach my church for any guidence on the matter, I contacted
>my doctor and arranged the termination as soon as I could.

The law currently allows for such actions, but such allowances do not
make things right.  

As far as Christianity is concerned, the Bible tells us that we are to
honor God with our body - that we are bought with a price (Jesus' death)
and WE ARE NOT OUR OWN.

>I would say to any woman in a situation of unwanted pregnancy to do similar
>as you will not feel bad about yourself.
>The only thing that will make you feel guilty about abortion is a priest.

One's own conscience has this ability, for one really does know what
is right and wrong, in most cases.

Jesus came to give us life more abundantly - in Him there is no condemnation.
He came to save those who need help, of which we all do.  For those
who think they don't "need help", they bring judgment upon themselves.  

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu  |    Love and Worship God the Father and His Son, 
                      --|--            the Creator of the Earth. 
Pro-Life!          -|-  |  -|-  Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility! |   |   |   before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Kodak's Official Policy (formerly: Want to adopt)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:51:07 GMT

In <1k46fiINN52p@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <106596@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.214821.29561@Happy-Man.com> Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com writes:

>>>1.  Kodak should immediately fire any employee who criticizes it in
>>>public, except that the reporting of a crime or suspected crime to
>>>a law enforcement agency shall not constitute public criticism.

>>Wanna join the Happy Fascists League of America?  Sheesh, man, one
>>does not give up one's civil rights by virtue of employment. 

>Gee, why not?

>Heck, if one gives up one's right to control one's own body by virtue of 
>having sex, even using the most advanced contraceptive devices available
>today, 

Non-genital/genital sex, and abstinence, are 100% effective.

why couldn't we write a similar rule WRT employment?

>*sarcasm off*

>Adrienne Regard

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: becka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rebecca Lynn Sparling)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: becka@leland
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 05:30:35 GMT

>In article <1993Jan20.222503.1633@ncsu.edu> 
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>And learn how to spell 'therapeutic'. 

I'm impressed with your spelling ability, DODie, but I'd like to know
if you know the definition of "hypocrite?"  See below...


>>Many children are killed in the womb at a late-stage 
  ^^^^

Notice the "many," Doug?  Notice the lack of any sort of numerical
proof?  Remember how you jumped on me for not supplying numerical
proof for MY arguements?  
*sarcasm on*
Hmmmm... I'm confused... But maybe that's my
inferior mentality, and I'm simply unable to understand the obvious
difference between your credibilty and mine.  You're Doug Doltsinger,
you don't NEED proof like mere mortals... 
*sarcasm off*
Wish I had that venom you spewed at me for doing the same thing 
you just did... At least those of us who understand reality know
who the credibility here belongs to...


---
>>Doug Holtsinger
>>'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
>>DODie's credibilty is working at the Riverside McDonald's, 
>>serving hamburgers with Elvis.
       
becka
-- 
*******************************************************************************
The probability of someone       ***  If you're not part of the solution
Watching you is proportional     ***  You're part of the precipatate.
To the stupidity of your action. ***  The Chemist's Truth from Steven Wright