HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: In respect of Suzanne (was  Re: Hey, Steve Novak (Was: Re: Kids suck 
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Super G Burger"
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:24:56 GMT

<1992Dec11.184414.387@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>>It seems like an excellent time for you to ask DODie for proof
>>that "Cheeseball" or whatever his name is considers himself
>>pro-choice.  Then, maybe Jay Stein could take the Reverend
>>on a walk down memory lane regarding his complaints about 
>>generalizing about pro-forcers.  
>
>DUDie is one of the very few on t.a. whose calls for proof can be
>ignored, except for eliciting gales of derisive laughter.  The Pathetic
>Pud quotes other t.a. posters out of context at *least* 4 times a week!
>How can anyone take such a clown seriously?  The Tautology Tango he's 
>danced on his credibility has shredded it beyond repair, leaving poor
>Dougie a pathetic buffoon doomed to float aimlessly around net groups 
>invoking abuse from all who get to know him.
>
>Only Rasmussen, Forgach and Chaney can equal his strange predilection
>for dishonesty and hostility.

Don't forget Nyikos.  I'd like to take a moment and offer a sincere
note of respect for Suzanne Forgach.  All of those mentioned above have
taken well deserved flame baths in the napalm of t.a.  Only Suzanne has
continued to post here.  Some might call it being a glutton for
punishment, some might call it naivity.  But whatever you want to call
it, at least Suzanne hasn't run away or threatened anyone and lost her
posting privileges because of it.  Although she has been known to take
forever to respond to a question.

I disagree with Suzanne on nearly everything, but I'll grant her this -
she's no coward.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:57:30 GMT

In article <16DEC92.08221278@vax.clarku.edu>
lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) wrote:
>>In article <15DEC92.17345152@vax.clarku.edu>
>>lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>>But my point is that the constitution can be ammended.  If the majority wants 
>>>something that is unconstitutional, all they have to do is elect people who 
>>>will make ammendments to the constitution.  An example of this is prohibition.
>>>When it was ammended to the constitution that drinking was illegal it became 
>>>unconstitutional to drink. Then, prohibition was repealed, making something 
>>>that was once unconstitutional legal again.

>>Try reading the Constitution.  Try the section on how one passes an
>>amendment.  Hint: not by simple majority vote.

>Why don't you read the paragraph that you are replying to again.  You see the 
>second sentence?  

>Hint:  It doesn't say that ammendments are made my majority vote.  It says 
>ammendments are made by officials who are chosen by majority vote.

>Maybe you should read the constitution.  It pretty much says that Congress 
>(elected officials) either propose ammandments, or call a convention to 
>propose ammendments.  Either way, these ammendments shall be "valid to all 
>Intents and Purposes, as part of this constitution" once they have been 
>ratified by (yes, you guessed it) more elected officials.  Hmmmm.  Seems like 
>whoever has control of the elections (the majority, perhaps) can therefore get 
>anything that they want ammended to the constitution, simply by voting for the 
>people who will make it so.


Guess what?  A simple majority of the people will be unevenly
distributed between the various states and districts, and is extremely
unlikely to succeed in electing two-thirds of the House and Senate and
a majority of three-quarters of the State legislatures.

Next stupid idea?

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

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Laugh of the week from Will Steeves.
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:30:06 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec16.153050.15780@zooid.guild.org>
goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes: 

>Michal, why do you have such bitterness against men?
>You might have had some bad experience where a man wasn't there to give you
>emotional support, (I don't know the exact circumstances because you never
>discussed it in public), but this does *not* mean that *all* men think that
>women who get pregnant, are trying to "stiff" them, nor does it mean that men
>are generally unwilling to help women through pregnancy.
>I really don't what put this chip on your shoulder, but I really think that you
>ought to examine the reason why you have your particular attitudes about men.
>I know whereof I speak, because I admit that I had similar negative feelings
>about women after all of what happened, two years ago, not to mention the
>threats on my life.
>*I* got over it, which basically means that *anyone* can.  :-)

Is this a joke?  The pot calls the kettle black!  Will claims to have
gotten over his irrational hatred of women?  Is this the same Will who
was going to murder the woman who aborted a child he alleges to have
fathered because she did not respect him?  I think far more than one
smiley face was needed in this post.

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: The Reverend Dougie does his usual song and dance
Summary: *yawn*
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 02:40:10 GMT
Expires: Don't we just wish his articles would expire sooner?

In article <1992Dec15.025342.12892@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) barfs all over the net and posts:

[Entire article ripped out. No need to quote such utter tripe.]

And now, after showing his skill at reading the minds of not one, but
*every single pro-choice individual* in the entire world, the Wrong
Reverend Dougie will attempt a double backflip with a half twist.

The twist will be his usual "but that isn't what I said" when people
start (quite justifiably) ripping this bilge to shreds.


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 11 Dec 1992 15:53:15 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <11DEC92.18140105@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>> 
>>>If someone was in the act of raping me (rape being violent, forced sex) then I 
>>>would use whatever force necessary to protect myself.  
 
>>So you would use lethal force if necessary to get someone to stop using your 
>>body, but you won't let pregnant women do the same.
>>Hypocrite.
>
>Maybe you should learn to read!  I said I would use lethal force to protect my 
>self against violent, forced sex.  I would be happy to let a pregnant woman 
>kill someone who is trying to have violent, forced sex with her.

Yeah, because it might actually happen that someone could force violent
sex upon you, but it isn't likely to happen that you will become pregnant.
So, its's perfectly safe for you to draw lines like this, REGARDLESS of
the rationale underlying the lines you draw.

You'll allow yourself an 'out' because you don't want to suffer something 
you consider a negative, but you don't allow others the same 'out'.

I'm with Heather.  You are a hypocrite.

Adrienne Regard
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:16:18 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <16DEC92.19472567@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) wrote:
>>Let's limit the net to worthwhile discussions, ok?
>>nuff said.
>
>What's the matter, David?  You used to be Loren's number one cheerleader.  Did 
>the pompoms get too heavy for you, or are you just to embarrassed to continue 
>supporting such a clueless pro-forced-birther?
>
>
>				.... Heather.

No, Heather, I (and probably 99% of the rest of the net) just felt
that the constant and endless bickering between you and Loren,
almost none of which contained anything intelligent from either side
(I seem to remember something about a bet and somebody being tied
to a chair) was pointless, juvenile, irrelevant, and certainly a
waste of bandwidth.  It's time-consuming enough to wade through the 100+
daily posts on t.a alone, without having to endure all that crap.
(and yes, I know how to use the 'n' key, but that doesn't help enough)
I suppose flames are a constitutional right, but let's *all* try
and keep them to a minimum, ok?  (I admit to my own guilt and
agree to help)

And, ftr, I believe the term is "pom pon", not "pompom";
not that I agree to the above accusation, of course.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Summary: Nah.  Just mindlessness.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:13:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.043531.10053@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.190927.26788@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  
>ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>> 
>>  (Karl Rominger) writes:
>> >
>> >ABORTION IS MURDER
>> >no elaboration required.
>> 
>> Well, just a little.  While abortion does take a life, 
>> murder is by definition the *illegal* taking of a life.
>> Therefore, since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder.
>
>In US legal terms you are correct.  But in terms of absolute justice the  
>question is far more complicated.  Stay tuned for my thesis on the  
>question of justice as it relates to abortion.

I know I'll ignore it.  In case you haven't noticed yet, the US legal system
is what we have to deal with, not your "absolute justice"...



-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 605 637-4971 at LeClair's Bar & Grill.

                     So, what are you looking at down here?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:36:58 GMT

> = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-
> demand must argue that the child should not be considered
> as a person.  This position implies that newborn infants 
> are not persons, since there is no difference between a 
> late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers 
> must condone infanticide.

Are you really unable to identify any significant distinguishing factors
between a late-term fetus and an infant?!
If so, I'll suspect that many people will find it difficult to
engage in a meaningful dialog with you.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: The Gardener story (and relevance)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:59:50 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 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

In <Bz3tyM.Kn6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@eehp3 (Robert Scott Parker) writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <1992Dec6.233852.8298@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>
>>>A person may use lethal force in self-defense only when they
>>>believe that their life is _immediately_ threatened.
>
>>Now Doug, you *know* that's not true.  You've admitted as much previously.
>
>I'm affraid I have to agree with Doug on this one specific point.  (*gasp* Say
>it isn't so!)

OK.  It isn't so.  :-)

>That is pretty much part of the *definition* of self-defense.  You can't kill
>someone and claim "self-defense" because you had a dream that they were going
>to buy a gun and kill you a month from now.

Nobody was talking about what you describe.

>Now, it may be that *life* need not be threatened to claim "self-defense",

That's the topic under discussion.  In New York at least, the use of
deadly force is justified to prevent or terminate a forcible rape,
forcible sodomy, kidnapping, arson, or robbery, as well as to defend
against the use of deadly force.

>if the defending force is "unreasonable" under the circumstances (of life not
>immediately in danger) it is not "self-defense".

Interesting point.  That the use of deadly force in the above cases is legally
justified is clear, but perhaps it doesn't fall under the aegis of self-defense?

>Thus it is basically true that the law implies that a person may (intentionally)
>use lethal force in "self-defense" only when they (reasonably) believe that
>they are in *immediate* danger.

The point I was questioning was his statement that the victim must believe
that their life is threatened; he has since admitted that they need *not*
believe this in the case of rape.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice (Not!)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:48:43 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <502@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.010358.18855@ll.mit.edu> x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
>#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#.
>#.I'm beginning to think that some people in this thread would like
>#.to have everything codified into law.
>#
>#Why not?  Thats the only way people are guaranteed rights.  Otherwise 
>#you have to presume someone else is going to be 'nice'.
>
>Sigh.  I was right.
>
>Some of prefer to be allowed to live at least parts of our lives
>without state interference.  

So do men.  So repeal the child support laws and make this a pure
contractual issue, with the rights and responsibilities falling where they
should, on the person who makes the choice -- the woman.

Now, you have no state interferance.  If you choose to sleep with a man, and
wish to bear a child if you get pregnant, get a contract signed first that
says he's willing to pay <x> if you're single, or that custody and finances
will be handled as <y> if you are married and split up.

Otherwise, what you're really saying is that you want all the advantages in
this situation, as I suspected.

>#  Now when my 'birth mother' established contact with me this past summer....
>#Ooops I really, really digress.....
>#
>#Look all I want is the same standard of judgement for women as for men.
>
>That's my problem - it's not the same standard.  You might try re-reading
>what I wrote.  I don't think that many women would deny a child a
>relationship with his or her father if the man agreed to it, regardless
>of any previous agreements.  You automatically assumed that I would
>do this.  I doubt that I could.  
>
>Even if the woman did try to stop any such meeting, the child will
>eventually grow up and be independent.  It's possible that a
>relationship with the father might occur then.
>
>There is nothing that is analogous to abortion.  Granting men the
>right to refuse to pay child support will not make things equal.
>That was all I was saying.  

Sure it will.  It will mean that women, if they want a man's cooperation,
will have to secure it contractually or "be nice" as they may choose,
instead of being able to beat men over the head with "child support" and
"dead beat dads".

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: overpeck and misogyny again
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:12:40 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <490@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu 
->>I don't care to follow-up ridiculously long articles just
->>so you can relive your flamewar with Keegan, Overpeck.

->Do you expect him to come to your defense? 

why would you ask this question of a woman, dr. bill?
i've never seen you ask a male if they were expecting a
female to defend them.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
X-To: STEVE NOVAK
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:18:00 GMT

steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes...
SN> > = Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
SN> >regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
SN> >AR> In article <BxzDx5.IMu@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver
SN> i
SN> >AR> >In article <1ebjs2INNmmn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (
SN> e
SN> >AR> Regard) writes:
SN> >AR> >>In article <BxuK2B.32F@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Dennin
SN> >AR> es:
SN> >AR> >>>In article <1e9108INNlmu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
SN> r
SN> >AR> e Regard) writes:

SN> A friendly suggestion, Will?  ...Try and fix whatever is making your
SN> attribution lines so goofy; e.g., an "AR" in front of every poster
SN> (above).


That it is a friendly request is accepted and appreciated in light of our many
apparent disagreements, however, my mail reader is SLMR, and in the above
situation, someone had replied to my reply to Adrienne, and had kept in the
"AR>" attributions.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * We pause for station identification...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52285 alt.rush-limbaugh:11851
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: MURDER
Date: 19 Dec 1992 01:55:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


 Karl Rominger writes...

      "ABORTION IS MURDER.
       no elaboration required."


     What can I say???

                        THE MAN IS A GENIUS!

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 16:00:15 GMT

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:

>>OK. Under current law, some pregnant rape victims have abortions,
>>and some don't. All other things being equal, the ones that want
>>abortions, have abortions. The ones that don't want abortions,
>>don't have abortions. That seems fair.
>> 
>>You, on the other hand, want to change the law so that none of
>>them would be allowed to have abortions. This would undoubtedly 
>>cause a certain amount of suffering.
> 
>Actually, the suffering is already going on.  Making abortion illegal would 
>only eliminate "the easy way out".  It is the same as taking drugs away from 
>an addict.  Yes, they will suffer, but the person removing the drugs is not 
>responsible for that suffering.  The person who got the victim hooked is 
>responsible. 

Loren, your attitude towards rape victims is digusting.  How did you get 
to be so hateful that you can label a rape victim trying to end the abuse 
inflicted on her body as nothing more than taking "the easy way out"?  
There is NO easy way out of such a situation.  

Also, your disregard for the pregnant rape victim's suffering ("Yes, they 
will suffer, but...") proves yet again what a sexist, woman-hating pig you 
really are.  A government that forces a rape victim to stay pregnant against 
her will IS responsible for her suffering - they simply pick up where the 
rapist left off.

>That is why I specified the difference between a fertalized egg, and an 
>unfertalized one.  An unfertalized egg will neververrow into a human adult.  
>It may become fertalized, but then it wouldn't be unfertalized. 

I just had to include this.  Check out that last sentence;  for once Loren 
actually gets something right!  I sure can't argue with the fact that an 
unfertilized egg is unfertilized.  But they way, Loren, the word is spelled
unfertilized, not unfertalized.  Look it up.


				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: Will wonders never cease?
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Four hours up I-10, and a right on 59
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:07:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.232548.28490@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>This thread is still going?  I first saw this one back in September.
>
>Simon

I should hope so -- you started it...:-)

--PLH, we knew he'd be back to check, so we kept it burning



-- 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 15 DEC 92 05:30:21 GMT

In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>In article <14DEC92.18471803@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>>
>>>THE BET IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> 
>>>$100, the population being the known posters here in talk.abortion.
>>
>>I don't think so.  Why don't you just choose the population of your home 
>>instead.  I could just as easily call for a vote from all of my friends.
> 
>I don't think so, Loren.  The original posting said:
> 
>From zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!noc.near.net!black.clarku.edu!vax.clarku.edu!hsims Fri Dec 11 08:45:33 PST 1992
> 
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
> 
>>>At any given time, Loren, I'll bet money I could get 51% of a given 
>>>population to vote that you should be strapped to a chair for 3 weeks (by
>>>offering them a portion of the money bet).  
>> 
>>How much money will you bet?  Whatever it is, I'll take that bet.  
>>Good luck getting enough money to pull it off.  
> 
>-----end inclusion----
> 
>Backing out already?  I said "given population" and you said "I'll take
>that bet."

Who is giving the population.  We were talking about the way things become 
laws in the united states, and votes of the majority in the United States.  
I noticed that you skipped mentioning that.  You are the one who said in a 
"given poplulation"  Well, I am giving you the population.  The United States. 
Since that is what we were talking about it is much more appropriate.  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion