HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's rant letter
Summary: Did someone say "cat"?!?!?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: 77036-2409.  'nuff said.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 20:15:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.172004.12634@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <Bu4swF.37t.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.715735129@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>#In <1992Sep1.175955.24063@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>>#
>>#
>>##	For those of you (like Mr. Nyikos) who seem reluctant to accept just
>>##how loony Pat Robertson has become, here's the AP report on his charming
>>##little letter/plea for $$, lifted from talk.politics.misc:
>>#
>>#HOLD IT!  HOLD IT!  I thought this was all about Pat Buchannan.  
>>
>>Did you?
>>
>>"Robertson is much too astute to make blanket statements
>>like the one you say he suggested."
>> - Peter Nyikos <nyikos.715285141@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>>
>>
>>"Hmmm.  Maybe I gave Robertson more credit than he deserves."
>>Peter Nyikos - <nyikos.715468090@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>
>I love you, Susan.  Let's run away and have 2.4 kids together.  I'll bring
>the cat.

Do you want two?  Move fast, because you'll have to take them off my hands
before Dale Ann gets home from the hospital. :-)  (In case y'all are wondering,
since I haven't had much to say, she's had her surgery Friday night, spent
the night in SICU, was moved to the Jones NCCU yesterday morning, and was
moved out and into a regular room in Jones this afternoon -- and she is
doing fine.  If anyone wants to talk to her -- and she's got a lot to say!
-- she's at 713 797-2646 for the next few days.)
-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                           I love my country.
                     I *don't* trust my government.
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:56:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <43779@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

}You misunderstood me.  

You say that fairly often.  Perhaps the trouble is at the transmission
end rather than with the receiver...

}I am arguing for a right to vote for a law.  I am not arguing that *you* 
}should vote for it.
}Hence your question is irrelevant.

You have my permission to vote.  I doubt that anyone I know of would 
stop you from voting, or is that irrelevant also?

}I feel the burden of proof is on you here.

Gee, I'm not proposing any legislation whatsoever.  And you feel the burden
of proof is on me?  I'm supposed to prove that your (unspecified) legislation
wouldn't work?  What a curious notion!

}I guess I would give a "I'll consider a law" candidate the benefit
}of the doubt that he wouldn't implement a bad law.

Even an unprincipled candidate, so long as abortion was considered
evil.  

Let me make this real clear for you.  Consider two unprincipled,
corruption-ridden candidates.  A law is proposed mandating
killing Tommy Kelly.  The candidate who finds abortion no more
repugnant than ordering a hamburger states that he/she wouldn't 
even consider such a law.  However, the candidate who things
abortion is evil responds that they would take such a law into
consideration.  You'd vote for the one who'd consider the law,
right?

Maybe I misunderstood...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Chaney chokes again.
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 03:29:57 GMT

In article <nyikos.716584462@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

Kevin!  Kevin!  Come Quick!  We have *another* net.lawyer!

And Peter, what do the words "being great with child" mean to you?  To mean
they mean late term, like 3rd trimester...
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35383 talk.religion.misc:15787
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Date: 7 Sep 1992 04:28:12 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

In article <nyikos.715733663@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <Bu43LD.71q.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>In article <nyikos.715650400@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>#In <lacgvmINN56h@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>##As a third degree Wiccan priest who leads a coven of my own I rebuke
>>##your statement that Wicca is a subset of the feminist movement.
>>#
>>#Are you saying that it is impossible for a male to be part of the 
>>#feminist movement?

>>No, he's saying that Wicca is not a subset of the feminist 
>>movement.  Do you really have that much trouble understanding
>>the written word?

>No, I merely assumed the connection between the first part of his sentence
>and the second part was different than it actually was.  I was hoping that,
>by drawing attention to the fact that he was male, he was thereby trying
>to refute the statement that Wicca is a feminist movement.  Now all I
>have to show for my pains is a rebuke and not even an outright denial.
>And no clue as to why Wicca is not feminist.

Perhaps it would be appropiate to ask questions if you do not understand
something, rather than making an incorrect statement and then expecting
someone to explain why your statement is incorrect. If you have any
such questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them.

Eric

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 21:18:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes ...
>In article <-7tnp3.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> Good for you.  Would you feel the same way now had that pregnancy forced
>> you into bankruptcy, made your wife an invalid, and/or destroyed your 
>> marriage?  And if you are anything less than 100% sure of the answer,
>> how can you justify forcing that decision on anyone else?
>> 
>Thing is, I was willing to take that chance.  You can't make an arguement that
>it is ok to kill a baby because of worst case possibilities.

And you can't make the argument that because you're willing to take the
chance that everyone else must be also.

>                You're right--
>those things will sometimes happen.  But I would be pretty sure that, in over
>95% of the cases they won't.  If you feel that way about avoiding bad things,
>don't drive your car anymore.

So then, did your wife[?] give birth in a hospital?  Or with doctors
and/or nurses and/or midwives present?  Why?  Just in case something 
went wrong?

If you feel that way about avoiding bad things, don't have children.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Maury Povich and the brainwashing child abusers
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:48:15 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep3.160030.10916@mcs.gvsu.edu>, orr@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
[...]
> The thing is is that these same thirteen year old's are supposedly 
> old enough to decide to have an abortion without parental consent.
> How can she be mature enough to decide to have an abortion at
> thirteen but not old enough to oppose it?  

I take it that's how the law works, eh?  Wouldn't know offhand, but
it looks as though you're right here.  How's a thirteen year old
supposed to know whether abortion is right or not?  Could leave it
up to the parents, but what if Mama and Papa are cruel and abusive?
Hmmmmmmmmmm...  No solutions from me yet.

> Furthermore, parental
> influence goes both ways on this issue.  If a minor cannot be 
> expected to protest something that she believes from her own
> heart I don't see the logic of saying that she is old enough to 
> condone it or act upon it.  

Allow me to interject here (that always feels good!):  The 13 yo in
question was not just protesting, she was *breaking the law*...
The parents *knew* she was breaking the law.  It's fine and dandy
for a kid to go and protest (even if she doesn't know what she's
talking about), but she was engaged in criminal activity.  Maybe
the kid thinks 13 y-olds should be allowed to drive while under the
influence of alcohol, caffeine, and maryjuwanna?, but that doesn't mean
it's ok for her to do so.

> It is almost implying that the 
> pro-choice movement is more honest than the pro-life movement.
> Both sides use extremist tactics and make it difficult for adults
> let alone children decide for themselves.

I don't remember ever jumping on the backs of Operation Rescuers
to stop them from jumping on the backs of pregnant women seeking
abortion...  to be less hostile in my words:  What extreme tactics
have I used?  There are extremists, and there are non-extremists
(and there's also instances of quadruple maximum radio overkill,
such as there was with Bohemian Rhapsody (but I digress...)),
and there are members in both the pro-choice and pro-life movements,
but that doesn't mean you have to listen to everybody.
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
I love Lisa, but Bugs Bunny is alright too I guess
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:08:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: Murasami Labs

In article <1992Sep4.161921.10851@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes (
Steve Novak) wrote:

[I write:]
> >A little kindness and sympathy may go a long way.
> 
> "Kindness and sympathy"?  For WHAT?  Some guy that wants to control
> women, and has expressed the possibility of VIOLENCE (in fact, *death*)
> against a woman who doesn't report to him as he wants?

You can't change someone's mind if you harden their heart first. Then
they will resist you, and you end up with someone with closed ears
as well as a closed mind. It gets you nothing but a self-fullfiling
prophecy. 

I don't think Steeves wants to control women, he just would like a
little consideration about something that could have a major repercussion
in his life.

I can understand his attitude. If it happened to me, would I kill her?
No. I may be tempted to - after all, here before me stands one who in
a premeditated act murdered my child. What would you do to someone who
murdered *your* child?

Of course, you don't see it as a child, and you dismiss out-of-hand
those who think otherwise. But I wouldn't kill her. I wouldn't even
hit her. I'd surely turn my back on her. No woman is worth *any* jail 
time.

But please continue treating men like beasts and animals.

Just don't be surprised when they act the way you treat them.

K'Char
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:43:52 GMT

In article <SCOTTS.92Sep8173613@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scotty Dog #2) writes:
>
>   =============================================================================
>   |Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation  
>                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                               who does he think he's kidding?
>
>   |Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice   Registered Democrat
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Borgie-boy has really blown his propeller now!

Aw, so you can't stand to see us make fun of your deeply cherished
beliefs like Chris 'n Vickie do of ours? 

Well, then, I'll keep on. 

>   |			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          
>   |           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn           
>
>Civil rights for the unborn?  Like equal housing, equal employment opportunity 
>and voting rights?

Newborns can't vote, but does that mean in your little preposterous
uneducated world that they have no civil rights? 


=============================================================================
>##       "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>
=============================================================================
|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              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:37:22 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <18qeapINNpvc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:

> In article <1992Sep11.144108.10600@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >[very premature baby survives and goes home after long time in hospital]
> >  Ray, are you in favor then of triage for all? 
> >... This can happen when there are too many casualties to
> >treat (say after a battle, or a major urban disaster).  
> 
> (Of course, this is exactly what *does* happen after a battle or a major
> urban disaster, so it doesn't require anybody's 'approval'...)
> >
> >  Somehow, I think this mind-set will meet with some resistance when you include
> >money in the criteria.  
> 
> I think, as we see the bulge of population known as the baby boom age, and
> fail in their age, and begin to die, we will see a *lot* of weird criteria
> in medicine.  Those who have property that can be attached will be served.
> Those who don't -- hmmmmm.  As the wealth transfer from baby boomers to
> doctors beings to take a bigger and bigger bite out of the next generation,
> you'll see a different set of criteria emerge.
[some stuff deleted]
> Adrienne Regard

  As a side note, Gov. Ann Richards is trying to get a state-wide health in-
surance plan going here in Texas.  I don't know the details, but of course
the idea is cheap care for all, and getting those runaway costs capped.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:40:15 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep11.014947.174@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child):
> >
> > ....And Suzanne ducks AGAIN the salient question:
> >
> > "So, you would charge the abortionist with murder and counsel the woman.
> >  What if the woman herself IS the abortionist?"
>
> I would suggest nothing worse than a fine or community service, but more
> likely counselling and rehab.

For *murder*?  Aren't you being a little inconsistent here?  If you think
it's murder, why would you charge the doctor, but let the woman literally
get away with murder?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:48:45 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

In article <1992Sep4.152108.29993@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# In article <1992Sep3.195638.27981@Cadence.COM> 
# phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
# 
# >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# 
# >> Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
# >> right to kill a member of the human species.  
# 
# > Note that Congress has the power to declare war, which give Congress the 
# > power to allow members of the human species to be killed.  
# 
# Governments don't have rights, people do. 

Constitutions don't grant rights.  Therefore `constitutional right'
merely refers to rights explicitly recognized in the Constitution.
The Constitution explicitly recognizes the existence of rights other
than those explicitly enumerated.

So, in one respect, Doug is correct.  Before, Roe v. Wade, there was
never any `constitutional right' to kill a human being.  Of course,
Roe v. Wade did not amend the Constitution, so it didn't change that.
Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't explicitly refer to a right to
kill anyone or anyTHING.

Parallel statement:  Before Brown vs. Topeka there was never any
constitutional right to go to desegregated schools.

So, once again, Mr. Holtsinger...


	WHAT'S YER DAMNED *POINT*!?


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Racism, not.
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:23:57 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Sep14.190538.3788@athena.mit.edu>  purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:

>In context, this statement appears to be merely insulting, rather than racist.
>In fact, it may not even be insulting, but only impolite, depending on whether
>or not you think calling someone "fat" and "black" is insulting or impolite
>(it is my opinion that the use of "ass" is almost always impolite). For
>example, I should hope that no one would think the phrase "My doctor is a fat
>black man" is racist (if you do, then in my book you are probably a
>racist in denial).  On the other hand, replacing "fat black man" with
>"lazy nigger" definately smacks of racism.  I don't feel the two phrases
>are equivalent at all.

I would disagree.  I believe Patrick did use a racist term and he has
already apologized for using the term.  While saying someone is black
as a way of describing that person is acceptable, it seems clear to me 
that to include the term black in the derogatory way Patrick did was
racist.  In your example above, the sentence "My doctor is a fat black
man" may or may not be racist.  It depends on your reason for using the
term "black".  If you are describing him to someone so that they will
recognize him, then it is not racist.  If you are using black as a way
of saying why he is fat, then that would be racist.  It is fine line,
and subject to interpretation by both the speaker and the listener,
but the line does exist.  

>Calling phrases like "fat black ass" racist only trivializes the meaning
>of the terms "racist" and "racism".  There's a world of difference between
>using an impolite expression and being of a mindset that believes in racial
>inferiority.  Those who attempt to blur the distinction do themselves and
>the world no favors.

Words can have a variety of meanings.  Much of it is dependent on context.
There is a world of difference between the way Richard Pryor uses the 
term "nigger" and the way the grand puppa of the KKK may use the term.
I believe in the context Patrick used "fat black ass" was racist.  That
does not necessarily mean Patrick is a racist.  I love Patrick dearly,
and I don't believe he is.  He made a mistake in using black in the
sentence and he has apologized for it.  

>Jim

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:25:21 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <24642@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>  
> A question: Is having a glass of wine with dinner "using" alcohol, or
> is it merely the enjoyment of fermented grape juice?

Can't you do both?  And what if you just *don't* like the taste of wine?
I couldn't do anything but make nasty faces about the taste until I
tried some homemade stuff from my friend's Greek landlord (it actually
tasted like grapes!  Imagine that!)

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion