HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Suxanne's reasoning abilities (Was: BogieBoy's sensor array)
Summary: Peter's inability to comphrend anything beyond the HolyFetus... 
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, 11 Nov 92 03:27:23 GMT

[I was going to trim this article down, but I couldn't figure out how...]

In article <nyikos.721362033@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov3.013018.14080@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <SCOTTS.92Oct30152501@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct29.180419.15148@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>
>>>   >   Excuse me, but I do say positive things about women. 
>>>   >   Such as Suzanne Forgach. 
>>>   >
>>>   >Perhaps one of the women should answer.  How would you feel if someone
>>>   >walked up to you and said, "Rocker, you're a real Suzanne Forgach."
>>>   >Is that a positive thing?
>>>
>>>   Yes. It is extremely positive. It means:
>>>   1) She's got integrity.
>>>   2) She's got honesty.
>>>
>>>Are we talking about the same Suzanne Forgach?
>>>
>>>   3) She doesn't have a chance of getting AIDS.
>>>
>>>Like Kimberly Bergalis (sp?)
>
>>Let's not forget "the rest of the story".  Dr. Akers, a homosexual, infected
>>Kimberly with HIV because (1)He knew she was a virgin, and (2)She refused
>>to go out with him.
>
>>Suxanne said it, and with all that integrity and honesty she's got going
>>for her, it's _gotta_ be true, right?
>
>Did Suxanne really say that? Where?  And what does Suzanne have to
>say about this? :-)

Trying to hedge your bets with a smiley, Peter?

Ok, would somebody who holds the SacredSuxanneSayings archive please dig
through and show Peter just what sort of a rabid pit-bull it is he's
dealing with?

(He'll probably try to claim "demurr" against this one also, but...)
--
=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???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why Do AntiAbortionists Play At GOD!
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:57:19 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Nov11.180112.8651@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>Well, if you are not for abortion, why do you let it happen?

Because there is a a difference in choosing not to do something myself
and refusing to allow you to do it.  Case in point.  I am not for 
religion.  I am an atheist.  If I operated under the ethical system
you do, I would be obligated to try to make Christianity illegal.
I operate under a different ethical system.  Which is why I "let"
Christianity happen.  Would you like me to try to make illegal
everything I am not "for"?  My ethical system demands that I allow
you to worship in the way you choose.  My ethical system demands
that a women retain the right to make choices about her own body.
Understand?

Joe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: NBC News Blackout on Black Senatorial Candidate
Keywords: slavery, pro-life
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:01:53 GMT

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720712856@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>But there is at least one Black candidate for the US Senate.  If there
>>is only one, it is easy to see why NBC news chose not to even hint
>>at his existence.
>
>What do you call Carol Mosley Braun, if not a Black candidate for the Senate?
>
Senator.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: False analogy to prochoice stance on abortion
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Nov 92 23:24:09 GMT

In <twf10rj@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

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

>>How can you be offended by the thoughts of a person whom you 
>>can't even identify?  

>Dunno Holtsinger, you might try asking the pro-"life"rs how they
>do it....

>            -rocker

I've never been offended by the thoughts of fetuses. 
Also, I had no trouble identifying my youngest daughter on a
sonogram when she was 13 weeks old.

What were you getting at, rocker?

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 23:27:19 GMT


In article <1992Nov07.073010.101799@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
|In <1992Nov2.195513.1120@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
|>Scientific investigation, as I'm sure you'll agree, has a few
|>redeeming qualities for the improvement of our civilization.  I
|>simply can't think of any for recreational drug use.

I simply can't think of any for posting to Usenet, either.  Some
people read & post at the expense of their jobs.  Why, there's
even an "alt.usenet.recovery" for net abusers!  Let's ban
Usenet!

|Why does it have to have "redeeming qualities for the improvement of
|our civilization"?  *Most* recreational activities don't.

Answer: a double standard.  Overpeck disapproves of the human &
animal habit of using recreational intoxicants, so he attempts
rationalization.  He could just say, "Well, that's not for me,"
and refrain himself.  But he prefers to project his preferences
onto others, and regulate the behavior of strangers.

Overpeck won't answer these questions about the difference
between use & abuse, though.  At least, he hasn't answered such
questions in the past.  He hasn't posted any evidence supporting
his position (other than anecdotes, with a known sample error).
He hasn't attempted to answer the argument about rights.  And
he won't engage in this discussion where it belongs, on t.p.d.

But I certainly do appreciate seeing you ask him these questions,
Larry.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 
"You can't legislate morality. We tried to outlaw comsumption of 
alcoholic beverages. We found that violation of the law led to bigger 
crimes and bred disrespect for the law."  Jimmy Carter, 1976.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:57:19 CST


In article <1992Nov6.150953.26278@acd4.acd.com>, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> In <1992Nov5.155055.28256@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU 
>    (David Knapp) writes: >
> 
> >It seems to me that one of the largest deciding factors, along with the
> >economy, in pushing Clinton past the finish line was abortion. It seems
> >hat few voted 'for'  WClinton (or even 'for' Perot) but did this as a 
> >vote *against* Bush.
> 
> Exit polls revealed that only 11% of voters thought that abortion was
> the most important factor in the race.

The same can be said for the 3 preceeding elections, but that did not
stop some people from claiming a pro-life mandate.

The reality is that the party that is perceived as the best for the
economy wins (the economy being the biggest issue).  They get to set 
the social agenda.  Bush gave the economy issue to the Democrats...


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 5 Nov 1992 09:32:32 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov4.214842.15573@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1d982oINN1vj@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> 
>frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
>> In the vast majority of abortions, the foetus will die in short order once 
>> it has been removed.  
>
>Let's say that I should have the right to leave a dying accident victim
>alongside the road, and to refuse to drive them to the hospital.  Does it
>follow that I should have the right to kill them?  Certainly not.  

You have the right not to drive them - thus increasing the likelihood that
they will die.  In the case of a z/e/f, increasing it to approximately 100%.

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 20:25:16 GMT

In <1992Oct28.220024.15560@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><adams.720210646@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney):
>>>> Suzanne, do you believe that gay men hate women?
>>>
>>>I believe that gay men hate everybody, including themselves.
>>
>>Huh?  This has to qualify for finalist in the dumbest statement in the history 
>>of Usenet competition.

>Yup, pretty frightening too when you figure this person is going to be
>raising children AND voting too.  I wonder how (or even if) Nyikos will
>defend this statement of ignorance from his fearless leader.

This is her opinion, and she is entitled to it, incorrect though it may
be.  And before you start flaming the two of us, ask her which definition
of "hate" she is using.  It has quite a broad range of definitions.

People can distinguish between privately hating abortion, like Brian 
McBean does, and publicly lifting a finger against it, as Brian refuses
to do.  Let's acknowledge the same range of possibilities elsewhere, and
also distinguish between hating gays, which Suzanne does not, and thinking
gay men hate "everybody, including themselves," which Suzanne did think at
the moment in time she made the statement.  

BTW Suzanne is not my leader. [She may be fearless, though. :-)]

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Centrist position on abortion?
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Nov 92 20:54:50 GMT

In <1992Nov3.022212.15949@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <Bx0DHJ.8vC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>Wait.  Wait.  Wait.  Re-read the original article. You've gotten my
>position completly confused.

Not hard to do where Keith is concerned.  I originally took his offer
to be "doer" to my body as a simple gross-out, the way I always took
such harassments in high school and college.  It wasn't until Sarah
McCabe made it very clear to me that it was an offer, to be taken at
face value, that I realized what a serious case of sexual harassment
it was.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Protecting newborn infants as non-persons
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:54:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.000129.7984@ncar.ucar.edu> 
kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

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

>> Some pro-choicers have argued that the state can protect
>> newborn infants from being killed, even though they might be
>> considered as ``non-persons''.  A person, they argue, is an 
>> entity which holds constitutional rights. 

> How many people are saying this?  And how do they define "person"?  
> Is it the same type of "person" found in the sentence: 
> "All person's should be treated equally." ?

If we define 'person' as an entity holding constitutional rights,
as some people have argued, then a 'person' would be an entity
that would have the equal protection of the laws, and their
life could not be deprived without due process.  

> A newborn infant certainly fits *my* notion of a 'person'.

Then it follows that certain fetuses are persons. 

>> If we consider newborn infants as non-persons, then we
>> are not considering their interests, but we are considering
>> society's interests in protecting them.  Therefore, when
>> when society's interests are not served by protecting a
>> a particular newborn infant, then that infant may be killed. 

> Replace "newborn infants" with "some fetus'" and this could start 
> to make sense.  With that in mind, one might say:
> "Therefore, when when society's interests in protecting the life of 
> a particular 'non-person' are in conflict with the constitutional rights 
> of a 'real person', then that 'non-person' may be killed."

I think you're assuming that personhood begins at birth, which
seems arbitrary to me. 

Personhood is designed to protect individual rights and self-interests,
even when those self-interests conflict with society's.  The only 
reason we might protect a non-person is because it serves societal
interests.  Therefore it makes no sense to protect a non-person
when societal interests are not served by protecting them.  


>-Brian


Doug Holtsinger
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: misogyny
Date: 9 Nov 1992 08:39:47 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.720821307@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

Why, hello, Peter.  I've noticed through the past 14 articles now, that your
poster appears to be online again.                                     

I do notice, however, that so far 14 articles have scrolled past my screen,
including a response to something I posted a few weeks ago, but still no 
mention of *YOUR* *MISTAKE* and your accusation of forgery wrt another post.
Why is that, Peter?

>Active, as I see it, has to do with willed
>actions, while passive has to do with things that go on whether we will
>them or no.

Peter, I don't care how you see it.

>BTW I would not say killing a rapist is violating the rapists rights.  The
>rapist abrogated those rights in the act of rape. 

Well, *there's* another interesting, non-viable interpretation of the law!
A rapist has abrogated his right to live by the act of rape, huh?

Rape may be punished by lethal injection.  Yep, that one will go over big.

Peter, when are you going to begin making sense?  Once you get the attributions
figured out?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 21:32:29 GMT

In <1992Oct30.012313.1131@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720070679@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <UetODD_00YUoM=OHsx@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>

>[Peter pines away for the Good Old Days When Men Were Men, Women Were Women,
>and Small Furry Creatures From Alpha Centuri Were Small Furry Creatures
>From Alpha Centuri]

And Keith Cochran had not yet made his offer to be "doer" to my body,
with hints of fisting me.

>September 11, 1992.  Three gay men and a straight women harassed in a western
>slope town when a truck with three men in it drove by and yelled anti-gay
>remarks at them.  A few minutes later the men in the truck returned and
>attacked the group with baseball bats.

>September 19, 1992.  A hetrosexual man was murdered by two men at a 7-11
>convience store.  The two perpeturators called the man "gay", "faggot",
>and "queer" before he was stabbed.  Police were notified.


>Welcome to the real world, Peter.

I've been in it for a long time, Cochran.  It's about time you took
cognizance of something I said to you back in September.

I told you I considered your offer to be sexual harassment, prefacing
it by saying that if Clarence Thomas had admitted to having
 made that offer to Anita Hill, he would have a hard time finding a
job as a judge anywhere.

Then I said that I had been ignoring people calling me "Petey Honey"
in the hopes it would go away, but now I say, enough is enough.

I have seen only one response from you to about ten posts in which
I mention this action of yours, in five of which I tell you to stop
playing dumb.  You haven't even come close to apologizing for making
the offer.

That last sentence is a statement of fact, not a request.  I live in
the real world, where Keith Cochran likes to pretend he is an innocent
man.  To apologize for his offer would involve more self-scrutiny
than I believe he is capable of.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: NEWS FLASH!!!! DOODIE SUPPORTS LATE TERM MURDER!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:47:25 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] It's not a matter of me personally permitting late-term abortions, 
] it's a matter of public policy. 
] 
] Doug Holtsinger



now to move along slowly and catch on
that this also covers the first two trimesters as well....

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:04:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.064805.28774@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.181747.4351@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>>
>>Read the original post again.  Americans tend to not support abortions after
>>the first trimester.  The proposals of which you speak would have banned
>>abortions in the first trimester.  When faced with a choice of abortion
>>on demand or no abortion at all, Americans choose the former.  The real
>>battle will continue to be fought in the middle, not at the extremes.
>
>You do not have your facts in order.  The Maryland measure codified Roe v.
>Wade. It says nothing about first trimester abortions being a special
>category.  It had *nothing* to do with banning abortions since it was a
>preemptive strike in case Roe gets reversed by the Supreme Court.  Had it
>been voted down, they could have chosen any range of alternatives available
>in the current caselaw.  They chose the rule of Roe.  Maryland, by the way,
>is heavily Catholic last I heard.
>
>Arizona was a RTL measure that would have banned abortions except in the
>classic exceptions of rape, incest, life of mother.  It lost, too.
>
>

You are correct, I misspoke (miswrote?).  

Roger Shouse


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion (couldn't find original)
Date: 8 Nov 92 03:19:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov7.235252.17395@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> The idea that infanticide is not wrong has been expressed by a
> number of other pro-choicers on this newsgroup; it's nothing new.  

What's the number?  Who are these people?  All I've seen is
you suggesting it.

> And don't be surprised when the other pro-choicers stay silent
> on the subject. 

That is truly funny.  Reverend Doug is lying again.  So what
else is new?  I have seen quite a few pro-choice supporters
telling you that you're quite wrong, and providing the reasons
why infanticide is wrong.

If you, Reverend, are pro-life, you put the "lie" in "life."

Dean Kaflowitz
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Keegan demonstrates his control tendencies yet again
Date: 9 Nov 92 08:03:22 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Nov9.042610.972@ncsu.edu>, by
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):

> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> 
>>>> i wanted to see if you would have the courage to admit
>>>> that you rejected her offer and the honesty to admit
>>>> whether or not you had even given her the courtesy of a reply.
> 
>>> I did reply.  
> 
>> prove it.
> 
> You made the accusation, so you've got the burden of proof.
> BTW, I didn't place myself in a position of authority to either 
> accept or reject her offer to moderate a newsgroup, I merely 
> proposed a moderated newsgroup.  You seem to have trouble
> understanding the concept of allowing people the freedom
> to act on their own.
>  

Am I the only one who thinks this infantile bickering could be
more efficiently dealt with via email?  Does anyone else resent
having to sift through this refuse in search of meaningful
debate and discussion?  Do these folks have *anything* better
to do than chant, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Is there an emoticon for utter disgust?


--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu