HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:15:14 GMT

In <CORWIN+.93Jan22144246@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

>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:

>   >In article <nyikos.727394857@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>   >   On the same basis on which Susan Garvin referred to Holtsinger as 

>   >   Doug "yer fat black ass" Holtsinger,

>   >   I could call you  "You are an idiot" rocker.


>   >Of course, Susan Garvin never called Reverend Holtsinger 
>   >Doug "yer fat black ass" Holtsinger, so you would be
>   >basing your idiocy on nothing.

>   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
>   on request.  

>Check your own documentation.  Susan did not say what you claimed.

Are you saying a gremlin altered the documentation line for Susan?

>   [The irony was not lost on me.  What was lost on me was the implicit claim
>   that people like you would know that Susan Garvin was being merely ironic, 
>   rather than accusing Doug with having made a racial slur of an
>   Afro-American with those words.]

>Since she didn't say it, this is irrelevant.

The evidence is there in black and white.  There is an altered attribution
line.  Since you have not requested documentation of me, I will not provide
it.  Maybe Susan will be willing to show it to you if you bow and scrape
to her long enough. 

>   >We still wonder if PHoney is capable of originality in his
>   >work, since he has yet to post an original flame.

>   You mean like your thread title, "Chaney needs a lobotomy"?  I can tell
>   you right now, I will never be guilty of that kind of original flame.

>Ya.  Right.

>Gee, PHoney, when are you going to get Chaney to apologize to African American 
>women?  Everyone is waiting.

Yeah, including Patrick Humphrey so he can tell everyone what an ass I am
for making Chaney apologize.  Will you also follow his example?

You could make Chaney apologize easily enough by threatening to perform the
lobotomy you say he needs.  That should get results.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:06:49 GMT

In <C1HKB3.8Jr@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:

>In article <1993Jan26.210829.23804@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug
>Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1k469aINN522@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> 
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>> The incredible misogyny of deciding a person vs. a perhaps-we-aren't-sure-
>>> and-anyway-it's-harming-it's-host not-person in favor of the latter 
>>> boggles the mind.
>>>
>>> The incredible mysogyny of reducing a woman to a breeding animal because of
>>> *your* *personal* values also boggles the mind.
>>>
>>> It isn't a simple either/or scenario.  What abortion restriction entails is
>>> returning women to the status of chattel, and nothing less.
>>
>>Sheesh, and to think that *I* get accused of "cheap emotionalism"
>>because I use the term "child" instead of "fetus".  Ms. Regard goes
>>whole hog here, using heavy emotionally-laden terms like "breeding
>>animal", "misogyny", "chattel", all the while ignoring the simple 
>>fact that the vast majority of women in America do not support 
>>unrestricted abortion-on-demand.  Are the women who oppose abortion
>>"misogynists", Ms. Regard?  Do they think of themselves as
>>"breeding animals"?  Surely you must have a better opinion of
>>American women than that.   
>> 
>>
>>>Adrienne Regard
>>
>>
>> "For some of us, abortion on demand *is* no more serious than demanding a
>>  hamburger."
>>   -- Adrienne Regard
>>
>>
>>Doug Holtsinger
>>
>>

>You forgot Muriel's immortal words descibing the unborn's use of a woman's
>"body as its sewage system"  I know it would be interesting to hear a response

Check the attribution again, Paul. I believe those were my immortal words.

>to you question regarding pro-life women ( those poor misguided souls) - don't
>hold your breath, Doug.

Aw, go ahead, let him hold his breath. :->


>- Paul

The Grouch.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57850 alt.politics.homosexuality:10260
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Date: 25 Jan 1993 08:51:21 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

irresisable cheap shot time.

In article <C1Bzxo.H0q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

Apropos of something Suzanne posted:

>That may be the *smartest* thing I've ever heard her say (seen her write)...
>(which doesn't say much)


Yeah, well you know what they say about monkeys and typewriters and infinite
time frames, don't you?

Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57281 talk.politics.misc:69114 talk.religion.misc:27214 misc.legal:23073
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 18 Jan 93 20:05:04 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan14.143232.5511@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> In article <Jan.14.05.09.02.1993.11547@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan14.004714.17246@tessi.com> allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
# ## Theodore also stated something like (and I'm paraphrasing here), "The
# ## good guys finally win one."
# #
# #Yes.  By "good guys" I'm talking about those who wish to exercise
# #their right of free expression by passing out tracts or praying on a
# #public sidewalk.
# 
# Ah yes!!!!  I am beginning to see people passing out tracts and
# praying on public sidewalks as pro-life people try and enter their
# Churchs and homes!!!!!  

Yes, it happens.  And sometimes, the liberals just go into churches
and disrupt the services.  But with the exception of ACTUP at
St. Patrick's in NYC, it doesn't get much coverage from the media.

# #The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
# 
# If these people in the streets in front of the Abortion Clinics would
# spend more time being responsible for their children and teaching them
# about pregnancy then we wouldn't have all of their children going to
# the clinics.

This assumes that the pro-life crowd is where the pregnancies are
coming from.  Yet the propaganda from the pro-choice extremists
tries to paint this as black teenagers who are getting all those
abortions.  The reality is a bit more complicated -- and much less
convenient for propagandists of either side.  About one third of
the abortions are teenagers; another third are single women in their
20s; and another third are married women who already have too many
kids to take care of.  (I assume, or at least hope, that many of the 
latter group are birth control failures.)


# Bil Snodgrass III
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
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: Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:23:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.150858.7206@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes) writes:
>From article <1993Jan23.070715.3794@noao.edu>, by forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach):
>> 
>>> Bishops give orders to priests, archbishops to bishops,
>>> Cardinals to archbishops, and the Pope to Cardinals.
>> 
>> All of these are priests, and priests, in following the Good Shepherd's
>> example, are the servants of the flock.   (Point of fact, the Pope is
>> chosen by the Cardinals.)
>
>ring?  Shouldn't the servant be carrying the throne (or whatever it's
>called) instead of being carried on it? 
>
>terry
It's just one of those little fatasies they want people to believe.
Sort of like vows of chastity and poverty. You know.

--
                  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,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
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.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 03:28:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.162856.1426@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.200741.9018@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>
>>
>>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.
>
>If not, why not?  If the fetus is no different than a hangnail, why 
>shouldn't pro-abortioners think that abortion was a good thing, and 
>that in many cases, especially unwed mothers, that abortion would 
>be desired? 
>
	Kreuger is, apparently, so blinded by his own rhetoric that he still
fails to see the obvious fact that those of us in the pro-CHOICE movement
feel that it's the individual woman's decision whether to have an abortion
or not.  That it's not our place to tell her which way to decide or try to
force her to decide one way by making the other illegal.
	Let me try to explain this, futile though the effort may be:  I'm
not "pro-tonsilectomies".  I don't think they're a good thing.  I don't think
they should be encouraged when they're not necessary.  But I don't think they
should be illegal.
	Why is it so difficult to grasp the concpet that the State ought to
be neutral on most of the decisions we make in our lives?  Why do you think
the power of government must be used to either encourage or discourage?  How's
about the State just gets the heck off our backs now and then?
	These big-government conservatives are getting to be a pain.
The_Doge

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:57:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.215418.23448@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.170320.15365@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan10.063657.16609@rotag.mi.org> 
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>> As far as I'm concerned, a woman and her doctor "act in accordance with the

>>> z/e/f's right to life" as long as they 
>>>
>>> a) kill the z/e/f ONLY as a "mercy killing", i.e. when it is 
>>> pre-viable, and would die anyway shortly after removal, 
>>
>>This makes no sense at all.  Assuming that I have the right 
>>to refuse to support someone who will die without my support,
>>how does it follow that I should have the right to kill them?  
>
>If the killing bestows some positive, socially-recognized value to you, and 
>it doesn't make any difference to them, yes. It's a highly qualified moral
>right, but a moral right nonetheless.
>
>								- Kevin
>
Kevin - 

I don't understand your definition of "mercy killing" at all.  If someone dumps
a dolphin in my swimming pool and I remove it, leaving it on the lawn to "die
anyway after removal" , is that "mercy killing"?  Maybe I misunderstand your
point.  I see the logic of bodily autonomy arguments to a point, but your
criterion seems to be much different.

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:19:17 GMT

That would make the arguments significantly tougher.  BUt, I am at least open 
to the idea, strange as it may seem to some, that abortion is ok up to 14 days,
or implantation.  I know, though, that no one would want to take the debate 
down to those fourteen days.  All they want to do is say that if a woman goes 
into labor at 9 months and then decides while the baby is still inside her that
she doesn't want it she can kill it.

MAC
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Re:Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:08:01 GMT

lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

> [...] For me, this whole abortion debate is interesting and thought
> provoking, but I care mainly about one thing, stopping abortion.  If
> you think the success of the pro-abortion side in this country is due
> to reasoned debate and clearly thought through conclusions, you are
> quite mistaken.  Unborn children continue to be killed, not because of
> the reasonableness of abortion, but because of the superior public
> relations skills of its proponents.

I remember that during the 80's, pro-lifers made gains because of their
ability to "get out the vote."  Now that the tide has turned the other
way, it's because of "superior public relations skills"???

[--semantic strawman deleted--]

-- 
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: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: What's behind these PHoney Apology posts
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1993Jan16.140337.12688@crd.ge.com> <C10L1z.5so.1@cs.cmu.edu>
	<nyikos.727656324@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:43:58 GMT

In article <nyikos.727656324@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

   I have apologized for lots of things, and Chaney is the only
   person I really leaned on in telling him to apologize.


In article <nyikos.727388298@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

   I twisted Chaney's arm and got him to apologize for a revolting remark
   he made about Dale Ann.  

 (note: Chaney retracted the apology)

Nyikos continues to claim that he can get Chaney to apologize, so
where is the apology for the post below?  (As Rocker pointed out, the
"lemons" Chaney is referring to are African American women.)  If
PHoney is really worried about prejudice, racism and women, I say
let's see him demonstrate it.

>Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
>From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
>Subject: Final comment re: Why we go for non-black women:
>Organization: California State University Sacramento
>Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 22:42:21 GMT
>
>
>After the heaps and heaps of praises and anger that has filled my
>mailbox concerning that original post of mine to this newsgroup, I
>finally got one from someone who, surprisingly, summed it all up like
>I would have never considered it.
>
>If you have, after buying three cars from the same company, found
>they're all lemons, why would you listen to anyone who would try to
>convince you to buy a fourth?
>
>The same thing applies to this issue.
>
>
>Glad to have rustled your feathers... 
>
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>  --Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--
>  USENET Warlord / IRC Channel Owner / Accounts WorldWide / Home Login!
>	      (Whooboy that means LOTSA time for all this?)
>                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
>

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  S2/6 b g- l-(?) z n+ o+(+) x+(+) a-(-) u-  v j+ 
                    B0/1 h f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:27:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.082038.24613@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>I guess if you got tired of it instead of "used to it" you might oppress
>the Pope back.  It seems that witholding donations has a big effect on the
>Church.
>
Great idea.  What if several people donated exactly one cent
to the next "Peter's Pence" collection.  Would the Vatican get the
point?
>
>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.

--Frank
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:13:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.014921.9070@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1993Jan20.210343.23208@cbnewsj.cb.att.com# 
#decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
##dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
###garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
####dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
##### it is questionable whether Ms. Garvin's estimates could be 
##### applied to today's situation.  
#
#### Of course, I never claimed that they could.  
#
### Then we agree that your estimates are worthless.
### Why are you still arguing the point?

All I've been arguing with you about is your lie that
I claimed that the estimates I posted could be applied
to the current situation.  I suggest, in the future,
that you archive your articles.  Given your penchant for
rewriting your words (and those of others), you might want 
an unaltered version of your original statements around.
It would spare you the embarassment of arguing against
yourself in the future.  

I don't agree that the estimates are worthless.  They may
not be helpful to your religious crusade, but I didn't
post them for you.

## Susan never said any such thing.
#
#Tsk, tsk, you should really follow threads more carefully before
#you open your mouth.  In a reply to Edward Simmonds, Ms. Garvin
#did indeed suggest that her estimates of the number of illegal 
#abortions during the 19th century could be applied to today's
#situation:

No, I didn't.  For the nth time, Reverend, you're a liar.

#  # The incidence of illegal abortion in 1860 has NOTHING to do with the ruling
#  # in Roe v Wade in 1973.  Comparing medical practices across this vast time
#  # is like comparing a slide rule with a supercomputer.  
#
#Actually, it has something to do with it.  Unlike you, Blackmun researched
#the issue before stating his opinion.  You might try learning something
#about the issue.
#
#       <C0wM37.KE2.1@cs.cmu.edu>
#        garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
#
#
#And now we see Ms. Garvin furiously back-pedaling from that suggestion.

No, I've yet to backpedal from the suggestion that Justice
Blackmun did research into the abortion issue.  You're
lying again, DODie.  

## Only a stupid person would conclude that therefore they are 
## worthless.  
#
#Her estimates are worthless to the extent that they cannot be 
#used today in any meaningful fashion.  They do help soothe
#yours and Ms. Garvin's precious little egos though.... 

They're not my estimates, DODie.  

I have no idea what bizarre thought process led you to believe
that the number of illegal abortions before Roe in any
way affects my ego.  I wouldn't venture a guess.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:29:06 GMT

In <1993Jan20.185651.6837@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <bob1.727034914@cos>, by bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw):
>> 
>> I removed the whole post for reasons that will become obvious.
>> 
>> I will only say this once, then sincerely promise to lose my
>> temper with whoever continues.
>> 
>> Will you all please leave comparisons with the Holocaust out of
>> this newsgroup (and any other for that matter). It was and is
>> a blot on all our humanity, 

>as is abortion.

>> and to this day is extremely
>> hurtful in the memories of the Jewish people and their friends.

>Why?  Because, sad to say, many who grieve over the holocaust
>yet commit the same crimes by accepting abortion of the youngest,
>most fragile of us.


>> We have been down this road once before, and for the benefit of
>> those new to t.a, it did no earthly good in the debates.

>It certainly did.   The truth hurts, don't it.

In your opinion, maybe, but one is not a majority.

>> I hope that I never see this stupid, senseless argument again.

>But you will, Bob, you will.

No doubt, and probably from the same stupid, senseless people.
Unfortunately, stupidity is not punishable under law.


>Suzanne Forgach

BTW Ms. Forgach I must congratulate you on always being right,
something one rarely sees nowadays. In fact the last reference
I have is from the speech Benjamin Franklin gave to the federal
convention, to wit;

But though many private persons think almost as highly of their
own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so
naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her
sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister, but I meet
with nobody but myself, that's always in the right - Iln'y a
que moi qui a toujours raison.

You wouldn't happen to be french would you?

Have a nice day.

Grouch

Newsgroups: talk.abortion