HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Hey!   Steve Novak!
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 01:42:38 GMT


> = (Steve Novak, MBA) writes:
>> = (Susan Garvin) writes:
>># = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>
>[re: newly-created Most Bizarre Awards (or, MBAs)...]
>
>>#In terms of "bizarre" twisted, our resident ZAP comic.....drieux!  (Cl
p,
>>#clap, clap, clap, clap...)  R. Crumb has to go a ways to catch up with
>>#THIS guy.
>
>>Well, that settles that.
>
>That was merely my not-so-humble opinion.

No, no, no.  I'd already made up my mind that you were the
sole judge in this area.  

drieux might have had an attack of modesty (like some other
people we know) if we'd let him decide, although Miss Drieux
might have had some good advice on how such things should
be decided.

>>#Margolis, Rescorla, Nadja and Cochran, in no particular order, get
>>#Honorable Mention.
>
>>What about you?  
>
>Gawrsh <*Blush*>  I'm just too danged modest :).

We like you.  We really like you.

>But I'm happy to get your vote, if you wanna.
>
I wanna.  Now, get on with the acceptance speeches.

Susan
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:39:47 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <-gvzp7g@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>>I refuted Keegan's allegations at Eric Rescorla's request.
>
>Oh bullshit.  You supported nothing.  How far would you get in
>court (shut the fuck up, Darcy) if you presented the judge with
>a confession to a crime that no one could show was ever committed?
You're probably making the wrong analogy. A better question is
how far Mr. Keegan would get in a libel proceeding against CJ
for accusing him of something to which he confessed.

Remember that what started this latest round was Mr. Keegan
accusing CJ of lying.

>And who could blame him?  You made a claim, the only evidence you
>produced was a private email in which you claim he admits to
>his heinous, disgusting crime (Why, just IMAGINE asking your 
>friends to support you if they agree with you!  I'm absolutely
>certain that no one on the net would ever have the execrable lack
>of taste to do something like asking their friends for help!
>Certainly YOU would never do such a thing...),
Well, Cathi, CJ accused Mr. Keegan of asking for support.
If it's not bad, then why he is he complaining that she accused
him of it? 

>And it is somewhat surprising that Eric would be "satisfied"
>with your evidence, given that Eric himself once stated that
>the only possible means of judging would be to produce the 
>letter in question (that would, of course, be the letter to the
>_mailing_list_) and let people judge for themselves whether it
>supported your claim.
That's not what I said. I said that I didn't think that Mr. Keegan
would be able to show that he had NOT made such a request without
producing the letter in question. Sorry you fail to recognize the
difference.

And what I'm satisfied with is that I know what happened.

>no mailing list letter that DID support you?  The letter that
>keegan posted certainly didn't support _your_ claim.
The letter that CJ posted (and that I excerpted from), however,
did.

>                   equally disgusted
Moral outrage is no substitute for rational argument.
Sorry to see that you are engaging in the former rather than the latter.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Article to read
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:28:53 GMT

In <26091@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:

>>This topic is important to me, because I teach special education
>>students.  I want to know how some of the rest of you feel
>>about this issue, and an important related one: that of
>>sterilization.  Should the parent of a mentally retarded child
>>have the right to sterilize their child, without his/her consent?

>Here come de flames. de flame, boss, de flame!

>Yes, they should.

>(deciding whether to toss out the asbestos suit, as it probably will
>be fairly useless/unecessary for the impending attempts at flames.)

>Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
>			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
 
Were I a believer in hell, I might assert that your asbestos suit would
be useless there too. [Not that I'd accuse you of being headed there 
despite your inflammable words.]

But I'll go easy on you this time, and ask you at what IQ you'd place the
cutoff point.

Peter Nyikos
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Untruths about Rush
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:42:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes ...
>This is not true.  A feminazi is defined as a RADICAL feminist whose purpose
>is to see that as many abortions as possible take place.  By no means does

Given that the conservatives who have opposed contraception and
funding of foreign clinics have managed to markedly increase the
number of abortions being performed worldwide, does that mean Bush is
a feminazi?

My head hurts.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:40:59 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Oct9.170338.25387@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.085353.24603@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>>Also, I mentioned several times that I do recognize the plight of the women.
>>People may not trust me in saying that, but that is understandable.  
>
>Very.  I don't think anything else you have said evidences
>any compassion or concern for women.
>
Why?  There is nothing wrong with wanting BOTH the mother and the unborn
child to live.

>>The woman is very special, but I don't think the woman has the right to kill
>>in most circumstances.
>>
>You don't even think she has a right to say how her body
>will be used.  If you think life is more important than
>that freedom, would you submit to a rapist rather than
>kill him?  Pretend those are your only choices.

I remember you mentioning that I compared women to a location.  

Now look at how you invite a comparison between an unborn child and a 
rapist.

>
>>Legalized abortion cannot stand.  Some words have trouble sinking in because
>>abortion would still be available to most people.  Abortion, sanctioned
>>by law, is a sickening thought, as even you would agree. (I hope.)
>
>You cluless twit.  If you think illegal abortion is better,
>you are not showing much concern for women.  Some of us are
>old enough to remember what women went through before RvW.
>The essence of your statement is that you think it would
>be better if more women died as a consequence of taking an
>action that you disapprove of.  Forgive me if I have trouble 
>believing that you care about women.

Is the only way I can "prove" my compassion for women is to become pro-choice
and allow abortions to take place?  I don't think so.  Pro-lifers are
not misogynist.  I don't see how Feminist pro-lifers and women pro-lifers
can hate themselves and show no compassion for themselves and their sisters.
Mother Teresa is pro-life.  I suppose she is a misogynist too.

If I were a woman, would you claim the same things about me?


-----
Also: 
   Abortion definitely kills our fellow humans.  Abortion may also
cause some death for the mother.  But legal, or illegal, abortion still
kills.  Women still die as a result of abortion even after it has been
legal for quite some time.  And not that much of a difference too.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood on RU 486 "Morning After" Breakthrough
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:15:32 GMT

In article <warren.719069318@beloved> warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:
> 
> Because Planned Parenthood's peculiar brand of prejudices is
> rooted in Scientific Racism, the issue is  not "color of skin" or 
> "dialect of tongue" but "quality of genes."

What utter nonsense.  Individual women are permited by law to
decide for themselves whether or not to have abortions.
Planned Parenthood provides abortion facilities, but also
provides pre-natal care facilities and contraceptive
services.  And all of that is at the request of the customer
and not at the insistence of Planned Parenthood.  Pretty much
only a government could do as you suggest.  And a government
can only do as you suggest when the control of our own
bodies is taken from us, in the matter of reproduction, by
fiat.  Such as that suggested by the pro-lie supporters.  When
individuals are said to have a right to decide for themselves
whether or not to reproduce, then said individuals do just that.
When the government is given the power to make that decision,
then it may just as well say "You have to have abortions"
as it says "You may not have abortions."  Roumania is an
example of a country where the government banned abortion and
the results were not happy.  Often we hear, in this newsgroup,
diatribes against instances in which abortions have been forced
on women in China by government officials.  That is likewise
extremely tragic and also not a pro-choice position.  And
it is only by supporting an opposition to the individual
freedom of choice in these matters that we get this
"Scientific Racism" of which Warren writes.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:01:49 GMT

<1992Oct6.225703.14270@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) :
>> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> = (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>> = Suzanne Forgach writes:
>>>>> Gordon, Professional Atheist
>>>>So what are they paying you?
>
>>>Sorry, but I'm unable to publically discuss the terms of my contract.  If
>>>I told you, I'd have to kill you.  And that would be unfortunate for both
>>>of us.
>>
>>>Gordon, with tongue firmly in cheek.
>
>>I figured that out even before I saw the last line, just as I saw through
>>M. Price's deception immediately.  Alas for you, you have done many other
>>things without tongue in cheek, and for those I will hold you accountable.
>
>Petey - before you slide totally into Holtchan-speak, a little hint:
>showing everyone on t.a. how one, and only one, person can get under
>your skin so easily makes you LOOK like a dork and WHINE like a turbine.
>(from the bestseller, "Novak's Helpful Net.Hints")

Thanks, Steve.  It's been a lot of fun but Peter is beginning to bore me.
He doesn't have the same verve that Chaney or even Rasmussin have.  He
tried to look bright, but it's obvious he's a low-watt bulb.  Of course, I
haven't really said anything that I haven't backed up with the posts.  But
that little fact hasn't slowed Peter down one nibble.

>>>The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
>>>of whatever company you think I work for. 
>
>>Nor those of an honest man.
>
>Someone who's so quickly joined the Non-Thinking Anti-Women Council makes
>me think of YOUR honesty.

I think Peter may have his own definitions of "honesty" that we aren't
privy to.

>What were those SAT scores, Professor (I ask sweetly)?  (He wouldn't fall 
>for this *again*...would he? :)

He might.  He fell for "defending poor little Suzanne from all the big bad
pro-abortioners", didn't he?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:18:12 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1bhrs9INNc9a@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
>   (Adrienne Regard) writes: >

>>>A set of a beliefs that endorse the notion that abortion is a
>>>perfectly fine option.

>It's forced on me because I am a member of the society in which the
>ruling was made.  The ruling clearly (IMO) considers abortion to be
>an acceptable solution to an unwanted pregnancy, and as a matter of
>constitutional law, implies that this is a belief endorsed *by the
>entire society*.

I suppose that since Santeria is in effect "endorsed" by the Bill of
Rights, that you feel that society endorses this also, and you must
feel repressed even further.

Bill, you are seriously stretching. Why not come out and say that you
are a little misogynist jerk, and get it out into the open. Confession 
is good for the soul, you know. :)

>I think my response above answers this one, too (at least to my
>satisfaction :-) ).

Yeah, it kept you from having to actually think about it.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.war.vietnam,alt.conspiracy
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:46:45 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <1992Oct6.234555.14869@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>Conservatives are way out in front on the RKBA 
Not really.  Conservatives generally favor the government over the 
individuals.  We cannot trust conservatives when it comes to freedom of 
religion, or freedom of expression.

>>issue and there
>>is no way some turn the other cheek-love the criminal more than
>>their self-involve government in every aspect of our life Liberal
>>son's a bitches like Clinton and Gore are going to fight to protect
>>our rights.  
Except our right to keep and bear arms, and our right to sing and listen to 
the music we choose to.

>
>>Now, Rush and Dan may not be perfect, but at least
>>they aren't shoving socialism and big government down our throats.
Well, actually, they are shoving a great deal of government down our throats.

>
>Gads, what a liar, in addition to being civically incompetent.
>
>Get this: Quayle is a fucking joke 
Why?

>who has *no business* being a
>heartbeat away from the presidency.  
Why not?

>Combined with that pit bull he
>calls a wife, I pray every day for Georgie's health.  And I'm an
>atheist.  Bush should be slapped silly for insulting the people in this
>manner.
What manner.

>
>And, I believe, he soon *will* be.
For the sake of your paycheck, you better hope not.

>You're plain stupid.  Buchanan and his right-wing religiously-fogged ilk
>are so blatantly near fascist...fuck it.  It's not worth arguing with
Umm... no.  No fascism, I think.  More like a republican-theocracy.

>by crazed "christian" fundamentalists.  Yeah, that's the ticket.

No.  I think they were as sane as the next guy.

>
>>These folks
>>with "Over Workded little Minds" might be the ones that don't 
>>hand their weapons over to government.  They may become the 
>>'Freedom Fighters' during the next decade or provide security
>>and stability to a country brought to it's knees by economic 
>>collapse.
>
>I'll shoot crazed gun fanatics like you myself if you come around my
>door, Cowboy.
>
With what?

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.singles
From: Petri.Wessman@hut.fi (Petri Wessman)
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this Picture....
Summary: you want a list?
Reply-To: Petri.Wessman@hut.fi
Organization: La Gata Encantada
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:59:23 GMT

On Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:41:57 GMT, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) said:

drieux> Some how I don't think Ellen Really Understands the
drieux> True nature of the Discussion....

Boy, am I Confused! And I though That She was making a Humorous point
and you were Talking gibberish. Silly of Me. I never Was much good at
Understanding the True nature of anything.


drieux> If there is NO potential for Gestation, there is NO SEX.

Are you one of those people who poke holes in condoms "just to keep
things interesting"?


drieux> I hate these ClosetHetro's who are so easily confused....

Hmmmm. Now *I'm* confused. Exactly *what* is a ClosetHetro? Anything
related to LivingRoomMunchkins or KitchenBoogers?


drieux> THERE IS A DISTINCTION 

Yes, yes.

drieux> between going to bed with someone
drieux> and Having SEX....

I'm not sure if I've ever Had SEX by whatever definition you use, so I
wouldn't know. Could you include a handy reference guide (with
definitions, please) with your posts? Please?


drieux> -- 
drieux> Modern Day Problems

drieux> Does that 'answer' your question,
drieux> or should I be a little more vague.

The mind boggles at the possibility.

//Petri
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: True Story: How Pro-Lifers Try To Gain Support
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:31:44 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Oct15.081324.1@vax.sonoma.edu> hart@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
>I had to go to my clinic for a routine yearly exam, performed for my 
>health and well being.  It just happened that the only day I could make
>the appointment was the same day that the clinic was performing abortions
>(the name and the location of the clinic will remain silent).  I'd like
>to relate what happened to you.
[Story deleted] 

Good, now I am justified in battling ACT-UP as they continue to try
and harass pro-lifers WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF OPERATION RESCUE. I'll
be happier now when I join up with the others and get all on ACT-UP's
hides. 

Have you heard of us? There are tons of us who have nothing to do with
those fanatics at the clinics. I bet you've never heard of pro-lifers
who aren't a part of OR because you listen to that ignorant Boob Tube
and the Media, whose most often-used message is "all pro-lifers block
clinics." 

But then again, you live in Steve Novak, Susan Garvin and Jay Stein's
fantasy world that anything that works for the right to life cause,
blocks clinics and does the stuff you said in this story. Well, maybe
I overexaggerate their position. Slightly.


Isn't it wierd that you pro-choicers applaud the acts of ACT-UP but
yet you abhor it when Operation Rescue pulls a stunt? You pro-choice
vacuum-heads are known for your double-standards. And as Patrick
Humphrey knows, I don't like ACT-UP - and I don't like Operation
Rescue. (So no one can call me inconsistent on this.) 


ANOTHER shining example of how the pro-choice Nazi movement is full of
double-standards and hypocrisy. 


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What color is your parachute?
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:09:26 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
] 
] While there shouldn't be any confusion left over how it can be
] possible for an intelligent thinking person to be `anti-abortion' and
] `pro-choice'...
] 
] 	...can you be `pro-life' without being `anti-abortion?'


In a word: Yes.

Why do You think I support 'Close Air Support'


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:32:06 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes ...
>In <1687B9B42.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>
>>Believe what you want, just don't try to enact your beliefs into law.
>
>Why not?  
>All laws are in essence the codification of somebodies beliefs.
>Are you saying that you believe that laws you agree with are alright, but
>that laws you disagree with are not alright.

Maybe laws are primarily a codification of self-interest?  (i.e., "I
don't want to be murdered, so let's make murder illegal," rather than
"I don't want you to be murdered, so let's make murder illegal.")

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:52:01 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>BTW, when the sperm comes along, and it fertilizes an egg, at that exact
>point a new human is created.  There is no going back.  The only choice
>is to allow the z/e/f/unborn to CONTINUE living as a human, or else
>let the z/e/f unborn die.  Either way,

Which exact point is that?  Is it when then sperm head first
penetrates the egg?  When the genes have fully entered the egg?  When
the egg & sperm genes start to merge?  When they complete the merger?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott