HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Oct 92 04:49:45 GMT

In <1a9smmINN59v@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Sep27.222601.548@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)

>>For the third or fourth (or ...) time, I did *not* threaten *anyone*, Dan.  I
>>believe that I have made this point abundantly clear.  Also, I was referring
>>to my *thoughts* about *ONE* woman, NOT "women" in general.  I repeat again,
>>that even though we have all had violent *THOUGHTS* of one sort or another,
>>as a result of highly stressful situations, very few such thoughts result in
>>actual violence.  Why are you reading the disclosure of my private thoughts
>>as a declaration that I had threatened her?

>I'm sure Dan King will include this disclaimer in his warning to women
>who might make the mistake of dating you.  What do you think they will
>make of your original statement and this feeble rebuttal?

And what will they think of my correspondence with Dan King?  I think
I'd better post it in soc.men and alt.abortion.inequity too. 

>MAYBE you shouldn't make such statements, Will.


>MAYBE you should come to the realization that women are separate individuals
>from you and actually do have thoughts, feelings, and wills of their own.
>And are not answerable to *you*.

Are you the same Adrienne Regard who kept complaining to Martin Guerrero
on the talk.abortion "I had an abortion two days ago" thread for
*guessing* (correctly, in two cases) what your attitude was?  None of
the guesses was one-tenth so wide of the mark as this gratuitous insult of 
yours.

You also complained pretty strongly over a minor change of subject.

Peter Nyikos
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Date: 1 Oct 1992 16:24:22 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct1.223007.26873@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>>WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK.
>Because I want to think.  I don't intend to be a non thinking drone all
>my life.

Then you'd better get started.

As I mentioned, you can take a good whack at the Federalist Papers and
other writings contemporary and learn something.

BTW, I vote this as the best-used out-of-context posting of the month.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:07:42 GMT

<1992Oct2.002302.325@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
><1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com>, by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>> 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.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:22:02 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <dvlzw4q@rpi.edu> cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>>>Mr Keegan made the accusation publicly, he should support it publicly. 

>>He already has, Mr. Rescorla.  That you did not read or do not
>>remember the thread is not really my problem.

>I remember the thread.
>I don't remember it the same way that he does. Specifically, I do
>not remember CJ lying. Curiously, neither does she.

I don't recall seeing any posts along those lines from CJ.
Wait a minute, you don't mean that you've been discussing
the issue in private email, do you?

>-Ekr

                           -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39895 alt.abortion.inequity:4195
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Keywords: watching Nyikos scramble
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:49:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.717906130@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

#Cochran, I have been looking at some of your past posts, and a most
#uncompassionate person is taking shape from them.  So what I said to Larry
#(in the line you quote above) goes for you too. 

Ooohhhh.  Be careful, Keith.  He might threaten to spank you next.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:51:41 GMT

In <1992Sep28.165021.15606@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <1992Sep27.212604.10261@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
->   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
->In article <nvgz6jh@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 
->   (rocker) writes: >>
->wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
->   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>
->>>>Is it true that you're the "Ram of the Herd", Jim?
->> 
->>> Freud would have a field day.
->>
->> Having spent the better part of this morning at the Home of
->> the Herd, and having spent many hours with the Herd, I can
->> say with some veracity that there is no "Ram of the Herd."

->Whew!  Good.  Would you mind telling Susan Garvin who was
->there?  She's a little peeved thinking that I was calling
->someone a "herd".  

gee bill, why don't you tell her yourself. while you're at
it, why don't you answer her question about what your remark
meant.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 16:41:46 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  <r7nz86q@rpi.edu>  keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>
> for days, eric has been doggedly flaming me to support
> a post in which i called cj a liar. he has made all
> sorts of arguments to this end. he has been joined by
> ms. adolf and larry margolis in his wail for evidence.
>
> i have decided to help eric, ms. adolf and the others

(I guess that I'm "the others".  :-)

> focus their efforts to expose unsupported allegations
> by pointing them in the right direction.

Hey - now we're getting somewhere!

> what follows is a post by cj, complete and unedited. in
> this post, cj states "I know that Keegan used the
> mailing list to try to get people to post in support of
> him." this is the specific item i have been referring
> to as cj's lie about me.
>
> cj, of course, never supported this allegation.
>
> if mr. rescorla and the others who have been
> clamoring for supporting evidence or an apology have
> any integrity whatsoever, i am sure their attentions
> will now be focused on the initial allegation. i am
> equally sure that they will doggedly pursue their goal
> of truthfinding.  to do otherwise in this particular case
> would paint them as hypocrites of the worst type.

You *had* sent a letter to the mailing list at that time, correct?
It would seem to me that the only way to decide whether or not the
initial allegation were true would be to examine that letter.  Then
we could decide for ourselves whether the letter clearly asked for
support, clearly did not, or was possibly ambiguous (in which case
both sides could be arguing in good faith).

I realize that the letter was sent to a mailing list, and was not meant
for general publication, so should you elect to not provide the needed
evidence, I will *not* "doggedly pursue" this.  I'll simply label it
as being unsupported and withold judgement.

> on the matter of suzanne lucia, who i have stated was
> one victim of cj's false insinuations, cj infers that
> suzanne lucia was the recipient of my non-existent
> mailing and was simply posting in response to my
> mailing, rather than as an act of her own free will.

"non-existent mailing"?  Does that mean that you did *not* send anything
to the mailing list, or that you don't believe that it asked for support.
I was told in email that you *did* send a letter (which didn't ask for
support).  My above two paragraphs were written assuming that you sent a
letter and only the interpretation was in question.  Could you clarify?

Also, in the post you included, cj *asked* if the response was because
of your (alleged) letter.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: 1+1=0
Date: 6 Oct 1992 02:31:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   There is a rumor circulating that Steve Chaney and Dennis Hall
are actually one person.  The actual number, according to my very
detailed observations, is somewhat less.   
   Read his/their posts.  See if you don't come up with a similar
figure.  You will have to revise the original formula.  Replacing
the erroneous symbols, the new expression should read 0+0=0.   It
should now be much clearer.
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos' Credentials
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:08:37 GMT

In <25385@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>Well then, let's ask _him_ what he thinks of the proof that a circle has
>>two sides ;-)

As I recall, this had to do with the Jordan Curve theorem, a classical
theorem of topology.  It's trivial if you are talking about a geometrical
circle, but if you mean "circle" in a topological sense, that is, "simple
closed curve," then it takes pages and pages to show that it really 
divides the plane into an "inside" and an "outside".  The trickiest part
is showing that there can be no more than one "inside."

>You never did answer the one about a mobius strip. Still contemplating
>it?

I'd like to hear it.  Does it have anything to do with making U-turns?

>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.

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Eric Gorr on Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:54:46 GMT

egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

[--stuff about Eric's Bible on CD, Glenn Gould's crooning, deleted--]

> So, I guess I can add you to the list of people attempted to
> harass me off this board.  How does it feel to feel so much
> rage towards another person?

Can't say that rage was a component in my motivation, Eric.  You handed
drieux and me a straight line and we ran with it, running dog lackeys
of the RadLib Conspiracy that we are.

> I would be interested in knowing how you came to the absolute
> conclusion that my bible is on musical CD's?  Or you can just
> admit your ignorance, appoligize, and we can continue in a
> rational fashion.

Jeez, Eric G., Eric R. asked you for what you consider to be biblical
support for your anti-abortion position.  You replied by mentioning a
song on an Amy Grant CD.  There's a certain humor implicit in that
situation, don't you think?

My advice is to just accept that you got a couple of pies in the face.
Clean yourself up and get back into the debate.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Turkey Hall
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:31:20 GMT

>>If she really didn't want a pregnancy, she shouldn't have risked getting it.
>
>If you really didn't want to get hit by that car, you shouldn't
>have risked crossing the street.

Sarcasm intended, truth emitted.  Anybody who doesn't want to risk getting
hit by a car when crossing the street shouldn't cross the street.

But can you really equate the odds of getting hit by a car crossing the street
with the odds of getting pregnant by having sex?

-- 
*****  The Rink  *****   Programming is an art form that fights back.
***                ***
* ss1@kepler.unh.edu *   "But that no man is justified by the law in the
***                ***    sight of God, it is evident:  for, The just shall
*****  Cheers!!  *****    live by faith."  --  Galatians 3:11
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Credit where credit is due...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:56:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.132628.6863@sniap.mchp.sni.de> 
frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
}regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
}: >gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) wrote 
}: >(in article <1992Sep22.022532.20340@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>):
}: >>You gotta give her credit though.  
}: 
    [Adrienne says "Huh?"  I deleted the exact words]

}What we admire, respect, and even envy is not the woman's womb, Adrienne, 
}but the woman's selflessness.  

What you mean "we," Kemosabe?  There are a lot of selfless acts in war,
and a little investigation on your part would reveal that I am not
in admiration, respect or even envy of war.  I'm not much for selfless
acts, in and of themselves.  

}Selflessness, like the Dodo,  we are amazed to see because we thought it was 
}extinct.   

I never thought selflessness was extinct, nor am I amazed to see it.

I am impressed that Suzanne includes herself in her beliefs.  That is
a bit presumptious of me:  It sounds like Suzanne formulates her
beliefs, then throws herself in.  That probably isn't the case.  I
imagine her beliefs are developed as a result of who she is and how
she acts, and she would naturally be included.  In any event, it is
rather rare in my experince to find someone whose beliefs are in 
concert with their own actions (or projected actions).

Your self-immolation upon the capitol steps would be a selfless act.
I would be impressed also.  But not by the selflessness of it.
Wanna impress me?

btw  lest anyone be confused, the Suzanne above refers to Suzanne Forgash,
I'll try to be more clear in the future...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: The use of "clueless git" to describe Nyikos is dead on target
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: The Aftermath
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 13:32:47 GMT

In article <nyikos.718160738@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>The last post in the series pulled Chris Lyman neck-and-neck with Margolis:
>as of September 22
>both were one big step or several small steps from my de facto killfile.

Gee, I'm sure they won't be able to contain expressing their concern at 
*that*.

>Interesting how Chris also told me recently to follow my own advice
>and lighten up.  It's always the guilty party that wants to let 
>bygones be bygones, is it not?

Interesting how the self-appointed "moderator" of these disputes manages to
drag things out long after they would have died a natural death, don't you 
think?  (Oops.  You *don't* think.  Sorry for implying that you do.)

>However, I am not the kind of person who likes to hold a grudge.  After
>encountering greater hypocrisy from Storga and Cochran than either
>him or Margolis, I am willing to give the latter two a clean slate
>if they cease and desist from their sporadic efforts to 
>label me a liar.

Screw it, Pete.  I say you're a sleazy busybody.  Have some grownup show
you how to put me in your precious killfile and be done with it.  While you're
at it, put this line in your killfile:

/Subject:/h:j

and you'll make everyone else feel a lot better.

--PLH (I gotta start selling clues to this bozo -- I could retire to the farm
before I'm 40...)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Biblical Proof that minus one is Positive...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:26:25 GMT


I must Confess that I am duely impressed with eric gorr's 
stunning proof that -1 is a positive number....

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes:
] -------
] 
] (a) If x is any Real number, then one of the follow is true:
] 
] x = 0
] x is containted with in the positive numbers
] -x is contained within the positive numbers
] 
] (b)Also:  If x & y are Real numbers, we say x<y if y-x is contained within
] the postivie numbers
] 
] (c)Also, if x & y are positive, then x*y is positive.
] 
] Now that that is set,
] 
] By (a), either 1=0 or 1 is positive or -1 is positive.
] 
] By the laws of algebra, 1 != .  If -1 is positive, then by (c), (-1)(-1) is
] postive, so 1 is positive.  So in all cases 1=1-0 is positive, or 0<1.


to use (c) one needs to be able to establish that
x & y are 'positive' 

let x = -1 and y = -1, such that we can use (c)

if A then B

A

therefore B

Modus Ponens....

So If eric holds as he has asserted,
that (c) is the relevant notion, then
it must be that 'A' is true, which is
to say that x and y are positive,

thus it is that -1 is a positive number....

the Stunning part, for the slow reader is that
we have the the argument:

c is proven

c is true if and only if b is proven.

b is proven if and only if ( a implies b  and a)

given that we hold ( a implies b ) as an axiom
of the system, then there are only two 
remaining options:

1. a is true ( that -1 is a positive number )

OR

2. the argument does not follow.

Given Our Deepest, IMMHO, respect for Eric Gorr's 
Intellectual Brilliance, (2.) is clearly not an option,
as he is making a citation from a Brilliant Professor,
and as we all Know, Brilliant Professor, by definition
of the Axiom Set are always Truthful....

QED.

ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:28:42 GMT

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>Good interference would be something that should be done.
>Bad interference would be something that shouldn't be done.
Define "good" and "bad"...aren't they totally situational in the case of
abortion?

>In this case, it would be bad interference if parents wanted the child, but
>had the abortion anyways.
This looks like a non sequiter to me...

 -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: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: why will steeves makes me sick
Date: 5 Oct 1992 20:03:39 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
Heavily excerpted from a report in clari.news.group.women today:

|WASHINGTON (UPI) -- A woman has between a 1-in-5 and a 1-in-8
|possibility of being raped and between a 1-in-5 and a 1-in-3 chance of
|being beaten by a partner or former partner, a new Senate staff study
|said Friday. [...]

|The document noted that four years ago, the U.S. surgeon general 
|warned that violence was the No. 1 public health risk to adult women 
|in the United States.

|Unfortunately, four years later, it still remains, in the words of
|current Surgeon General Antonia Novello, ``the leading cause of injuries
|to women ages 15 to 44,'' more common than automobile accidents,
|muggings and cancer deaths combined. [...]

I also read recently in the SF Chronicle that 2/3 of the homicides 
of women in SF in 1990 were cases of domestic violence.  (I should 
go look this one up to make sure I've gotten the year right.)

When 1 out of 3 women get beaten by their partners, Steeves'
talk about "snapping" and killing his girlfriend is more than
just empty words.  Steeves' talk is more than a threat to many
women in the US.  It's reality.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I am going tomorrow where I shall find a man who has not one agreeable
quality, who has neither manner nor sense to recommend him.  Stupid men
are the only ones worth knowing, after all."   Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:37:25 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote (in article <1992Oct5.003546.5281@rotag.mi.org>):
>	How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
>	before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term 
>	abortions?

What would "bad cause" for a third-trimester abortion be?  And who
gets to make the legal definition?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Shlafly/Benshoof abortion debate, September 15th.
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:43:04 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1ahpe6INN1g0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
#In article <nyikos.717901326@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
##I think pro-choicers are MORE likely not to trust women to make decisions
##than pro-lifers.  Why are they so afraid of laws that give women the 
##OPTION to view information on fetal development.
#
#You will be happy to explain this odd comment for us, won't you?
#
#Pro-choicers are not 'afraid of laws tha tfivfe women the option...', rather
#they are OPPOSED to laws that REQUIRE the presentation of a set curriculum
#determined by the government.

You know how much Nyikos enjoys mental images of women being bound,
gagged, and terrorized, don't you?  No doubt he thinks that
women have the "option" of closing their eyes and putting
their fingers in their ears while the doctor reads a scripted
list of lies.  It gives him better fantasy material.

#Ya know, if you are going to argue by innuendo, don't you think you should
#get *better* at it?

Don't hold your breath.  Nyikos seems to have opted for the
"lie, insult, and accuse" method of debate that the other
loons use rather than choosing anything convincing.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion