HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:18:27 GMT

In article <Jan.25.19.48.24.1993.2763@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>
>It is not "bigoted" to note that any group which clings
>so tenaciously to the ludicrous contention (and manifest lie) that
>aberrant sexual behavior represents in some sense a "viable alternate
>lifestyle" is bound to have substantial problems coming to grips with
>reality.

It's viable as long as people like you don't kill and discriminate against
them because of it, Teddy. By steadfastly maintaining the old obstacles to
the acceptance of gays, then you (pl.) are, at most, fulfilling your own
prophecies. How vacuously self-serving. As much as can be determined, the
lifestyles of gays are at least as "viable", in the absence of artificial
social obstacles, as those of straights.

Oh, and don't even bother with the stock AIDS diatribe. Despite that
tragedy, the biggest problem facing gays today (IMO) is STILL people
like you with Dark Ages attitudes towards homosexuality. AIDS and its
effects can be medically treated, and, maybe soon, even vaccinated 
against. But there exists no scalpel nor pill which can cure pernicious
Bigotry like yours.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,soc.singles,alt.peeves
Subject: The Technical Term is....
Date: 24 Jan 93 06:58:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sex,soc.singles
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
] In article <1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
] >If women can become priests, bishops, archbishop, cardinals or popes,
] >they will not be having the same opportunities as men, but they
] >will be taken as men.
] >There is a small confusion between being treated equally and erasing
] >the natural differences between them.
] 
] Explain to me how a penis makes a person capable of being a spiritual
] leader, and how the absence of one renders a person unfit for such a
] position.
 
Teddi,

Excuse Please, but we do NOT use the word 'penis' 
when discussing The MORAL SUPERIORITY of MEN!

We use:

TheThrobbingAndHumongousWavingWandOfMasculineDominanceAndSuperiorityThatGloriousExtensionOfAllThingsGreatAndBeautifulTheMostTumultuousTuborOfTruthTheDivineArbitorOfAllKnowingTheMostExhaltedEnhancementOfBeingTheArcheTypalSymbolOfSignificanceAndMagnaniMusUtterPerfection!


please make the appropriate corrections.


ciao
drieux


obPeeve: women try to belittle things in such
tragic and insignificant ways.



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Silverio: offspring of Kaldis & Chaney
Organization: The Conspiracy.
	<vc7ql58@zola.esd.sgi.com> <1993Jan26.182707.16362@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:24:20 GMT

On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:27:07 GMT, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:

>In article <vc7ql58@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu writes:

>>> I think I'll start posting there more often, and e-mail
>>> you my posts so that you can re-post them here in talk.abortion.
>>> How does that sound to you?  

>> Well, Holtsie, it sounds like email harassment & terrorism to
>> me.  If you do any such thing, I'll be in contact with your
>> system administrators.  Consider that a warning.

>OK, I promise that I'll e-mail you (and Garvin) my posts from 
>alt.flame.  I don't think I'll be able to accomodate anyone
>else, but you can always re-post them here if you think other
>people will be interested in them. 

Been nice knowing you, DODie.  Have fun explaining why you deliberately send
e-mail to people who specifically requested you NOT send it to them.
(Incidentally, I'm putting you on public notice that you're not to appear in my
mailbox, either, for any reason.  Disregard that, and your admins will be
getting one more notification of your antics -- and of course, I'll bounce
anything you send me right back.)  

So long, sucker...
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:48:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.175330.1592@ncar.ucar.edu> marcia@rap.ucar.edu (Marcia Politovich) writes:
>In article <1993Jan17.042429.16551@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Relatively short and sweet, primarily directed at those folks who keep mixing 
>>up the economic and biological aspects of the paternity child support issue...
>>
>>PROPOSAL:
>>
>>Abolish traditional paternity child support, and, in its place, make every man 
>>and woman who cause a conception, while not married to each other, pay an 
>>"Illegitimate-conception Tax". 
>>
>  This is an interesting idea (I'm not saying I do or do not agree...)
> A few comments/problems: 
>
>>ADVANTAGES:
>>
>>	o  Gender equity, at last
>See comment under "disadvantages"
>>
>>	o  Would create strong economic incentives for fertile men and women 
>>	   to use birth control (if they're not using it currently), or more 
>>	   effective birth control, and/or for sexually-active couples in long-
>>	   term relationships to marry each other, in order to avoid the Tax
>  
>   This is one part I have a problem with. So, by marrying, a couple 
> can avoid the tax? Then you can have couples marry right after the 
> woman discovers she is pregnant, then divorce shortly afterward, to 
> avoid the tax. 

As far as I'm concerned, if a couple marries RIGHT AFTER discovering 
conception, then for the purposes of the proposal, they were married prior
to conception. Bear in mind also that most divorces take a while to finalize,
maybe even as long as it takes to carry a child to term. Unless they trust
each other a LOT, why would the man or the woman risk being on the hook for 
traditional post-divorce child support AND alimony, which would be MUCH LARGER 
than the Tax? And, if they do trust each other that much, well maybe they'll 
discover after having been married for a few months, that they're happy 
staying together...

> I also don't want Big Brother dictating that "marriage is good 4U".
> Marriage is not for everybody. 

But, statistically, it's good for society that children get born into a 
marriage, instead of illegitimately. The proposal doesn't FORCE anyone to
marry, but it gives incentives, and the end result should be happier, 
healthier children.

>>DISADVANTAGES:
>>
> You still can end up with the case where the woman will not divulge
> who the father of the child is, for whatever reason. Then she ends
> up paying the tax, he doesn't. It's pretty obvious who the mother is -
> not so obvious who the father is. That's life (that's biology).

Women seeking welfare can already, with some exceptions, be compelled to 
divulge the paternity of their children, as a precondition to receiving it.
To be sure, a woman not seeking welfare cannot, constitutionally, be 
physically forced to reveal paternity, but she COULD be assessed extra taxes 
for not revealing. Enough to balance the costs of not taxing the father...

								- Kevin
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:39:25 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <C1F1x2.13C@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>   As for all this talk about "the Church is oppressing" everybody,
>please don't insult everyone's intelligence.  All anyone has to do to
>put an end to the Church "oppressing" them is 1) leave the Church (if
>you are sure it is not God's Church), or 2) ignore the "oppressive"
>law in question (if you are sure it is not God's law).  As you appear
>to have done both already, one cannot help but think you have an axe
>to grind.

As for all this talk about "the right to abortion is oppressing" everybody,
please don't insult everyone's intelligence.  All anyone has to do to
put an end to the right to abortion "oppressing" them is 1) leave the
country (for, say, Ireland if you are sure the values in America don't
match yours), or 2) ignore the "oppressive" right in question (i.e., don't
have an abortion).  As you appear to have done 2), one cannot help but 
think you have an axe to grind.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Down the Margolis memory hole (Was:...True Pro-lifer)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:03:10 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <nyikos.727467367@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <nyikos.727467367@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1993Jan19.054345.22273@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>
>>>In <nyikos.727393071@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>In <1993Jan14.064750.48880@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>In <nyikos.726617447@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>>>In <C0FG5v.Ey3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Larry's documentation stated that 50% of abortion occur after 8 weeks
>>>>>>>LMP.  I have documented that this is considered the fetal stage.
>>>>>>>Therefore, Larry is full of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The ball's in your court, Larry.
>>>>
>>>>>I guess you're still catching up, Petey.
>>>>
>>>>It's worse than ever.  And, could you cease with the condescension?
>>
>>>Perhaps if you would behave in a civil manner...
>>
>>"The ball's in your court, Larry" is uncivil?

>No, your general posting style is uncivil - you're the one that started
>with the nicknames, not me; you throw in gratuitous insults in posts
>where I'm not even involved; you lie about me; etc.

>>>>>  Simmonds doesn't know the difference
>>>>>between weeks since LMP and weeks of development.
>>
>>Simmonds does know it, from the available evidence.

>Perhaps I should have said "apparently doesn't know".

>>You have behaved dishonestly towards him, Larry.

>This is not true.

>>Just as you deliberately confused
>>empirical with logical matters to accuse me of ignorance of logic,
>>so you have taken his unwillingness to swallow your stats hook, line,
>>and sinker as ignorance between weeks since LMP.

>You are either confused or lying.  As I have stated before, I am referring
>to his accepting the stats which were clearly labelled as referring to LMP,
>and using them as though they were referring to weeks of gestation, and
>thereby coming to the wrong conclusion.

>See above, where Simmonds stated:
>   Larry's documentation stated that 50% of abortion occur after 8 weeks
>   LMP.  I have documented that this is considered the fetal stage.
>   Therefore, Larry is full of it.

I hereby wholly admit to making this erroneous statement.  It was a function
of negligence (not paying attention), not ignorance.  My sincerest apologies 
for the ensuing mayhem.  


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: the z/e/f's right to life
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<nyikos.727473611@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
	<1993Jan20.175022.14959@netcom.com>
	<nyikos.727659966@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:51:30 GMT

In article <nyikos.727659966@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

   >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
   >> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
   >>>markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
   >>
   >>>>No; but no goldfish has ever exhibited reason or free will -- at 
   >>>>ANY stage of its existence.
   >>
   >>>Neither has a fetus or a zygote.  Try again.
   >>
   >>Neither did a newborn infant named Cathi, once upon a time.

   >Ever try feeding a newborn infant something it didn't want?

   Ever try operating on a fetus without giving it anesthesia?  Lots of
   people did, and more and more they do give it anesthesia to keep
   it from struggling.

fetus -> earth worm (anything with a nervous system, really)

Ever try operating on a(n) earth worm without giving it anesthesia?  Lots of
people did, and more and more they do give it anesthesia to keep
it from struggling.

(for the clueless) aversion to pain does not a person make.

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++

"I love my son and I think this shows we don't hate anybody."
Phyllis Schlafly on homosexuality, San Francisco Examiner (9/28/92) 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Mark, Learn to READ
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:27:29 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
] In article <1993Jan24.114141.9949@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
] 
] >Two laws I've suggested would work well here: 1) Prosecute minorities
] >as adults when they commit gang-related crimes.  2) For legal
] >purposes, treat groups of protestors as ad hoc gangs.  This would put
] >an end to the tactics of using children who are for all intents and
] >purposes currently immune to legal recourse for their terroristic
] >actions.
] >
] Just a minor point, but your limitation of prosecuting gang-related
] crimes as adults to minorities strikes me as fairly racist. Are you
] operating under the false impression that gang members are minorites?


one who has not yet reached the age of consent is
construed to be a 'minor' and you will notice that
the construct of Gregory's post is in regards to
prosecuting such 'minorities' as adults, NOT as CAUCASIANS!!!!

some days the urge to be PolitikallyKorrekt is just too
irresistible, eh?

ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:18:21 GMT

In <PATRICK.93Jan20182357@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>On 20 Jan 93 21:27:53 GMT, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) said:

><snip, snip, and the bandwidthectomy proceeds...>

Highly selective surgery here...

{Restoration of Galen's text:}

>>> I'd also like to mention that while
>>>the person who first used the remark avoids it now, and has apologized,
>>>people like you and our Reverend DoD and even Chaney himself dredge it up 
>>>at every possiblity.  

{end of restoration}

>[to Galen]

>>On the other hand, Patrick also flames people about all kinds of things
>>that happened in the past, like in the act of referring to Chaney
>>as "Dennis Hall".  And the relevant stuff on that happened well before
>>I joined this newsgroup.

>So what's your point?  You *do* have one this time, I hope?

Sure.  Look at the restoration of what you deleted, and ask yourself:
1. How bad is my reading comprehension?
2. How bad are my reasoning abilities?
3. Why did I think Nyikos would not be able to figure out that I had
deleted the justification for what he wrote?

>>Patrick also insulted me repeatedly when all I did was e-mail him when
>>my netserver wasn't posting (and I had *no* idea he objected to being
>>e-mailed), just as I did you [Thanks again for posting those things for
>>me long long ago.], and diplomatically said I feel he owes Chaney an
>>apology.  He never apologized for any of that, nor for the countless
>>insults he has heaped on me since then.

>You damned liar.  I'm sitting here looking at the mail I sent in response to
>your whiny little demand you sent me on my mainframe account -- 1992 August
>18, 15:33:18 EDT.  Sound familiar?  In my reply, which I sent you about ten
>hours later as I was settling in for the night here at work, I included
>this:

>...You're also being put on notice not to appear in my mailbox again, either
>on this system or where I normally post from.  (If you'd paid attention to
>that, you might have figured out how to spell my name correctly.)

I assumed that your "Like, what's the big deal?" e-mail letter to me
canceled that out.  Like, how was I supposed to answer your question
without either:

A.  E-mailing you back   or
B.  Posting private e-mail?

See also point 2. above, assuming your memory is good enough so that
you can scroll back up to 2. without forgetting what you were scrolling
back up to.

Peter Nyikos

PS  Pro-choicers are bad at dealing with conditional clauses.  Let's
see whether Patrick picks up on mine.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:05:46 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <adams.728073901@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>Sorry, Eric, but the comment was directed at Jeffrey Price, not at you or
>CJ...look at the attributions lines...CJ's comments were deleted, but not
>the reference line to the post.  I have no problem with your reading, or
>CJ's - we approach from different directions...
Quite right. My apologies.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 27 Jan 1993 14:40:43 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Distribution: world
Reply-To: odwyer@sse.ie
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1993Jan27.000231.8842@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <1993Jan26.183133.5938@netcom.com>,
>by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):
[...]
>> But in abortion, we're balancing the right of a fetus to live against
>> the right of a woman to control her own body.
>
>In the case of the 2-week-old, we're balancing the right of a neonate
>to live against the right of a woman to control her own life.  Do you
>contend that it is self-evident that a woman's right to liberty and
>the pursuit of happiness are less important than her right to control
>her own body?  

A woman's right to control her body is predicated on her right to 
liberty. Ditto the pursuit of happiness. However, a woman can enjoy both
without killing her 2-week old, because other acceptable options exist.  The 
same cannot be said in the case of abortion. 

[...]
>These arguments have everything to do with the right of the government
>to make laws, but nothing to do with the morality of making the choice
>to abort.  And they depend completely on the assumption that the e/f
>can be viewed, legally and morally, as an intruder with NO right to
>claim support from the mother.

I think most people would agree that there is more to living a life than 
staying the right side of the law.  However these arguments depend only 
on the assumption that *nobody* has a right to claim support from *anybody*, 
where this involves the intimate use of one's body against one's will. 

>In my opinion, your position is not nearly as strong as you'd like
>me to believe.

You got something better?

>> If she wants to get rid
>> of the fetus, she should certainly be allowed to; it is unfortunate
>> that this results in the death of the fetus.
>
>If she wants to get rid of the 3-year-old, she should certainly be
>allowed to; it is unfortunate that....

...this should result in custody of the child going to the state. Yes it 
is.

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

Frank O'Dwyer
odwyer@sse.ie
From: js1x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jennifer Lynn Simonic)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Info on Catholics for choice
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:54:58 GMT
Organization: Biological Sciences, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Hi, 
    I want to know if anyone has any information on the group Catholics
for choice. 
    Thanks,
    Jen 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Nyikos, Apologies and Humble Pie
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:20:01 GMT

In <1993Jan27.014359.10843@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> UNRETRACTED LIES
>-> ----------------

>	(this about susan garvin):
>        'The "original author" is a lying bitch who would say
>        anything to try and salve her gargantuan bruised ego.'
>		 <1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>

Except perhaps for the "bitch" part, this is highly plausible.  Darcy
has been around a lot longer than I have, and he may be able to 
demonstrate that Susan Garvin has said many lies and does not, more
innocently:

(1) Suffer from gargantuan lapses of memory on a regular basis, and/or

(2) Suffer from a cavalier disregard of what we less free spirits call
"telling the truth".

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Use of Force
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:07:02 GMT


Michael Bray, One of OpResKrews Convicted
Terrorists is advocating the "use of Force"
in upcoming operations to National News
Media Sources, reported moments ago.

Can anyone explain what this BuzzPhrase
means in laymens terms?

Is this a "use of Force" construct as in the
traditional meaning of firearms and bombings????

Like the "ProLife" Former President Bush Meant?????

Or Is this to be Interpreted in the "Liberal" Sense?

ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57398 alt.politics.homosexuality:10086 alt.flame:19078
From: levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.flame
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:10:08 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In <1993Jan22.175741.12895@noao.edu>
   forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) says:
|From article by elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott):
     [Terry Randall, Operation Rescue]
|> Terry's also the venemous cretin who said that he saw the hand of
|> God in the AIDS epidemic.
|>...
|> --Frank
|
|A death months or years after diagnosis, with the opportunity for
|rethinking one's life and turning to Christ that that time allows,
|is definintely far more merciful than a sudden quick death without
|the opportunity to set one's house in order.

Well, this puts the ultimate strain on mercy.

I guess by SF's 'reasoning' we should replace all the various lethal
injection chambers, gas chambers, electric chairs, gallows and
shooting galleries in US prisons with chains on the wall - while the
condemned are starving to death hanging from their ankles, they'll
have "the opportunity for rethinking one's life and turning to Christ
that that time allows".

	/J (never mind the chains, I've got it, crosses!  That'd
            really give them time for a merciful death!)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58044 news.admin.policy:1150