HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Janus I: HERE I STAND, Part 1
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: viability, double standards, party line
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 20:08:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.175056.6077@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <nyikos.727660549@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>Maybe you expect more of my camp.  I can show you lots of things by
>>pro-choicers, especially Mark Cochran, Humphrey, and Novak that beat
>>anything I've seen from any of the above.
>
>Gee, why don't you?
>
I'd like to see this too. He'll claim his nesserver broke, of course.

>>
>>Can you show something worse than Humphrey threatening to hit Suzanne
>>with a baseball bat?
>
>You _will_ be posting your documentation for this, won't you?  Or is this
>just another lie, like your claim that Adrienne was engaging in forgery?
>
I'm putting my money on theside of another lie. we all know what
PHoney's track record is wrt truthfulness.

>>
>>Can you show something worse than Cochran holding "mucus brain" Suzanne
>>responsible for the death of four children?
>
>Superb lack of reading comphrension there, "Dr".  One has to wonder how your
>grade the papers your students hand in...
>
Well, he got Suzzi's title correct, at least. Maybe in a uear or so
he'll advance to the point of getting the rest correct.

>>
>>Can you show something worse than Novak calling me a "bigoted piece of
>>shit" for mentioning that the author of an article on a Roman Catholic,
>>Mario Cuomo, was Jewish?
>
>No, PHoney, he called you a "bigoted piece of shit" because you're a bigoted
>piece of shit.
>
Yoou forgot to mentiong 'idiotic' and 'lying' in the PHoney man's
description...

>>
>>[Funny how mentioning that Mario Cuomo was Catholic did not elicit
>>any such response.]
>
>Why should it?
>
No rational reason, I'm sure.

>>
>>Additional examples on request, but I would like to see some examples
>>you can display in answer to the above.
>
><Sniff>.  And you didn't even mention the fisting offers.
>
He probably keeps that one in his bedroom, for fantasy periods.

--
                  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
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:15:26 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan22.232838.23349@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <skj3dm=@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>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?
>>
>> To clarify, it should be noted that the "lemons" Chaney refers to here
>> are African-American women.
>
>People have their reasons for their preferences in a mate, Cathi,
>and maybe they're legitamate reasons.

That may well be, but discriminating on the basis of race is racist.
Airplane-boy's comments are not only racist, but misogynistic, since
it indicates a view of women as mass-produced objects, rather than as
individuals.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jdawson@chaos.glv.com (Urthur Graeg)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Organization: Encompass
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:38:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.160656.1620@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu  
(Paul Ciszek) writes:

> It would seem to me that it can only be considered cannibalism by those
> who believe the doctrine.  Since the court is not permitted to believe
> any religion, it would be forced to conclude that the bread and wine were
> just that and nothing more.  You cannot prosecute people for _thinking_
> that they are consuming the body and blood of Christ any more that you can
> prosecute someone who smokes a joint of oregano, thinking it is
> marijuanna.
> 
Ah, but you can prosecute people who distribute oregano thinking it is  
marijuanna, so why can't you prosecute people who distribute wafers and wine as  
the body and blood of a human being?


  AG | Adventuring Company    Tactics are the poor man's firepower
o====|=====================>  and the bane of technological armies.
     |  Urthur                Urthur of Graeg
Disclaimer disdained.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:20:01 GMT

In <1jne3iINNr7@shelley.u.washington.edu> darkstar@u.pathology.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann) writes:

>Peter Nyikos writes

><a bunch of stuff about insults, Steve Chaney, rocker, posting email to the  
>net, and other foolishness deleted>

>Petie Honey, I'd be glad to send you a quarter so you could call someone who  
>gives a damn about your anal-retentive maunderings.  Sheesh.  

Are you complaining because I am talking about something other than
abortion?  

Are you complaining because you agree with Scott Safier that Chaney needs
a lobotomy, based on what rocker said to Chaney, and you think this is
so obvious to everyone that I am beating a dead horse, or maybe trying
to bring it back to life?

If not, what's your point?

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: FOCA Text Wanted
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:11:08 GMT

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

>In <C11BJK.36H@world.std.com> tonym@world.std.com (Tony Matt) writes:
>>Could someone mail me / provide ftp site for / provide details of
>>publication of the FOCA?

>From a post by Susan Garvin ...

>(This is from the 101st Congress, 1st session)

>                             A Bill

>To protect the reproductive rights of women, and for other
>purposes.

>     Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives
>of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

>Section 1.  Short Title.

>     This Act may be cited as the "Freedom of Choice Act of 1989".

>Section 2.  Right to Choose.

>     (a) In General. - Except as provided in subsection (b), a
>State may not restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate
>a pregnancy -

>          (1)  before fetal viability; or

>          (2)  at any time, if such termination is necessary to
>protect the life or health of the woman.

>     (b)  Medical Necessity Requirements. - A State may impose
>requirements medically necessary to protect the life or health of
>women referred to in subsection (a).

>Section 3.  Definition of State.

>     As used in this Act, the term "State" includes the District of
>Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory
>or possession of the United States.
>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)



I believe this is not the bill before Congress right now (my copy of this
is lent out).  Could someone please post the real one? (Where these
imbeciles claim abortion is a form of contraception...).


E.S.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57172 misc.legal:23037 alt.abortion.inequity:6625 alt.child-support:4638 soc.men:23051 soc.women:22935
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Date: 21 Jan 1993 19:40:58 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1jl8beINNf5m@mirror.digex.com> adric@access.digex.com (William Johnson) writes:
>How do you think paternity is determined NOW?

Usually it *isn't*.  Usually paternity is not contested, so that there
is no need for "determination.  Your proposal would require paternity to 
be determined for every conception.  That would cost alot.

>William, you are part of the so-called "irresponsible" segment of the 
>population who conceive a child out of wedlock, and decide to carry it to term.
>This is not a personal condemnation, just an observation. Your segment of the 
>population is a problem. You create children which are FAR more likely to need 
>welfare, FAR more likely to live in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, FAR more 
>likely to get involved with drugs and crime, FAR less likely to complete their 
>education, FAR more likely to be unemployed, (at least, this is my 
>understanding, solid statistics to the contrary welcomed). None of these 
>things may apply to your family specifically, but they do apply to your segment.

Kevin, haven't you ever heard the truism:  the first one can come at
any time, the rest usually take 9 months.  It soesn't sound to me like
Will is part of the problem.  It sounds to me like he and his fiance are
taking responsibility for their actions.  Who cares whether the child was
conceived 6 mos before the wedding, or 6 mos after.  The important thing
is that it has 2 parents who are committed to taking good care of it.

>By my calculations, those "few" would number maybe as much as 32 million
>taxpayers, if the proposal was implemented nationally. Given annual AFDC 
>payouts of approximately 20 $billion, this would NOT appear to be an 
>"unshoulderable" burden, even when the administrative overhead is added in.

I *don't* buy your numbers.

In 1989 (the last year for which I've seen numbers) the number of abortions
was 1.6M.  The number of births was slightly less than that.  Lets be 
generous and say 4M identifiable conceptions (I'm including miscarriages,
IMO grossly unfair to further punish people who've suffered such misfortune!)

If we accept your ADFC number of $2000M, the average tax bill would
be $20000M/4M=$5000/person.  I consider that to be a non-negligible 
amount of money.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58240 alt.flame:19487
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: THE REAGAN ERA IS OVER, THE END IS NEAR!
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:53:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCSU

In article <C1G2GJ.HKH.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) re-posts my alt.flame article
to talk.abortion, and then writes in alt.rush-limbaugh:

   "Doug Holtsinger is obsessed with following me from group to group,
    flaming each post."

               <C1HCvB.AxJ.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
                garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) 


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: More fiction from Simon Booth
Keywords: Clinton has endorsed genocide, he is the Anti-Christ
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:52:53 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1993Jan25.171758.17571@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) posts what he claims is an
article from the Los Angeles Times.  However, since the first line is:

>  WASHINGTON - With the stroke of a pen dipped in the blood of the unborn,

I am quite suspicious of the authenticity of this LA Times story.
Anyone else notice this?
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:11:39 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Alden Hackmann) writes:

>Are you complaining because I am talking about something other than
>abortion?

Merely your rambling, insubstantial posts....

>Are you complaining because you agree with Scott Safier that Chaney needs
>a lobotomy, based on what rocker said to Chaney, and you think this is

Giving chaney a lobotomy would imply that he had a developed enough
brain to perform one on. Everything so far indicates that this is probably
not so....

>If not, what's your point?

I've often wondered that about your assinine ramblings.

Ron - note the deletions :)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57478 talk.politics.misc:69363 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13569 alt.rush-limbaugh:14921
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 20:09:53 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:

> Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
> an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
> private or public of their choice.

"Pro-choice" is as much a political euphamism as "pro-life"; the
pro-abortion crowd is after that right only, and the anti-abortion crowd
is only interested in banning abortion, the facts be damned.



--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Bray Decision (Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:06:43 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu  writes:

> In article <1993Jan23.223128.7139@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> 
> > According to the Washington post, Scalia stated that since the OR
> > people would also be blocking any men who were seeking abortions, 
> > the attacks were not aimed at women.
> 
> No, that's a wild distortion of the Court's opinion.  I am 
> re-posting a short syllabus which gives a summary of the 
> decision.  I will repost the full decision if there are 
> enough requests. 

> Respondents, abortion clinics and supporting organizations, sued to
>  enjoin petitioners, an association and individuals who organize and
>  coordinate antiabortion demonstrations, from conducting demonstra-
>  tions at clinics in the Washington, D. C., metropolitan area.  The
>  District Court held that, by conspiring to deprive women seeking
>  abortions of their right to interstate travel, petitioners had violated
>  the first clause of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), which prohibits conspiracies
>  to deprive ``any person or class of persons of the equal protection of
>  the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws'';
>  ruled for respondents on their pendent state-law claims of trespass
>  and public nuisance; as relief on these three claims, enjoined petition-
>  ers from trespassing on, or obstructing access to, specified clinics;
>  and, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, ordered petitioners to pay
>  respondents attorney's fees and costs on the 1985(3) claim.  The
>  Court of Appeals affirmed.

[The rest deleted]

That's okay; the Justice Department will most likely allow
     lawsuits by pro-choice groups and abortion clinics
     under RICO laws.
     
SRM
-- 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57523 alt.flame:19129 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:710
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Kebbie's weakest flame yet
Date: 23 Jan 93 13:54:59 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama) writes:
-> >You really outdid yourself with your latest effort, Kebbin.
-> >Nothing like invading the reproductive/sexual privacy of mil-
-> >lions of Americans ...
-> 
-> What "invasions of privacy" are you blabbering about? 

didn't you read your proposal before you posted it?
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58460 talk.politics.misc:70347 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14095 alt.rush-limbaugh:15399 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:227 talk.religion.misc:27763
From: mdiehl@triton.unm.edu (J. Michael Diehl)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 28 Jan 1993 02:47:08 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: triton.unm.edu

>>That they go to private schools is
>>irrelevant, since you're paying for the education, not the school. 
>
>Same thing.  If that private school "education" includes religious
>bullshit, racial bigotry and exclusion, or such other weirdness, then 
>that is EXACTLY what I fear about school "vouchers" for private schools.

If you are going to restrict other people from practicing "religious bullshit"
and other weirdness with tax dollars, then we should be able to restrict other
people from practicing "condom distribution" and other such nonsense.  See, 
you can't restrict one group's freedom without restricting (presumedly) 
your own.  Think about it.

>
>If such crap is part of ANY school curriculum, private or public, then
>it has no business being supported by taxpayer money.

This is your opionion; I have mine.  They both should be supported by the 
state or none at all, which would be bad for both of us.  People have to 
learn to live with (not love) each other.

>Good point that I can't answer.  I hope that Pell grants are awarded to
>private universities, which universities satisfy basic criteria
>eliminating religious indoctrination or racial hatred such as Bob Jones

Indoctrination is a very emotionally-charged word; try "education."  There is
nothing wrong with religious education.

>University.
>
>>>Let's not forget that many of these PRIVATE schools are religious
>>>brain-dead robot makers, and I'm surprised Craig thinks the public
>>>should pay for religious instruction...

Many PUBLIC schools are secular brain-dead robot makers and it's sometimes 
a shame that ANY ONE pays for it.

Just my $.02.

+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|  J. Michael Diehl  ;-]  |  I thought I was wrong once.  But, I was mistaken. |
|                         +----------------------------------------------------+
|  mdiehl@hydra.unm.edu   | "I'm just looking for the opportunity to be        |
|  Thunder@forum          |            Politically Incorrect!                  |
|  Thunder@Tiny*          |                               <me>                 |
|  (505) 272-HaHa         |                                                    |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
X-To: PATRICK L HUMPHREY
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:51:00 GMT

patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes...
>Since you have in no way proved that she's done any such thing as you accuse
>her of, imagine how likely it'll be that YOU'LL ever apologize for your
>sleazy manners.  We already have more of a sad testament to that that anyone
>could ever need or want, all because you will *never* admit you're in error
>-- just like a couple of other people infesting this newsgroup now, and one
>who did, until his mouth got the better of him...
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmm...???  Just whom would you be speaking of, Sir?

If you're talking about Peter, then you are mistaken.  He is having some
problems with his netserver (it isn't presently known whether they are
related to his request for the meaning of "TSAKC" ...Har har).

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * The Borg BBS: Where E-mail is IRRELEVANT!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:56:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.171126.11425@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#From article <C0xMKq.AsE.1@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
## In article <1993Jan15.213931.6687@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
## #From article <uoj3dj4@zola.esd.sgi.com>, by cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio):
## ## "I don't think Christians should use birth control."  
## ## 				--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue
## #
## #"Christians shouldn't use contraception or abortion."
## #                                --Pope Paul VI
## #
## #Terry's in good company.
## 
## 
## It depends on your definition of "good," doesn't it?
#
#No.  Good is good.

No, Suzanne, your definition of "good" is definitely not the
same as mine.  I don't think that someone who prays for
another to suffer misfortune can be considered good.  You do.

#
## I can think of a lot of other similarities between Terry and the
## pope.  Both are misogynists, both are homophobes, both delight
## in giving advice on subjects about which they know nothing, and
## both teach their folowers to hate.  
#
#You have not shown _any_ of these to be the case with either man.
#Care to try?

First, let me say that I failed to note which pope you were
quoting.  I was referring to the present pope in my comments,
not Paul VI.  My comments stand, though.  If you weren't lying
when you said that you "never go away" from t.a., then you've
seen what I've posted about the misogyny, homophobia, etc.
of the RCC and O.R.

#
## (Thanks to Suzanne for illustrating
## this last similarity so well.)
#
#Please explain to me how avoiding contraception or abortion is "hateful"?

As others pointed out, I don't think that you're hateful because
of your lack of a sex life, Suzanne.  I think that you're hateful
because of the hateful statements that you consistently make
in this newsgroup.

#Unless living a successful, self-determined, life without them makes
#_other_ people resentful and envious.   I assure you, that is not _my_
#problem.   As you well know, I have posted many times where and how
#other people can learn to live successful, self-determined, lives
#without messing their bodies up with contraceptives or slaughtering
#their children with abortion.

I don't think that you need to worry about people becoming
resentful because they envy you, Suzanne.  

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57820 talk.politics.misc:69646 talk.religion.misc:27494 misc.legal:23260