HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cddukes@c00013-118dan.eos.ncsu.edu (PakRat's Anonymous)
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:31:28 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos

In article <1992Nov21.092739.57710@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>Why does it have to be organized?  Seems rather unamerican.
Actually I've been reading the Bible lately.  But you know that the Bible
basically says that public prayer like that is not a good thing, and that
christians should pray quietly and privately.

I dunno, but organized prayer just seems unchristian to me.

Chris "the PakRat" Dukes______________________________cddukes@eos.ncsu.edu
Duck tape, I'm hooked Jesus... ourslogram.
PGP key available upon request
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Umm, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 22:32:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.040535.47437@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1ekaenINNao8@agate.berkeley.edu> don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley) writes:
>>[Irrelevant data charts deleted]
>
>Irrelevant?  In <1ek8ffINNagj@agate.berkeley.edu> you asked for them:
># Please do tell me where you got that 20-30% figure,
>
Of *course* they're irrelevant. Anything that doesn't agree with his
warped, narrow, demented little mind *must* be irrelevant...

>>  Undifferentiated tissue?  Do you realize that second and even
>>  third trimester abortions are performed daily by the thousands?
>
>No, I realize that you seem to have a problem with numbers.  The facts
>are that there's about 100 third-trimester abortions performed *per year*
>in this country.
And it is also worth noting that third-trimester abortions are
performed for the sort of life-threatening pregnancies that t
Mr. "Numbers? Who asked for numbers" up above has stated he would
allow, even under his warped plan.


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:12:12 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>I'd like to see a re-post of Mr. Nyikos' reply so that

You're the only one that would so far.

>everyone can see his refutation of Greenfield's arguments.
>Who knows, perhaps one of you pro-aborts might get up the

Gordon? Diana? Dan? You're being paged....

>courage to actually reply to Mr. Nyikos' arguments, instead
>attacking him for an accidental misattribution.

What arguments? Oh, you mean that luke-warm air he's been blowing. Remember,
he's an expert in the fields of logic and set theory...don't you wonder
how good he is when he can't even keep the attributions straight in
a simple post? The application of both appear to elude Nyikos.

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
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmin
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:00:41 GMT
Summary: Threats and backpedals

In article <1992Nov21.022031.24146@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> I provided the proof that Larry Margolis contacted my
> sysadmins.  I'm not surprised that you're unwilling to
> accept it.

You claimed he sent"threatening email" to your system
administrator.  I read your posting.  There was no threat.
There was imply a statement that you had cross-posted widely
and inappropriately and that you should receive a "talking
to."  Nothing about removing net access.  Nothing about sending
you to bed without your supper.  Nothing about calling your church
elders and telling the Synod about your misbehavior.  In
fact, you weren't even identified by name.

Now you have toned down your accusation to state that Larry
contacted your system administrator.  But the disputed statement
was that he sent "threatening email."  To say that someone
threatened you is a harsh statement.  Since the email was not
threatening, you certainly do owe an apology for your
misrepresentation.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:46:52 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.flame

In <1992Nov23.171722.3059@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.020517.12397@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.721945583@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>
>>>Show me the statement of which you speak.
>>
>>Maybe somebody who has archives could do it.  I don't do archives.
>
>I love this crap. Cochran doesn't "do" archives. Except, of course, when he
>reposts stale old crap from 1990, wherein I allegedly support forced abortion

Kind people email him stuff from their archives when support is needed.
It's nice to be loved.  :-)

>Cochran doesn't "do" email, except of course when he wants to refer to
>anonymous, virtual people who support his positions via email.

He never said he doesn't "do" email at all; life is not possible without
email.  :-)  Saying that you don't want to discuss abortion-related
material via email, and prefer to restrict the conversations to talk.abortion
seems like a very reasonable position to me.  I feel the same way.

>He doesn't "do"
>support of a legal restriction on abortion, except of course when he "does".

Do you have a problem with his requiring that the abortion not be performed
against the woman's will (which is not actually an abortion-specific
restriction, since it would fall under the umbrella of existing laws
against assault, etc.).

>Does Cochran "do" character? Does he "do" honesty? Does he "do" integrity?

I haven't seen any reason to assume otherwise.  (Unlike in your case.)

>Just what does he "do", except offering to fist or "fork" male participants in
>talk.abortion, and "do"ing references to Kevin Welch having sex with his
>father, and "do"ing lewd references to Suzanne Forgach's "vaginal mucus",

I found Keith's phlegmatic references to be more amusing than Suzanne's
constant dribbling about her vaginal mucus.

>persistently "do"ing vulgar perversions of her name? Is _this_ all that
>Cochran "does", I wonder?

If you really want to find out, maybe you could ask him very nicely?
I suspect he has better taste, though.  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.cis,talk.politics.soviet
From: solodov@monterey1.cs.wisc.edu (Mikhail V. Solodov)
Subject: Re:Azeri-Armenian Stuff
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:02:49 GMT

Subject: Re: Survivors reported that Armenian soldiers shot and bayoneted Azeris.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.soviet,talk.politics.cis
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Cc: 


    Is it just me or other people are also tired of these
Azeri-Armenian postings ? The ones by Serdar Argic in particular.
The point is that there is NO way for even a bit of TRUTH to emerge
from this discussion, since there is so much blood and hatred
involved. This basically goes to both parties, but Serdar Argic
dumps trash into this net more often.



Xref: sparky talk.politics.cis:45 talk.politics.soviet:9005
From: solodov@monterey1.cs.wisc.edu (Mikhail V. Solodov)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.cis,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: I've got the clue !
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:36:46 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.


In article <1992Nov18.200249.1642@cs.wisc.edu> solodov@monterey1.cs.wisc.edu (Mikhail V. Solodov) writes:

>involved. This basically goes to both parties, but Serdar Argic
>dumps trash into this net more often.

>>Let it be.

........usual junk deleted..............

>>Serdar Argic

ok, here is an intelligent solution.
Let us all put this Argic guy in our .kill file .
I guess , he will enjoy himself anyway, even
if he will be the only one reading his postings, but            
this is not what we are concerned about...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.cis,talk.politics.soviet
From: arto@leland.Stanford.EDU (Artavazd Khachikian)
Subject: Re: Azeri-Armenian Stuff
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 01:16:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.200249.1642@cs.wisc.edu> solodov@monterey1.cs.wisc.edu (Mikhail V. Solodov) writes:
>Subject: Re: Survivors reported that Armenian soldiers shot and bayoneted Azeris.
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.soviet,talk.politics.cis
>In-Reply-To: <9211172056@zuma.UUCP>
>References: <1992Nov16.035559.9078@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
>Cc: 
>
>
>    Is it just me or other people are also tired of these
>Azeri-Armenian postings ? The ones by Serdar Argic in particular.
>The point is that there is NO way for even a bit of TRUTH to emerge
>from this discussion, since there is so much blood and hatred
>involved. This basically goes to both parties, but Serdar Argic
>dumps trash into this net more often.

	Your conclusion in regards to Argic/Mutlu is not a new one
for these groups. As to the rest, if one million postings will
arrive daily in my mailbox saying that Russia attacked Nazi Germany in 
the World War II, I still would not think that truth can not be
established.

	The whole purpose of the Mutlu/Argic postings is not
the ridiculous caricatures on history. The purpose is to discredit
the subject, to get people tired of it, so that the status-quo
will be more enjoyable for those, who do not need the sympathy of
the world public opinion to gather the fruits of their crime.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61214 misc.legal:20263
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: LBJ's anti-nepotism law
Date: 21 Nov 92 13:53:23 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Nov19.144522.5708@desire.wright.edu>, 
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) said:

> > Article III, Section 2, 2d paragraph, says:
> > 
> >    [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and
> >    Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public
> >    Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other
> >    Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein
> >    provided for, and which shall be established by law.
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Doesn't that imply that laws can/would change the
> positions/circumstances for which the president can appoint?

Possibly, though it isn't clear whether the clause means that (a) the
Congress may establish the new position and the qualifications for it,
or just (b) the Congress may establish the position but the same old
Article III, Section 2, 2d paragraph qualifications -- Presidential
nomination plus Senate approval -- would apply.

Based on the wording of the paragraph, I'd suspect the latter, though
the final decision would, of course, be up to that famous Committee of
Nine Politically Appointed Lawyers in Washington.
-- 
William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

  Counsel:   What device do you have in your laboratory to test
             alcohol content?
  
  Witness:   I have a dual column gas chromatograph,
             Hewlett-Packard 5710A with flame analyzation detectors.
  
  The Court: Can you get that on mag wheels?
  
  Witness:   Only on the floor models.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:47:09 GMT

Actually, Foley spoke of a compromise, most vetos require a 2/3
to override but he suggested that a lineitem veto only require
a simple majority. Thus giving the prez power to cut pork
no one believes in while not allowing the prez to get too partisan
in his penstrokes.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
CLARKSON '95			
HOBBES: Why do we play war not peace? 	CALVIN: Too few role models.
===========================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men... not from men who feared to write,
to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the time, 
unpopular."		----Edward R Murrow
  


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:39:17 GMT

In article <1712@esl.ESL.COM> drm@esl.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.032115.24586@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In <Bxr67q.71r@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>>>Why would Walsh, a Republican,conspire with a Democratic campaign committee? 
>>>What's the motivation?  Did EVERYONE want Bush out of office?  :-)

Yep.

>> Walsh hates Bush's guts.  He
>> and his subordinates feel that Bush has been dicking them arround
>> since day one.  [...] At
>> this point it isn't political.  It's personal.

>Aside from this, Walsh has only nominal day-to-day involvement in the  
>process.  He's 81 and doesn't reside full-time in the Washington area. The  
>work on the Weinberger indictment was done by a Clinton campaign  
>contributor.

This is one of those great misleading phrases.  "A Clinton campaign
contributor."  As if half the people in the country weren't contributors
to one campaign or the other.  You're trying to make it sound like he
worked for the Clinton campaign, which would be different.  If you can't
refute the facts, attack the messenger.  Like Kinsley's article on the
128 taxes lie.

And I still haven't seen the evidence that Walsh is off sleeping
somewhere while his subordinates are trading arms for hostages and
diverting money to the contras without his knowledge -- oops, sorry,
wrong Republican -- I mean, while his subordinates are indicting
Republicans without his knowledge.

>It would be interesting to hear the outcry if there had been a release of  
>new Clinton draft material three days before the election.  Let alone one  
>that had Republican fingerprints all over it.

I dunno; somehow I see a difference between releasing information that was 
confidential and releasing information that was going to be released anyway.

But then again, I don't see "Democratic fingerprints" all over this, nor
do I see Black Panthers coming from Canada to kill me.  Must be
LiberalMediaBias.

And you guys still haven't been able to refute the information which
proved Bush was lying.  I wonder why...

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,ca.politics
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:09:25 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov21.213102.21606@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <13326@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ##                        November 19, 1992 
# ## ************************************************************************
# ##  "Almost One-Third of Gay Men in Study Admit to Unprotected Anal 
# ## Intercourse" Washington Post (11/19/92), P. A2 
# 
# Ya know, Clayton, I was waiting for you to post something about this.
# I just knew you could not resist. 
# 
# I was amused becasue a story on CNN about 10 days ago gave figures
# that 57 percent of heterosexuals engage in "unsafe" sexual practices. 
# 
# So of 57 percent of hets and 33 percent of homosexuals are  doing
# something bad, which group is acting more reasonably?
# 
# -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

It depends on the number of partners (where homosexuals are FAR
higher than heterosexuals), and it depends on how infected the
population is with which you are having sex.  Considering how
many homosexuals have died of AIDS, and what a large percentage of
the homosexual population is HIV+ (including a number of the
homosexuals surveyed for the article mentioned above), I would
say that the homosexuals are acting less reasonable -- and neither
group is acting particularly reasonable.

The safest sex is monogamy.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton: Infrastructure Improvements?
Date: 21 Nov 1992 23:10:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says:

>In article <9211162312.AA08211@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward " Apathy " Horne") writes:
>who's going to pay for it? Any do-it-yourself road builders out there?
>
>	Whining "I don't want to pay any taxes" won't help.
>
>	And if taxation is not the way to raise money, then what is?


     Hey, don't give ME this Congressional crap.  I'm already paying
     for roads.  Let the money for ROADS, be spent on ROADS.
     How's that for a novel idea.

     Yeah, you're right, whining won't help.

     But finally giving in, by cheating and lying will.
     
     " Good luck in the coming years, Sarah ".

>
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60590 ba.politics:7205 ca.politics:9618
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:45:23 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <13185@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#I'm saying that if the government sends out thugs to enforce its
#will, and says, "Go ahead -- burn down buildings, it's governmental
#policy," it makes it much easier for people to do those things.

Which is far different from your first claim, which was the government
had all the responsibility, and the citizens none.

#Yup.  That's one of the reasons that I oppose the efforts of the
#homosexual fascist lobby to enforce their morals on non-aggressive
#people.

But you don't loudly protest black civil rights laws, or religious
civil right laws, or special interests for heterosexuals. 

Are you aware that you look like a hypocrite for this?



--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward " Apathy " Horne")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: RE:
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:05:58 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA18876; Mon, 16 Nov 92 15:12:25 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA08211; Mon, 16 Nov 92 15:12:23 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 4458; Mon, 16 Nov 92 16:13:11 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 2451; Mon, 16 Nov 92 16:13:10 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet
wupost!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!uxh.cso.uiuc.edu!irvine
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:35:21 GMT


>AQctually, what Bill Clinton was saying was that our infrastructure
>is crumbling, there are few to no public transportation systems, and
>the options you have of travelling inter city is car, bus or plane.
>He just decided to take some of that surplus and make some long overdue
>infrastructure improvements.         ^^^^^^^

        Surplus?!  What surplus?  What, the surplus in my pocket to
        be surgically removed through toll roads and increased gas
        taxes?   Oh.


>I suggest you write Bill Clinton and voice your concerns.

         Why bother?  I'm sorry I even bothered to vote now.

         I can see clearly now
            The future's gone
         I can see more and more taxes
            I'll have to pay
         Greed is the spirit that has made us blind
         Gonna be a sad, sad four years from today.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60950 alt.politics.elections:24153 alt.rush-limbaugh:10029 talk.rumors:1346 alt.activism:19002
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:46:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <17NOV92221537@adcalc.fnal.gov> glass@adcalc.fnal.gov (Michael Glass) writes:


|>     In article <1992Nov17.015421.21073@athena.mit.edu>,
|>wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes...
|>> 
|>>It's been a while, but I think I remember that the Senate Judiciary
|>>Committee's final vote was a tie and that therefore they neither
|>>recommended that the full Senate approve Thomas nor that it reject
|>>him.  As I said, though, it's been a while, so this a fairly
|>>low-confidence memory... anybody know for sure?
|>> 

|>     The Committee split 8 to 8 on recommending Thomas.  At this point
|>it should have been DEAD.  However Senator Biden wimped out and had
|>the committee vote on whether to forward the nomination to the full
|>Senate.  That vote was 13 to 1, with only Senator Simon dissenting.

Are you sure about this?  I thought that the committees job was to make 
the recomendation to the whole senate, then it automatically went to
the whole senate.  To do otherwise would be to essentially pass on the
senates advice and consent role to just the committee.

I remember that Bork's nomination went to the whole senate even though
the committee vote went against him.

Previously if the committee tied or voted against the nominee, the
nomination was withdrawn making a wholes senate vote moot.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal