HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Peter shows his ignorance, once again.
Summary: Now you've done it, Mark! 
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 19:24:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.010745.13877@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <nyikos.724963465@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[Slash & Burn City, Dude!]

[Peter doesn't believe Mark that only 1/2 to 1/3 of all z/e/f actually make
it the whole nine months...]

>Since you are disputing my facts, care to post your medical
>credentials? Or at least, post a source that contradicts me?
>I doubt it...

Now you've done it, Mark.  Peter will now start babbling about his SAT scores,
his GRE scores, how he's a Phd in math, is one of the "leading set theory and
topology" mathmeticians around...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=This .signature file will be in Chicago, Illinois, USA From 12/26/92 until   =
=01/03/92.  Have you given *YOUR* .signature a vacation from the net lately???=
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another long night at the keyboard in Raleigh
Date: 28 Dec 92 05:40:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <9hz2q5l@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

#i suspect that dodie hasn't seen a therapist in the
#last few weeks. that would explain the erosion of the
#superficial rationality which had appeared in a limited
#way in some of his posts. now it looks like he's
#backsliding.

The deterioration has been dramatic, hasn't it?

I suspect that we'll see another blatant forgery of a quote
very soon.  That seems to be his coping mechanism when he's 
overwhelmed.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 06:00:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.230019.10310@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.163531.6922@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
>>
>>>firebombin is a form of free speech
>>>if and only if flag burning is truely a form of speech.
>
>>Crapola, GI Joe.
>
>OOpsy. Facetiousness alert. Meet drieux's liberal older brother.
>Now we've gone and done it...
	Yes, well.....
	As I noted in e-mail to Nadja, considerably goofier things have been
posted in talk.abortion (and probably in talk.politics.misc, for that matter)
in complete seriousness.  We can hardly be faulted for assuming this was just
another clueless pinkboy pobucker instead of a trieux Yeti.
The_Doge
ObQuote:	"Sanity is a cozy lie"  -- Susan Sontag
		"Aw, you can't fool me.  There ain't-a no Sanity Clause!"
				-- Chico, in "A Night at the Opera"
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 17:48:01 GMT

In article <C014os.ID3@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>
>In article <34636@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. 
>Mezias) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec25.033234.4258@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>> (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
>
>
>
>You were doing great Kevin, until you bit the bait.  You went through a 
>systematic point-for-point debunking of small subset of a long list of 
>bogus arguments and then proceeded to get sucked into nit-picking.  This 
>is exactly why these specious arguments are so insidius!  They distract 
>people from the real issue - abortion kills children.
>
No Paul, abortion kills fetuses. Not the same thing as a child at all.

>Giving SJM the benefit of the doubt, I would characterize him as being 
>duped, as are millions in this country.  Rhetoric and techniques of 
>persuasion are much more powerful dictators of public opinion than truth.  
>SJM just passes along the rhetoric.  His feeble attempts to explain 
>himself beg the question, "why are these specious arguments so rampant in 
>the pro-abortion camp?"  The answer is simple - if you argue against them 
>you legitimize them - raise them to the level worthy of reasoned debate.  
>In other words Kevin, you've been had.
>
Speaking of feeble....

--
                  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
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 28 DEC 92 21:00:48 GMT

In a previous article, aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) wrote:
>gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> 
>>In article <aidler.725417 859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA 
>>(E Alan Idler) writes:
> 
>>}The child has *no* advocate and no voice -- yet faces grave 
>>}consequences.  
> 
>>This is quite untrue.
> 
>I can't determine which of my points you are challenging.
>In any case, I would challenge your assertion because:
> 
>1. who considers the child? (maybe nobody ...)

There is no child to consider.  Did you mean fetus?

>2. the child's entire existence is in the balance.

The woman's existance is in the balance too.

>>}                        The physician only receives a fee
>>}by performing the abortion and is, therefore, in no position
>>}to be impartial.
> 
>>I don't think this sentence means what you think it does.
> 
>Do you presume that all physicians always act in the
>best interest of the woman or child and never in their
>own self-interests?

A physician who is interested only in fees would be much better off 
encouraging childbirth.  They make much more money delivering babies than
they do aborting fetuses.

>>}Therefore, the *only* way to provide an independent 
>>}ajudication of these rights and do the best for all considered 
>>}is to have the state provide an impartial tribunal to 
>>}evaluate the situation.
> 
>>How did we ever get along before "states"?  Btw, Virginia is a 
>>commonwealth, would they have to change if they were to provide
>>a truly impartial tribunal?  And does that leave Canada Right
>>Out?  Or would you like to claim a la Kevin Darcy that "*only*"
>>means something other than singular, in this context...
> 
>1.  state == government in general (in this instance)
> 
>2.  A formal "court" probably isn't what is required (or
>appropriate) for this process, but I believe the 
>government has a duty to mediate the rights of the
>mother and child.

Do you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away rights 
from the pregnant woman?

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: a silly question 
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: This organization unintentionally left blank.
	<1992Dec28.033836.21404@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:26:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.033836.21404@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   Susan "Tough Shit, Abortion Kills Children" Garvin writes:

 >In article <6bz277k@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
 >>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

 >>> Does "TSAKC" do anything besides fabricating "net reputations"?

 >> [... noise deleted ...] 

 > Is [Mr. Holtsinger] pouting because he doesn't know what the acronym means,
 > too?

 I already know what it means, thanks to Mr. Matheson:

  TSAKC == Tough Shit, Abortion Kills Children

Bzzzt!  Wrong again, as usual, but thanks for playing...now, get off the
stage and make room for the legitimate contestants.

 >  [.. various attempts at mind-reading deleted ..]
 >
...and you're still just as inept at it as ever.  It'd be stretching the
term a bit to describe your latest attempt as lame.

   Doug "The ends justify the means, and two wrongs DO make a right" Holtsinger

--Patrick L. "DODie's still trying to figure out how his .cshrc works"
Humphrey, rabid Oilers fan and ready for a two-game sweep of Buffalo
--
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:31:42 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <aidler.725611282@sanjuan>, aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA writes:
|I don't know how abortions are supervised in your area
|(Virginia?), but here in B.C. there are people who demand
|community clinics independent of hospitals to provide for
|"women's health." They would not supervise births or any form of
|natal care other than abortions.  What are these clinics likely
|to recommend to a pregnant woman appearing at their door?

That she receive the care she desires, of course.  If she wants
an abortion, she can get it from them.  If not, she should be
referred elsewhere.  If a pregnant woman "appears at the door"
of a clinic she knows offers only abortion services, she
probably wants an abortion.

You might as well complain that a chiropractor's office doesn't
offer mammograms to people who "appear at the door".

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by
a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to
physics and chemistry."  --H. L. Mencken
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Nyikos using Steeves as an excuse to be foolish.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:17:05 GMT
Summary: "Doctor" Giggles and ipse dixit

In article <34617@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>, smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
> In article <nyikos.725143125@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes: 
> >One year after the deed was done?  Even Dean Kaflowitz gave no hint
> >of extrasensory powers of this magnitude.

I would be interested in seeing some support or documentation
from "Doctor" Giggles Nyikos for this remark.

After seeing my name dragged into numerous discussions lately
by "Doctor" Giggles Nyikos, discussions in which I had not
been participating, and having also been posting very
little lately, I wonder if the dim little "Doctor" is having
some sort of personal problem with me.  Like an obsession
or something.

I do hope he seeks treatment for his little dementia.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:35:31 GMT

Oh, and please ignore the title of this post.

This thread is as old as the earth.
The only reason I haven't changed it is because it is easy to
recognize on talk.abortion as it is the only title that does
not make a direct attack on someone's integrity.  If you don't
understand what I mean, tap into talk.abortion sometime.

I have been trying to get a bearing on this issue (abortion) from the
legal perspective.  However, the talk.abortion group is merely a forum
for name calling.  They seem to believe in the "run down the hall
screaming while covering your ears" method of argumentation.  Can any-
one recommend a good source on the constitutionality of the Roe vs.
Wade decision.  Right now I could care less about the morality and
emotion of the issue.

Thanks,

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: The Idiocy of PHoney Nyikos
Keywords: pro-lie
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 04:19:27 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->Gee, PHoney, don't you know what "mendacity" means?  If you wanted
->to show that I was lying, it really would have helped if you had
->included at least one example of me lying.  You didn't.

it appears that phoney is trying the early-darcy
technique of attempting to post so many characters that
readers become numb and don't read the words made by
the characters.

isn't it odd that he's made about 100 posts which have
reached the net since he posted his lie about adrienne
and none of his alleged apologies have appeared?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Reply to Storga in re Trumped-up Case #3
Keywords: abortion, adoption, children
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:08:44 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->Back before my netserver went deaf, I thought I'd posted this long-awaited
->response, but apparently my netserver had gone mute without my knowing it.

well, well. i read the previous statement and thought
to myself, "finally, he's going to apologize for lying
about adrienne."

so i read the read of the post. he still hasn't
apologized.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Santa Drieux (WAS Finkelstein & souls )
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:56:53 GMT

> = (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>> = lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>I honestly don't know.  If something were to somehow convince me that fetuses 
>>aren't human (For example, If someone found a way to prove that the soul 
>>doesn't enter the body until birth) then I would go back to being pro-choice.

Catholics believe in ensoulment at birth, according to Pope Pius IX.  If
you're Catholic...welcome to the pro-choice camp, Loren!

However, rational people consider a "soul" to actually be...

>Casper, the Friendly Ghost....

Hey, thanks, Nadja!

>Sheesh Loren, what about us poor folk who don't believe in imaginary beings?

C'mon, Nadja; we all believe in ethereal drieux.  BTW, why isn't he prancing
elf-like around t.a. with rings on his fingers, bells on his toes, chanting
in his Xmas voice, "Ho ho ho"?

(Whew.  I do need a holiday. :)

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 04:52:58 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>> I'd say you're also being intellectially dishonest,
>> because most people who talk about "children being aborted" do so
>> intending to prey on peoples' emotions towards kids.
>
>Nope, people use the terms 'child' and 'woman' because it's 
>consistent terminology.   People use inconsistent terminology 
>like 'fetus' and 'woman' in order to dehumanize the child and 
>prey on peoples' emotions towards women. 

Pray tell, how are 'fetus' and 'woman' inconsistent?  And how is
calling a fetus a 'fetus' dehumanizing it?  Do you really need to call
it a 'child' before you can recognize that it's human?

-- 
_/_/_/  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.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject:  re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:44:37 GMT

subject: re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
In article <1992Dec25.033234.4258@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin 
Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Dec23.193014.13808@ncar.ucar.edu> 
kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
> >
> >...t.a is largely about spending undue effort to repeatedly
> >point out obvious errors in reasoning.  Some honest criticism: I think 
> >such faulty arguments actually hurt the pro-life cause because they 
serve
> >to reinforce the association of faulty reasoning with pro-lifers.
> >Ie. pro-lifer's are their own worst enemy.
> 
> Excellent point. I would add, though, that the same applies to 
pro-choicers.
> 
> (This is primarily in response to the occasional charges that I "must be 
> pro-force" because I spend a fair amount of time arguing AGAINST various 
> specious arguments for pro-choice and/or against pro-life, such as
> 

(...Kevin's list of common slurs and innuendo's used by pro-aborts ....)


> This is just a sampling of things that make pro-choice look foolish, and 
which
> I have therefore attacked. Just call me Mr. Pro-Choice Quality Control 
:-)
> 
> 							- Kevin

Gee Kevin, I sure hope you are just naive - no one can be that sinister!  
The point is that these "specious arguments" in no way damage the 
pro-abort position. They are calculated tried and true rhetorical 
techniques used to persuade.  People are swayed by the messanger not the message.  Why do you think there are so many 
acrimonious comments directed at you by fellow pro-aborts?

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Waiting for the Rev to visit...
	<1992Dec23.053112.13220@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:03:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.053112.13220@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <1103@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
   sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
   >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   >> Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:

   > Using quotes around that phrase implies that Patrick actually
   > said that.  I don't believe he did.  

   Humphrey said, "March your fat black ass down here and tell
   me I'm a liar, to my face."  I'll use that quote when I
   reply to him in the future.  No doubt you'll still be
   defending his remark.

Hey, Rev -- did you notice in the five months that you've been whining about
that that *no one* has defended that remark, myself included?
Congratulations are in order, though -- you finally admitted you were using
a fabricated quote.  Thanks for letting the newcomers to t.a see just what a
sterling character you have.

   > I've asked Holtsinger repeatedly
   > to provide the article number for the quote, but he doesn't reply.

     <1684554D.HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> 

Very good, Doug.  I assume that means you went to the trouble of archiving
it.  You might as well get it over with and come down here in a futile
attempt to cause trouble for me -- you're already showing some of the early
stages of development of this little psychosis of yours.  (Besides, as I
told you in the mail you'll be getting soon from me on FidoNet, the RUPD can
use a good laugh occasionally, too.)

I have just one question for you, Rev -- does your throat still hurt when you
wiggle your toes?

--PLH, talk about deja vu...

--
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
                   and we STILL have a drug problem???
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53005 soc.men:21823 alt.dads-rights:3110
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: 25 Dec 92 02:52:59 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Living In Harmony

In article <p0v2_p_@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>Self-defense?  Oh, I think it sounds rather more like a petulant little
>boy stomping his foot and whining "If I can't have any candy then YOU
>CAN'T EITHER!" as he throws his sister's lollipop into the dirt.

And the anti-choice-for-men feminists (e.g. Michal and Adrienne)
behave like little bullies that shout "my candies are protected,
so I can throw your to the dirt."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:20:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.142319.12078@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

}I have never argued affirmatively for restrictions on abortion, Mark. 
}Deal with it as best you can.

Then what do you call your lecture to rocker about anticipating problems
rather than putting out fires?  Wasn't that in regards to abortion, as 
opposed to say, women jumping into the sun?


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:19:16 GMT

psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

>Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
>In article <1992Dec28.200350.23162@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian 
>Kendig) writes:
>> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>> 
>> >If you wish to nit-pick, be consistent yourself and recognize both 
>"Pro-Choice"
>> >and "Pro-Life" for the euphemisms they are and use the more accurate 
>labels
>> >"pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" instead.
>> 
>> Ah, yes, this debate again...
>> 
>> Yeah, let's do away with euphemisms!  Tell me, are you
>> "pro-open-heart-surgery" or "anti-open-heart-surgery"? ...

>(Flippant response)

>> _/_/_/  Brian Kendig  

>John - You've called a spade a spade.  Obviously Brian can't sleep with 
>the pro-abortion label on his head.  Don't be suckered-in to this clap 
>trap word game.
>> -- 

The problem is, there is a bit of a difference between "pro-choice" and
"pro-abortion".  "pro-abortion" holds that abortion is not wrong.  "pro-choice"
holds that abortion is wrong, but not so wrong that people should not be
allowed to do it.

There is also a slight difference between "anti-abortion" and "pro-life".
Maybe someone from that side of the fence could describe it better, but here's
my attempt:  "pro-life" holds that abortion is wrong.  "anti-abortion" holds
that abortion is so wrong it should be absolutely illegal.  (Most "pro-life"
are actually "anti-abortion", I would think, but "pro-life" need not advocate
legal measures; they could be speaking "morally".)

Of course, that is only my interpretation of "pro-life" vs "anti-abortion".
Someone from that side may have a better distinction.

>- Paul

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion