HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: My vote for funniest comment of the week
Date: 19 Dec 92 00:53:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Dec14.170812.23997@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <nyikos.724092839@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >In <lefty-051292033007@90.190.56.101> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >
> >>--
> >>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
> >>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
> >
> >I know DOD stands for "Dear old Dougie." 
> 
> Actually, "DOD" has been in Lefty's .sig longer than Doug has been a regular
> poster to t.a. "DOD" here stands for "Department of Defense". 
> 
> >What does CMC stand for?
> 
> "CMC" is a company that makes networking products. Lefty apparently 
> considers himself a fairly studly techie/networking dude. Or, at least
> he DID, before he became a just another worm in the Apple Corps.
> 
> >and how do all those :. change the meaning?
> 
> That's just for uglification.

Bzzt!  But, hey, thanks for playing our game!

No connection with the Department of Defense, no connection with any
company named CMC.  Good guesses, but, sadly, all wet.  Like so much else
you post, Kevin.

Besides, if you _had_ figured out what my signature meant, then it wouldn't
constitute "email being transferred under the rubric of NetNews" and you
wouldn't be able to claim that I owed you money for the disk space it takes
up on your system, would you?

By the way, Kevin, since you seem to know so much about my position at
Apple, what exactly is it that you believe I do here?  (Hint: it's slightly
more challenging than being the on-site news weenie for Chrysler.  Quite
possibly pays better, too.)

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:34:10 GMT

In article <1gttj1INNn7v@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.173425.11297@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1goj3iINN1ek@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>>I have freely admitted to this net, and to Don, that I do not have the
>>>archive to repost what I claimed that Don said.  While this doesn't change
>>>my *opinion* about what Don said, (and therefore I don't retract it), I
>>>cannot prove it, and I've said so.  
>
>>Let me see if I've got this straight -- it's okay to slander someone as
>>long as you conveniently lack the archives to back up what you're claiming
>>about them?!!?!?!
>
>CLUE FAIRY TIME, you stupid idiot.
>
>I have said that I do not have the archive,
>and thus I cannot prove what I said.
>
>I can *believe* what I choose to believe.

You didn't state your claims as a BELIEFS, however; you stated them as 
**FACTS**. In one place, you said 

"We've just seen Steve Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on 
 this issue:  they don't want women to have the right to abort."
				16 Nov 1992 12:04:09 -0800
				<1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>

In another, you said

"Well, I asked Don, on this net.  And he said he'd be perfectly happy to use
 his vote as blackmail."
				20 Nov 1992 08:22:30 -0800
				<1ej3c6INNib1@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>

There are no statements of "belief" up there, Adrienne. There is no "I believe",
"I think", "IMO" or anything of the kind. You made -factual- claims, which you 
now _admit_ you can't substantiate, yet you pigheadedly refuse to retract 
them. Believe what you want, Adrienne. Quite frankly, I don't care much what 
you believe. But if you state facts on this here Net, stand prepared to 
substantiate them.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:32:01 GMT

lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) wrote:
>> 
>>BTW: exactly which religion *is* the OneTrueReligion (tm).  And what makes
>>*you* uniquely qualified to identify it?  Could it be ... vanity?
>>Or perhaps personal taste?  If you jump off a cliff, why should we follow?
>> 
>>-Brian

>I was not supporting any particular religion.  I was just pointing out how 
>some existing legislation is based on religion.  I was replying to someone who 
>said religion isn't a fit basis for legislation.  That may be true, however, 
>it is still a bases for some legislation.

Hold on a sec here.  Let us clarify what a "basis for legislation" could mean.

Can philosophy-X be the basis for some of our laws but philosophy-Y be the
basis for other laws?  What if philosophy-X and philosophy-Y are in conflict
over some things.  (X says stores should be closed on Sunday, and polygamy
is wrong.  Y says polygamy is ok, and stores should be open every day...
hypothetically.)  How would we chose which one we go with for each case?
If the laws we chose are that polygamy is wrong but stores will be open every
day (that they care to be), can *either* philosophy-X or philosophy-Y be said
to be the "basis" of the laws?  No, the "basis" is whatever we used to *decide*
which to go with.  Polygamy is wrong because it hurts someone (sorta), stores
can be open any day they want because it *doesn't* hurt anyone. (for example)
Then *that* philosophy (Z) is really the "basis" for the laws, not X or Y.

Similarly, religion may lead to certain laws that we happen to accept.  It
also leads to other laws that we happen to reject.  Because it is not
uniformly accepted, it is not the "basis" for the system of laws.

Of course this makes the simplifying assumption that the laws of society are
based on a consistent philosophy, which is not necessarily the case in a
democracy.

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 08:34:47 GMT

In article <1gaf30INNija@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.032153.17333@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>> someone wrote:
>># 
>># Child support is "involuntary servitude".
>
>Apparently not, or the amendment would quite specifically outlaw it, and
>this would have been a simple winning challenge to bring before the courts.

Not with the current biases, it wouldn't.

>Of course, if child support ($$) counted as involuntary servitude, so would
>taxes, so it obviously doesn't.

Taxes are a _quid pro quo_, Adrienne. We pay into a pool, we get government
services in return. Sure, everyone recognizes that there's lots of waste,
fraud and abuse that occurs in between, but, in theory at least, the 
economies of scale and long-range planning are supposed to make up for that.

What's the _quid pro quo_ in paternity child support, Adrienne? What does the 
man get in return for such a huge chunk of his income? Hint: "visitation" is
>NOT< the right answer.

>I guess most folks in this argument can't figure out the difference between
>'servitude' and a bill.

More likely, most folks in this argument can't figure out the difference
between income taxes, which one can stop paying simply by reducing one's 
income, and the enslavement known as "paternity child support", which can and 
often _does_ land men in jail if the payments aren't made on time, even IF the 
man's income is reduced, voluntarily or involuntarily...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
X-To: ALL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:25:00 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes...
DB> signed,  another disingenuous idiot,
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

...And *all* this, just because I stole a single word from Heiner Biesel and
used it too much!  :-)

Let's hear it again - Diiiiiiisssssiinnnnngggggggeeeennnnuuuuuooouuuusssss...

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

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Slaying foul maidens and rescuing fair dragons!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Thought for the day
Summary: Doug?  Thought?  Pardon me while I guffaw. 
Organization: 29 45 N by 95 21 W, give or take five miles.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:06:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.231358.18006@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <Bz1tMA.CGF@rice.edu> 
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>scmj@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Christine Johnson) writes:
>
>>> Why are we reading about this in alt.fan.q?  Could we appeal to Q to
>>> send these sniveling mortals to the heart of the Romulan empire or
>>> something?  
>
>> You might want to ask Doug why he feels compelled to bring it to this
>> group 
>
>Why not bring it up here?  This newsgroup is dead anyways.
>Why doesn't somebody send out the rmgroup?  

So go ahead and talk your caretakers at State into it.  We'll still get it
here, even if you forge a sendsys.  (Our admins read news, too.)  If it's a
dead newsgroup as you say, why are you wasting your time here?  Sounds like
the typical DOD temper tantrum to me...

>> -- every time he attacks me in here, I re-direct the follow-ups
>> back to talk.abortion.  
>
>Like the coward that you are...

I see your lord and mentor Airplane Boy taught you well.  Is this going to
be your new endless refrain?

>> I suspect he doesn't want to appear there because
>> too many people are wise to his act.
>
>No, I've appeared there when I want to discuss abortion.  Your 
>racist remarks have nothing to do with abortion, coward.

I've discussed it more in one article than you have in your entire miserable
existence in t.a.  If you think that taking it upon yourself to resolve
disputes between others -- without the consent of the two parties whose
business it is in the first place -- constitutes discussing abortion, then
be my guest.  Your delusions will continue to be entertaining to the rest of
us.

>> (Q would have fun with him, for sure...)
>
>Who cares, coward? 

You do, obviously -- why did you bother replying to it?

>>Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey  
>
>Doug Holtsinger

Awww, isn't he *cute* when he edits what I actually posted?  Poor ol, DODie
-- stuck in Daniels Hall on Saturday night when everyone else is out
actually enjoying themselves...

--PLH, I knew DJR.  You, sir, are no DJR.  (You're just as loopy, though.)
:-)




-- 

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51865 alt.abortion.inequity:5880 soc.men:21120
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 13 Dec 1992 20:47:09 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

haydedr@wkuvx1.bitnet (Ross Hayden) writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>> 
>>>> disingenuous idiot,
>>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>>>...And *all* this, just because I stole a single word from Heiner Biesel and
>>>used it too much!  :-)
>> 
>> No, I think you stole some of his idiocy too.

>This sophomoric comment is about on the level of what I expected from her.

Actually, I'll take that as a complement.  It's been a long time since
I was a sophmore!	;-)


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52132 alt.abortion.inequity:5939
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:31:03 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>In article <1fpncmINNcrq@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu
>(Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>I propose to "fix" my little corner "the problem" by making sure
>>that I communicate with my bed-partner.

>Will you ever, even after all the communication you want, let
>your bed-partner decide what to do in a case of unplanned pregnancy?

Would I let *him* decide?  Absolutely not.  It is, after all, my body.
But I would certainly work with him to achieve a consensus.

>Can he ever, even after a long communication, trust you not to
>take him to the cleaners in a case of unplanned pregnancy?

Are you asking me to speak for my partner on this?  I think he can.


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Doug Holtsinger is a fool
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 08:16:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.162435.99358@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <11DEC92.07331298@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) wrote:
>>
>>>That's the state of Nebraska.  I'm primarily talking about the state of
>>>New York, where it's lawful to kill the attacker in order to prevent or
>>>terminate a rape, *without* requiring that there be any belief that the
>>>victim's life is endangered.
>>
>>I asked for anyone to give us a legal definition of a self defense plea.  He
>>did.  Now, would you care to show us a similar quote (and tell us which case
>>it comes from) that says otherwise?
>>
>>>You also consistently fail to address the
>>>fact that it's legal to kill the perpetrator when they're fleeing from the
>>>crime.
>>
>>You want to site a reference to this?  If it is legal then you should have no
>>problem finding the precedent that made it so.
>
>I'm pointing out that it's legal.  I've previously posted the reference to the
>NYPD guidelines.  I'm not interested in digging up the legal justification; I
>leave that to Kevin.
>
>>>You also fail to address the fact that in at least one state, it's
>>>legal to blow away someone who's walking down the street with your TV set.
>>
>>State, and precedent please?  I have never heard of these things being legal,
>>and I would like to look them up.
>
>Be my guest.  When you do, please share your findings with the newsgroup.
>
>   The use of deadly force in protection of your property is dealt with in
>   Secs.  9.41 and 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code.  In order to legally use
>   deadly force in the situation you describe here, the following conditions
>   must be met:
>
>   From Sec. 9.41 (which governs the use of force generally to protect
>   property):
>
>   - You must "reasonably believe" that force is "immediately necessary" to
>     recover the property and you have to have used the force "immediately
>     or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession" and [...]

Since recovery of "property" "stolen" by a fetus is not recoverable, deadly
force is not allowable under this statute.

End of analogy.

>>Maybe not statistically speaking,
>
>Oh - you know that you were incorrect; why then did you quibble?

Larry "dictionary" Margolis, of all people, is accusing someone _else_ of 
being a quibbler???? It is to laugh.

>If you look at the numbers of women who are raped, and compare them
>with the numbers of women who are raped and killed, the odds are that
>any particular rape victim will *not* be killed.  Nevertheless, she
>has the right (everywhere in this country that I know of) to use
>deadly force if necessary to stop the rape.

Well, every super-intelligent space alien "that I know of" [sic] has 
examined your legal arguments, and found them to be completely laughable, 
Larry.

Of course, I don't know that many of them... :-)

								- Kevin
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The Reverend Holtsinger on inappropriate postings
Summary: following in Chaney's footsteps
Keywords: hypocrite
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:15:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Remember just a short while back when DOD was whining that people
had contacted his sysadmins because he was posting inappropriately?
Not surprisingly, DOD has a different standard for other people
than for himself.

Susan

/begin included article/

From pitt.edu!uunet!ferkel.ucsb.edu!taco!csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu!dsholtsi Sun Dec 20 14:52:43 EST 1992
Article: 39565 of alt.sex
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:13:54 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Dec19.125833.18688@ruc.dk> 
jba@ruc.dk (Jan Bruun Andersen) writes:
>rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>imran@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes:

    [... article about mass rapes committed in Bosnia ...]

>>> I hope this article makes you uncomfortable.  I hope this article makes
>>> you act.

>> You bet.  I'm gonna go rape somebody.

> Remember folks: The name was Ron Dippold of QualComm. 

  QualComm Inc.
  10555 Sorrento Valley
  San Diego, CA 92121
  (619) 587-1121, Fax: (619) 452-9096

  Description: Two-way mobile satellite communications
  systems and digital cellular products.

  Irwin M. Jacobs, President
  Adelia Coffman, CFO
  John Tannone, Director of Human Resources 


/end included article/
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Doug Holtsinger is a fool
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:05:35 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e 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 <1992Dec12.081650.10392@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.162435.99358@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <11DEC92.07331298@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>In a previous article, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) wrote:
>>>
>>>>You also fail to address the fact that in at least one state, it's
>>>>legal to blow away someone who's walking down the street with your TV set.
>>>
>>>State, and precedent please?  I have never heard of these things being legal,
>>>and I would like to look them up.

[Texas statues deleted]

>Since recovery of "property" "stolen" by a fetus is not recoverable, deadly
>force is not allowable under this statute.
>
>End of analogy.

No analogy.  Dougie claimed that the use of deadly force is only justified
when someone's life is threatened.  I pointed to the legal use of deadly
force to recover property as a counter-example.

>>she has the right (everywhere in this country that I know of) to use
>>deadly force if necessary to stop the rape.
>
>Well, every super-intelligent space alien "that I know of" [sic] has
>examined your legal arguments, and found them to be completely laughable,
>Larry.
>
>Of course, I don't know that many of them... :-)

The states that I know of where it's true is not an empty set.  What about
the set of "super-intelligent space aliens" that you know of?  In fact, do you
know of a single "super-intelligent space alien" that does *not* agree with
me?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:36:58 GMT

From article by madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >
> 
>>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
>>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>>someone who prefers suicide.
> 
> Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
> on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.


Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Date: 14 Dec 1992 17:25:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


  I vote NO!  If I vote yes, I am as bad as he.  It is an example
of the fact that there are some things that should not be decided
by a dictatorship of the bigger gang.  And what any woman chooses
to do with HER OWN BODY falls into that category.  This postiion,
by the way, happens to be a classic conservative position.  Isn't
it incredible what Buchanan and Bush and Quayle, and all the rest
of the reactionary geeks on the right have done to conservatisim!

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Male Choice (1)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 08:06:38 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <724455926@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>The main-stream feminist view of men's sexuality is that it is a *bad*
>thing and therefore....

You know,

There are a bunch of us in the main-stream who are having a good laugh
at you, Hillel.  You've made these foolish claims before, and stood
upright for stupidity for a while now.  Well, I guess consistancy is
to be admired, over time.  For some reason or other....

>Most good feminists, like Adrienne, fight against "choice for men," even
>when women's choice is pretty secured (like after the last election and
>and Supreme Court decision).

Ah, and now you are lying, too, just for good measure.  I do not and never
have fought against choice for men.  In fact, I'm somewhat sympathetic
to some of the arguments.

Not the stupid arguments, of course.
Not the blackmail arguments, either.
Not the ivory tower arguments.

Hillel, I'd suggest you make it a point not to make statements about
other people that you know nothing about.  Makes you look bad.  Which is
an unfortunate consistancy.

Adrienne Regard
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Finkelstein wants to renege (Was: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!)
Keywords: idiot or coward?
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:29:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Which is it, Finkelstein?  Are you claiming that you're too stupid
to understand the written word, or are you admitting that you don't
have the courage to put your convictions to the test?  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity