HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:04:01 GMT

I see now the source of a number of Matthew's problems on
this newsgroup.  He doesn't understand the requirements of
debate and discussion.  In a debate or discussion, if one
makes a positive assertion, and it is challenged, it is up
to the one who made the assertion to defend and substantiate
the statement, not up to the person who challenged the
assertion to prove the assertion true.

Matthew asserted that all humans are hypocrites at one time
or another.  When asked to substantiate this, he first offered
his proof in the form of "I substantiate my assertion by repeating
my assertion."  This is a very rigorous newsgroup, and that one
didn't fly.  Now Matthew provides his substantiation as follows.

In article <1992Apr16.170059.8923@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) says:
> 
> >As a matter of fact, I take offense to that also. I would also like
> >to see you prove that I'm a hypocrit.
> are you and Dean Dickowitz willing to say that NEVER in your life
> you have compromised yourself in the manner of being a hypocrite??
> 
> If so, then I will no longer pay attention to you. You would be a liar.

This is also a failure, because it does not provide any
substantiation and asks the challenger to the assertion to
prove the assertion that he challenges true.

Now, as for the puerile business with my name, I merely remind
Matthew that the worst name I have called him in this forum
is "eighteen."  I remind him also of this posting of his,
which he posted only a day or so ago.

In talk.abortion, mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>see my point......in the past five days I've proven how easy it is
>to get NOTHING accomplished in this group when it comes to serious
>discussion. Yet you still desire to continue a foolish net.vendetta
>to prove some point about you manliness, debating ability, or your
>best bad words to call other people names. If you are SO for
>rational discussion, why do you provoke people? Sure....people
>provoke you......but when they stop you continue. Some people
>(not me in this case) would see this as a little hypocritical
>on your part.

By the way, I do agree with Matthew.  He has proven how easy it is
to get nothing accomplished here.  Not that everybody accomplishes
nothing here.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:50:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.230217.26194@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.113641.26221@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Go ahead, Nora: Ask her if she'll stab you in the back if you turn
>>around....
>
>She hasn't given me any reason to think she would. You had.
Only to someone whose perception of reality is badly distorted by
her paranoia.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL ABORTION.
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:20:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: shinobu.1992Apr7.182023.23132
Reply-To: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
richarde@baseball.mentorg.com (Richard Ellermeier) writes:
|The fact that some people that support legalized abortion also support 
|weakening current child support law is interesting.  However, I don't know what
|one has to do with the other.  What I think the real issue here is 
|
|    Who are the people who support legalized abortion AND the repeal of the 
|    Designated Hitter Rule?  

At last!  I'm pleased to be able to post that Kellmeyer
is *exactly* wrong about me.  I'm FOR legalized abortion,
and AGAINST the repeal of the Designated Hitter Rule.
Pitchers ought to be allowed to pitch, dammit.

Kellmeyer will no doubt follow up with a diatribe about
how real pro-choicers would leave that decision up to
the individual pitchers involved.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Smileys are subtitles for dolts.  People who write them have too much
sympathy and too little taste." -- Dan Hoey, in news.admin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 06:40:21 GMT

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>to answer:

>>What equivalent responsibility (if any) do you propose for the
>>MALE who got the potentially aborting woman pregnant?

>>                           -rocker


>The reason for so little response would be self-evident to the rational
>person.  

And indeed, the reason is in fact self-evident.  They have no response
to this.  Most, in fact, have probably never even considered the male
responsibility, beyond some nebulous concept of "well, he should
probably have to pay child support".  For the woman: health damage
and possible death.  For the man: a few bucks to buy his way out.

>In preparing for this "debate" you force the respondent to 
>automatically take up the defensive position.  

Why on earth should a simple question make you feel so defensive?
Is your position so narrow that you can't come up with an answer to
a simple question without either consulting your advisors or simply
yelling that the question itself is unfair?

>Hardly an intelligent way to start any argument or debate.  

I've seen your posts, Brawley, I don't think you're considered an
authority on intelligent debate.

>So if you are so proud (haughtily) of

My my, we're just leaping from one conclusion to the next, aren't
we?  Try out for the Olympics with leaps like that.

>the ammo you wish to annihilate the respondent with ... you answered the
>question first with some proposals and we'll go from there.  If you have
>posted some of these ideas before then please reiterate as I have not
>seen any.  

See a post titled "The Value of a Man (repost)".  Since I have yet to
see your response to it, I can only assume you have not yet read it.

>And people wonder why I have so little respect for pro-death,
>over-emotional, gullible females.

If you meet one, do let us know.

>Kevin Brawley (not afraid to use my real name)

Don't think I'd brag about that....

                               -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15098 soc.men:8412 soc.women:8941
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:52:59 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <92105.064833KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.194939.8956@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
>says:

>Whether [abortion] remains legal or not, it will continue to happen until
>(and if) we ever eliminate the demand for it.
>Abortion in America will continue, just as it has for hundreds of years.  And
>   just as it did, hundreds of thousands of times a year, for the relatively
>   short time span during which it was illegal.

Kurt - I can tell you now. If abortions are made illegal, there will be 
a hell of a lot fewer. Sure we will have to deal with the coathangers and
[back alleys, but there will be thousands and thousands and thousands 
of alive babies to show for it.
   SOunds like a good trade to me
steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres)
Subject: Re: Adoption vs Abortion
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:39:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.055321.19702@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.
rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>
>    The following two statements seem to be fairly common on t.a. :
>   
>                   "Abortion is a cop-out"
>
>              "Well, Adoption is also a cop-out".
>
>I'm curious to how people feel about the benefits and consequences of both
>alternatives. So let's hear some responses folks, and please keep your hands 
>off the flamethrowers. It would be nice to see some constructive criticisms, 
>NOT new ways of putting down the other side. Here's two questions to get the
>ball rolling. Thanks in advance to everyone that responds.
>
>Pro-Choicers : Would an adoption be a resonable alternative for an abortion
>               to you?

Yes, of course it would - under certain circumstances.  Abortion is sometimes a
necessary medical procedure to preserve the woman's health (physical, 
psychological, or both); telling her under such circumstances to have a child 
and give it up for adoption would be unreasonable, to say the least.  But 
adoption is definitely a cool thing.  I know people who either have adopted or 
are planning on adopting children, usually because they can have none of their 
own.  The adoption process in this country can be horrendous, but produces 
great joy for those who do adopt children.  My understanding of the present 
state of the adoption system is that increasing the number of healthy children 
(particularly white children - not my idea, just the facts of demographics) 
would not create a population of "unwanted babies."  (NOTE:  This is strictly 
IMO, based on second-hand info!)

--Bill
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:38:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr7.023840.1847
Distribution: na
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Apr07.012909.16286@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>Count me out of that party, ThankYouVeryMuch.  Let Davey go pal around
>with his buddies in Islamic Jihad.
Heh heh....
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:19:38 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>Steve, I happen to think that your religion is a sack of shit.  I happen to
>think it's pure drivel and foolish, and backward, and idiotic.  And I'm
>entitled to that opinion.  But being a tolerant, fairminded soul, I decide
>it's really YOUR OWN BUSINESS what you believe.

>But I'm going to be really pissed, and not terribly polite if you figure
>you are going to impose this shit upon me.  I don't like shit, and I won't
>put up with shit.

Well said Adrienne....
I agree 100.000000% (for welch) with the above

Maybe Steve can swallow this and digest it without rightiously choking...

I would have kept more of your excellent article, since
I agree with all of it, but I'm in a hurry, and my reader limits the
old to old<=new.

Ron
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:29:38 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr4.145454.25907@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) said:
><1992Apr3.111600.12898@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>><1992Apr3.132019.2384@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
...

>>Always? Thanks for the info. I had to quit work early due to
>>unrelenting nausea, which caused my first child to be born into
>>poverty. Many women can't hold down jobs during pregnancy.
>   Here in Canada we have improved the benefits of mothers staying
>at home with children. We now give benefits for each child that is
>raised in a household. 

Sounds great.  Will you also support me if I decide to buy a car I can't
afford, or a house I can't afford?  Will you pay my way if I just decide
that I want to stay home and raise vegetables?

>                       Support is there for the mother, and counselling
>is available from many Christian-based support-offices. Maybe you're
>living in the wrong country?

Apparently you are.  In this country we have various religious faiths.

>>80 years guaranteed happiness with each live birth? I see the Clue
>>Fairy didn't make it, after all.
>Oh, I forgot. YOur type of mentality needs a 100% guarantee on everything
>to make it worthwhile... How immature. I think that you are a fine case
>of the eternal "ME" person I refer to so often...

Tell it to the pro-lifers, they demand 100% gaurentee that the woman will
die before allowing abortion.

>Because, women who choose abortions (IMHO) DON"T THINK ENOUGH ABOUT
>THE FETUS. Period. 

Bullshit. Period.  This is typical of the many pro-life positions I've
seen, "Well if you don't agree with me then you just don't understand",
"If you don't believe in god then you just haven't tried hard enough".

...

>   Document what? You struggling attempt to defeat my ideas by closing
>off with the ever so witty insult? No, I think the only documentation should
>be another example of the pro-choice movement emphasising it's own 
>selfish rationalle once again. As well, the pattern remains of the
>mentally-agressive/violent tactics of the pro-choice movement
>to bash at and insult the pro-life movement with meaningless words of
>hate or distaste. 

What does all this mean?  It doesn't parse well at all.

>                  Try not to be condascending in your posts, because I
>can assure you, I _AM_ you equal.

Another blatant assertion.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( )
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Summary: That's two retractions now.  
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 20:37:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.153511.4684@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>someone posting as
>	cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>cut it out chaney.

And now you, too, owe me a retraction.

Once again, I am not Chaney, you have nothing to back up your claims and
everything to contradict them. It's been tried once, Mr. Keegan Jr., and
that person (who started this) has been severely punished by their
system administrator. I advise you to stop this joke right now, unless
you want to be next. It's not a threat - it's a promise to visit upon
you what has already been visited on someone else.  

You are either a liar, or have been lied to, but either way, your facts
are screwed, if you even have any, Mr. Keegan Jr., and now you owe me a
retraction. You're wrong, simple as that. 

>
>--
>----
>charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.

- Dennis Hall 

Standard Disclaimer. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 06:10:30 GMT

bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

>Then again, what are you doing to defend the majority of fetuses 
>that died last year? There seems to be a great emphisis on the minority
>(abortions) but little on the more easily preventable deaths (at
>risk pregnancies). Any dedication to providing pre-natal care,
>pre-natal & pre-pregnancy education, or hospital care for at risk
>mothers?

What is being done?  Funding organizations like Birthright to aid mothers
-to-be in need of help.  Now smart guy, what are YOU doing?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Still No Still No Still No Comphrension (Was: March in D.C.)
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, 15 Apr 92 00:13:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.123201.21984@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr13.234037.16946@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr13.192542.16639@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>In <1992Apr13.171055.8243@beaver.cs.washington.edu> lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Apr13.002515.4493@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>>>In <1992Apr12.214943.7613@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>
>>That's very true.  It's _so_ much easier to just make up the figures, Steve.
>>According to some pro-lifers, this is called "Research".
               ^^^^
>
>    Why do you in your narrow minded effort to argue, try and place all of
>the crap on pro-life? You say that only pro-life individuals distort
>their points? You say only the pro-life group has it's embarassing
>eccentric INDIVIDUALS who carry out rash and violent acts? Grow up
>and start being a little more self-analytcal.

Well, Gee, Steve, if I said, "some pro-lifers bomb planned parenthood clinics",
would you accuse me of something also?  Or are your insecurities just showing?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:57:41 GMT

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>But then again, that's why so many men like myself are fighting for a 
>woman's right to choose her repoductive destiny, while many like 
>yourself are fighting against it.

The problem is your nearsighted inability to see the REAL issue.  If the
fetus is human, it's murder.  If the fetus isn't human, then it doesn't 
matter at all.  It's the ONLY issue.

>Eric

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
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: Tue, 14 Apr 92 00:28:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.001357.26579@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) says:
>
>>In article <1992Apr13.184118.14440@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>In <18061@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>>>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>
>>I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  HIV/AIDS is *NOT* just a "gay
>>disease".  Anybody can get it.
>>
>
>
>I'll tell you this.
>
>AIDS, aka side-effect of the ME generation's hedonistic lifestyle, will
>statistically probably never be "my disease." Sure, anyone can get
>AIDS, or any woman can get pregnant, but certain factors have HUGH
>effects on probability.

That's exactly the attitude that's going to get you infected, MaThiEu.

And why did you delete *3* lines from me saying that the CDC says 60% of new
HIV infections are going to occur in the Hetro community?  Don't like the fact?

This message brought to you by somebody who knows too many good people who are
dying of AIDS, because "statistically, it'll never happen to me".

(I suppose I'm lucky that I'm HIV negative.  But then again, I'm scared
shitless that I could become infected, and that tends to change your attitude
towards some thing...)
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:34:40 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>>>I have had a lot of time to form my rational and balanced opinion.

>>Evidently, it wasn't nearly long enough.

>Agreed, but Kevin, I'd like to know how close you are to being balanced.
>as in 20 years? sounds like about a reasonable age for what you've posted.

>Ron

The possibilities for flame here are endless.  But I refrain this time.
I'm 29 actually.  The perfect age.  Right between emotional drivelhood
and mind closed so tight it shuts off brain blood.  Not that older or 
younger people can't be rational.  But they've got to choose to be so
while nature is still on their side (ie. You CAN teach an old dog new
tricks, but it's RUFF).  ;)

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Lev and Drieux do history part I
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:17:15 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Apr12.202331.10558@wetware.com>  drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
> 4. The flip side of this whole discussion is the matter of the Spanish
> Civil War,

This just in...  Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)