HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: only xxx more shopping days.......
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 21:21:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes ...
> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>>        - Propeller Beanies -

>>if you don't know who this is for,
>>don't ask.

>Kebbin Darceeeee!!?!?!

Nnooo.  Good guess, but wrong.

>Do I win a cookie?
>
>Oh, please, oh, pretty please?

Sorry.  Try again.  I'll give a hint:  ummm.  This person used to zoom
around playing airplane but now thinks he's the boss.  Too obvious?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Arnold is pro-choice! (was: Roe v. Wade and abortion)
Date: 14 Sep 1992 08:27:44 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

>sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|I do not suggest that the woman be forced into bodily servitude.  
>|I do assert, however, that she is responsible for the 
>|consequences of her behavior on others, including the 
>|living human being in her womb for whose existence she 
>|is responsible.


You know, I agree that a woman should be responsible for the consequences
of her behavior.  Therefore I don't agree that the state should step in and
seize her responsibility and decision making for her, and set it to a default
value of 'have a baby'.  I happen to think that HAVING a baby that you don't
want, didn't plan, and cannot afford is incredibly IRRESPONSIBLE, myself,
and as a responsible adult human being, I intend to act responsibly in that
matter myself, thank you very much.

This constant foolishness that, "oops!" is "responsible" really gripes me.
You could probably tell, huh?

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is supported
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 03:20:47 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  <nyikos.715732551@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep05.072518.28382@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>
> >Have you ever heard of the Universal Almanac?  The Federal Centers for
> >Disease Control?  Any of the *other* sources that have been quoted?
>
> Sorry, missed them all. On which thread should I have looked?

On talk.abortion.  What the subject line was, I have no idea; it rarely
relates to what's being discussed.  But, wasn't it *you* that I was
responding to?  I could swear that it was you that objected to the
data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, so I responded saying "Perhaps
you'll like one of these [sources] better".  Didn't you say that you
were looking in to them?

> >Didn't you just post that you believe that the fact that a single lawyer
> >reports seeing more rape cases than incest gave you reason to believe
> >that doctors who perform abortions are learning of incest and failing
> >to report it?
>
> This lawyer has been around for a long time, and knows what is going
> on even if he "sees" little of it.
>
> Also, I have not heard of a single abortionist turning in someone
> for incest.

Why would s/he learn of it in the first place?  If the victim was
going to tell someone, then the police or justice system would be
a more likely place to start.  If the victim is trying to hide it,
then a stranger that she sees once is much less likely to figure
the situation out than a family doctor or someone else who sees
her regularly.

> >Just what the hell do you consider to be "founded"???
>
> We mathematicians frequently publish what we call "preliminary
> reports," with articles giving the full details to come later.
> You wanted to know whether your guess that abortionists reported
> incest 100% of the time was correct.  (Would you say that was
> "founded"??)

I clearly labelled it as a guess.

> I did not want to leave you completely in the dark.

You haven't produced any light.

> I see you would have preferred to go on believing in that 100% figure.
> Go ahead and believe it if it makes you happy, but you may be
> rudely surprised later.

I still see no reason to believe that less than 100% of the doctors who
perform abortions and discover that their patient is an incest victim
report that fact to the authorities.  I also see no reason to believe
that that number is non-zero.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 23:50:09 GMT

In <9ylnsc#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>[in response to Mark Ira Kaufman]
>>
>>And you were one of the very people who goaded me into posting it,
>>as I explained along another thread.  You refused to believe that
>>I had evidence of forced abortions.

>You haven't produced evidence of forced abortions yet.  You've
>produced evidence of one forced abortion.  Singular, not plural.

I've given evidence of two so far, but you missed one of them.  There
will be more.

>So then for that year, assuming that about 1.4 million abortions
>are performed in the US each year, the rate of forced abortions
>compared to all abortions is about, oh, say 0.00007% (approximately).

>How does that compare to the odds of dying of childbirth?

If I were to follow your screwball reasoning, my answer would be none,
since I never have read an article about a woman who died in childbirth.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney
Organization: .
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:08:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.233318.3316@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <29674@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>Personally, I would never use fat black ass to describe an African
>>American.  I believe that Chaney is deserving of all the put downs and
>>contempt directed at him; nonetheless, I think the use of this
>>terminology is an inappropriate racial slur.
>
>And so Stephen J. Mess covers PatricKKK Harumphrey's tracks while
>trying to make himself look good by spreading "Chaney is no good"
>propaganda. 
>
>One problem: Why is it that this feeling is only shared among the
>pro-aborts? 

It seems to me that pro-choicers seem to share in the feeling, as
well as pro-abortionists.  As to why pro-lifers don't, I can
only speculate:

Maybe the pro-lifers are too busy licking each other's fat asses
to pay attention to the crap that one of their number is spouting.
Maybe pro-lifers are so full of crap that the little bit that you
use to fill your postings simply goes unnoticed.  Maybe the
pro-lifers think its cool to pretend to be someone else and engage
in deception.  Maybe pro-lifers thinks its OK to attempt to get
someone fired or arrested for their pro-choice views.

So why don't you ask a pro-lifer?
-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 05:03:30 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <vvyyfw@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <1992Sep2.223616.17088@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>>>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
>>>>(Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>>}   ...but a fetus is not part of her body...

>>>>Just when you think you have things figured out.  Doggone it Peter,
>>>>where do you suppose those little buggers are?

>>>You know the answer as well as I do. That's not the issue.

>>[An inflammatory paragraph deleted.]

My "inflammatory" paragraph was in response to your contention that
the "location" of fetuses is not the issue.

Now think about this.  When you say that the fact that a fetus is
inside a woman is "not the issue", what are you implying?  I'd say
you're implying that all pro-choicers REALLY want is the right to
kill.  Doesn't matter where or what they're killing, they just want
to kill.

Now, this may actually BE what you think.  I've seen much, much
stranger accusations from pro-"life"rs.  But if that's what you
think, you're wrong.  (to prevent the excessive picking of nits 
here, I'm referring to the vast majority of pro-choicers)  For
most pro-choicers, the ONLY issue is whether a woman will be
forced to remain pregnant against her will.  If pregnancy could
be ended without the death of the fetus then hey, happy day.
MY position, for one, would not change one bit.  (Although I
DO think that if society was forced to deal with the upkeep of
1.3 million unwanted fetuses each year, society at large would
quickly return to current methods.)

Would YOU be opposed to abortion if abortions (almost) always
resulted in live fetuses?  We've seen people answer "yes" here.
Which is one of the things that leads to the belief that those
people are motivated by misogyny.  Because in those cases, it's
clear that "killing babies" is NOT the issue for them, and we
are left to speculate what their REAL agenda is.  It's not
pretty.

>>>>       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 

>>>Would you say you are a part of your hang gliding harness?

>>Is his hang gliding harness using his body?

>No. His body is using the hang gliding harness.  Can't you follow
>a simple analogy?

Condescension does not suit you, Nyikos.  In fact, I was heading
off any attempt to MAKE an analogy to pregnancy.  Because had
you attempted to make that analogy, it would have been incredibly
lame.

>Peter Ny.

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:55:01 GMT

In <1992Sep12.190956.24877@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov 
   (Dan King) writes: >
In article <1992Sep11.151619.21451@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>Demonstrate that Chaney is "convinced", please.  If we were
>>going to evaluate individuals based on their network personas,
>>we could have a field day with "drieux".  
>
> Go for it.  Have your field day.  I know drieux and he has no
> network persona. 

Meaning, I assume, that his eccentric demeanor is as pronounced
in the real world as it is on the network?  Surely you didn't
offer this information in drieux's *defense*!

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:49:47 GMT

From article by tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child):
> 
> ....And Suzanne ducks AGAIN the salient question:
> 
> "So, you would charge the abortionist with murder and counsel the woman.
>  What if the woman herself IS the abortionist?"

I would suggest nothing worse than a fine or community service, but more
likely counselling and rehab.

 
> One of your "pro-life" cronies already 'fessed to being Mr. Judgement by
> his lust to slap the woman in prison.  Maybe you'd like to see his bid and
> raise it by some chain-gang hard labor?  Or execution?
> 
> C'mon.  Show us how compassionate you all are.  Like Chaney, charge the 
> little b*tch with Murder One.
>
> --Teddi
> ---------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)---------------


With such murderous thoughts for women on your mind, I can reasonably assume
you flunked your ethics and religion classes.


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 04:16:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <ct1yn2c@rpi.edu>  cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:
>
> Aaaaaah, don't underestimate yourself.  The net has a very long
> memory.  Would you perhaps be the one who appeared for a few
> posts about a year ago, demanding that pro-choice advocates
> immediately begin a letter-writing campaign demanding that a
> live abortion be shown on network television?  When pro-choicers
> replied that we had no interest in seeing surgery on tv, would
> you be the one who screamed "HYPOCRITES!" and disappeared?

Thanks; I remembered him as being an idiot from a while ago, but I didn't
remember *which* idiot.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Evil abortionists in Peter's World
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 17:11:17 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


Looks like with help from Susan, Adrienne and Cathi, we can now answer
Dougs question of how an abortionist would react to his scenario.  Of
course the answer may or may not have any basis in a reality, but it 
is how an abortionist could react in Peter Nyikos's world.
 
dh>In article <1992Aug31.200508.12731@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 
dh>Consider the following scenario.  A woman who got pregnant from a rape
dh>is seeking an abortion.  She had to wait until the third trimester to
dh>save up enough money to pay for the abortion.  The woman can choose
dh>among two abortion procedures.  Procedure A kills the viable fetus.
dh>Procedure B has a good chance of producing a live fetus.  Both procedures
dh>are equally safe for the woman.  The woman wants procedure A because
dh>she doesn't want the rapist's child to haunt her memory.  Under Roe
dh>and Doe, this type of abortion is legal, because it would preserve
dh>the woman's emotional health.  The woman asks the abortionist to use
dh>procedure A.  If you were the abortionist, what would you do?

When the woman first came to the abortionist, he (In Peter's world
abortionists are always men) would lie to her about the procedure
and the relative risks.  He would also send one of his evil assistants
to denude all libraries within a 400 mile radius of "Aborted Women -
Silent No More".  Once he has convinced the woman that the procedure
was completely harmless and there is zero chance of any com-complications,
he would strap her to the table, again with help from his evil 
assistant who just got back from burning all the copies he could 
find of "Aborted Women - Silent No More".  Naturally he would not
use anesthesia because that would cut into his profit margin.  Using
a rusty nail, he would slowly carve the cute little fetus into 
many pieces, but not to many pieces, because he wants the woman
to see as many appendages as possible.  He would then take the
dismembered, but still cute as a button, little tyke and force the
woman to watch him and his assistant smear the blood of the little
one on the altar he had specially built with his exorbitant abortion
profits, to Satan.  He would use his special altar to convince the 
woman that she should join his Satan cult only because he then 
knows he will be able to get all the free nooky he wants.
 
Later that night, the abortionist and his assistant laugh their 
sinister laugh while counting there money over the fact that they 
hoodwinked this woman out of her life savings.  After all, when 
she came to them she really wasn't pregnant.

Of course we have no facts to back up this little scenario, but all
of it could possibly happen.

Thank you Susan Garvin, Adrienne Regard and Cathi Cook for your
contributions.  

Dan King

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 00:42:18 GMT

In <Bu16MA.ACr@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715540635@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <BtzIzB.7xI@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:
>>
>>>In article <nyikos.715476331@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>In <181fotINNse@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>>

>>>Right now, I have one hell of a situation going on in my life outside of
>>>work -- as I type this, my wife is lying in a bed two blocks away from
>>>here at Hermann Hospital, and there is a significant possibility the 
>>>seizure she suffered yesterday afternoon may have been 
>>>caused by a brain tumor.
>>
>>I'm very sorry to hear about it.  Had I known, I would not have played
>>my little game of tit-for-tat about telling you where not to post.
>>Consider it unsaid.  

>Wrong, brainwipe -- you made your little rant about telling me not to follow
>up to you last week.

What's that got to do with anything? the post to which I was responding
was the first indication that I had of the problems of your wife (or, for
that matter, that you were married rather than single!!!!!)

>>>I don't appreciate self-righteous little assholes like you dragging my name
>>>in where you have no damned business doing it -- and if you don't
>>>like that, you know where you can shove it.  Right now, I have enough other
>>>things to worry about -- much more important things than the "hurt feelings"
>>>of some human refuse that calls itself Peter Nyikos. 
>>
>>It's not my feelings that were hurt, and in light of your wife's condition
>>and present inner turmoil, they are also unaffected by that "human refuse" bit.

>I don't think you've got enough smarts to know what feelings are.  We'll
>see how "unaffected" you are next week -- as I recall, Chaney (you know,
>your idol) waited an awfully long time before deciding he was offended by
>what I said.  I don't think you've found a convenient excuse for that yet.

Maybe he, like I, does not relgiously follow every post you make.  And
why should he? or I?

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Peter, do you even know how to READ? (Was: 3 docs in a 3-way).
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:37:50 GMT

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
writes to Peter Nyikos:

> Does Kibbles know you're taking backpeddling lessons from him?  How much is
> he charging you?

The same hourly rate that he charges Lefty for archiving his .sig, I imagine.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:20:06 GMT

In <1992Sep9.154329.24055@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
In <1992Sep5.013427.10017@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
In article <1992Sep8.211617.5889@acd4.acd.com>

>>> my apologies. i hadn't realized you were so far
>>> removed from what had been posted to t.a. over the
>>> past several months. nonetheless, just the
>>> comments of others over the past few days should
>>> have given you some idea. i do find it kind of odd
>>> that you'd post like this without knowing what you
>>> were talking about.
> 
>> Apparently this means that I would have concurred
>> with your assessment had I not been "so far removed
>> from...t.a.", which is an incorrect assumption on
>> your part.
>
> perhaps. i suggest that we wait for you to take a
> further peek at the data before you jump to any
> conclusions. you wouldn't want to appear capricious,
> would you? 

I am not the one who has jumped to any conclusion at all.  
My contention remains that there is too little available 
information upon which to base any reasonable inference of 
psychopathology.  

> if, after you do that, you still think that
> neither chaney, DODie or the others could be helped by
> therapy, well that's ok. 

Many people use therapy as a vehicle for facilitating
personal growth, even in the absence of any identifiable
pathology.  Your comments (re denial) suggest that Doug
suffers from some type of disorder, though.  I hope you
see the difference.

>>> that's ok. i have no problem with your believing
>>> that.  i don't share your belief. i think i have
>>> exactly the right information to make the labels
>>> that i make.
> 
>> Excellent.  In that case, perhaps you'd be willing
>> to provide a list of symptoms which substantiate
>> your assessment of Doug (and Chaney, if you like).
>
> several people posted to explain DODie to you. and i
> provided a list of chaney articles and even offered to
> email them. they contain all the information i need to
> form my opinion.

I see.  What symptoms seemed most prominent to you?  

> why are you so opposed to therapy, bill?

An odd question to ask of a practicing psychotherapist,
but your assumption is incorrect.  

Bill


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: You're WHAT? (Was: looking in a mirror...)
Summary: In which we find out that your Mother REALLY WAS A CAR! 
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 want me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 16:59:03 GMT

In article <nyikos.715735839@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Before we get too embroiled in this argument, let me say that by
>"sentience" I mean the existence of some sort of conscious experience, 
>even the tiniest smidgin of a sensation, and not sustained thought.

Congratulations, Peter.  You have just given every plant and animal on the 
Earth the same status as yourself.  Should we now charge with Involuntary
Manslaughter for eating dinner last night?

>In your earlier post, Purpura spoke of sustained thought, and this
>is not at all needed to establish personal identity.  

What?
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc