HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:30:07 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  <Bw2D13.5r7@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.190237.113058@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com write
>
> Don't forget mental cruelty ("salt in the wounds").

(In case you missed it burried in my response to Nyikos, sorry for assuming
that the latter phrase was originated by you.)

> >If he was talking about a child
> >rather than a fetus, then I think it would be a *very* sick statement.
>
> I'm not sure I understand why it would be +sicker+ if he felt
> that a child died rather than "just" a fetus?
>
> Would it be a "*very* sick statement" if Janis Cortese had said she
> would kill her ex-husband after he drove into a tree with their child,
> pretended nothing was wrong for a month, and then told her not only
> that the child was dead but that he had done it intentionally?

Let me spell it out and you can decide for yourself whether or not you
agree with my opinion.
   If you had killed my child and told me about it beforehand or
   immediately afterwards, I would have been angry but I could have
   forgiven you, but if you showed me so little respect that you killed
   my child and then didn't tell me about it for a year, then I'd get
   *really* upset.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:41:53 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 article <np1z5=h@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>Self-defense is only appropriate when a person faces an imminent and
>>immediate threat from an attacker.
>
>Excuse me, but shouldn't that be "a person has a _reasonable belief_
>that they face an imminent and immediate threat"?

Hey - at least he's stopped (incorrectly) claiming that they must
believe that their *life* is in danger.  Let's not bring up the
fact that it's legal (at least, in NY) to use deadly physical force
if necessary to arrest a perpetrator fleeing from the scene of a
rape, robbery, etc. - it would only confuse poor Doug.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: gna@vardhan.uucp (G N Ananda Vardhana)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Abortion in India
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:45:28 GMT
Reply-To: gna@vardhan.uucp (G N Ananda Vardhana)
Organization: Adams Software, Lake Oswego OR  USA

In India Abortion is legal.

The reason for abortion in the order of most occurance:

1. If it is a female foetus
2. If the girl is unwed.
3. If it is unintended between married couples.

Types of Abortion in the order of occurance:

1. Forced by in-laws.
2. Forced by family to a unwed.
3. Tricked by family and friends
4. Implied by government
5. Voluntary

Means of abortion in order of occurance:

1. Government conducted abortion camps (Family planning camps)
2. Eating non-medical non-prescribed abortion pills.
3. Private clinics (On the sly)
4. Government hospitals.

The details are gruesome I dont want to go in detail.




Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Don Beaver Do You Have a Point.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:21:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.182721.5447@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>Great you do not admit that anything that you do not 
>hold is not a part of any world that you do not comprehend.
>
>Or am I missing your point?
>
>1. The argument of potential has been used here time
>and time and time again. If you have not seen it used
>please learn to read.
>
>2. That the young gentleman who will kill women if
>they do not respect him has also made appeals to
>the argument of potential has also occurred.
>
>3. that you do not like the fact that the concommitant
>conclusion derivable there is not in his favor, is a
>personal problem, and I recommend that you seek counsel,


Drieux, when you finish your English for Native Speakers course,
or when I finish my Berlitz Drieuxian New English course,
then perhaps we can correspond further.

Until then, I'll puzzle over why an argument of potentiality is
relevant to _my_ comments on interpreting statements made in English, 
or how it is relevant to a discussion of spousal notification and 
violence (especially where the legality of abortion is stipulated).

Thanks,

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins)
Subject: Re: Rationalization
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 21:22:55 GMT
Organization: DG, SID, Atlanta, GA

In article <1992Oct6.230509.26931@nosc.mil>, reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL writes:
|> Okay, here goes.
|> I have been discussing "freedom," pro-choice, and anti-choice for several
|> years now, and with several people.....
|> 
|> Besides the fact that I trust my OWN instincts, and as a woman I KNOW I
|> am QUITE CAPABLE of making MY OWN DECISIONS ---
|> 
|> NO ONE
|> NO WHERE
|> HAS EVER GIVEN ME A REASON THAT I ACCEPT AS GOOD ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE
|> POSITION THAT ANYONE ANYWHERE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL SOMEONE ELSE WHAT
|> THEY SHOULD DO WITH THE HORRIBLE POSITION A PERSON FINDS THEMSELF IN
|> WITH AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY.
|> 
|> Is this a "FREE" Country?
|> 

   Completely "free" means a country with no laws.
   Obviously we have laws for our benefit, to help protect ourselves,
   among other reasons.  So we have laws against murder, etc.
   Until Roe V. Wade, abortion was prohibited because the right
   of the unborn child to live was protected.  Now it is not.
   So we're "free" to murder our unborn children.  The problem
   you have to deal with is not with the law - it is with God.
   Of course, the anti-Godders will flame here, but the point
   remains.
-- 
             ==========================================================
            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
           //   "My views are my own"                              //
          ==========================================================
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:19:12 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.719011655@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Oct12.190237.113058@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.c
>
> >In  <BvzoMB.HHI@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >> In article <1992Oct11.191903.9648@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
> >> >
> >> >(If this is leading into the "but Will was just trying
> >> >to protect the life of *HIS* child, I'd like to remind you that I don't
> >> >consider it a child until it's born).
> >>
> >> Actually, it wasn't leading to that point, but as long as you mention it:
> >>
> >> Does your belief have anything to do with it?  That is, if a person believes
> >> a fetus to be a child, is their "healthy parental instinct" (your words)
> >> to protect their child supposed to change or be repressed based on
> >> your beliefs?
>
> >There's a difference between using violence to protect a child against
> >harm, and using violence to get revenge for a past act.  Janis didn't
> >say that if someone had hurt her child, she'd hunt them down and slit
> >their throat; she was talking about an active threat.
>
> Who said anything about "hunting down"?  Will said something about "right
> where she stood" and "on the spot".

Reread the first sentence of the paragraph.  That's the key idea.  I'm
assuming that the person who hurt her child *wasn't* standing right
next to her, but let's not get bogged down in irrelevancies.

> >And Will wasn't talking about either.  He was talking about not showing
> >respect by not telling him immediately.  If he was talking about a child
> >rather than a fetus, then I think it would be a *very* sick statement.
>
> I've addressed this "respect" business often enough, but this "*very*
> sick statement" is a new wrinkle.

Thanks for reminding me; I had saved Don's response because I was too busy
to reply to it then, but didn't get back to it yet.  I'll do that now.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:01:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.173632.97990@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <Bvv5FC.FvE@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>> Janis Cortese wrote the following on soc.women (moderated):
>>
>> ===   If I had a kid and someone threatened it, I'd slit their
>> ===   throat wide open and drink their blood with a smile in my face.
>>
>> I think not.  In particular, I saw no reason to interpret "with a smile
>> on my face" as a sign of violent insanity; rather, it seems a figurative
>> description intended to emphasize her point.
>
>True.  To emphasize her point that she *would* kill, with no qualms,
>if the life of her child was threatened.  Actually drinking the blood
>sounds dangerous, since you can catch nasty diseases that way.  (Practice
>safer slaughter!  :-)
>
>I see nothing wrong with saying you'd kill to protect your child.  (Would
>you stand around and let your child be killed?)  That's a far cry from
>saying you'd kill someone (hypothetical or not) for not showing you the
>proper respect.
>
>Did you have a point?

Now that you ask...

First, several people chose to interpret Mr. Steeves' posting literally;
would these same people grant the benefit of the doubt only to women
who make violent statements?

Second, it seems quite reasonable from his posting that he objected to
far more than "not showing the proper respect" -- read the oft-posted
statement carefully.  Look at "not only X but Y..."  Typically,
"not only X but Y" indicates that Y is much different from X,
either in magnitude or in character.

Depending on your objectivity or your agenda, you can choose whether
to interpret the statement literally, and you can choose whether to
interpret Y as being different in character from X.


Since certain persons have accepted explicitly violent statements from
women as figurative, it seems hypocritical to say that others are literal 
-- and especially to continue doing so when those statements have been
clarified.

Since those persons who complained seem to have an outspoken agenda,
it is no great surprise that they concluded only "respect" was at issue
-- not manipulation or mental cruelty (the same kind of mental cruelty
that is the excuse to pardon husband-murderers).

Given the death threats that the female "victim" in question made, and 
considering why she might have waited a year to "throw salt in the wounds,"
I have no hard time believing that Mr. Steeves had more than simply
"respect" in mind.  And it gives even more evidence that his statements
were figurative.

That doesn't excuse the way he made his point -- I thought it was
not only a great lack of judgement to use such terms but a possible offense 
to women and men involved in such a situation (because of the possibility
of misinterpretation) -- but at the same time, IMNSHO, the conclusions and 
persistent misinterpretations by his "opponents" are hardly unbiased.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL
Subject: Re: About those first Amendment rights
Reply-To: reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL
Organization: Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:52:38 GMT

To Drieux:

You sent what I consider a confusing response to my message.
The best I can tell is that you are talking about free speech.
Free speech is not necessarily what I was talking about.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:42:51 GMT

The post to which this is a follow-up contains some good general advice.
It is a pity that Mr. Hatcher, the poster, does not feel constrained to
follow it, not even out of courtersy to an obvious "newbie", as I pointed
out in a follow-up to his flaming response to Ms. Norris, which elicited
the "Thanks for the `constructive' criticism." comment of hers, which
then elicited the post to which I am following up.

A pity, too, that so many pro-choicers violate these basic pieces of
advice on talk.abortion just as egregiously, from time to time, as
Mr. Hatcher did in that post of his.  This includes Mr. Humphrey,
who played the gentleman to Ms. Norris but very often reveals the bad
side of his redneck nature to people he takes a dislike to.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: pro-abort bias in WNC
From: bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:25:16 -0500
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Nntp-Posting-User: bthurman


What would it take to convince one of the media bias against pro-life folk in
western North Carolina?  What if you knew that less than a dozen pro-abort
students from Warren Wilson College were rounded up, put on the sidewalk in
front of a clinic, and shown in the Asheville Citizen as if a large cluster,
while out of dozens upon dozens of pro-lifers across the street, only a single
member of the group was captured by the camera and shown in juxtaposition as if
a lone demonstrater?  What if you knew that, time and time again articles by
articulate & intelligent pro-lifers are rejected by the media and only
acceptably ignorant or timid spokespersons are presented, while the cream of
the pro-abortion intelligentsia will have been given exposure to make the
pro-abort case look far stronger than it is?  
What if you knew that the Catholic Bishop of Charlotte came to Asheville on
Saturday October 10 and with up to 100 Christians prayed in front of western
North Carolina's foremost set of death chambers for two hours and that the
event went unreported by any of the secular media?
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:02:37 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  <BvzoMB.HHI@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Oct11.191903.9648@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (K
> >
> >(If this is leading into the "but Will was just trying
> >to protect the life of *HIS* child, I'd like to remind you that I don't
> >consider it a child until it's born).
>
> Actually, it wasn't leading to that point, but as long as you mention it:
>
> Does your belief have anything to do with it?  That is, if a person believes
> a fetus to be a child, is their "healthy parental instinct" (your words)
> to protect their child supposed to change or be repressed based on
> your beliefs?

There's a difference between using violence to protect a child against
harm, and using violence to get revenge for a past act.  Janis didn't
say that if someone had hurt her child, she'd hunt them down and slit
their throat; she was talking about an active threat.

And Will wasn't talking about either.  He was talking about not showing
respect by not telling him immediately.  If he was talking about a child
rather than a fetus, then I think it would be a *very* sick statement.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: pro-abort bias in WNC
Organization: Patrick, his wife, her daughter, and the two *&^%$#@! cats
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:59:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.102516.1@uncavx.unca.edu>, bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu writes:
>
>What would it take to convince one of the media bias against pro-life folk in
>western North Carolina?  What if you knew that less than a dozen pro-abort
>students from Warren Wilson College were rounded up, put on the sidewalk in
>front of a clinic, and shown in the Asheville Citizen as if a large cluster,
>while out of dozens upon dozens of pro-lifers across the street, only a single
>member of the group was captured by the camera and shown in juxtaposition as if
>a lone demonstrater?  What if you knew that, time and time again articles by
>articulate & intelligent pro-lifers are rejected by the media and only
>acceptably ignorant or timid spokespersons are presented, while the cream of
>the pro-abortion intelligentsia will have been given exposure to make the
>pro-abort case look far stronger than it is?  

What if you knew how to actually present some evidence to back up these 
assertions?  The mind boggles...

>What if you knew that the Catholic Bishop of Charlotte came to Asheville on
>Saturday October 10 and with up to 100 Christians prayed in front of western
>North Carolina's foremost set of death chambers for two hours and that the
>event went unreported by any of the secular media?

So what?  There are folks defending clinics here in Houston from people like
the bishop and his flock every day, and *that* gets ignored by the media, too.
So, what's your point?

--PLH, one of the pro-choice people who put his ass on the line during the 
RNC, and helped achieve a shutout...
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: rationalization
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:02:50 GMT

To add to the argument.
	We all rationalize our decisions-all of them-. Our beleafese are
based apon our own rationalization.  In any isue you find people arguing
that there beleafes and thusly there rationalixations are *THE* corect ones.

EFL-KIN   I was raised cathlic, but I got over it.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (The Scourge of Mudd Lab)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: That little old school on S. Main
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:00:47 GMT

In article <BvpzHq.Et1@rice.edu>, amn@owlnet.rice.edu (Analisa Marie Norris) writes:
>Ray is making some excellent points about freedom vs. rights of children.  Here's an extension of that thought:
>
>In order for something to be completely free, it MUST be restricted.  For example, you have free use of your arm, yet it is attached to your body.  Were it not attached to your body, it would be utterly useless.  Therefore, in order for this freedom to be> effective, it must have some limitations.
>
>The freedom of the 8 year old child may be viewed in the same way.  It does have the right to freedom, yet this freedom must be restricted in some ways, in order for the freedom to be meaningful.
>
>It can therefore be safely concluded that ALL children (born and unborn) DO have rights equal to those of their parents, and abortion is WRONG.

Excuse me?  While it's nice to see someone else from Willy's Institute 
out here, I'd like to know what hat you pulled *that* non-sequitur out of.
(A hint:  truth by assertion isn't very highly regarded.  Back up to square
zero and try again.  And don't ring the bell at the Operations window -- you
never know who'll answer...:-)

--PLH, just waiting for that next user to think we're Room 103...
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.flame,soc.men,soc.women
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:09:06 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to l.
margolis:
->I don't know what Don's point was

nor would it appear that you have any idea what
anyone's point is.

->but I am going to monitor you VERY closely

might i suggest that you contact mr. darcy and inquire
about his net.informants group. perhaps they can help
you with your "monitoring."

in the meantime, keep telling people that you will be
monitoring them. you might even find some who will
enjoy being monitored.

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Observations
Summary: ...from a blind man. 
Organization: Patrick, Dale Ann, the two cats...and that's it. 
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:53:06 GMT

In article <nyikos.719001771@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>The post to which this is a follow-up contains some good general advice.
>It is a pity that Mr. Hatcher, the poster, does not feel constrained to
>follow it, not even out of courtersy to an obvious "newbie", as I pointed
>out in a follow-up to his flaming response to Ms. Norris, which elicited
>the "Thanks for the `constructive' criticism." comment of hers, which
>then elicited the post to which I am following up.
>
>A pity, too, that so many pro-choicers violate these basic pieces of
>advice on talk.abortion just as egregiously, from time to time, as
>Mr. Hatcher did in that post of his.  This includes Mr. Humphrey,
>who played the gentleman to Ms. Norris but very often reveals the bad
>side of his redneck nature to people he takes a dislike to.

Well, excuse the bloody hell out of me for daring to disagree with you.

You won't mind if I use your "writings" to show to others as an incentive to
consider the advantage of a higher education at a state school other than
The USC, will you?  (Not that I particularly care what your opinion is.)

--PLH (it doesn't take all kinds, we just GOT all kinds...)

--
From: reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL
Subject: Re: Please Help
Reply-To: reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL
Organization: Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:55:37 GMT

To Kingsley Morse:

9 Answers to your 9 Questions

1.  yes;  2.  yes;  3.  not for myself;others can do as they please;
4.  yes;  5.  female  6.  19 to 65;  7.  other;  8.  Democrat;  9. College
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4309 talk.religion.misc:17888 talk.abortion:41479