HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:12:06 GMT

In article <92325.222521ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In arctile <shj51no@zola.esd.sgi.com> CJ Silverio says:
>>In article <1992Nov18.191532.116052@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com
>> writes:
>>|In <_hr1slc@rpi.edu|keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>|>i've seen no evidence to convince me that many of cj's
>>|>allegations are anything more than the petty whines of
>>|>a frustrated shrew.
>>|Funny - she doesn't *look* shrewish...  :-)
>>
>>Why, thank you, Larry.  I must say, though, that there's
>>something to be said for shrews.  Some insecure men, after all,
>>like to dismiss strong women as "shrews".
>
>My, my, I wonder if it is insecurity when some women
>dismiss strong women as doing the "dirty work" of some
>man or as motivated by hero worship.

Depends on whether the claims are true or not, surely.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: To Lost Boy...Re  The thoughts of a fetus
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:48:10 GMT

> F. O'Dwyer
>> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
>># K. Hauk

>># Did you know that the human fetus can dream?  Recent studies have found that
>># the human fetus can actually dream!  

>>Did you know that cattle dream?

>Cattle aren't human, of course.  There is that.

So?  Hauk seemed to be postulating that a fetus was sentient just because it
supposedly has the capability of dreaming.  The person you responded to
rightly pointed out that her notion is ludicrous.

>Just what evidence of a foetus' sentience _would_ you accept?  

I accept the development of the cerebral cortex, which is the part of the
brain that allows us to think and reason, and which, if present at all in
other animals, is less developed.  Of course, this is assuming that there
is no gross abnormality of the brain or body that would render the fetus
incapable of using its cerebral cortex, once developed.


-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric (was: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
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: Fri, 20 Nov 92 00:07:56 GMT

Um, in order to _mis_understand something, don't you have to be able to
understand things first?

In article <1992Nov18.012325.142675@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <nyikos.722024009@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Nov06.232315.67382@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>
>>>In fact, I did give an example later on; for some reason Peter wasn't able
>>>to deal with it.  :-)
>>
>>Note the smiley.  I leave it up to you to interpret what effect it
>>has on the foregoing sentence.
>
>I'd guess that most readers understood that it meant that my "for some reason"
>was sardonic, and that the reason you were unable to deal with it was because
>it would show you to be an idiot, like all the other times you've run away.
>
>I'd further guess that, as usual, you're completely clueless and you totally
>misinterpreted what was written.
--
=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???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:45:46 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In <1ehm2iINNid0@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>Rape is *not* sexually motivated.
>Rape is motivated by violence and intimidation.  That's why 
>little children and old women get raped. 

>I suggest that the difference between rape and other forms of
>assault is largely an arbitrary one.

There was a recent case in which a dentist was arrested for rape who
had sexual relations with women whom he had anaesthetized in the
course of treating them.  Most of them didn't even know it had
happened.  There have also been recent discussions of college men
doing things like getting women drunk and having sexual relations with
them while they were not sober enough to consent.

The "violence and intimidation" in such acts is not obvious to me
unless "violence" means something different from what it usually means
when we talk of crimes of violence.  Should such acts be treated as
rape and their perpetrators punished more severely than (say) a
dentist or a college student who takes an unconscious woman's
temperature with an oral fever thermometer without her consent, and
without any justification relating to medical treatment, but only
because of idle curiosity?  It seems to me they should, but I'm not
sure you would agree.

In addition -- it's impossible for a man to carry out a rape if he is
not sexually excited.  Literature and other materials designed to be
sexually stimulating often include rape scenes, or so I am told.  De
Sade, who I have read and who specifically states that he wants what
he writes to be sexually stimulating, is loaded with rapes of the most
unbelievably aggravated sort.  So I find the insistence that rape has
no sexual motivation odd.

Why is this point so important to people?  What is at stake?  What bad
things will happen if it is accepted that rape includes an essential
sexual element?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy,misc.legal
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin on Forgery
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:58:13 GMT

In <1eb4nkINNhir@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>  Peter and me:
>>>.Sounds about right.  A lot of "bizarre" laws get to look just a tad less
>>>.bizarre when you read the fine print.  South Carolina has laws against
>>>."adultery" and "fornication", but to be illegal these must involve either
>>>.cohabitation or habitual actions.
>>
>>>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>How does cohabitation and habit make the illegalization of adultery or
>>>fornication 'less bizarre'?
>>
>>Do I need to explain the term "a tad" to you, Adrienne?

>No, Peter.  You need to explain what you mean in order for us to be able
>to understand you.

>I notice that you fail to answer the question, in order to make a snide
>remark instead.

You seem to be learning from similar comments of mine to Susan Garvin and 
her ilk. :-)

>How does cohabitation and habit make the illegalization of adultery or
>fornication 'less bizarre'?  Even a 'tad'?

Well, I don't think it would be "equally bizarre" if a single act of 
adultery or fornication were already illegal; I'd say it was a tad *more*
bizarre. :-)

I am no legal expert, but I read from time to time that the only time
certain laws are enforced is when some major bound of civilized behavior,
not written into the law itself, is broken.  For example, in the early
1960's, anywhere from 200,000 to 2,000,000 illegal abortions were done
per year.  Yet very few abortionists were prosecuted, and perhaps the
reason is that (again, perhaps) most law enforcement agencies would only
prosecute if the abortionist had "butchered" his patient(s).  

Perhaps the laws against adultery and fornication are similarly handled,
being enforeced only if someone jilted third partly has been deeply
humiliated, beyond the ordinary bounds one usually associates with 
adultery.

I read the rather strikingly broad estimate above in an early 1960's article
by then-President of Planned Parenthood, Mary Calderone, in a leading
medical journal; I wonder whether anyone has since been able to narrow the
estimate down a tad. :-)

I'm not sure what more you want in the way of an answer, Adrienne.  But
I'll be glad to try to explain things further, if you wish.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:45:43 GMT

From article by chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
> 
>>> ... since GHWB took it on the chin ...
> 
>> Hey, BC has his fingers in so many, er, pies, I'll stick around for the
>> impeachment in a year or two.  :-)
> 
> What's he done that compares with Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate, or (possibly)
> the Iran hostage deal of 1980?


A)  NBC's Dateline did a story last spring of a man in Arkansas who was put in
prison for a murder he didn't commit.  He _had_ thrown a rock and hit somebody,
but his victim was well enough to be walking around in the emergency room.
She didn't live through surgery though, and the medical examiner testified that
she died of the rock injuries.   It was later revealed 1) that the medical
examiner had been found incompetant in many previous cases yet Gov. Clinton
still kept him on the staff, and 2) that the woman had actually died of
improperly administered anesthesia.   The nurse administering the anesthesia?

Bill Clinton's mother.

Yes folks, Bill Clinton let another man go to prison for a murder he didn't
commit, only to protect his own mother from facing the consequences of her own
responsibility in the death.

That man is out of prison now, but Bill Clinton is headed for White House.


B) In an Arkansas state office which has a policy of always promoting from 
within, a position came open for which a qualified black woman in the dept.
was in line. Lo and behold, who appears out of the blue in that department
and in that slot?  Jennifer Flowers.   In a taped conversation in which Ms.
Flowers asked Mr. Clinton, "What should I tell people if they ask me how I got
this job?", Mr. Clinton responded, "Do what I do.  Lie."   The woman who was
wronged has her suit still pending.


Tell me again that character doesn't matter.  With a past like his, I fully
expect him to commit impeachable offenses while in office, if he hasn't already.
Why should this new office be any different from his last one?



Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: A question that needs asking, I guess...
Organization: The Killer Owls are back!
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:13:39 GMT

...I wonder why POC hasn't seen fit to post much in this newsgroup since
November 5th or so?  :-)

(Just thought I'd ask.)

--PLH, silence is golden

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:40:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.022547.86943@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <BxzFy1.KA3@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>In the long run, you support *everybody's* best interest, if you succeed.
>
>The end justifies the means?

>>It may be stupid,
>>pragmatically speaking, if it gets regarded as childish -- but
>>this sort of technique works (and fails) all the time.
>
>So do other forms of blackmail.  Doesn't make it right.


"Vote for Clinton -- we're just one justice away from banning abortion."

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48803 soc.men:19659 soc.women:20025 alt.politics.homosexuality:7450
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: 20 Nov 1992 17:01:21 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In article <1992Nov18.114132.24504@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
:In <1992Nov18.042617.9925@panix.com> jis@panix.com (Jack Szwergold) writes:
:>If you think rape and sex are the same, you're dumber than a rock....

:Could you explain at more length?  Maybe a couple of examples would help:
:
:1.  Tom surprises Mary in her apartment and forces her to lie still
:while he takes a throat swab and a blood sample, and then takes her
:temperature with an oral fever thermometer.  Mary struggles because
:she thinks Tom's crazy and doesn't know what he'll do.

Tom _is_ crazy.  Tom "surprises" Mary and takes a blood sample?  I hope Mary
surprises Tom in return by producing a large kitchen knife.

:2.  Tom surprises Mary in her apartment and forces her to lie still
:while he rapes her.  Mary struggles because she doesn't want to be
:raped.
:
:It seems to me that from the standpoint of pure physical violence
:there's not necessarily anything to distinguish the acts.
:Nonetheless, the latter is a more serious crime.  It seems to me that
:the reason it is more serious is the sexual element -- the forced sex
:is felt to be a violation of Mary's personality in a way that the
:forced medical examination is not.  Do you agree?

No.

  (a)  Case 2 sounds more violent.
  (b)  Tom may as well be raping her anally with the thermometer in (2), so 
       where's the sexual element?
  (c)  I have no problem classifying (1) as rape, too.

:If not, what's your explanation for the fact that rape is a
:separately-defined crime?  I'm very much interested in your views,
:because you seem to devoted considerable thought to the matter.

I haven't thought about it much at all.

:Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48740 talk.religion.misc:21609 alt.atheism:21720
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 18:00:16 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov19.035815.5736@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

[ I don't know who wrote >> - sue me - FOD]

>>and asserting that "those people who don't live a certain [religious]
>>"quality" of life will be *rightfully* killed."  
>
>And that statement by me was logically deduced by understanding the
>history of the actions taken by theocratic governments, and Suzanne's own
>posted opinions of people with clashing lifestyles.  Specifically, we
>have historical evidence of Catholic theocratic treatment of its subjects
>"for their own good".

You don't need to look very back in history, you just to need to look in the
right country.  In ~95% Catholic Ireland, the Catholic bishops "allowed" the
Irish people to vote whichever way they wanted in the upcoming abortion
referendum.  This news came hot on the heels of prayers that "our
constitution be once again enabled to express the people's abhorrence of
abortion".  Yep. Theocracies can happen in democracies, and they're not much
fun.

Just wanted to mention that - now you can resume squabbling with Peter.

>Gordon

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:00:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.191141.11640@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>#1 is incorrect. Under the Common Law, an illegitimate child was considered
>"nobody's child", and had no rights to inheritance or support.
>
While the lack of right to inheritance was pretty generally true
(though not always; witness Elizabeth I of England getting to the
throne despite having been officially bastardized by Act of
Parliament!), the second is certainly not true.  Paternal support of
children born out of wedlock has a very long history. Quoting from J.R.
Gillis, ``For better, For worse: British marriages, 1600 to the
present'':

``... Often men entered into agreements to maintain their children in
the manner that Evan Jones did in 1778. He agreed to pay Elizabeth
Williams of Ceiriog four shillings each week until she was delivered and
then five shillings a month thereafter. If the child lived, then he
would pay three pounds and ten shillings each subsequent year...
Cardiganshire officials operated in a similar manner, the men paying the
women through them.'' [p. 128]

``Much later another Welshman remembered the customary way of dealing
with a man who did not own up to his duties:
	A few neighbours came together, took the child from the young
	girl and took it down to the reputed father to bring up ---
	and to show they meant business they had brought their guns
	with them. If he did not want to bring up the child himself
	--- and that was usually the case --- the girl could make a
	better bargain for taking it back than she could otherwise
	have done.'' [p. 131]

It was not until 1834 with the passage of the New Poor Law that
``...Unwed mothers were stripped of their right to outrelief, even that
provided by the putative father under an affiliation order from the
magistrates... In order to obtain ordinary assistance, she now had no
choice but the workhouse, a provision which was introduced with
deterrence in mind... [I]n the north, there was a sense that things had
been better in `grandfather's days':
	If a young man went a-courting a damsel meek and mild
	And if she from misfortune should hap to have a child
	By going to a magistrate, a recompense to seek,
	They'd make the man marry her, or pay a crown a week.

	But now by the New Poor Law he nothing has to pay
	Nor would he, even if he got twenty children every day.''
[pp. 139-140]

I believe the book "A Midwife's Tale" by someone whose name escapes me,
about a woman who was a midwife in New England around the time of the
American Revolution, also has several examples of child support being
given in America, but I don't have the book with me to check.
-- 
Helen Johnston       | Astronomye is an harde thynge and yvel forto knowe.
johnston@fys.ruu.nl  |      -- William Langland, Piers the Plowman
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48077 talk.religion.misc:21172 alt.atheism:21314
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Today's Quiz
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:07:54 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <Bxu3AA.8pq.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#
>#->A prize will be awarded to the first person who can find a real
>#->difference in these two.  (Smaller prizes to people who can extend
>#->the list.)
>#
>
>I think that we've got a 4-way tie.  There will have to be a tie-
>breaker to determine the winner.  (I'm open to suggestions
>as to what that tie-breaker will be.)

Has Doug ever avoided answering embarrassing questions because his
newsreader was broken?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion (couldn't find original)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:20:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.070826.29313@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <17120@umd5.umd.edu> 
> spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:
> >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> 
> >> Doug has been around longer than I, maybe he knows some more examples of 
> >> people posting on talk.abortion expressing support for legalized 
> >> infanticide.
> 
> > UNlikely. Then again, it seems to me that a lack of actual statements of  
> > support for infanticide would stop DODie from alleging the same, so I'll  
> > guess that you are right, and that DoDie will indeed produce said list.
> 
> Here are some pro-choice posters commenting on the
> personhood status of newborn infants.  Please note
> that while most of these posters believe that newborn
> infants may not be "persons", they should nevertheless
> be protected under the law.  I don't really understand
> their reasoning. 

These are not examples of anyone expressing support
for legal infanticide and are irrelevant to the "Doctor's"
request.  Except for Loomis, who you won't find getting
much support and who was the only citation the "Doctor"
offered originally.  And if the Reverend can't understand
their reasoning, it does not follow that their reasoning
is flawed, since the Reverend's ability to follow the
reasoning of others is dependent largely on whether they
are pro-choice or anti-abortion.

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48864 talk.religion.misc:21675 alt.atheism:21759 talk.politics.misc:61117 alt.discordia:449 alt.slack:3159 talk.bizarre:38925
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc,alt.discordia,alt.slack,alt.secular-rastafarianism,alt.ska-beat,alt.jah'erb,alt.canvas,talk.bizarre
Subject: Attack of the PINKS!
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:12:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sex,soc.singles
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

No One BUT a Pink would advocate the
JudeaoChristianIslamicSeXularHumanistMarxistMaoistScientologySubGenii
Continuum as a serious intellectually interesting notion.

Theologically It is Clearly Been Invalidated, 
and I refer you to the literature, and the
requirement that you do your homework rather
than blather you ignoNOrants about the net!

Its people like you spewing antiquated outmoded thinking
that is undermining the FIGHTING WILL of the American People!!!!

ciao
drieux

ps: You can pick up your target, and stand in line now.


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Little Miss Muffett, sat on a ToughtIt,
Eating her Kurds and Weighs, Along came a Spider,
and she drove off with the Neat Guy with a HOT CAR!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48083 alt.abortion.inequity:5125 soc.women:19680 soc.men:19374