HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:50:59 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct3.171946.28034@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu writes:
|There is one minor detail. Mailing list messages are analogous
|to private email. For CJ to post such a message would be a
|violation of nettiquette.  Mr. Keegan, does CJ have your
|permission to post such a message from you, if she believes one
|to exist?

|CJ, I know you've stayed out of this so far, but I think it is
|time for you to support what you said about Mr. Keegan.

I've got an email from Keegan.  I will wait until I have
permission to post it.  It specifically shows that Keegan lied
in this statement:

|>what follows is a post by cj, complete and unedited. in
|>this post, cj states "I know that Keegan used the
|>mailing list to try to get people to post in support of
|>him." this is the specific item i have been referring
|>to as cj's lie about me.

So I can support the allegation.  If Keegan persists in lying in
this way, I'll support it without permission.  (I find it
distasteful that I should require Keegan's permission to
demonstrate that Keegan is lying.)  If Eric & Larry are
interested, I will email it to them.  (I don't consider this to
be a violation of the netiquette.)  Other than this action,
I'll stay out of this.

I am amused that this is the bone of contention now, months
later, while it was not at the time of the original squabble.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"David John Rasmussen is one of two things:  a contemptible liar or a 
person so stupid that he is incapable of understanding simple English."
-- Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:50:36 GMT

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>
->> for days, eric has been doggedly flaming me to support
->> a post in which i called cj a liar. he has made all
->> sorts of arguments to this end. he has been joined by
->> ms. adolf and larry margolis in his wail for evidence.
->>
->> i have decided to help eric, ms. adolf and the others

->(I guess that I'm "the others".  :-)

->> focus their efforts to expose unsupported allegations
->> by pointing them in the right direction.

->Hey - now we're getting somewhere!

->> what follows is a post by cj, complete and unedited. in
->> this post, cj states "I know that Keegan used the
->> mailing list to try to get people to post in support of
->> him." this is the specific item i have been referring
->> to as cj's lie about me.
->>
->> cj, of course, never supported this allegation.
->>
->> if mr. rescorla and the others who have been
->> clamoring for supporting evidence or an apology have
->> any integrity whatsoever, i am sure their attentions
->> will now be focused on the initial allegation. i am
->> equally sure that they will doggedly pursue their goal
->> of truthfinding.  to do otherwise in this particular case
->> would paint them as hypocrites of the worst type.

->You *had* sent a letter to the mailing list at that time, correct?
->It would seem to me that the only way to decide whether or not the
->initial allegation were true would be to examine that letter.  Then
->we could decide for ourselves whether the letter clearly asked for
->support, clearly did not, or was possibly ambiguous (in which case
->both sides could be arguing in good faith).

mr. margolis -- it is not up to me to prove my innocence.

an allegation was posted to this newsgroup about me 
and suzanne lucia. that allegation was never supported. 

much has been written in the past several days about
supporting allegations. much has been written about
withdrawing unsupported allegations and posting an
apology for those unsupported allegations.

while you were just a minor player in this particular
discussion, it seems to me that, if you wish to pursue
the matter, you would be pursuing with the person who
made the unsupported allegations, not one of the targets
of the allegations.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 14:23:36 GMT

In <m6cz8m_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
In <1992Sep23.201020.21385@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep22.130246.15855@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

>>> good. since, imo, i've done that demonstrating, and
>>> you've replied to it, i'll take you at your word that
>>> you'll stop asking me to do so.
>
>> Here you seem to be saying that your opinion is the 
>> rough equivalent of demonstrable evidence.  It isn't.
>> Nor have I replied to anything remotely resembling
>> "evidence".
>
> here you seem to be saying that your opinion has
> more validity than my opinion.

It does, with regard to the assessment of mental status.

>>> since you've already responded to my answer to your
>>> request, i'll leave your dancing question as, perhaps,
>>> just a sign of your lapse of control.
>
>> Your imagination does you no favors, Jim.  It's ok,
>> though.  I didn't really expect that you'd ever answer
>> the question.  
>
> denial isn't healthy bill. 

What aspects of denial do you believe to be unhealthy, Jim?  
Are you willing to anwer this question? 

>>> since you've already responded to my answer to your
>>> request, i'll leave your assessment question as, perhaps,
>>> just a sign of your lapse of control. or, perhaps it's
>>> a sign of something else?
>
>> Yes, I think the latter.  It's a "sign" that you can't
>> defend your nonsensical tripe, so you obfuscate and
>> dodge and redirect.
>
> i do too.

Amazing how the inclusion of my entire response changes its
meaning.  And that of your subsequent reply as well...

>>> you've already replied to my answer to it, bill. 
>
>> Untrue.  You've never answered it.
>
> again, denial isn't healthy bill. 

That only partly true, Jim.  Can you tell the listening
audience why?

>>>> Why does this notion appeal to you?  Don't you like
>>>> me, Jim?
>
>>> why bill, what a silly question! haven't i told you how
>>> often i've defended you from attacks based on your
>>> condescending manner towards women? 
>
>> Oh, I don't condescend to women.  
>
> you've certainly fooled a lot of them into thinking
> otherwise.

Is it true that you're the "Ram of the Herd", Jim?

>>> on my observations and the data you've already replied
>>> to bill. on what to you base your repeated requests for
>>> this data, bill?
>
>> Your contentless responses, of course.  Care to change that?
>
> would you include in your definition of "contentless
> responses" things such as "energizer bunny" and Pee
> Wee?"

Not at all.  Those comments are rich in their implications 
for you.

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40639 talk.politics.misc:49625 alt.sex:31961 alt.rush-limbaugh:6564 alt.politics.elections:15213 alt.politics.clinton:8538 alt.politics.bush:7769
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:08:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <Bvnorr.Mu8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

MW:Legal definition only.  It can be changed at any time by an act of congress.

SO:Such an act would be (or should be) beyond Congress' power.  The STATES
SO:have the authority to write criminal law.  With the exception
SO:of treason, and "interstate/international" crimes (ex: kidnapping
SO:across state lines, smuggling), the federal government does not have
SO:the authority to legislate criminal laws.

Then why does congress feel it has the power to declare that the states
do not have the right to limit abortions.

But you are right, I should have said state legislatures, not congress.

MW:Why?  If congress passes a law that says that abortion is murder, then it
MW:is murder.

SO:Again, such a law would be unconstitutional.  Congress does NOT have 
SO:that kind of authority, despite what it thinks.

MW:Your definition, not universally accepted.  My copy of Webster's defines
MW:murder as the killing of a human being.

SO:So the rights of the unborn supercede the rights of adults?  My goodness,
SO:what interesting lawsuits could be created by ambulance chasers if this
SO:were the case!  A child suing his mother for not eating properly or for
SO:smoking while she was pregnant.

Sort of like trying a mother for child abuse for smoking crack whiule
pregnant.  That has already happened.

BTW, is it not child abuse if you don't feed your post-born children.

Also such a suit is no more or less likely than an adult that sues its
parents over not having dictionaries and encyclopedias in the house.
Could have made better grades in school and all that.

The law currently demands only reasonable conduct not perfection.  Though
sadly we seem to be moving towards an expectation of perfection.

SO:That's a can of worms we don't want to open.

Too late.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Correctus to you, Nadja)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:40:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.211730.21809@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Stoned, aka Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.145142.12511@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep22.052211.14940@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In  <1992Sep22.012523.25142@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney [ Borg Operating Space Systems writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>
>>Then, turn on the Rush Limbaugh show and listen to someone who DOES
>>exist and whose book is THE FASTEST SELLING NONFICTION BOOK IN
>>H I S T O R Y.
>
>Hmmm....I suddenly see why alleged Right-to-Lifers are uncomfortable
>with using brain death to legally decide when someone is dead. :-)

Why? Because you would be legally dead?
 
In that post above, all I did was show FACTS.

If the FACT that Rush Limbaugh's book is selling better than Gloria
Steinem's was, is brain-death, then even more brain dead is Larry King and
Al Gore, whose book is almost to the point of being given away as free
toilet paper. (Because if Al Gore gets elected as VP, all our logging will
be gone on the west coast and all we'll have to wipe our asses with, are
pages out of his books.)


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:25:46 GMT

psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes ...
> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>> reproduction is a gradual process and there simply isn't an obvious
>> event where a new person exists where a second before there wasn't
>> one.  
>
>This again is circular in that it a priori excludes the view that life
>begins at conception.

First, nobody has yet shown that personhood begins at conception.
In fact, claiming that a single cell, almost too small to see, is a tough
one to back up using any commonly understood usage of the word "person".

Second, you you be a lot more careful about what you claim.  Life began
roughly 3.5 billion years ago, not at conception.

Third, life is an insufficient metric for defining humanity, much less 
personhood.

And fourth, it isn't circular.  It doesn't even exclude the presumption
that conception begins a person.  As it stands the statement is correct.

Try again.

>> There must be a point at which individual rights are conferred upon a
>> new human individual, and because the reproductive process is a
>> gradual one, that point cannot be a natural one -- it *must* be
>> artificial.  The trick is picking the politically correct artificial
>> point.
>
>>From a statistical standpoint the breakpoint, or "phase change" if you
>will is very highly localized in time. The reproductive process is only
>gradual because you DEFINE it so.

Yup.  It only takes nine months because we defined it to take nine months.

Get real.  Even conception is not instantaneous.

>> I think rights should be conveyed upon individuals upon live birth --
>>..... simply because the
>> state need not abridge the rights of the mother to protect the rights
>> of a newborn, but it *must* abridge the rights of the mother to
>> protect the `rights' of a fetus.
>
>This is in essence the crux of the problem.  Implicit in an anti-abortion
>position is that women have different responsibilities than men because
>of their biology.  To the 'old guard' women's movement this is heresy.

Do those different responsibilities also include different rights?

>> Put simply, I believe that every woman has the right to control what
>> happens to her body, and if that means permitting women to have
>> abortions at nine months of pregnancy if they choose, then that's what
>> it means.
>
>That's easy to say - but I think things would be different if you were
>required to witness such a late term abortion.

I think you'd view driving differently if you had to view a nasty accident
and its aftermath.  Would you give up driving as a result?  If no, why?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:14:16 GMT

In article <z0!pcta.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes ...
> >Oh, as an aside, the proof for 0<1 is:  (sorry it took so long)
> 
> Not bad.  It is _not_ an absolute proof by any means, but not bad.
> It assumes a foundation of axioms common in modern mathematics that
> are widely accepted as true but have, in themselves, _not_ been 
> proven.  Thus, that "0<1" is a fact that can be known absolutely
> is something you haven't shown.

Ok, since you won't accept that, how about this.

If I am within 1 cm of ground-zero of a h-bomb explosion and have absolutly

nothing to protect me, I will die.

[proof removed]

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR MOTHERS (Case 1)
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 23:58:18 GMT



Since Nyikos won't provide the name of the plaintiff, I will.
According to "The Abortion Injury Report", Kathleen Marie
Maki filed suit against Dr. Hanson, alleging medical 
malpractice.  From the article, "Kathleen Marie Maki
claims in the suit that Dr. Hanson committed assualt and
battery because she inflicted excessive physical force
during the abortion by having four staff members hold 
Kathleen down on the table, one person holding each of
her arm and legs.  Kathleen now suffers permanent and
progressive numbness in her hands and feet." (AIR,
July, 1990.)

I'd like to know the outcome, as well.  The AIR, as far as
I know, never prints the outcomes of these lawsuits.

(The issue quoted is the same one that has the stupid
Gilda Radner story - "Actress's Cancer Points to Abortion
Complications" and quotes from the WEBA survey  -
"Study Shows Abortion Injuries are Common."  Nyikos,
obviously, has very high standards and cannot be
expected to believe just anything.  <sarcasm off>)

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Consistency and Law
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:28:59 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] 
] The question of whether laws banning abortion could be *consistent*
] does not require an argument about belief - I should hope.
 
Don,

I am afraid that this point is NOT as clear as it could be.

Are you asserting that Abortion Laws should form a new
class of laws, such as that they are to be clearly consistent.

Or that as a General Theory of Jurisprudence it is
wise to establish such laws as will provide consistent
implementation of consistent theories.


The former is clearly the case of Law as it is practiced,
and all too often, in particular, with 'child support laws'
as they are implemented.

The Latter is a clear presuppositional position that has NOT
in point of fact been held over the course of western history.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:31:12 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Oct2.094049.26950@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>In article <1992Oct1.201627.22487@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
>>>>a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
>>>>be dead?)
>>>
>>>Which completely avoids the question I asked.  Here it is again.
>>>
>>>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>>>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?
>>
>>Are you going to take the 2 year old's right to life away?
>
>Which completely avoids the question I asked.  Here it is again.
>
>>>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>>>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?

Even if I do go along with your way of thinking,
   If you certainly are not going to get rid of a 2 year old's right to life
   then why will you get rid of a fellow human's right to life, namely 
   the unborn child?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:35:57 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  <1992Sep29.234236.20809@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
> I never said that sex was a crime, but if both parents excercised a
> little preparation they might not have to face the prospect of an
> unplanned pregnancy.

Then again, they might.  See, there's something called
"contraceptive failure"...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38886 talk.religion.misc:17286
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: SAT worship and Rational thought
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:47:04 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Hmmmmmm.... how did alt.sex.soc.singles get into this?

In article <1992Sep23.214129.9186@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> ] In article <19ctqdINNktk@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> ] > In article <nyikos.716744788@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> ] [...] 
> ] > How 'bout you post your SAT scores, too?
> ] 
> ] Are y'all just being sarcastic, or do Americans really worship SAT scores?
> ] I don't have any...  Is it ok for me to practice rational thought anyway?
>  
> Brian,
> 
> As 'AlmostAnAmerican' we can accept that you Suffer from SAT Envy,
> and the Many Other Great things that the USA brings to the world...

Sometimes I really hate "America"...  this just happened to be one
of those times, but don't worry I realize my "hatred" is about
truthful as "America".  I read in soc.culture.canada that somebody
in a telemarketing survey (or something similiar) asked a Torontonian
if Canadians were eligible to vote in the upcoming presidential
election.  Then again, there was a postal clerk who asked my
friend "where in Canada is New York?"

I guess people are just generally dopey, eh?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 16:37:26 GMT

Peter Nyikos writes:
>Larry Margolis writes:
>>Martin Guerrero writes:
>>> An "8-week embryo" is definitely human.
>
>>But definitely not a person, which is what the question was.
>
>I think there is a strong case for saying that it is a person.  Of
>course if you define "person" as "someone currently protected
>by the 14th amendment" there is nothing to discuss.

My definition of 'person' is based on the qualities which I think
distinguish 'people' from animals, plants, and rocks, not on anything
legal.  What definition of 'person' do you use that would include an
eight-week human embryo, but not a chicken embryo at the same point in
its development?

>>> BTW, just a small tidbit: the unborn feels pain at 9 weeks.
>
>>Just a small correction.  It can respond to stimuli, but "feel"
>>implies consciousness or awareness, which is lacking at that point.
>>Neuroscientists say not before 7 *months*.
>
>Still repeating their unwarranted conclusions, Larry?  I wish you
>would find some reference more profound than the grade-school-talk
>mixed with pure *ipse dixits* that you posted a while back.

I've never heard any reasonably sound evidence to show that
consciousness is possible without a well-developed brain.  If you have
evidence that shows otherwise, I'm very interested in seeing it.

>Bernstine gave evidence that there *could* be consciousness at 7 *weeks*.

Who is Bernstine, and what is his argument?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:02:42 GMT

In <1992Sep28.165256.15747@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <7vgzsph@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 
->   (rocker) writes: >
->> After all, we can't have people expressing opinions here without
->> producing clinically significant evidence for them. 

->I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask him to provide a 
->*basis* for his opinion, "clinical significance" notwithstanding.
->But he hasn't done that and I don't expect that he'll try to at
->this point.

why are you lying, bill? you've already admitted that
i did provide a basis for my opinion.