HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 22:54:23 GMT

In <Bu43LD.71q.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715650400@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <lacgvmINN56h@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>##As a third degree Wiccan priest who leads a coven of my own I rebuke
>##your statement that Wicca is a subset of the feminist movement.
>#
>#Are you saying that it is impossible for a male to be part of the 
>#feminist movement?

>No, he's saying that Wicca is not a subset of the feminist 
>movement.  Do you really have that much trouble understanding
>the written word?

No, I merely assumed the connection between the first part of his sentence
and the second part was different than it actually was.  I was hoping that,
by drawing attention to the fact that he was male, he was thereby trying
to refute the statement that Wicca is a feminist movement.  Now all I
have to show for my pains is a rebuke and not even an outright denial.
And no clue as to why Wicca is not feminist.

>#Anticipating a Yes answer, let me add: are men barred from 
>#membership in NOW?

>Of course not.  Many men are feminists.  You can recognize them
>by their actions - they treat women as equals, and work to
>guarantee that no one is discriminated against because of
>their gender.  They don't refer to women as "bitches," nor
>do they claim that there are no women engineers when there
>certainly are.

All of which applies to me.  I know you think that unlimited access
to abortion is the only way to keep women from being discriminated
against by their gender.  But you see, I feel discriminated against
by not having the possibility of being pregnant.

	"If men could be pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"
				--Pro-abortion slogan
	"If men could have abortions, pregnancy would be a sacrament"
				--Peter Nyikos
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:13:15 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

In article <1992Sep14.163334.5430@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep11.114313.8039@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
[...]
-> > it's "too bad" because it displays a callousness
-> > on your part which i hadn't previously observed.
-> > most posters to t.a., imo, wouldn't mind at all if
-> > someone sought therapy to effect a positive life
-> > change.
-> 
-> I see.  Where did I indicate that I was opposed to
-> anyone seeking therapy?  The misattribution of
-> motives seems to be characteristic of your posts
-> these days, Jim.

projecting again, bill?

don't we have an ongoing discussion of you
misrepresenting mine?

[...]
-> > i doubt it. i'm not expressing a professional
-> > diagnonis. i'm expressing an opinion, one which is
-> > shared by many.
-> 
-> Well, certainly you must base this opinion on
-> something fairly specific.

why is that, bill? can't opinions be formed based on
experience, history? don't you form opinions based upon
those factors?

-> > you're the only one arguing as to DODie's and
-> > chaneyhall's mental health, bill.
-> 
-> Oh no.  That's not what I'm doing at all, Jim.  I'm
-> arguing that the content of their respective posts
-> is inadequate to derive any sort of inference
-> regarding their mental health.

you're wrong bill. their posts, which is all that
anyone knows of them as far as i can see, are exactly
that which has resulted in people forming opinions of
them. as i, and others have pointed out, they're loons.

-> I'm also arguing that your commentary was designed
-> to insult, rather than help.

argue all you want, bill. your doing so is painting an
ugly self-portrait.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: More backpeddling by "Dr" Nyikos (Was: FOCA...)
Summary: Anybody think we should have a "backpeddle" olympics? 
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 expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 04:19:23 GMT

In article <nyikos.715899124@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>I'm just starting to find out about this stuff, and the people I am
>trying to get information from are incredibly busy, so the answers
>may be a long time coming.  

Run away, "Dr" Nyikos, run away...

>
>I do not know of a single case of an abortionist reporting an incest
>case.

Nobody's looking at the moment.  Now _is_ the perfect time to see how far
you can distance yourself from your earlier statements.  I see Kibbles&Bits
has taught you well...
>
>I do not know of a single case of an abortionist disciplined for 
>refusing to report an incest case.

So the whole point of bringing it up was to paint abortionists as EvilSatanic
VoodooDoctors, wasn't it?
>
>I have no idea whether this is just another one of the South Carolina
>laws, like the one against fornication, which is seldom if ever enforced.

Ah, so you're also taking lessons from Chaney on how to make statements about
things you don't know about...
>
>But stay tuned.

For more comical attempts at backpeddling...
--
=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,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: wise words, sort of (was Re: How to Oppose the Freedom of Choice Act)
Date: 5 Sep 92 15:22:12 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kebbin@rotag.crud.mn.org (Kebbin Doohickey) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> ]it's not nice to accuse someone of something you
-> ]haven't demonstrated, kebbie.
-> 
-> On the contrary, Mr. Keegan.  That is exactly what
-> we teach our legal staff to do, here at CMC/DOD, and
-> it works out very nicely indeed.

but you failed to point out that a review of kebbie's
legal credentials resulted in his not being retained by
CMC/DOD.

anyway, kebbie sez:

        "It is my opinion that if a claim is made, and
        challenged in good faith, then the only two
        acceptable choices are to support it, or to
        retract it."
		<1992Sep4.035233.6281@rotag.mi.org>

you don't think he'd say that without living up to it,
do you?




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Attention!
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:15:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep10.160117.1298@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.151445.12033@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug
> >
> > Gloria Feldt   I do not believe that the fetus, although it has
> > value, is entitled to personhood status or to any other
> > citizenship guarantee under the Constitution, and therefore due
> > process for the fetus is not a legal right but a legal wrong.
> >      My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
> > that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
> > we want to be precise) and that the well-being of the woman must
> > prevail [and on] the ... information I have gained from looking
> > at actual fetal life and at women involved in pregnancies,
> > childbearing, miscarriages, and abortion....
> >      * * *
> >
> > ...
>
> Thank you, Doug.  Now show where what she says is somehow an
> attempt to make her religious beliefs a law.
>
> Also, note that the earlier quote of yours, now that you provide
> more of the quote, demonstrates nicely how you take quotes
> out of context and change their meaning.  When it served your
> purpose to represent Ms Feldt's opinion as purely religious,
> you removed the bits about how her perspective was religious
> AND "based on information gained ..." etc.  Thank you for making
> an earlier point of mine and others, that you deliberately
> quote out of context for self-serving reasons, for us.

Also, now that it's clear that she lists multiple reasons, one wonders
what other reasons were given in the elided portions.  Perhaps she gave
a primary reason not shown above, and Doug is just showing secondary
reasons.  It would be nice to know the source for this quote, so we
could see what was really said and in what context.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 20:48:22 GMT

In article <sam.715448709@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>>Let's not forget MissBitch's comment about how Gay men "Hate women because
>>they won't have sex with them".

>I don't understand her logic here (surprise.)  Could someone explain to me
>why a person who had no desire to have sex with a woman would hate her for 
>not wanting to have sex with him?  Seems like the gay man would be just
>happy with that situation. 

Logic here?  What logic here?

What Suzanne was saying was not that gay men hate women because women
won't have sex with gay men, but that the fact that gay men don't have
sex with women proves that they hate women.

As I said, what logic here?

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 22:05:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.161130.8403@nas.nasa.gov>, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov
(Dan King) writes:
> 
> 
> In article <1992Sep10.150225.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> 
> >I'm a pro-life Christian, but I did a lot of thinking about the topic before
> >I took my and.  What finally made it clear to me was this:  A man and
> >woman have created an unborn child but are not sure they want to have a baby or
> >not.  They vacilate on their decision for 9 nine months, then she goes into
> >labor.  At that point, still with a "fetus, not a child" in her womb, do they
> >have the right to have a willing doctor abort the pregnancy?  Except for the
> >extreme medical emergency case where it comes down to either the mothers or
> >the baby's life, I could find no times where that almost-born baby could be
> >rightfully put to death.  Hopefully, most (but not all, I'm sure) will agree
> >with me on that.
> 

Do you believe that there exist certain cases of euthanasia which would be
morally ok?
If not, why?
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 12 Sep 92 08:37:39 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <v=tny+f.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> <Sep09.195258.92238@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> ><fcknh0m.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> ><1992Sep2.032432.10808@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> >|> >The laws can't be changed until Roe v. Wade is overturned.  Until
|> >|> >that time, the people of this country will be forced into accepting 
|> >|> >the Supreme Court's edicts on abortion.
|> ...
|> >|> Seriously Doug, how can you write that tripe?  "people of this country
|> >|> ...forced into accepting ... abortion"  The supreme court basically said
|> >|> that up until a certain time in the pregnancy a woman may choose for
|> >|> herself whether or not to have an abortion.  How is that forcing anything
|> >|> on any one?
|> >
|> >	Ask an ignorant question.....
|> >	It certainly involves force against the living human being inside the
|> >mother's womb.
|> >	I know, I know, this particular living human being is not deserving of
|> >the protection of human rights.  In your opinion.
|> 
|> Now Steve, I don't know why you think you know what I'm thinking.  In this
|> case you are dead wrong.  I absolutely believe that a fetus is a living
|> human being.  It's just not a person.  And (are you ready for this?) even
|> if it was a person I would support unrestricted abortion upto the time of
|> birth.  You see, the being that the fetus resides in is normally called a
|> 'woman'.  If you'll check your biology books you'll see that she is a
|> human being too.  If you'll check your legal books you'll see that she is
|> a person.  And if you'll check the constitution you'll find that no
|> *person* unconvicted of a crime my be forced into bodily servitude against
|> their will.

	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.
	Gordon, you're a person (I hope).  Suppose I push a button which causes
you to be in my body.  Can I abort you?  Yes or no?

Live long and prosper....well, now that I think about it....at
least prosper....well....

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 22:44:03 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  <1992Sep4.211810.16325@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> I give up, Mr. Margolis.

I suppose that's the best thing to do; every time you try to weasel, you
just make yourself look more and more foolish.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36484 alt.abortion.inequity:3726
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:06:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: No comment.

In article <1992Sep4.155146.22085@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>js>In article <1992Sep3.153405.26663@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>dk>In article <1992Sep1.210729.22561@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>dk>If the fetus's father has the right to deny the woman an abortion, doesn't
>dk>that give him the say in when the woman gives birth?
>
>js>Nope.  Let me ask you to work this out for yourself.  How does a woman
>js>control when she is going to give birth?
> 
>I see the woman having two ways to control when she gives birth.  First
>she can take control over activity prior to conception.  These could 
>include birth control or abstinence.  None of these methods are 100%
>reliable, so in reality the woman has no real control here.

Excuse me!?  Am I reading this right 'abstinence is not a 100% reliable
form of birth control'?!

Uhh, you didn't REALLY mean that, did you?  Or are you, by chance,
a Catholic?

>The other
>method is after conception.  The woman can control when she gives birth
>by using abortion.  You want to remove the woman's control post-conception
>and only leave her the pre-conception, less than 100% reliable method, 
>to control when she gives birth. You give the man control over the 100%
>reliable method.

Yup.  You did mean it.  Might I suggest a good biology book. . .

And no, you don't get it.  I want the man and woman to have EQUAL say,
not give wrest control from the woman and give it solely to the man.

>Luckily for the woman of the world, there is not enough misogynists 
>that this will ever fly.  

Ooooooh!!!  As if calling me a misogynist will magically make me
become one!

>Dan King

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 06:52:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>In article <gzlnb8_.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>
>>First, I am NOT "pro abortion".  I would object to anyone forcing an abortion
>>just as strongly as I would object to anyone forcing pregnancy.
>
>Then, I would think that you would support me.  After all, having a woman
>abort your baby is forcing you to get an abortion, whether you want one or
>not.

You're being excessively silly here.  As one of the masculine gender (at
least I was when I took my shower), I've no plans to become pregnant, much
less get an abortion, much less have an abortion forced on me.  To suggest
otherwise is ludicrous in the extreme (and good for a few laughs, too).

>>The term
>>of preference is pro-choice (as in given women the _choice_ whether to 
>>continue with the pregnancy).
>
>The least ambigous term might be pro-female-choice-NONE-for-the-father.

Au contrare!  Should you get pregnant and want to get an abortion, I for
one am most certainly not going to stop you.  Given the lack of suitable 
openings the baby might emerge from, I might even recommend it.

>>You insistance on being able to force a woman to give birth to your child
>>strikes me as being rather like the chicken deciding for the pig whether
>>you should be allowed to eat ham & eggs for breakfast.
>
>If this is the best analogy you can come up with, you must be re-examing
>your belief systems about now.
>1)	A pig and a chicken are not even of the same species.  Are you claiming
>	that men and women are of different species?
>2)	Eating, and what you eat is a personal decision.  Abortion is not.

I thought the analogy was clear enough.  I'll explain.

If you eat ham & eggs for breakfast, the chicken loses an egg, which will
likely be replaced in a couple days.  The pig, however, will lose its life.
Thus, the chicken has rather less at stake in the issue than does the pig.

In this analogy, you are represented by the chicken and women by the pig.

Get it?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 02:06:53 GMT

In article <46jn!gb.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>Have you stopped molesting children yet?  Are you opposed to
>abortion because it reduces the number of unwanted children you
>might otherwise be able to take advantage of?

Ohmigod! HE'S MAKING FUN OF CHILD MOLESTATION!!!! What kind of sick, twisted,
low pervert is he???

But, seriously, folks. Such silly reactions were _never_ necessary...

							- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36481 alt.abortion.inequity:3723
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:55:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not tonight.  I've just GOT to find my appointment book. . .

In article <1992Sep2.205935.9428@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Aug31.145731.12606@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
>>In article <a3andz+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>Please answer this simple question directly:  If you come to me with a
>problem and I say, "It's your decision, your choice", how does that
>qualify as imposing my belief on you?  I'm speaking in the context of
>abortion, ok?

I've answered this so many times, I'm begining to be quite certain that
nobody reads my replies.

In your above example, it does not impose a belief on me.  But this example
is poorly chosen.  Try: if there is a problem involving you and me, and
you make a decision on how to deal with that problem unilaterally, you
enforce your BELIEF of the appropriateness of your actions on me.

>You're beginning to sound an awful lot like Tommy Kelly.

And you are begining to remind me of a fundamentalist preacher who argued
against evolution by simply ignoring anything that he couldn't explain
away.

>Gordon

John
stevens@uswest.com
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dan King for Congress!
Summary: Aha!
Date: 8 Sep 1992 19:36:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Sep08.181637.15921@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep8.123719.3563@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>
>> How many babes in a bevy anyway?
>
>I once got in an even dozen...  No, wait - that was a Chevy.  :-)
>
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

I *knew* I shouldn't have gotten that VW Karmann Ghia back in 1973...:-)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

                  All wiyht, rho sritched mg keg tops awound?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Lawsuit against Dr. Mildred Hanson
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:30:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.182012.13494@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> Last week, Peter Nyikos mentioned that a lawsuit was filed against
> Dr. Mildred Hanson of Minneapolis for failing to inform a patient
> of the results of a pap smear in a timely manner.  Too bad he didn't
> include the whole story.  The suit was thrown out before it ever went
> to trial.  It seems that Dr. Hanson's office repeatedly sent the
> results to the woman by mail and by telephone.  I learned this during
> a telephone conversation with one of Dr. Hanson's associates.
> 
> Dr. Hanson has been the defendant in many nuisance lawsuits.  It
> seems that there are lots of pro-lie lawyers out there willing to
> take any sort of outrageous statement they can concoct with the
> help of their clients into court.  In Dr. Hanson's case, all of
> them resulted in not-guilty verdicts.
> 
> So, Peter, do you have any more red herrings or strawmen
> for me to set fire to?

Did you know about this, Peter?  Were you deliberately trying to
mislead us?

Thanks to Chris for going after the COMPLETE STORY.  It is
a good example of how posting just a BIT OF THE STORY is used
to mislead and deceive.

One might say that someone who posts just a bit of the story in
order to deceive the reader is lacking in character, or is
engaging in a sleazy smear campaign.

Dean Kaflowitz