HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Keegan, "forgery," and attributions
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:50:08 GMT

In article <nyikos.727658850@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> 
> Like Kaflowitz, you are an expert in deleting evidence in your favor.

And you are a liar, like, well, like you actually.

Let me see, is this accusation the one where you say I deleted
material from a posting when the deletions had been done by
the previous poster.

Once again you show me that you are a stupid, stupid man as well
as a liar.  I suppose you think that if you tell a lie often
enough it becomes true.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 21:58:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.194711.7929@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1993Jan14.213947.15085@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>> In article <1993Jan9.063657.20201@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>
>>>Of COURSE Christianity is about emulating what Christ Himself would do.
>> 
>> Gee, Suxanne, would you be nice enough to tell me who wrote the following?
>> 
>> "ALL gay men hate women, because they won't sleep with them".
>
>You, Sir Liar, need to remove the quotes from the above statement, unless
>you are quoting yourself, because if you are attempting to quote me, it is
>a serious misquote.

It's not an exact quote Suzzie, but there are plenty of us who
remember your claim that all gays are women haters, for the simple
(according to you) if they didn't hate women, they'd have sex with
them. I recall quite well the fun everybody had pointing out to you
that lesbians were also gay, and most certainly do have sex with
women. I als orecall that you somehow managed to disappear again, at
just that time.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: numbers
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:53:19 GMT

>It seems like the numbers keep creeping up.  1.3 million, 1.4 million,
>1.5 million, 1.6 million.  It looks like about .1 million a semester.
>Soon, some bright cookie will look at the numbers, and just simply
>round off to the closest million, and say 2 million.  Then some clown
>like me will probably round off to the nearest billion, and say 
>zero.  No problem.  It's all in the way you look at it...

Is there some point being made here?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A Book and an Offer
Organization: NCSU
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:03:00 GMT

In article <2579@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
kmaloy+@pitt.edu (Kate Maloy) writes:

> Such policies incorporate the moral
> standard of responsibility and caretaking.  Examples would be a national
> health-care program, family leave, aggressive birth control research,
> sex education (which should INCLUDE and not override parents--see our
> book for a model program), strong anti-poverty measures, and a community
> awareness movement about sexual responsibility (similar to MADD anti-
> drunk driving efforts).  If as a nation we can agree that we have a 
> disgraceful rate of unplanned pregnancy, teenage parenthood, and abortion,
> policies such as these could reduce them all.  European nations manage
> this; we could, too.

European countries also have less permissive abortion laws
than the United States.  Typically, abortion is allowed in the
earliest weeks of pregnancy, but strong justification is needed
for abortion in the latter part of pregnancy.  For example,  
France has a cutoff of 10 weeks; in Sweden it's 18 weeks. 
Compare that to the United States, where abortion-on-demand 
is legal throughout the term of pregnancy, all the way up to 
the point of birth.


---
Doug Holtsinger
'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
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: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 18:23:48 GMT

In article <C19H86.886@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>That would make the arguments significantly tougher.  BUt, I am at least open 
>to the idea, strange as it may seem to some, that abortion is ok up to 14 days,
>or implantation.  I know, though, that no one would want to take the debate 
>down to those fourteen days.  All they want to do is say that if a woman goes 
>into labor at 9 months and then decides while the baby is still inside her that
>she doesn't want it she can kill it.
>
So you're open to the idea that a woman can abort at atime prior to
her even discovering the pregnancy. Awfully big of you.
as for your last statement, kindly show where any pro-choicer have
made such a statement. Or retract it.
Otherwise, don't be suprised if your credibility goes right out the
window to join DODie's, PHoney's, and ChaneyHalls in the garbage.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
Organization: Think, and you'll figure it out.
	<1993Jan26.092749.10468@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:49:58 GMT

On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:27:49 GMT, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) said:

>ATTENTION EVERYONE!!  Please cancel this thread!  The orginal article
>was sent by mistake(malfunctioning terminal, plus my finger slipped and
>hit s for send rather than a for abort)

Funny how it took you 16 hours to figure that out, eh?  (It was sent the 25th 
at 12:18 local, and it wasn't until the next morning at almost 3:30 that you
discovered it?  Pardon my slight skepticism.)

>I was editing the message to see how I could change the wording, with no
>intention of ever sending it. When trying to junk it, the terminal locked
>up, and in trying to abort the message, the wrong key was hit.

If the terminal locked up, why did it respond to a simple "s" key?  I don't
recall ever seeing a terminal lock-up that could be undone *that* easily.

>So, kill this thread.

Here's a clue -- most newsreaders allow you to cancel articles you post...

>And please do not tell me about how stupid it was, because it's not my fault
>if the terminals in the computer lab are junk.

No one's arguing with that -- but your explanation of how it happened is more
than a little suspicious.  What you'd better hope right now is that no regular
readers of the Times spot your article, or you may have a *lot* of explaining 
to do.  

>(if I had intended it to go out, do you think I would have re=posted the whole
>thing?)

Whether or not you intended it to go out, it did, whether you can explain it
intellgibly or not...

--PLH, why am I not surprised?
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Keegan, "forgery," and attributions
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:06:26 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
->>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->>-> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
->>-> >james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
->>-> >>well now, let's examine that part about actions
->>-> >>speaking louder than words.
->>-> >>a couple of months ago, you falsly accused adrienne
->>-> >>regard of forgery.
->>-> 
->>-> I did not.  Have you ever seen the post to which you keep referring
->>-> *ad nauseam*?

->>of course, you fool. i was one of the first to call
->>on you to apologize. see. note that the message id
->>in the reference line is to your post. just think,
->>had you apologized back then on october 27th or
->>shortly thereafer many fewer people would see you as
->>a liar.

->Yes, Keegan, I see.  You have made some deletions, of course.

of course. only newbies leave irrelevant context in
follow-ups. did you never read the guidelines for new
users?

->Including all the evidence that I "accused Adrienne of forgery".
->Except, of course for the thread title, which has a string of
->symbols beginning and ending in  ?  Hardly an accusation.

since your entire message has since been reposted, i
think readers will be able to form their own opinions
about what you did and did not do.

i do admit that, at that time, i thought you were a
harmless, rather limited git, and that you'd
immediately post an apology and move on. so, i was
wrong about the 'harmless' part.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.config,alt.config
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Want to adopt
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 04:06:47 GMT

From (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
> In article hammond@stimpy.serum.kodak.com (Kevin Hammond (x37516)) writes:
>>
>>My wife and I would like to adopt a baby.  We are in our very early 30s and
>>are financially secure.  If you know of someone that is pregnant and would
>>like to consider adoption, please put them in touch with us.  Of course 
>>we would pay all of their legal and medical expenses.
>>...<etc.>
> 
> Doesn't Kodak have a very strigent policy about company computer resources
> being used for non-company purposes?

For Pete's sake.  Kodak takes a very dim view of .signatures, posted every
day attached to political opinion articles, in which the author claims to
speak for Kodak and all it's subsidiaries.

THAT is what got Dan Bredy in trouble.

You just hate any suggestion that someone might WANT a baby,  don't you
Keith.   That such a poster might cross your path is what disgusts you,
doesn't it.

For Mr. Hammond's information, I have passed on his original post to a
family I know facing an untimely pregnancy right now, but of course I
can't guarantee the outcome.

S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.policy
From: brinck@pd-dom.wl.com (John Brinck)
Subject: Re: Kodak's Official Policy (formerly: Want to adopt)
Organization: Warner Lambert / Parke-Davis
	<1993Jan24.203827.24969@rotag.mi.org>
	<1993Jan25.130932.10745@wam.umd.edu>
	<1993Jan25.214821.29561@Happy-Man.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:49:22 GMT


In article <1993Jan25.214821.29561@Happy-Man.com> irving@Happy-Man.com (Irving_Wolfe) writes:

>   As a shareholder in Kodak, and hence (part of) the ultimate 
>   authority and employer at the company, I thought I should share my 
>   perspective on this.  

  .
  .
  .

>   2.  Any use of company property or resources for non-company 
>   purposes must be purely personal and not for a side-business, 
>   another affiliation (even if charitable or religious), etc.,

  .
  .
  .

>   -- 
>    Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com      Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x101
>    4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399   fax x108
>    We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.   NextMail OK
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   Info free; sample $20.  Send POSTAL addrs: Solid-Value@Happy-Man.com
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pardon me while I laugh.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Kebbie's weakest flame yet
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:45:16 GMT

In article <vkg396@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>	[article numbers deleted for space]
>
>>"kevin, you've often argued in favor of abortion restrictions."
>>				James G. Keegan Jr., keegan@acm.rpi.edu
>
>Where does he mention legislation?

"Legislatively-imposed" is implicit when "abortion restriction" is used in 
this forum. Unless, of course, specifically indicated otherwise.

>>"for years, i've been arguing that you wanted to
>> restrict women's right to terminate a pregnancy."
>>				James G Keegan Jr, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com
>
>Where does he mention legislation?

Where does he distinguish between different kinds of "restriction"?

>>? "i haven't seen kebbie argue for legislation."
>
>Oh, here he mentions legislation.
>
>>"sure you do, kevin. you argue against women's right
>> to terminate a pregnancy quite frequently."
>>				James G Keegan Jr, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com
>
>No mention of legislation here either.
>
>
>Gosh.  You'd think someone who posts to talk.abortion would have at
>least some glimmer of understanding of the difference between having
>a _personal_ agenda, and having a _legislative_ agenda.

Are you implying by "personal" that I only want to restrict MYSELF from
aborting, Cathi? If not, then please explain to me the difference between a
"personal" restriction, and a "legislative" restriction, since this new
distinction is not altogether clear to me...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 02:27:09 GMT


In article <2xh37s_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
 
>the least he could have done was credit me at the
>originator of his propeller beanie.
 
Hey if credit is to be handed out, lets not forget why the 
little fool was running around his computer room with the
propeller beanie on.  
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Carol Everett
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:45:22 GMT

In article <81374@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> In article <1993Jan22.163003.20523@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> |Ahem. Being rich does not make them not non-profit. Allow me to
> |point out United Way once again, which probably has quite a bit
> |of money as well(distributing money being it's purpose) and
> |as Mr. Kaflowitz pointed out to me, it is quite demonstrably
> |non-profit.
> 
> Understood.  However, people cried FOUL at the big guy at United Way,
> didn't they?

I just want to add that the scandal involving the director of
United Way was especially embarrassing for those of use who have
worked for United Way (as a volunteer with no compensation at
all).  The local United Way that I worked with, United Way of
Bloomfield, had a rate of less than 5% for administrative expenses,
which is what you call any money not actually sent to the charities
supported.  Tri-State United Way, of which United Way of Bloomfield
was a member, had administrative expenses of approximately
3%.  This is in contrast with some major charities that have
administrative expenses of well over 50%.  I believe the
American Cancer Society is way over 50%, to name one.  The
scandal described above tarred United Way's name, but people
should understand that this one incident does not reflect
that charity as a whole.

Also, you can get a list from any United Way chapter in your area
to find out exactly which charities it supports.  You can also
obtain information on their administrative expenses.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:55:26 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan25.093753.3864@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>How can the fetus' liberty be valuable?  Of necessity, it is 
>on a very short leash.  It is in the nature of a fetus to
>have very little liberty.  Whenever I see the argument that
>fetuses should have the same rights/liberties as anyone else,
>I always wonder, how are you going to go about allowing them
>to peaceably assemble?

You've got a good point.  I could say, "Well, if they WANT to, LET them
assemble!"  :)  Of course, that would be ludicrous.

(And then that Simpsons episode, where Maggie restored all those pacifiers
to the babies in the day-care center, comes to mind.  All those babies just
sucking...spooky.)

Perhaps what I should have said is that they should have the same
protection under the law as everyone else, rather than the same liberties/
rights.

If you see a problem in THAT statement, let me know.  I'm struggling with
this issue the same as the rest of you...

Thanks for spotting that flaw in the wording.

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate

(See?  Nice, friendly exchange.  No flamewars.  No problemo.  :) )

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57695 alt.abortion.inequity:6702
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: sexist assumptions
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:23:12 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>Man A's condom breaks, woman has abortion, man A pays no child support.
>>>>Man B's condom breaks, woman has child, man B pays $200,000.
>
>>Man A and man B have acted identically.  But only man B can be "fined"
>>(and indeed possibly imprisoned).  Why the difference?
>
>Because man B has a child that he is obliged to support.  Man A does not.

You've restated the problem, not answered it.

Why the difference?


Hints:  Who caused the difference?
        Who caused an obligation to exist, if one does in fact exist?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: the z/e/f's right to life
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:05:32 GMT

markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
# ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
# >Problem:  given that you're only able to determine a response to
# >external stimuli, how do you then infer reason or free will?
# 
# 1. I know through introspection that *I* have reason and free will.
# 2. I know the sorts of external behaviors I exhibit due to my reason
#    and free will.
# 3. When I see others, who are physiologically equipped for reason and
#    free will, exhibit similar behaviors, I ascribe reason and free will
#    to them.
# 
# ... or something like that.

Hmmm.  Mayhaps I should suggest that you first test each of those
three statements above for validity, *then* examine them as a set to
see if they are syllogistic.

My expectation is that you should be disappointed at every step.

However, if we take 1 as axiomatic, we're still up against a wall
with 2.  And 3 is fallacious and a non sequitur.  It is well known
that, for a set of similar events, each event may have a wildly
different cause.


-- 
+---------------------------+  I wasn't expecting it.  When Danny Elfman
| J H Woodyatt              |  sang the words, `goo goo ga choo,' Sunday
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  night, I cracked.  Some horrors are too
+---------------------------+  large to shade out.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Organization: NRL 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:06:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.210829.23804@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1k469aINN522@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> 
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>> The incredible misogyny of deciding a person vs. a perhaps-we-aren't-sure-
>> and-anyway-it's-harming-it's-host not-person in favor of the latter 
>> boggles the mind.
>>
>> The incredible mysogyny of reducing a woman to a breeding animal because of
>> *your* *personal* values also boggles the mind.
>>
>> It isn't a simple either/or scenario.  What abortion restriction entails is
>> returning women to the status of chattel, and nothing less.
>
>Sheesh, and to think that *I* get accused of "cheap emotionalism"
>because I use the term "child" instead of "fetus".  Ms. Regard goes
>whole hog here, using heavy emotionally-laden terms like "breeding
>animal", "misogyny", "chattel", all the while ignoring the simple 
>fact that the vast majority of women in America do not support 
>unrestricted abortion-on-demand.  Are the women who oppose abortion
>"misogynists", Ms. Regard?  Do they think of themselves as
>"breeding animals"?  Surely you must have a better opinion of
>American women than that.   
> 
>
>>Adrienne Regard
>
>
> "For some of us, abortion on demand *is* no more serious than demanding a
>  hamburger."
>   -- Adrienne Regard
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>
>

You forgot Muriel's immortal words descibing the unborn's use of a woman's
"body as its sewage system"  I know it would be interesting to hear a response
to you question regarding pro-life women ( those poor misguided souls) - don't
hold your breath, Doug.

- Paul

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: colette@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Colette Marine)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:01:41 GMT


>In <C1FxF5.L4I@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>For those who are personally opposed to abortion, but don't want to force their
>opinions on anyone, and are thus "pro-choice", could you please explain why you
>are against abortion, if not for the reason that it causes the death of an 
>unborn child, and if it causes the death of an innocent human, why do you act 
>in favor of allowing that to continue?

The real point of the matter for some people is the fact that their
*personal* opposition to abortion is a matter of faith, and they recognize
that they have no right to mandate their faith upon another person.
And, when I say faith, I'm not talking about religion.  I'm talking 
about the literal definition of faith, that is, belief of something
without "proof".  The fact of the matter is, either side can get 
"science" to rally under their banner pretty effectively.  When it
comes right down to it, most people are making their decision as to
whether abortion is ok or not ok based on gut feel.  They just really
believe it.  They've looked at the scientific facts on both sides
and they have chosen to believe one side or the other based on some
intangible gut feeling that it is the truth.  But, given that this
gut feeling is obviously quite different for other people, these
people generally recognize that one person has no more right to
tell another that their fetus is a "child" than that other person has
to tell the original person that their fetus *isn't* a "child".
Thus, you get people who are personally against abortion, yet remain
pro-choice.

colette
--
Colette D. Marine             |cdm@nwu.edu
Inst.for the Learning Sciences|or
Northwestern University       |marine@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------
It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it

                  
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57479 talk.politics.misc:69364 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13571 alt.rush-limbaugh:14922