HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:43:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.235856.22856@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>[> >In article <1992Sep22.145142.12511@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) 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.
>[> >
>[> >iI'd like to observe that Owsley Stanley made a lot more money
>[> >selling LSD (something like 3-10 million doses) then Rush will make on
>[> >his book. There are several distinct parallels between the two:
>[> 
>[> LSD is illegal, dude. The Medellin Cartel will make more money this
>[> year than ANYONE, even Ross Perot. Does that make the Medellin's drugs
>[> better than Rush's book? 
>
>iLSD is illegal *now*, but it wasn't when Owsley was making it (early
>60s). Owsley was buying the basic ingrediants over the counter and spreading
>the good word, as it were, for a handsome profit. Owsley was supplying
>80% of the acid in the western US when Keasey and his pranksters where
>traveling the country, turning people on - and it was entirely above board.

As is Rush's book. At least his book is *still* legal. So what else is new?

>iOwsley never broke the law. He paid taxes on his profits, and
>donated most of the rest to the Grateful Dead, in an effort to build the
>worlds greatest sound system. I think he's still living in England, retired.

Okay, so he didn't got to jail. Did Rush?


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "I only want to hurt your for a little while" - "Prince"
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:38:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.150717.28636@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.180259.402@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.174017.20251@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>Hint - it's not 3 inches of air separating the fetus from becoming a child.
>>>If you press up against a woman without her permission, she doesn't have
>>>the right to blow you away.  If you try to stick your dick in her without
>>>her permission, she does.  
>>
>>Only in some states.
>Please post the name of a state which has a law forbidding the use of lethal
>force to prevent a rape, Oh Mighty Net.Lawyer.

In the absence of a special exception, ANY deliberate use of lethal force upon 
one person by another is considered murder or manslaughter, and is thus 
forbidden. All 50 states have murder and/or manslaughter laws. If you or Larry 
want to contend that special exceptions for rape self-defense exist in all 
states and every case, I feel that the burden of proof is on YOU to cite each 
and every one.

>>Only as a recent innovation.
>Please post the case citations where a person was convicted of Murder for
>using lethal force to prevent a rape, Oh Mighty Net.Lawyer.

The charge probably wouldn't be "murder", it would probably be "manslaughter".
I don't have access to a law library or legal database, so I can't provide
specific case cites. However, since you and Larry are arguing for _exceptions_ 
to established rules of law, I think it's reasonable to ask you to document 
your case.

>>Only for deterrent effect, which doesn't apply to the abortion issue.
>
>Um, if somebody comes up and tries to forcibly perform an abortion on a
>woman, I think you could pretty much get away with "minimun force necessary"
>to prevent them.

As I explained to Larry, there is a miscommunication here: the sentence above 
was intended to refer to the purpose for which the laws were created -- 
deterrence of would-be rapists -- *NOT* the circumstances under which the 
exceptions apply. 

>>Please stop citing this aberration as if it were a relevant, established 
>>legal principle, Larry. I've corrected you multiple times now, you're 
>>starting to border on intellectual dishonesty.
>
>Please prove that this "aberration" is not a "relevant, established legal
>principal".

I have typed the relevant parts of the legal definition of "self-defense"
many times already. Doug Holtsinger has also cited legal authorities on this
point. Larry has not only ignored all of the substantial legal arguments, but
the only "legal authority" he has cited is some standing policy of the NYPD.
I think it's high time Larry anted up. We've already done our part.

>And stop sucking up to Peter Nyikos.

Grow up.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:01:46 GMT

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu writes:
->|there was another way for you to resolve the dilemna.
->|you could have told the truth.

->I think it is clear to most readers that I did tell the truth.

i doubt it. and the evidence clearly shows that you did
not. perhaps more relevant, not a single participant on
the mailing list has supported your lie. my position,
on the other hand, has been supported.

->I stated my opinion in good faith.  I
->believed it to be the truth.

i don't believe you. my erroneous admission was made
after your false allegation. the only "evidence" you
had when you posted your lie was a repost of an article
which had already been posted publically in t.a. with
no commentary from me.

at the time, i thought you had made an honest mistake
which you would correct. instead you have perpetuated
it, posting new lies along the way.

->Thus, you have failed to support your allegation of a lie.

i not only supported my allegation of your lie about
me; i supported your lie/smear of suzanne lucia and
your subsequent lie that the matter was not contested
at the time it occured.

->|presumably, this is why you used as evidence my erroneous
->|email rather than the post to the mailing list which you lied
->|about me making.

->You seem confused-- you did indeed send mail to the list, and
->you include it below.  How could I lie, then, by saying that you
->had sent mail?

how easily you seem to forget when you are scrambling.

what you said, and i quote, was:

	"I know that Keegan used the mailing list 
	to try to get people to post in support of
	him." 
	
your "evidence" didn't exist when you wrote that. the
actual posts prove your statement was not true.

you have demonstrated that you possess no
personal character. when you first posted your lie,
a couple of people who knew it was a lie urged me to go
public with the posts. i disregarded their advice and
crafted my comments on this subject in such a way as
you leave you a credible out. looking back, i wish i
had exposed you immediately.

you disgust me.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: About Nyikos' historical data (?)
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:34:24 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep23.224414.41909@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Tweedledum) writes:
>In  <nyikos.717273977@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Sep20.183647.26663@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>>
>
>True, but in Latin fetus means pregnant; fruitful; fertile.  The English
>word is derived from Latin, but has a different meaning.

I checked my dictionary and got the same thing. Congratulations, a honest
fact from Larry Margolis!

Is someone else on your account today?

=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39926 alt.abortion.inequity:4198
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What a difference ~20 weeks make... (Was: Observations)
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:36:12 GMT
     <Bv49L3.FtD@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:

[A fine example of in medias res, Richard, but some context might help.]

>Yes Steve, because i'm pro LIFE (and don't copy megs of other peoples
>messages into my message)

It's a courtesy to those who might be reading these out of order, or
those who don't take notes on every message to pass through their
reader.  I'm sorry you see it as a waste, but I guess you'll just have
to deal -- I'm not about to stop using something this convenient because
you don't like it.

>I'm a baby worshiper.  

So much for the concept of an omniscient god.  :-)

>That may be but look.  

Huh?

>We are talking about a
>life that will be born if we no NOTHING.  

Are we?  You mean laissez faire prevents miscarriages?  prevents maternal
deaths?  prevents stillbirths?  Well, DAMN, hands off, everyone!

>If the mother continues and
>has no abortion the baby will be born.  

Not always.  Don't make blanket statements you can't justify.

>When you RIP it from her womb
>that is murder.  

Certainly -- that level of physical trauma would easily kill the mother.

>You are cutting it's throat for all intensive purposes. 

Well, I don't usually act on my laid-back ones.

>So how can you justify 9 months of inconvience for the mother with a 
>humans life?

It's her choice, one way or the other.

>(I bet
>you people don't even know who said "My power is beyond you understanding"!)

Obi-Wan Kenobi, among others.  Your point?

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.

                Steve Chaney Memorial Anti-Roman Catholic .sig
        "Gettin' ecstatic and sorta dramatic and doin' The Vatican Rag!"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:05:15 GMT

In article <QemkVNy00VI=Q190kf@andrew.cmu.edu>
Elizabeth Cornelia Green <eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
>1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
>judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
>the deaths of millions?!

I can see all doctors and biologists who research antibiotics
trembling.  (You didn't: a) specify millions of *what*, b) prove that
God objects to the death of any or all z/e/fs.)

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Female Contraception: Article References
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:50:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.071152.166141@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" writes:
 
>>> I recently asked why pro-choicers generally don't include education
>>> of the risks of abortion when talking about education. Someone felt
>>> that I was using scare tactics and that I should back up my assertions.

>>> Not remembering who it was, I told him 'fair enough' and that I would
>>> try to post some data. I have not yet found what I'm looking for, but
>>> I'm only looking in paper articles presently, because that information
>>> is more easily posted to the net. Also, there is such a plethera of
>>> articles on female contraception, that I could not possibly have the
>>> time to post a hundredth of them.

>> I am sure these articles are interesting. However, you haven't yet
>> backed up your assertions about the risks of abortion.

> Gee - you want her to back up her assertion with facts actually related
> to her assertion?  You're tough.  Sure she couldn't back up her (erroneous)
> assertions about the risks of abortion with some really interesting facts
> regarding the sex lives of wombats?

Well, some pro-aborts rely on organizations like the "National Abortion
Federation" and the "Alan Guttmacher Institute" for their information, 
which are both rabidly pro-abortion organizations.  Some pro-aborts 
even have the audacity to pretend that these organizations are unbiased!  


>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:37:08 GMT

In <lcml1oINNmu6@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM 
   (Eric Marsh) writes: >

>> Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?
>
>> Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
>> 1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
>> judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
>> the deaths of millions?!
>
> Yea, right. Judgement day. Yea, right.
> 
> I don't know why people even bother to post this superstitious crap.

One also wonders about the intentions of those who maliciously 
derogate the religious convictions of others.  If only we were
all Wiccans...

> All it does is make them look like know-nothings.

Based on your comments, I suspect that there are those who've reached 
similar conclusions about the proponents of Wicca.  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: This ain't my first rodeo... (Was: Christian Perspective...)
Summary: Let's get off the "wanted" schitck, ok? 
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: Mon, 28 Sep 92 03:09:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.211130.8098@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> 
>
>Because, IMHO, it would be murder to prevent a wanted and healthy child
>from 
>comming into the world.

Um, Eric some points:

1)  It's spelling "coming".  Your way of spelling it always makes me think
    you're trying to write some trashy porn article.  Thanks.

2)  When was the last time you heard of a woman with a "wanted and healthy"
    z/e/f obtaining an abortion?

>Exactly.  Let me give you something to think about.
>
>See someone fall off a cliff and they just happen to catch hold of
>something, which saves their life temporarly...they will no be able to hold
>on forever.  You are able to save this persons life with absolutly no risk
>to yourself in any way, shape or form.  Is it permissable to allow this
>person to die?

Yes.
--
=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???=
= "I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting."               =
=    -- Peter Nyikos in article <nyikos.717105984@milo.math.scarolina.edu>    =
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40856 alt.pagan:10688 alt.sex:32075 soc.singles:27097
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.pagan,alt.sex,soc.singles
Subject: Well someone has to ask it...
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:03:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: wetware.1992Oct6.200334.9671
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

marty@world.std.com (Marty M HaleEvans) writes:

] This is one of the things I hate about net.arguments. Sometimes I just want
] to scream, "Please -- cut to the chase!!!"

Marty,

ok, so are you a 'Goer - nudge, nudge, wink, wink, Know what I mean?'

ciao
drieux

ps: or do we still have to be coy for half a dozen more
posts before you decide if we can go out on a date....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:09:46 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <25986@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri

>>Martin has come across as a pompous ignorant oaf.

>Please specify specific instances as well as reasons why you say this.

Your posts, which show your complete lack of respect for the person,
feelings, thoughts, and humanity of the woman involved, even when pointed 
out specifically, in your single, one-track thought process of SAVE 
THE FETUS. Future posts can always negate this impression, and I have
by no means read all your posts. Just the ones I responded to and your
responses to them, as well as the ones I alluded to in my responses,
and then some that I found unworthy of my time to respond to, as some
were adequately addressed by others.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:51:55 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct5.190140.19923@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
#In <6693@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu 
#   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
#
## What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
## about a dead young woman?  
#
#Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
#crusade.  
#

I'm somehow not surprised to see that Overpeck subscribes
to Chaney/Hall's "two wrongs make a right" tenet.  I'm
sure that Overpeck can now prove that the Bell's are involved
in a "malicious anti-RTL crusade."

## I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  
#
#I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...

See Dean's reply.

(Referring to public figures by their first names if they're
female and their last names if they're male is revealing, 
Overpeck.)

## ("It can't have happened the way that her family and best friends 
## described it, that would ruin our argument that women don't resort 
## to desperate measures.  I know, let's call her a drug-addicted slut 
## and hire a teenager and a few pet doctors to make some more innuendos.  
## The suckers will believe us.  They believe everything.")
#
#I don't know what happened with Becky Bell.  

That's a refreshing admission.

#She may epitomize the 
#kind of tragedy many pro-choicers want to avoid, and she may not.  
#I do have an idea of what her parent's agenda is, though, and it 
#seems to be based on some misguided sense of revenge.  

I believe that their agenda is to prevent any more needless
deaths of teenagers.  I guess in Overpeck's twisted mind,
this implies an ulterior motive.

#Maybe if 
#they weren't touring the country blaming their daughter's death 
#on the right to life movement, no one would bother looking into 
#the circumstances surrounding that death.  But that's not really
#their fault.  Eleanor Smeal and the Fund for the Feminist Majority
#proudly trot the Bells out in front of audience after audience to 
#relive the pain of losing their daughter.  I'm sure they don't see
#themselves as the victims of political expediency, but that's how
#I see it. 

I've met Bill and Karen Bell, and they're no one's fools.  You may
need to believe that they, like the women you seek to "protect",
are incapable of making their own decisions, but that's your
problem.    (How do you feel about the anti-abortion movement's
use of Gianna Jessup?)

## You're disgusting, Nyikos.  
#
#Save some of your disgust for Eleanor et al.

I save my respect for Ms. Smeal, thank you.  

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:25:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.212542.15227@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <2927195477.0.p00056@psilink.com> 
>p00056@psilink.com (Faustus) writes:
>
>> Well.. Teddy.. Its sure is nice you aren't a woman.. You never will 
>> experience doubts, fears or trepidations of not being able to afford 
>> an unwanted child..
>
>And you will never face being torn to pieces by an abortionist's curette 
>or his vaccum cleaner.  
>
>But when you get old and senile, and you become a burden to society,
>would you mind if we tore your body to pieces with a giant vaccum 
>cleaner and dumped your body parts into a garbage can?  Surely you
>wouldn't mind having the same thing done to you which you advocate
>for others.
>

Heh!  I personally think that all men who oppose abortions
(usually religious freaks) are in fact jealous of the guys
who get to look up women's vaginas all day and get paid 
for it.

They're sick, that's what they are.  Does anyone else find
that they doth protest too much?

Or it could be a case of womb envy.

Disgusting perverts.


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@Ariel.yorku.ca

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Sarah Weddington
Date: 1 Oct 1992 19:40:40 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

>
>Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?

>Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
>1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
>judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
>the deaths of millions?!

Yea, right. Judgement day. Yea, right.

I don't know why people even bother to post this superstitious crap.
All it does is make them look like know-nothings.

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:36:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.172927.22640@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>
>
>What happens when, in the comming years, medical science develops a way to
>remove the fetus from the mother and is able to take care of it in such a
>way as to eliminate this problem and still have something that will develop
>into a child (be born)?
>

Are you referring to embryonic or fetal transfers?  Where the embryo is
transferred to the womb of another woman?  I'm all for that, if the
"donor" woman and the "recipient" woman are both willing!  I think that
is a wonderful option to abortion and I welcome the day when it can happen.
I think when (for I do believe it will happen) this technology becomes
available and cheap (remember, it must be cheap!) that for the most part,
abortions will become unnecessary, as long as there is a supply of 
willing "recipient" women.  However, if "recipient" women are like
prospective adoptive parents and only want white perfect babies, then
I think we haven't solved much of a problem.

Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright