HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Is Schweikert coming out as AntiVet????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:11:56 GMT

ron@eatdust (Ron Schweikert) writes:

] I'm a Republican and believe in the sanctity of life.  


Gee Ron, I sure hope that you don't have
one of those "I support our Troops."
bumper stickers on your car.......


I'm a Vet, and I believe in the Sanctity of Close Air Support....

ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Daniel Dick and ignorance is bliss!
Date: 4 Sep 1992 08:30:28 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep3.152728.20037@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:
>What I want is an intelligent discussion with people who are willing to
>play by the standard rules of mature discussion--namely that they address
>the arguement of the *opposing* side straight on instead of misrepresenting
>it and mocking the misrepresentation.  Muster up inside yourself the courage
>and honesty to face the issues as they are instead of wasting everybody's
>time with your childish gibberish.  We don't want to hear it.

I'm always amused when some neophite pops up on the net and tells us all
how to go about our business.

1.  In the first place, the issues are addressed.  Interminably, repeatedly,
usually poorly.  They are hardly ignored in this forum, but there is a cycle
you need to watch for.  We get new folks all the time who are just as
earnest.  Have your fun with them.

2.  In the second place, the issue of abortion in the United States is 
intensely political.  It is *not* discussed as a rational exchange of ideas.
It is instead subject to the same mis/disinformation, cheap rhetoric and
agitating that other highly charged issues are.  You will likely see that
reflected in this newsgroup.

3.  Be careful of using "we"  (I know, cause I do it all the time.)  "We" 
doesn't mean much unless you are spokesman for your office, or have been
on this net for a *loooooonnnnnnggg* time.    That you don't want to see
thus-and-such is certainly valid.  That "we" don't is presumptuous, 
pretentious, and besides probably being completely untrue, is a thin appeal
to some invisible vote in an attempt to shore up your personal viewpoint.
Let your viewpoint stand proudly on it's own.  

 
4.  Bear in mind that other folks don't necessarily subscribe to this net
for the same purposes that you do.   Some people come here to blow off
steam.  Some to inform.  Some to argue.  Some to rant.  Your motives are 
not binding upon others.

Carry on.
Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: People Concerned Until Childbirth
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:52:28 GMT

From article <1992Aug30.010613.3907@crd.ge.com>, by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to susan garvin:
> -> I also wish that you would display the same
> -> compassion towards the children who are going inside
> -> the clinic to be killed.
> 
> can you name one chile who walked into a clinic and was
> killed?


Can you say --- Becky Bell?
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34686 alt.religion.computers:653
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Mixed emotions...
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:40:51 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
[ pleasant part deleted as its far too wimpy ]
] Only problem is I began to delve into an account
] at nyx.cs.du.edu, and realized how much more news is received there,
] and at such a faster rate.  Yet reading news on this account is
] so much more convenient than the rn newsreader on nyx (how confusing
] for a newbie!).  Such terrible dilemmas I face!

This is Clear Proof that Brian is a 
Sick Perverted Depraved Hell Spawn Tool Of the Devil Moral Repropate!

sed 's/ //g'

RealMen use rn!

RealMen are NOT afraid of sed!

RealMen are not afraid of awk!

RealMen KNOW regular expressions!

RealMen grep life!

RealMen Use vi!

Wimpy wimpy wimpy little boys with small penises us
other news readers than rn! And Their Little thingie
shrivals up on them and withers away unto DUST!!!!!


ciao
drieux


ps: not like I have an opinion on this or anything....



-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Who is human?
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:35:32 GMT

In article <nyikos.714612404@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <ceZeicS00WBK42TGI7@andrew.cmu.edu> ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:
>>>12,000 to 15,000, I'd hate to see how badly you get bashed in return.
>
>>I am gay.  I strongly resent Mr. Nyikos's comparison between gay-bashing
>>and abortion or infanticide. 
>
>Why? are not newborn babies human just as gays are?  
>
	Not according to Patrick Buchanan, apparently.
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de ()
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 12:24:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.232601.15631@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.152616.972@sniap.mchp.sni.de>
>frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
>>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>
>>: 2) If you abort a e/f, you never *have* a child in the first place; if
>>: you give a child up for adoption, you do have a child (and for better
>>: or worse, will probably think of him/her for the rest of your life).
>
>>And an abortion will slip her mind?
>
>Certainly not.  I'm not discussing whether abortion or giving birth is
>emotionally easier in the short term here; I'm saying that - for
>*most* people - an abortion is over and done with, whereas the
>knowledge that someone else is raising your child is with you for the
>rest of your life (N.B. this is not necessarily bad!).

I'm not discussing the short term either.  

I don't accept that an abortion is ever over and done with 
as you suggest.

I'm saying that the knowledge of the child *you* might have 
raised, or might have had adopted, for that matter,  is with 
you for the rest of your life.   

In fact, all I'm saying is: abortion, for women who choose it,
is a Big Deal.  They will be affected by it for no little time.  
I find *your* claim about "most people" reveals very little 
understanding of human nature.

>Do you think that maybe some people start with their premises and from
>them decide that abortion is not wrong, rather than starting with the
>conclusion that abortion is okay and picking the premises to suit?
>(Hint: I basically don't think abortion is wrong, and I pride myself
>on intellectual honesty.)

Yeah, I think plenty of people intellectualise about moral problems.
Then one day it ceases to become a diverting parlour game and affects
them personally.

And then, some people go ahead and act on their conviction, and are 
subsequently filled with a sadness so deep it barely becomes known to 
them.  It's the difference between persuading your head that something 
isn't wrong, and knowing in your heart that it is.  

Of course, emotional honesty is much, much, more difficult than
intellectual honesty, and a lot rarer.

Hint:  For some people, this is not a mind game.

> --
> Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>             Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
--
Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 
Siemens-Nixdorf AG 	                        I will deny everything
Tel.  : +49 (89) 636-40639                      Fax.  : +49 (89) 636-45860
e-mail: Frank.ODwyer@sniap.mchp.sni.de
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another fantastic reason to vote for Bush
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:23:08 GMT

In article <kytyfza@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> The next-of-kin of an organ donor acts in the best interests
>> of the deceased when they give permission to transplant organs.

> Ummmm, Holtsinger, the deceased HAS no "best interests".

A living person may express their desire to have their organs donated
when they die.  The best interests of the deceased are often carried
through a will.  Although the deceased cannot verbally express any  
interests, we still do respect them.  We would not, for example, 
cremate the corpse if the deceased's religion called for a burial.  

>            -rocker


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 23:43:16 GMT

In article <nyikos.715294372@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scaroli
a.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <Btrr8A.4GJ.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>

>>I think that there's a "moral gulf" between Nyikos and Dr. Tiller
>>as well.  From everything that I've read about the man, George
>>Tiller is a principled man.
>
>You obviously haven't read what one of his former employees, pro-choice
>Luhra Tivis, has written about him.  But don't despair.  A post will be
>coming your way on this in a week or two.

No, I haven't read the piece of propaganda to which you refer.
I have, however, read things written by Dr. Tiller's patients,
and I've spoken with people who work with him.  I admire the
man.

>As for your implication about me, I suspect you wouldn't recognize a
>principled man if you met one.
I've met several.  They have a characteristic that is foreign
to you - integrity.  They don't repeat vile gossip that has
no basis in truth, they don't engage in speculation about
eventsand try to pass that speculation off as fact, and they
don't associate with liars.  

Susan
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's rant letter
Date: 1 Sep 1992 22:10:27 GMT
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   Should I feel irresponsible, because my reaction to the letter
was one of uncontrollable laughter, as opposed to concern that an
irrational psychopath such as Pat Robertson speaks to many people
who actually take his rantings seriously?

-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Subject: Pro-Choice?
Organization: Houston, TX
Distribution: talk
Date: 26 Aug 92 09:29:57

Just want to see how well this flies.

"I'm not pro-abortion, I'm PRO-CHOICE."

"Oh, really, well then are you willing to adopt some of those children
 whose mothers choose to give birth and give them up for adoption?  Or
 do you not really support that choice?"

Compare this dialog to its oft-repeated cousin.

Flames by e-mail, thanks.
--
Roy Johnson, who is not Kibo
Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: yuk yuk time
Date: 25 Aug 1992 11:34:17 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug25.155335.22265@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>I don't feel obligated to answer "yes" or "no" because the 
>pro-aborts have a habit of misrepresenting my views. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, let me nominate this one as the funniest post of the week!!!

Adrienne Regard
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33875 alt.flame:12401
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Goin' for the long haul (was Re: Life at conception...
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:58:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.002824.12491@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <23719@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>>Only a completely ignorant brainless waif would assume that an individual
>>posting from some company's account has any authority to speak for that
>>organization. I speak only for myself, at the behest of myself, stating
>>only my own opnions. What the opinions of my organization are, if any,
>>are both unknown to me and irrelevant to what I say. I would never presume
>>to speak for my organization, nor, do I think, have I ever presented
>>myself as speaking for them. (And, conversely, as far as I know, they
>>have never tried to instill any particular dogma in myself either.)

Well said, Ron.  

>Well, obviously CSUS' system administrators are brainless waif's. They told
>me and everyone else that if we ever put "I represent CSUS..." on our
>.sig's, they'll snatch us off of Internet so fast, we'll be suffering from
>whiplash.

Sheesh!  Steve, you really are your own worst enemy!
Some friendly advice: treat professionals with respect.  
(Yes, I know the first line was sarcasm -- but still...)

I would have written your paragraph as:

   Well, our system administrators clearly have a policy that frowns on 
   any .sig claiming to represent our organization.

The way you wrote it, you have a dangerous first line that could easily 
be misinterpreted by the humor-impaired.  You also have a second line 
full of hyperbole which I am sure did not originate with your sysadmins.  
You are in effect putting words in their mouths and making them sound 
less professional than they really are.

Think before you write.

Just some friendly advice.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:19:36 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug25.174938.36880@watson.ibm.com> Larry writes:

> In  <1992Aug25.125323.13224@menudo.uh.edu>  HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >
> >   As Grand Poobah of the He-Man Woman-Hater's Society, I have in fact, been
> > granted just those powers under our Constitutional Charter.  In the interests
> > of peace, I have entered into this agreement with well-known bomb-throwing
> > reactionary, Mark "IRA" Kaufman, to subjugate all women to our will, return
> > them to the kitchens and washrooms where they belong,
> 
> I will fight these efforts with everything in my power, you sexist, fascist,
> misogynistic scum-sucking pig.

  DIE YOU LIBCONSERACOMMIEPUBLICAN WEENIE!!!

> > and create a harem of sex-slaves to service our every depraved whim.
> 
> Umm, but if you win, we're still pals, right?  :-)

  Well, I suppose if you've got a Mastercard, something might be arranged...

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

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:39:18 GMT

In <92238.230642ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.035838.2340@ncsu.edu> Doug Holtsinger says:
>>In article <nyikos.714612404@milo.math.scarolina.edu> Peter Nyikos writes:
>>>ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:
>>
>>>> I am gay.  I strongly resent Mr. Nyikos's comparison between gay-bashing
>>>> and abortion or infanticide. Gay people are part of the social order,
>>>> whether certain groups wish to think kind thoughts about us or not.
>>>> Third trimester abortion and infanticide involve the killing of beings
>>>> not yet in the social order
>>
>>> I wonder...how many pro-choicers share Mr. Loomis's view of infanticide?
>>> How many agree that newborn babies are not yet appropriate objects for
>>> ethics?
>>
>>I don't think you're going to get any answers from the pro-choicers
>>on this newsgroup.  Michael Loomis has occasionally expressed the
>>view that infanticide is not wrong, and I've never seen a pro-choicer
>>disagree with that view.

>I have never seen Mr. Loomis express the
>view that infanticide is not wrong. 

Did you miss the remark about ethics in my response?  I lifted it right
out of Loomis's piece.
 
> I
>do disagree with his contention that infants
>are not members of the social order, just as
>I disagreed with Mr. Loomis on August 2nd
>that some women in less than ideal circumstances
>are manipulated into carrying a fetus to term.

Good.

>What is a rare sight is prolifers admonishing
>the homophobic misogynist prolife loon,

I haven't seen any so far.  Give some examples.

> but
>then you're all one big happy family, no
>disent, no disagreements, no individuality.

Do you classify "Jammer Jim" Miller as a pro-lifer?  Earlier today,
along the THIRD TRIMESTER thread, I sadly concluded that he and
"Killer Tiller" of Wichita aren't as far apart as I thought.  (They
are still very far apart, though.  And I sure hope what Jammer Jim
is morally opposed to is very different than what he's support legal
restrictions against.)

Also, I disagree, so far, with the pro-lifers who don't allow any
period for elective abortion.  And I don't think I'd ever want to take
away the first week after fertilization. 

>Linda
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Killing (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Keywords: I think I did this before...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:26:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.205241.22365@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

}                                                             The  
}states are free to pass laws restricting the use of deadly force,
}for example.  

That's not true at all, Doug.  Consider the case of the NG or the ANG.
While they are sort of under the governors' control, they are very
much under the control of the feds.  The states are not free to pass
any laws which would restrict their use of deadly force, neither are
they free to determine how and where these forces may be trained or 
deployed.  This is just one instance (with which I am rather familiar) 
in which the states do not have a free hand whatsoever in the use of 
deadly force, I'm sure there are others.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A DIRECT QUESTION FOR HOLTSINGER...
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:55:41 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  <1992Aug25.155335.22265@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> I don't feel obligated to answer "yes" or "no" because the
> pro-aborts have a habit of misrepresenting my views.

Translation:  Every time Doug says something, people bring it up when he
later says the exact opposite.  If he doesn't say anything, it will be
less embarrassing for him.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Drieux!  I can't do this one credit!
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:53:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.215256.15400@advtech.uswest.com>
stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <78826@ut-emx.uucp>
>andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:

>>John, you DO realize that the fetus/embryo/baby/whatever is completely
>>disjoint from the father's body, don't you?

>Nope.  Part of me now exists PHYSICALLY separated from me, but it is
>still a part of me, and I have a GREAT deal of interest in what happens
>to it.

But....  But "disjoint" and "physically separated"....  And "a part
of" him....  Never mind.

Over to you, drieux.
-- 
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: dyer@marina.asd.sgi.com (Dyer Crouch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Can you say - B. Bell?
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:48:50 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

From article <1992Aug30.010613.3907@crd.ge.com>, 
>by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to susan garvin:
> -> I also wish that you would display the same
> -> compassion towards the children who are going inside
> -> the clinic to be killed.
> 
> can you name one chile who walked into a clinic and was
> killed?

>> Reply from Suzanne F.:

>>Can you say --- Becky Bell?



Suzanne you dip. Becky was killed because she did not
want her parents to know about her abortion & got one
illegally. These illegal abortions are the ones killing
BOTH mother & fetus. Even if you are pro-life you need
to realize that making abortions illegal could raise
the total number of people who die. Now it's fetuses
but we could be seeing BOTH fetus & mother. Why do you
think B. Bells parents now tour the country speaking
out against parental consent laws? Thier lesson was
learned at the cost of a daughter. Do you need someone
close to you to die for you to see what positions
freedom  limiting laws put people in?

Get a clue.

    dyer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion