HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 22:38:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: na

patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes ...
> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>   What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.
>>
>>Suzie, we've been through this before.  Gay men do not hate women.  We
>>are just not sexually attracted to them.  Get it? 
>
>You know that, I know that, most people with more than a single functioning
>neuron know that -- but you have to keep in mind that "not being sexually
>attracted to" is the definition of "hate" in this week's version of
>Suzanne's Variable Dictionary of the English Language...:-)

Well, since I presume that Ms. Forgach is not attracted to women, then she
must, therefore, hate women.  Say, that explains quite a bit, doesn't it?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: New Names for things...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:33:48 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
] In article <1992Sep3.152443.26511@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
] # The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman can
] # have babies without the kindness of a man.
] 
] You didn't really mean to write this, did you?

Komrade, 

I feel that you have missed the new Extended list
of The Enlightened Extension of Excellence.

'the kindness of a man' is a NeoLogism for:

The Divine Wand of Wonderment.

I really wish that you would keep abreast of
the New Terms of Significance, so as to understand
how to correctly interpret a posting.

We no longer refer to it as 'rape' either,
it is merely preserving a 'man's right to reproduce'
a most important RIGHT being attacked by RadFem's....


ciao
drieux


first they wanted to be merely citizens with
full legal rights, now they wish to chip away
at Male Perogatives....


-- 
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: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Doug Holsinger: Anti-Semite?
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 07:12:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>From article <lefty-310892165951@lefty.apple.com>, by lefty@apple.com (Lefty):
>> Oh, and for the record, I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this
>> statement, either.
>
>And for that, you are extreme and reprehensible.

Ms. Forgach.  I've been reading your posts for some time now and I must 
admit that I am utterly puzzled.  I don't understand what it is you are
trying to accomplish or what your motives are.  You preach love, but show
hatred, you ask understanding, but speak only dogma and rigidity, and
you claim to be a Christian.  If you are attempting to convert anyone 
to your way of thinking about abortion, you are going about it the wrong
way.

What gives?

And to everyone else reading this, I ask that you refrain from making
any snide, hateful, sarcastic, useful, or forgiving comments.  I could
have done them myself.  This is a sincere query.  I make in publicly
in the hopes of furthering some understanding.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Here's a thought...
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:30:08 GMT


dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.031004.2591@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>> A thought just occured to me.  One that would make the pro-lifers "put their
>> money where their mouth is" in some respects.
>>
>> If you're a pro-lifer, find some woman who is under 2 months pregnant, and
>> is planning on aborting, and offer her the following deal:
>>
>> For the next nine months, you two will be chained together at the neck.  If
>> she needs to get up and go to the restroom 10 times a night, so will you.
>> [...]
>> What do all you pro-lifer's think?

>You forgot about the part where the woman consents to sexual 
>intercourse with her partner.  

Of course he didn't!  One presumes that the pro-"life"r would
"consent" to being chained to the woman.  And once he consents
to the attachment, he has certainly consented to any of the
unpleasantness that might follow, wouldn't you think?

>Do we assume that the woman 
>and the pro-lifer would be chained together while she's having 
>intercourse?  Would the pro-lifer be required to have a simultaneous
>orgasm with the woman?  Should the pro-lifer be required to 
>join in their love-making?  Does the pro-lifer sleep in the  
>wet spot?  

This is a rather, errrr, interesting fantasy you have.  Best of
luck in finding a willing woman.

>Doug Holtsinger

                      -rocker
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Date: 13 Sep 92 00:38:27 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Sep11.014947.174@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child):
>> "So, you would charge the abortionist with murder and counsel the woman.
>>  What if the woman herself IS the abortionist?"

>I would suggest nothing worse than a fine or community service, but more
>likely counselling and rehab.

So, you don't really believe that abortion is murder, do you?  Do you honestly
think that a woman who murders her five-year-old daughter should only
pay a fine and do rehab?

>With such murderous thoughts for women on your mind, 
Hey, honey, those thoughts are Steve Chaney's, not mine.  He's the one who
wants to throw self-aborting women in the slammer.  And maybe worse.

>...I can reasonably assume you flunked your ethics and religion classes.

Heh.  No, sorry, all A's... even though I always asked questions that made
the teachers squirm.

Just like you're probably squirming now with the question I just asked you.

--Teddi
----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)---------------
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:51:04 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Sep10.131023.29242@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <43640@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>
>}If one supports the prevention of a certain type of legislation (e.g aspects
>}of the US constitution) - then one is effectively supporting a form of 
>}legislation.

>...I heartly disagree.

Isn't it the case that the US Constitution has been used to make invalid
certain laws which restricted abortion?

>}          But I believe that some laws restricting abortion could work.
>
>Do you have examples?  Projections?  Estimates?  Or is your belief
>based on faith?

Partly on faith, yes.
I see that murder laws work to some extent.
So do rape laws.
And robbery laws.
And many many other laws.

I see no reason why an anti-abortion law would be an exception.

Unless of course a majority of people didn't want it.

But in that case - it would never get made law in the first place would it?

>That law "protects" by inhibiting action is hardly a commonly accepted
>outcome.   

Of course.  And I didn't mean to imply such.

>I would think it is fear of retribution, rather than the law, that inhibits 
>some activity.  

No doubt.  But the law serves as a legal means of dealing out that retribution.
As such, it - the law - serves to modify behaviour.

>'Scuse me, let me rephrase that.  Given two equally unprincipled
>candidates, you would rather vote for the one who might enact
>legislation over the one who wouldn't consider it.  You'd rather
>a bad law than no law at all, all else being equal.

If I was convinced that the law was going to be bad, I'd assess the "badness"
and may vote contrariwise.

So far however, the current situation is so horrific, that I can't imagine
getting a law which made things worse.

tommy
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: <None>
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:45:25 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep4.234553.18896@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):
>> 
>> Sure there are precautions that she can take to reduce the chance of 
>> pregnancy, but not a single one of them, including abstinence, is 100%
>> reliable.
>  
> This, Mr. King, is garbage.

No, Suzanne, it is quite true.  Sure, if you actually *do* abstain,
it's 100% effective, but abstinence as a method of birth control
is not 100% reliable for everybody.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean)
Subject: Re: The mother of all Sonogram wars
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: Saddam Hussein. NOT.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 01:42:03 GMT


What's with the sonogram reference?  Are sonograms supposed to
change the way pro-choicers think?  Isn't this the same warped
line of reasoning held by that "I'm talking psychology not
science" guy, that if women had disgusting goo-people growing
on the *outside* of their bellies then there would be less
abortions in the world?

I'm still pro-choice.  Does that make me evil?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca  -  bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Date: 14 Sep 1992 16:34:43 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Sep14.030925.385@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>We have essentially the same situation here. Mr. Nyikos said, in effect

>	Maybe Robertson was referring to the Wicca subset of Feminism

>. You read that as implying that ALL Wiccans are Feminists. Universal
>quantification, in other words. I, on the other hand, read it as implying
>only that a "Wicca subset of Feminism" exists, i.e. at least one Wiccan is a
>Feminist. Existential quantification, in other words.

Read his words. He said that Wicca is a subset of the feminist movement.
Seems pretty clear to me.

>Nyikos is no liar, any more than Forgach was a liar back then. If you 
>acknowledge that their statements are parallel, then you should also 
>acknowledge that Nyikos did NOT imply that -all- Wiccans are Feminists,
>and withdraw your "rebuke".

You are wrong. Read his words. BTW I didn't say he was a liar, just that
he didn't know what he was talking about.

>								- Kevin

Eric
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36241 alt.discrimination:4351
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Sorry guys, still uncalled for.
Summary: Now if only DOD and POC would figure that out...
Date: 12 Sep 1992 23:53:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Not this weekend, thank you.

In article <BuHIMw.Gzo.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <BuDHo2.A2p@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>#In article <1992Sep9.213323.8345@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>[text deleted, before and after the quote]
>
>>>I will continue to bring it up, until you apologize to Mr. Chaney.
>
>So, Holtsinger, if I ask Chaney to apologize for the sexist comments
>that he's made, will you continue to bring *that* up until
>he apologizes?  If I ask you and Chaney to apologize to
>every Jewish reader of talk.abortion for all of the
>the anti-Semitic things that you both have said, will you
>broadcast your continued bigotry to the net and also complain
>about your failure to apologize.

Neither one of 'em knows enough to do anything else, from what I've seen.
(Isn't it funny how Beanie Boy is so "offended" by what I said, so much so
that he only re-posts it ad nauseam?)

>>Hey, if you want to look like as big an idiot as Chaney, be my guest.
>>It ain't my concern.
>
>Holtsinger is displaying a common characteristic of bigots.  
>He is trying to direct attention anywhere but towards himself.

And just like Chaney, he's utterly inept at it...:-)

-- 
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. 
                           I love my country.
                     I *don't* trust my government.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Not today, I'm on Vacation!
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:54:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.191051.13478@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.152443.26511@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
># The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman can
># have babies without the kindness of a man.
>
>You didn't really mean to write this, did you?

Yes, I did.  What do you think, my fingers slipped? :-)

>I'll pay you $5.00 if you post it to talk.rape.

A few questions:

How will you get the money to me?

How can I trust you to pay up?

Why would I post this to talk.rape, when it has no relationship to rape
at all?

Why do you think this would offend anybody, as it is the literal truth?

And finally, I followed talk.rape for a while and posted on a semi-regular
basis.  So what?  Why would I fear posting to talk.rape?

>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
>Space Systems/Loral

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 00:22:52 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

In article <18be3pINN7t8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
##In article <nyikos.715648645@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
##nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
###In <8yxyyyd@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
#### Ummmmm, you're demanding "unbiased" (according to _your_ criteria)
#### sources now?
#### Why don't we see these same demands when Nyikos quotes clearly
#### ANTI-abortion organizations?
### You see them all the time, from Larry Margolis, Susan Garvin,
### Adrienne Regard.....  
#
#Incorrect.  (Gee, I think that's *three* for three, Peter).  I don't
#demand unbiased sources, I debunk biased sources.  I rarely ask, let
#alone demand, that other's do research work for me, because it happens
#to be a pet peeve of mine when others ask me to do their research work
#for them.

I have asked to see unbiased sources.  (I don't recall demanding
them, but these people interpret requests as "demands" in more
than one case.)

I thought that your name was included because you had dared to
disagree with Nyikos, but I was re-reading old articles to
see if you'd suddenly changed before I commented.  Now I know
you haven't.

#But, since you've proven yourself to be rather good at leaping from
#impression A, and possibility C to FACTOID-DELUX_Pseudo/conclusion Y,
#it doesn't suprise me.

Remember, this is a man who claims that a coroner's report
is biased, but a report by the head of the National Right
to Life Committee is not.  s

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:32:14 GMT

In article <BuD06L.Dp.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Suzie Q) writes:
>In article <3x5y-pa@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Rock Biter) writes:
>#
>#This was great.
>#
>#From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official researcher of USENET's Astro_Boy v
>#irus)
>#
>#Due to the way nn shortens strings (sufficient text is cut from the
>#middle), this came up on my article list as 
>#
>#"Official virus"
>#
>#I like that.  It suits the Little Airplane Boy.
>#
>
>And he'll be so proud, too.

Sounds more like your brains were cut in half.  

This has got to be the lamest flame attempt on the face of the earth.

Suzie Q and Rock Biter sure make a good couple. Of assholes, that is.


=============================================================================
>##       "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)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Don't Call Me Scientifically Illiterate!  (was Re: Badges of Honor)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:18:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.003234.17030@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
}In article <1992Sep2.223616.17088@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
}>(Peter Nyikos) writes:

}>}   ...but a fetus is not part of her body...

}>Just when you think you have things figured out.  Doggone it Peter,
}>where do you suppose those little buggers are?

}Question, Galen: 

}What part of a woman's body leaves her in childbirth? 

}If the answer leans largely to "none," maybe because a woman's body
}does not have: 

}4 arms.
}4 legs. 
}2 hearts.
}2 brains. 
}2 different blood types. 

}Until those 5 facts change, anyone who says a fetus is part of a
}woman's body, is scientifically illiterate. 

Ok, ok... in a woman's body then.  Sheee.  The things I have to do to
not be called scientifically illiterate.  That doesn't mean I agree with
you Steve, I just don't want to be (shudder) scientifically illiterate.

Somehow this all ties in...  I guess..

Look Steve, I already believe killing is wrong.  I mean that much isn't
even a secret from my congresscritters, and I am not exactly forthcoming 
with them.  I don't doubt that a number of you folks sincerely believe
that something new happens at conception or thereabouts.  I don't 
challenge that either, except that I think it happens way before
conception.  

So what more do you want from me?  To say that a law would help?
I don't think it will.  It's that simple.  I see neither the need 
for a law (not to mention an amendment) nor do I see the benefit
of it.  I've heard a lot of folks talk about being pro-life, but 
I've seen no uncoupling of the legislative effort from other things
groups that claim to be pro-life do.  

I don't think "abortion" will ever be dealt with successfully through
legislative or political action.  It has been tried many times 
historically.  

Let me remind you that there is a hell of a lot of difference between
 
"What if they gave a war and nobody came."

and

"What if they gave a war but made it illegal to come."

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:33:18 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>> ANYONE voting for pro-choicers is like a human being voting for cannibals.

>> We eat other people??? How nauseating! :) (depending on what other people:)

I like Mexican, myself. :-P

> Well hey, harvesting fetal tissue for the bodily use of adults is certainly
> a form of cannibalism.

To carry this stupidity a little further, it's too bad that we can't cure
Parkinson's and Alzheimer's with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

I can't edit my newsgroup line; should we move this to alt.tasteless?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Sorry guys, still uncalled for.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:08:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: na

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>In article <BuBuHz.8w4@rice.edu> 
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>> Watch and see how
>> Chaney is the only one who keeps bringing it up 
>
>I will continue to bring it up, until you apologize to Mr. Chaney.

In the past year or so, I've seen the official virus lie, insult everybody
who disagreed with him, and goad people with his childish taunts in 98%
of what he posts.  What I have _not_ seen him do is apologize for anything
or admit he has ever made a mistake.

I would like to see several apologies from borgyboy; I don't expect to
get any.  While Patrick's comment was inappropriate and probably regretted,
propeller boy's reponse has not been deserving of an apology.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion