HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:23:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.105022.6279@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>But what on earth does support for anti-abortion have to do with either of
>these?  Men who want reproductive rights should be supporting abortion on
>demand.  If they don't then they are just fighting themselves, not women.
>Because if abortion is totally outlawed, then you can BET the number of
>men required to pay support will increase dramaticly.

I don't see your reasoning.

1.  Perhaps the number of pregnancies would go down (or extranational
abortions increase), if abortion were illegal.

2.  Perhaps the consequences of feminism would give men equal custody
(especially the younger generations) hence reducing the number of men 
paying support (and the number of women willing to risk pregnancy).

3.  Accurate paternity tests make things different from pre-Roe
days, and the effects aren't predictable on the face of the matter:
perhaps more fathers would be identified, or perhaps more potential
victims would be able to prove they weren't the father.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: SJM slur alert
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:37:56 GMT


Slur alert!  Examples of pro-abort rhetoric neatly woven in as mere 
incidental remarks:

In article <34653@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. 
Mezias) writes:

> If we just keep government out of women's uteri....

Here SJM raises the unfounded Orwellian fear of invasive government 
control.  Neat trick - Totally distracts one from the truth - it is the 
child in the uterus not the mean old government.

> ...not given the legal right to use their parents' bodies without
> permission.

Here SJM raises the bogus concept that the government never dictates how 
we use our bodies.  In fact, it does as a matter of course.

> I really like your analogies for the fetus FANATICS.  They do often
> seem like CRAZED snipers to me, ... 

(caps are mine - PL)

Here SJM uses the ubiquitous "bogey man" innuendo.  To be pro-life one 
must obviously be a crazed fanatic.  I hope you don't have any pro-life 
friends or relatives lurking in you closet!


>...the fact is that they are quite intentionally TAKING AIM AT WOMEN.
>...
> SJM
Totally unsupported - but sounds great to the unsuspecting politically 
correct.  I guess the millions of men let off the hook through the magic 
of the abortionist's wand is just incidental gravy.  Of course, men are 
just disinterested bystanders who have no stake whatsoever in keeping 
abortion legal.  And of course the concept of mothers killing their 
offspring is a good light to hold women to.  


Paul
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: You want to talk about nature?
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:14:23 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1h6ga9INNbm1@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>>Ummm... What do you mean? Elaborately decorated abortion sticks were not
>>uncommon among so-called primitive people.

>Neither was maternal death.

Ironically, it was far less common than among primitive agriculturalists,
and so-called modern civilization up until the 1950s. Fewer infections,
fewer pregnancies to weaken the structures, fewer bad effects of diseases
such as rickets and rheumatic fever...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Amazing Religious Bias?????
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 05:58:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.024441.19894@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.014427.17833@wetware.com> 

[Story deleted. DODie may feel free to violate the coyright, but I
respect it]

DODie, what, if any, relevance to abortion do you think this mans
business dealings have?
Repeat after me DODie...
This is talk.abortion, not talk.tax.evasion.
Say that 3 times.
Good boy. Here's a DODie biscuit for you.
Try not to choke on it, I doubt if anybody here would willingly
perform mouth to mouth on you...

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos' Idiocy
Date: 24 Dec 92 18:56:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec24.005024.12577@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug "get yer fat black ass down here" Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1136@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## I predict that you'll learn about some of these points of law
## some day, though.  Not everyone is as forgiving of libel and
## slander as I am.
#
#Gee, you know there's a certain someone who had often
#complained about libel and slander... I guess some 
#people are more alike than we realize. :-)

No, DODie, there was a certain idol of yours who threatened
to sue people.  I guess you're even less intelligent than
I had realized.

Have you had the delusion that you're more than one person
for very long?  What does your therapist say?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
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: Wed, 30 Dec 92 06:47:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.053535.20022@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec30.045412.9278@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.210053.27185@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>>can anyone explain why Dr. Nyikos chose to separate the
>>>supposed `boys' from the supposed `girls?'  Do I want to know?
>>>
>>He's afraid we might get them net.pregnant and they might choose to
>>have a net.abortion?
>
>I see that, not content with having won "most likely explanation", you're
>going after "most creative".  This is definitely a contender...

Well, I foolosihly told Susan I'd share the bonus points, so if I want
to stay ahead in the Petey Ny Scorecard Game, I better get all the
points I can. :)
Besides, it may seem creativeto you and I, but are you really certain
that Petey *doesn't* fear we'll somehow cause the above net.scandal?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:01:58 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
-> >No, stupid, you spent weeks trying to support your remarks,
-> >not the claim made in them,  You spent weeks trying to justify
-> >your having made such an idiotic remark.  
-> 
-> Would you not attack the spectacle of a child molester bragging about his
-> exploits, Dean?

not relevant, since it didn't happen. what happened is
you were so out-of-control needing to attack one of
your net.adversaries that you used the fact that your
adversary's SO was a child support victim to make your
attack.

some people would see that as the actions of one sick
puppy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 3
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Dec 92 21:02:59 GMT

Isn't it an *amazing* coincidence when my netserver goes down before
I can see the beautiful explanations people give for discrepancies like
the ones I point out in the following post?

Or did this one never make it to your boards?  Well, then, isn't it an
*amazing* coincidence....
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:30:39 GMT
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Let's Play Attributions, Take 3
Summary: Susan Garvin's claims of idiotic misunderstanding on my part examined
Keywords: forgery, tampering with evidence, lying, false accusations, empty
threats, idiotic misunderstanding

In Take 2, I included a copy of a post by Susan Garvin in which there are
some strange goings-on in certain attribution lines.  I made no changes
in the text I saved.  I wonder whether Susan can make the same claim about
herself.

In this post, I will repeat some parts of Susan's post, to better compare
it with a later, more complete post that she made.  The excerpts will be
split up to make comparison of the posts easier.  First the "topmatter"
and attribution lines.

Note to the uninitiated: the date of Oct 29 you see below is the date
I saved the post to my files.

	________________________24 Oct post___________________

From talk.abortion Thu Oct 29 11:03:02 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
~From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
~Newsgroups: talk.abortion
~Subject: Re: It's a bird, it's a plane, it's...
~Date: 29 Sep 92 15:56:56 GMT
~References: <1992Sep23.012619.28726@csus.edu> <Bv0Grt.9GG.2@cs.cmu.edu> <1992Sep23.160756.8470@wdl.loral.com>
~Sender: news@csus.edu
Organization: California State University Sacramento
~Lines: 56
____________________________end of excerpt____________________________

A feature above that has never been explained to me: certain lines are
preceded by ~ and others are not.  I hope someone can tell me why.

I wonder which of the above set of excerpts is closer to the original
posts.  Susan Garvin claimed on October 24 that she was "deleting only
the text that followed the pertinent lines."  In her November 1 post,
she makes no such sweeping claim, except perhaps where she says,
"The following articles are included in their entirety."  In her 
October 27 post from which I included a fragment above, however, she
said "Here are the two posts from which he [Chaney] claims that I forged
quotes, exactly as they appeared on t.a. (Of course, I changed ">"'s to
"#"'s so that my posting software would accept the message....)".
This October 27 post seems to agree right down the line with the Nov 1
post, with the change of > for #.  In particular, the crucial "Oh, I
love it..." line is preceded by ONE MORE # than the immediately 
preceding attribution.

What is the source of the discrepancies, I wonder?

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: more phoney disinformation?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 02:54:03 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
[...]
->Also disinformation about the Becky Bell case due to
->Susan Garvin and others who claim she died as the result of an illegal
->abortion.

trying to smear those who intimidate you intellectually
won't earn you any points, phoney. your inference is
false, as are many, many of your inferences. susan
garvin has posted no disinformation to this newsgroup
about the becky bell case. your efforts to create the
impression that she has does nothing but emphasize your
dishonesty and lack of character.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Peter & Gordon
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:56:13 GMT

In <1992Dec30.004116.8052@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><nyikos.725147807@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>><1992Dec22.010745.13877@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>...
>>I posted "The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 1" just now.  There will
>>be SEVERAL more parts to this series, unlike the one-post shot against
>>Gordon Storga, who is turning out to be much less malicious in his 
>>accusations than Susan.  I've even developed a bit of fondness for him,
>>as for a wayward child.  And he is the child of his parents, and of the 
>>universe, as pointed out in the fictional dialogue with Suzanne.  He is 
>>also a child of the 20th century, of which you will be reading more in
>>upcoming posts, but y'all will have to wait a while unless bozos like
>>Novak and Garvin and Mezias and Lefty and Kaflowitz decide to post 
>>*documented* accusations against me, thereby reducing their number a
>>hundredfold.

>I'm truly touched by your open admittance of your feelings for me, Uncle
>Peter.  May I call you Uncle Peter?

Sure, unless there is an SAT-type in-joke involved, like somebody allowing
others to call him "Uncle" is sufficient reason to flame him for the
rest of his net.life.

>Thanks.

You're welcome.

Peter
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:09:31 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
# Analogies are not equalities.  An apple is analogous to an orange in
# that both are round.  If we are considering what will happen to each
# when they are placed on an inclined plane, the analogy is proper.  If
# we are considering taste, then the analogy certainly fails.  It is
# important to note that pointing out that apples and oranges differ in
# color does not preclude reaching conclusions based on their analogous
# shapes.

Oh, forgive me -- *I* thought you were trying to make a point with
your analogy.  Now that it's clear that you are simply playing a game
of concentration, making analogies just for the sheer joy of it, I
suppose that clears a few things up.

Several posters, myself included, have explained why we think the
analogy isn't useful for aiding in the development of public policy.
Was there some other reason you trotted out this analogy?  Is it a
simple argument for moral persuasion?  Are you trying to practice the
art of dialectic?  Are you trying to bait flames like this one?  What?

If all you want is for someone here to give you a gold star for
thinking for yourself, I suppose there isn't much room for argument,
is there?  You drew an analogy.  What are we supposed to do with it?


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Idiocy
Summary: Doug's really showing his idiocy now...
Organization: Home of the "Home on the Range" Range
	<nyikos.725144278@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <1136@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
	<1992Dec24.005024.12577@ncsu.edu>
	<PATRICK.92Dec24082727@blanco.is.rice.edu>
	<1992Dec24.171415.3714@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:37:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.171415.3714@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   Patrick "March your fat black ass down here" Humphrey (correction gratefully
   acknowledged to Susan Garvin) writes:

   >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
   >In article <1992Dec24.005024.12577@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
   >(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   Gee Humpty, how did you manage to screw up the attributions?  
   This is Susan Garvin complaining about libel and slander, not me:

Wow.  You mean you finally figured that out?  I had that sussed when I read
the article, myself.  (I hacked one line out at the top of the article, and
like Pavlov's dog, you start whining that I'm screwing up the attributions.
Have you been talking to Petey Honey again?)

   >> I predict that you'll learn about some of these points of law > some
   >> day, though.  Not everyone is as forgiving of libel and > slander as I
   >> am.

   Terrible editing, Humpty.  Are you using your toes to edit this article?
   You might get one of those big kids to tell you how to use an editor
   properly. 

You might get a sense of honesty for once and quit lying, too -- I didn't
put the article together like that.  Susan's right -- you're spazzing out,
just in time for Exmas.  This will truly be a happy holiday.

   >   Gee, you know there's a certain someone who had often complained about
   >   libel and slander... I guess some people are more alike than we realize.
   >   :-)

   >I'll say 

   Yup, it's hard to disagree that Garvin is acting like someone
   we used to know :-) 

It is for YOU, maybe -- but you've already ably demonstrated that what you
think doesn't usually have much of a connection with reality.  Thanks for
giving both of us (and the rest of TSAKC, natch) another good laugh.

   > one of those "someone"s came down here to visit me last May 27.

   Humpty, who cares?  You've been obsessing over his visit for
   months now.  Don't you think it's about time to stop mourning 
   his departure and get on with your pathetic life?  

Yep, Susan hit it right on the head -- I can see that you'll be showing up
down here soon.  What's the matter, Rev -- your throat still sore when you
wiggle your toes?
--
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. 

     "Can't have everything.  Where would you put it?" -- Steven Wright
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:41:36 GMT

In <1992Dec16.224428.10466@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (David Anderson) writes:

>>Let's limit the net to worthwhile discussions, ok?
>>nuff said.

>You have a right to express your opinion; I have the right to tell
>you to fuck off and let a free forum be just that.

>I'm enjoying Heather's mutilation of Finkelstein's stupidity.  His views
>on impregnated rape victims rivals Schweikert, Forgach and Liar
>Holtsinger for fascist hatred.

I missed them all, my netserver having been deaf for over a week, and
behind several days before it went deaf.

I do know that Steve Novak uses the word "fascist" at the drop of a hat,
having used it in the first follow-up I ever saw to one of my posts.
I countered with a post quoting from _Babies for Burning_ which showed
the henchman for a group of abortionists to be an avid fascist, and the
abortionists to share his views.

I have yet to see a response from Steve to that one.

Peter Nyikos

PS Steve also begins to rival Lefty for the intensity of his undocumented
flames (easily beating out any pro-lifer's flames, documented or otherwise)
if not their volume.


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53589 alt.flame:17526 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:665
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:28:25 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
|>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
|>>i think you've hit on one of the key reasons that
|>>people in several newsgroups poke at kevin. of course,
|>>there are others. in fact, shortly after kebbin
|>>appeared in alt.flame, a long time ago, i told him that
|>>his posting mannerisms were such that, no matter what
|>>he said, there would be a lot of people who flamed him.
|>>that observation has come to pass far more dramatically
|>>than i had imagined.
|>>
|>The sad thing is that Kevin does post some resonable, intelligent
|>articles. But they're buried under mountains of gibberish. If he could
|>stop the flow of gibberish, and concentrate on the godo stuff, he'd
|>probably find people a lot less likely to flame him constantly.

at one point, some years ago, i might have agreed with
you. not now though. kebbie is, in his own special way,
a net.legend.


                       
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:28:32 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Dec23.104329.21553@hemlock.cray.com>,
by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):

> In article <1992Dec23.013411.7322@ncsu.edu>
> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
>>and a newborn infant, but I have not heard any arguments
>>from pro-choicers which would give *moral* weight to these
>>facts.  Thus I conclude that there is no moral difference
>>between killing a newborn infant and killing a late-term 
>>fetus.

> Doug, you've just asserted that there is no '*moral*
> weight' involved in posing a possible threat to a woman's 
> life.

He has?!?  Where?  He's talking about the existence of a
"moral difference between killing a newborn infant and killing
a late-term fetus."  The interesting kernel of this debate is
the fact that some might conclude that there is no such moral
distinction, apart from the involvement of other persons.  Perhaps
you'd be interested in addressing this.

> If you are in a charitable mood this holiday
> season, perhaps you could share with us the true details
> of what women have done to you, to cause these hateful
> feelings.

Hateful feelings.  Hateful feelings.  Oh boy.  The old misogyny
pre-emptive strike.  Muriel, go ahead and take Doug on.  He ain't
so bad.  You might find that your intellectual skills are sufficient
to enable you to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion.
And I'm interested in what you might have to say.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:14:22 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->Patrick, those pro-forcers sure like to threaten you.  

->Of course, if he follows through on his threat, you already have
->the evidence that his only intention is to harass you.  I'm
->not sure if even Nyikos is that stupid - I'm inclined to
->believe he's just blustering.

i disagree. i'm reasonably convinced he's that stupid.
it often seems that the stupid ones are the same ones
who bluster most.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion