HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: A minor Aside for TraditionalFamilyValues
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:34:50 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
] Peter D. Hampe) writes:
] |> firebombin is a form of free speech
] |> if and only if flag burning is truely a form of speech.
] |> 
[ logically relevant bits deleted. ]

MINOR TECHNICAL PROBLEM HERE Mike, et al....

I may not sign off on what my PinHeadedDraftBaitBleedingHeartWimpLiberal
brother may be espousing, But I will Kindly Remind you
that I does take care of My Brother.....

We Be Family and all....

Even IF he is a StoogeOfTheModernSeXularHumanistDogma!!!!

ciao
drieux


ps: Minor Technical Point Mashugina:
I will be bringing off wounded before
I will be worrying about moving Icons.

Remember that, or get the Fuck off MY BEACH!


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Organization: Hackers' Union, Local 1101
	<1992Dec23.132558.25246@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
	<1992Dec23.201930.369@rotag.mi.org>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:32:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.201930.369@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

 In article <1992Dec23.132558.25246@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
 >In article <1992Dec23.013921.7465@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 >> In article <1992Dec21.003426.21330@rotag.mi.org> 
 >> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
 >> 
 >>>Gee, seems Susie is perfectly willing to forgive someone who jokes, in 
 >>>alt.sex,about mass rape and doesn't apologize for it. I wonder if she would
 >>>be as forgiving of someone who joked about something equally tasteless in 
 >>>alt.flame and DID apologize for making a mistake?
 >> 
 >> But that would require consistency from Garvin.
 >> 
 >
 >What this little discussion is about is the time Kevin Darcy
 >accused the victim of child molestation of being a child
 >molester, then he spent weeks trying to support his remarks,

  Huh? Support my remarks? Are you suggesting that, after the initial
  article and responses, I _still_ claimed that Susie's SO was a child 
  molester? That's a lie.

Indeed, you shut up rather quickly after *that* little misfire of yours --
mainly because you managed to incite the wrath of a *lot* of t.a
participants. 

   >then finally apologized for it and claimed it was all a joke.

   I admitted my mistake long before I apologized for it, Dean. Stop trying
   to rewrite history.

Not all that long -- and it took a good long time to even get you to do that
much, at which point you went back to whining that you were the victim.  I
was there at the time, too, remember?

   >Now The Reverend Douglas Holtsinger seems to find it
   >inconsistent of Susan to be unforgiving of someone who
   >called her SO a child molester.

   It's inconsistent when she automatically forgives someone who jokes about
   mass rape, in a relatively "serious" group, and who DOESN'T apologize OR 
   even admit his error in judgment, yes.

And just who might that "someone" be, I wonder?  Enlighten us.

--
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. 

                         You can rn, but you can't hide. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:39:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.003426.21330@rotag.mi.org> 
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

> Gee, seems Susie is perfectly willing to forgive someone who jokes, in 
> alt.sex, about mass rape and doesn't apologize for it. I wonder if she would 
> be as forgiving of someone who joked about something equally tasteless in 
> alt.flame and DID apologize for making a mistake?

But that would require consistency from Garvin.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A Bare-Fased misrepresentation in same sentence by DODIE: Points?
Date: 24 Dec 92 13:48:39 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec24.033906.16829@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes the perfect
sentence to capture the full essence of why he is regarded as a prime
net liar.  I have difficulty understanding such behavior because it is
so clearly revealing of an ends-justifies-the-means mentality as to be
uncomfortably manipulative to read:

>I have stated numerous times I am undecided on the issue of 
>legislation, but that I do oppose Roe v. Wade and the FOCA.

In the context of talk.abortion, it is incomprehensible to me that one
could claim to be undecided on legislative issues and opposed to FOCA.
Your mention of your opposition of RvW suggests that you would
probably make the broader claim that you are undecided about state
intervention to compel pregnancy while being opposed to RvW.

>My arguments against abortion often revolve around moral
>issues, and they should not be confused with arguments in 
>favor of legal restrictions.  

Last time I checked deliberate misrepresentation and lying were
generally considered immoral.  Is that a clue about how to
characterize your side of the issue?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 22:14:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.191318.19916@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.040911.4453@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>}Ya know, just about every time I _really_ get under your skin...
>
>Note to late arrivals -- Kevin has never gotten under my skin, 
>"_really_" or otherwise.   He seems to great pleasure out of thinking
>he has, however...

Is denial unhealthy, Galen? :-)

>Kevin, you simply told people why you thought a burglary vs abortion 
>comparision wasn't valid.  In it, you expressed some misconceptions 
>about medical knowledge and what goes on in hospitals.  

No misconceptions. All of my comparisons were relative to the burglary
example, and all of the key terms e.g. "accuracy", "knowledge", 
"speediness", were obviously to be read in that context. You, with your
meager medical credentials, thought you could just jump in and spout 
some half-facts, and that would "refute" my point. It failed to do so.
You can go back to your slumber now.

>I have little interest in debating the relative safety of abortion
>vis-a-vis burglary, in the home, at night.  

Then why did you jump, unprepared, into the discussion?

>I have to wonder though
>what possible use you could make of your findings, whatever they are...

Well, it wasn't _my_ analogy in the first place, I was merely demonstrating
its lack of validity. As for "usefulness", I direct you to whoever cooked up
the analogy...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: an example of dodie's "honesty"
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:26:09 GMT

In article <skz2lkm@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James "Tough Shit, Abortion Kills Children" Keegan Jr.) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> Given your past statements on the FOCA, would it be 
>>>> a fair statement to say that 'Susan Garvin supports 
>>>> abortion legislation which Doug Holtsinger does not'?

>>> it would be as fair, and as dishonest

>> My statement was meant to illustrate that the term
>> 'legislation' usually implies 'anti-abortion legislation',
>> and that any statement which failed to rely upon this
>> implication would be inherently 'dishonest'.  Glad we 
>> can agree.

> it was self-evident. 

If it was self-evident that 'legislation' usually implies
'anti-abortion legislation', then why did you make an issue 
out of it? 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:37:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.063007.50924@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|> In <1992Dec21.212858.28762@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
|> >If people defending the right of abortionists to exercise their beliefs
|>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >want to be called pro-choice, fine.  If people defending the existence
|> >of a right of a fetus to be born want to be called pro-life, fine.
|> 
|> The above seems to be your problem.  An abortionist is a person who performs
|> abortions.  In this country, only doctors are legally allowed to perform
|> abortions (I believe).  I assumed that you were writing (pro-abortion)ists -
|> i.e., people that are in favor of abortions in all cases of pregnancy.  Are
|> you talking about pro-(abortionists) - i.e., people who support doctors who
|> perform abortions?

Well, yes, in a manner of speaking.  You have already pointed out that
in order to have an intelligent discussion on this issue, I must watch
my terminology.  Perhaps I can end our discussion by promising to be
more careful with which people I lump together into groups.  But I do
have some questions:

1)  Are there really "people that are in favor of abortions in all
    cases of pregnancy?"  What is their reasoning?

2)  If a pro-choicer thinks that abortion is wrong, why do they
    think it is wrong?  Why is it ok for others?
    (Simple question, right? :)

3)  If a pro-choicer thinks that there is never anything morally
    wrong about abortion (these are the people I refered to as
    "pro-abortionists"), would they object to being called
    pro-abortionists, and if so, why and what are they called?

|> Pro-choice means someone is in favor of keeping abortion available as a legal
|> (if undesirable) choice.  It does *not* mean being in favor of that choice.

By *not* being in favor of that choice, you mean that it is the last
choice, but a choice nonetheless, correct?

I wish that perhaps you could propose a new analogy.  Your Nazi analogy
(with my counter-analogy which you deleted) didn't do much for me.

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

-Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
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: Fri, 1 Jan 93 03:49:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.222825.20572@crd.ge.com> keegan@crd.ge.com writes:
>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.
>
I'm an optimist, and I'd liek to think that all of us are capable of
overlooking past idiocies if behavior changes. If Kevin stopped
posting the bilge and stuck strictly to those things he posts
intelligently on, I would happily change my opinions of him.
Hell, I'd even change my opinion of Peter "Have I told you my SAT
scores lately" Nyikos if he started acting rational.

--
                  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: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:30:14 GMT

>  = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *You're* the one who casually asserted that (see above)
>> "there is no difference between a late-term fetus and an infant".
>> Do you really believe there are no significant distinguishing
>> factors between a late-term fetus and an infant?! <y,n>

> 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.

It's your second try at it, but I still can't tell whether this is 
supposed to be a "yes" or "no" answer to my straight-forward question.

But let me be bold and claim that there *are* significant distinguishing
factors between a late-term fetus & an infant (hence the rug is pulled out
from under your "Pro-choicers must condone infanticide" argument.
But I'll do more than make a simple assertion, I'll back-up this claim with 
specifics.  As examples, consider the following:
0) All fetus' (of any type) are *inside* a woman VS. all infants are 
   *outside* a woman.  (ie. major physical difference) 
1) because a (late-term) fetus is literally *inside* a woman, 
   it is infringing on that woman's bodily autonomy to a degree that
   is *obviously* far beyond any infringement an infant is capable of.
   (ie. major moral difference) 
2) because a (late-term) fetus is literally *inside* a woman, 
   it poses a *real* threat on that woman's life & health to a degree
   that is *obviously* far beyond any threat an infant is capable of.
   (ie. major physical & moral difference) 

While you may consider these differences insignificant 
(or rendered invalid because of some as yet unarticulated reasoning), 
it's rather obvious that *many* will not, hence you must establish 
their insignificance before you can build an argument based on 
their insignificance -- but you have not.  
Consequently YOUR WHOLE "Pro-choicers must condone infanticide" ARGUMENT 
IS RENDERED INVALID because it *requires* your casual "no difference" 
assertion to be true when in fact this assertion can easily be called 
into serious question with minimal effort.

I suspect this was pretty obvious to all involved right from the start,
but then t.a is largely about spending undue effort to repeatedly
point out obvious errors in reasoning.  Some honest criticism: I think 
such faulty arguments actually hurt the pro-life cause because they serve
to reinforce the association of faulty reasoning with pro-lifers.
Ie. pro-lifer's are their own worst enemy.

-Brian
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52555 alt.dads-rights:3043 alt.abortion.inequity:6069
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Efficiency in child support
Date: 21 Dec 1992 08:48:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>Okay, if you wish, I'll make this a global question, instead of just a
>national one (although I do this under protest, since I think global politics
>is irrelevant to the central question of child support): would you prefer the 
>world to adopt a global "lottery" system of child support, as I have recently
>described, or a global "genetics-based" system of child support, such as we 
>currently have here in the USA? Please explain the reasoning behind your 
>answer.

I prefer the "genetic-based" system that devolves on personal responsibility.
I think the socialist ideals inherent in the "lottery" system have been 
fairly well discredited by the events of the last few years.  (Besides,
just thinking of the bureacracy involved makes me shudder!)

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Peter shows his ignorance, once again.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:37:51 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <nyikos.725147807@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>In the meantime, I hope you can help me correct an entry in
>Dr. Willke's _Abortion: Questions and Answers_.  Here it is, as
>it appears on p. 108 of the Fourth edition.
>
>       Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage
>       rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5%
>       rate in a non-aborted group.
>               Richarson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination
>         on Subsequent Pregnancy," _British Med. Jour., vol. 1,
>         1976, pp. 1303-04.

Perhaps I can help.  How about adding the following note:
   Of course, it should be noted that is from a British journal from
   16 years ago, and describes a problem with techniques that are probably
   no longer used in the US.  There is *no* evidence of problems with
   later childbearing among women who have an early abortion performed by
   the most common method used *today* - vacuum aspiration.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: an example of dodie's "honesty"
Date: 28 Dec 92 05:40:10 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->I doubt that anyone would believe it if DODie tried to convince
->people that I supported restrictions on abortion while he
->did not.  Well, maybe I shouldn't say "anyone."  There are
->some exceptionally gullible people on the net.

i'm not sure i agree that "gullible" is the best word
here. i wouldn't be surprised if someone with a
vendetta against you tried to misrepresent your
position.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From:  Steve Novak <steven@advtech.uswest.com>
Subject: Fetal Ornaments and Merry Mucous
Originator: steven@jaynes
Keywords: Got Your Attention
Reply-To:  Steve Novak <steven@advtech.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:15:36 GMT

Ha ha!  Just kidding.

Enjoy the Holidays, folks.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Susan sinks to a new low. [Was: Meet P...]
Organization: It's around here somewhere.
	ec28131851@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1203@blue.cis.pitt.edu><PATRICK.92Dec28183551@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<CORWIN+.92Dec29170048@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:53:21 GMT

In article <CORWIN+.92Dec29170048@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

   In article <PATRICK.92Dec28183551@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

	 In article <PATRICK.92Dec28131851@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
	 [everything else deleted - enjoyed, but deleted]
 #Funny that you see it when YOU'RE on the receiving end of it, but it's
 #perfectly okay to use to bash others with...do you really like being that
 #much of a hypocrite?  

 I don't know why he's complaining - he types those three letters in
 more often than anyone else around here - I thought he wanted to
 be associated with them.  He's certainly go a fixation on race,
 though.  He's hypothesizing about the racial makeup of t.a. - I
 wonder what criteria he is using to assign race to posters.
 I wonder if he thinks he knows my race.

   Hell, he probably thinks he knows what color everyone in my family is, as
   well.  (Of course, he's plain wrong in at least a couple of cases, and not
   even in the same area code on about ten others, but that's about par for the
   course for PHoney.)

     Wait! wait! wait! wait! wait.

   Petey honey originally wrote:
    Susan, have you no shame?  Any objective person, comparing our treatments
    of Steve Chaney, the one Afro-American in this newsgroup that I know of, 
    will see how completely perverse this designation of me is.

   Chaney was treated like an insane moron.  I don't care what color a
   person's skin is.  I treat moronic assholes all the same, without
   prejudice.  Susan Garvin (F.B.-W.f H.) or Patrick, do you care what color a
   moron's skin is?

I know I don't.  Hey, if they're morons, that's all I *need* to know.
Stupidity, after all, knows no racial bounds.

	 I'm not sure if he enjoys being a hypocrite or not.  I hope so.
	 I hate to see anyone spending that much time doing something
	 they don't like.

      I sympathize with that -- but just think of all that goodwill he's
      generating for the USC with his ravings...:-)

   I want to know how old Nyikos is claiming to be.  Perhap Nyikos will
   claim that his child, a junior high school student, got hold of his
   news feed during one of those rare moments when it was working, and
   typed in this drivvle.

Gad.  Don't come out and say that -- he'll use that excuse later, when he
thinks everyone else has forgotten about it...:-)

--PLH, who only has to worry about a duaghter in high school, but
fortunately the Sioux Falls public school system hasn't discovered Usenet
yet... 

--
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Forced pregnancy love fest, 1992.
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:03:29 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <34641@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
[DODie-PHoney lovefest deleted]

#I'm so glad to see you two getting along ...

It may not last - DOD has put PHoney in an awkward position.  PHoney
whined a lot about me setting follow-ups to misc.test - I believe
he called it "dishonest."  He'll either have to chastise his little
buddie DODie, or he'll have provided that much more proof that
he's a hypocrite.  

Susan


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52567 soc.men:21575 alt.dads-rights:3051