HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: does PHoney enjoy being a hypocrite?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:30:36 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes (of PHoney):
->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 think he does enjoy being a hypocrite. i think he
sees it as the lesser of evils. he's mistaken, of
course. people know he's a liar as well as a hypocrite.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:19:30 GMT

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.

>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.

>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.

								- Kevin
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.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:51:46 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
->Dr. Tiller?  

i don't.

i can't remember when phoney posted anything i
believed.

had you replaced the words "Dr. Tiller" with the word
"anything," i think your response would be about the
same.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: You want to talk about nature?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:55:51 GMT

In article <1h4180INNn5n@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <1h0f1hINN232@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>You want to talk about nature?  
>
>>so if the woman, given a State of 
>>Nature, doesn't wish to support the child after birth, she just walks away
>>from it. *POOF*! No child support.
>
>Followed shortly thereafter by the death of the child.
>I don't consider that progress.

Indeed. Well, I don't think clinging to pre-RvW paternity child support
statutes, just because they happen to give women an illusory* power advantage,
is very "progressive" either. So, be careful about whining "it's just biology"
or "state of nature" when these progressive paternity child support reforms 
are proposed -- we may just take that as an offer to start child support over 
again at Ground Zero.

								- Kevin

* (I say "illusory" because true power only comes when an individual is given 
  the power to choose AND the power to reap the full consequences of that 
  choice, whether they be good or bad. The current "all choice and subsidized 
  consequences" that the law affords women simply treats them like little 
  helpless girls who are incapable of making real decisions without a helping 
  hand from the patriarchy. In the long run, this backwards-looking aberration 
  of our legal system subtly works AGAINST the empowerment of women, not for 
  it.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:43:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.203130.12300@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley):

>> Since fetuses aren't children, abortion does not kill children.

>> Now if you'd writen "babies", I would have had to grant that the
>> statement was literally true.

>Since you are granting that fetuses are babies, are you denying that babies
>are children?

Nope.  I'm denying that *some* babies (specifically the subset known
as "z/e/fs" or "fetuses" or "unborn", depending on who's doing the
knowing) are children, as these terms are customarily defined.  Are
you claiming that all babies are fetuses?

More specifically, I'm claiming that ordinary people using standard
English and not talking about abortion will refer to the fetuses as
"babies" but not as "children".

>Abortion kills fetuses.

Absolutely true.

>Abortion kills babies.

Literally true but misleading connotations.

>Abortion kills children.

False.

>Take yer pick.  All of these are true.

TbBA.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
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...
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:56:34 GMT

In article <nyikos.724958170@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec16.161647.17734@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>
>>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>>LM> Note that Adrienne Regard was falsely accused of forgery not that long ago,
>>LM> by Peter Nyikos.  Peter edited a post he made in response to Adrienne, and
>>LM> got confused by his own editing.  I don't think it unreasonable to point
>>LM> out that Adrienne did not, in fact, write all the lines that some idiotic
>>                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>LM> piece of software flagged with her initials.
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Confused, eh?  I take it even my *second* attempted apology did not make
>it to the boards.  My netserver has finally recovered some of its hearing,
>but my table of contents, aka index [despite lack of alphabetical order]
>does not show it.  It does, however display Part 2 in the MEET GEORGE
>TILLER series, but that's neither here nor there, because it has falsely
>displayed many things as having been posted before, while often failing
>to display things that have been posted.
>
>Note that Larry Margolis does not say wherein my "confusion" lay.  He is
>quite willing to let the net go on believing that I still "don't know how
>attributions work," whereas I figured *that* out a week after stumbling
>across USENET.
>

I'd say that the simple fact that it took you a week tells us plenty
about you...
What's the average time it takes to figure out attribution lines? 5
minutes?

--
                  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: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Deliberate DODIE lies in nearly consecutive posts: Points?
Date: 25 Dec 92 16:33:27 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec24.175612.5110@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to
<1992Dec24.170437.15166@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com(>>): 

>> When are you going to answer my question about why you refuse to take
>> a position on legislation 
>
>How many times do I have to repeat myself?  I am undecided.
>Try reading those three words slowly.  Hopefully it will sink in.

Didn't DODIE just post his opposition to FOCA?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: PRO-LIFE SEASON'S GREETINGS
Keywords: super-Grinch, life, death, hope, fear, Birth
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:43:08 GMT

if there was any doubt that phoney was truly unable to
post his apology for having lied about adrienne regard
due to news server problems (despite his having posted
over 100 articles since he posted his lie), it's rather
telling, imo, that he continues to post messages like
this one but fails to post his apology.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:34:52 GMT

In article <C016sq.J54@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.085744.20915@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin 
>Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec28.173956.24228@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
>gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>> >In article <1992Dec28.163431.18194@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>> >(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> >
>
>> I understand that there ARE some tests which can help whether a given 
>fetus
>> is viable or not, but I couldn't tell you what they are or what they 
>involve. 
>> I doubt that they could be performed "at home", though. You're the one 
>with
>> all of the medical contacts, aren't you, Galen? Why don't you ask them
>> instead of me? You're more likely to get a definitive answer that way.
>> 
>> >At whose definition of "viability" would you begin to
>> >allow abortion restrictions, not support, just allow?
>> 
>> What definitions exist? If you'll present me with some definitions of
>> "viability", I'll tell you which one(s) I would accept.
>
>Very clever debating tactic -  'Give me a choice of positions - then I'll 
>pick the best one'

It's not a debating tactic. I'm just trying to answer Galen's question.
Maybe he has some definitions of "viable" that I've never seen before.
I can't very well reject any of his definitions without at least having 
seen them...

>Kevin - your house of cards continues to tremor.  You seem pestered by 
>these attempts to pin you down on your sole criterion for favoring 
>abortion.  I suspect that the viability line is so comforting to you 
>because it gives you an apparent 'logical' justification for your views ...

Viability is not a justification. It is, for some of us, a dividing point 
which marks a difference in the EFFECTS of our pro-choice view. Before
viability, I believe abortion should be absolutely protected. After
viability, there is some validity to the claims that some restrictions
are necessary -- enough validity, at least, to allow a popular mandate
to decide some issues.

If you want to discuss my JUSTIFICATION for my pro-choice views, start
thinking and reflecting on the concept of Bodily Autonomy, and rights
pertaining thereto. 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:07:48 GMT

In <wgt2czc@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>->I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
>->Dr. Tiller?  

>i don't.

>i can't remember when phoney posted anything i
>believed.

Glad to see you don't believe Tiller's statement of purpose:

		PURPOSE
		
		Our purpose at Women's Health Care Services is to guide
	and support women through an experience which will allow them
	the opportunity to change the rest of their lives.  We are here
	to help our patients make their DREAMS COME TRUE by maximizing
	their assets and minimizing their shortcomings.  We are dedicated
	providing the chance for women to live joyous, productive and
	free lives.  The cornerstones of our organization are Attitude,
	Team Care, Safety & Comfort.  We are a Recovery based institution.


>had you replaced the words "Dr. Tiller" with the word
>"anything," i think your response would be about the
>same.

Good, I'll be posting more statements by abortionists from time to time.

Peter Nyikos




Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: You ARE killing
Organization: At least we don't hide behind an alias.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:40:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.173600.14785@fuug.fi> an4149@anon.penet.fi writes:

 You state that because a fetus may not survive without intervention outside the
 womb that it is not a life and therefore may be terminated at our convenience.

 After birth, and for some years children are not capable of surviving without
 intervention, therefore we should be able terminate their life when they become
 an inconvenience. 

 The majority homeless and poor in our society would not be able to survive if 
 it were not for outside intervention of some form, we should therefore be able
 to terminate their life when they become an inconvenience.

 Granted these arguments are absurd, but no more so than those that state that a
 fetus is not a human life.  Argueably it does not experience life as we know it
 but, does this make its life any less than our own?

 We demand that responsible pet owners spay and nueter or otherwise prevent 
 their pets from mating to control unplanned and unwanted pet pregnancies.
 We are willing to make these decisions concerning our pets, but we will not
 take similar responsibility over our own animal instincts.

 During an abortion, you are taking a life.  Your actions and motives determine
 YOUR true worth as a human being.

...thus implying that you dismiss those of us who are pro-choice as not as
worthy as YOU are.  I dunno...I wonder what the true worth of someone is who
utters the hateful dreck you do, but is too chicken to post it under his own
name?  Have you been taking lessons from Steve Chaney, or what?  :-)

--PLH, who's at least honest about what he writes

--
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: more phoney disinformation?
Keywords: me and the coroner
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:46:24 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
|>Becky Bell died because of people like PHoney.  Rosie Jimenez
|>died because of people like PHoney.  Worldwide, tens of 
|>thousands of women die each year because of people like
|>PHoney.  All of his lies, all of his stupid flames, won't
|>change this.  

no, they won't. i wonder if people like PHoney ever
think about women dying.


                           
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:03:44 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

] rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
] # Besides, you could look at it in a completely economic way:  in societies
] # where capital punishment is executed quickly and consistently for murder
] # the number of murders that are thus prevented by this effective deterent
] # greatly outnumber the number of executions.  Even in american, where
] # capital punishment is in reality hardly a fact, the numbers are about
] # equal.  Just ask any law enforcement official.  I was told directly by
] # Gates' former assistant chief that this is true in LA.
] 
] Aaiiieee!!!
] 
] This guy gets my vote for Most Wiggy Conservative Screwhead on Usenet
] for the month of December.


Well It was lovely how he moved away from the notion
of any INTRINSIC VALUE in Humanity.... without admitting
that He did NOT LIKE to admit that he had made human
life a conditional value.

It Really IS NOT a conservative way of doing things,
its more of that MushyHeadedWimpLiberalMoralRelativismStuff.

Who Can forget the Moral Pomposity of folks Screaming 
Against "MURDER" {which was to say 'abortion'} and ranting
on about 'thou shall not kill' Right Up to the Point we
started Using FAE's and Daisey Cutters in the PGW....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Laugh of the week from Will Steeves.
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:02:11 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <34319@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.153050.15780@zooid.guild.org>
>goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes: 

>>I know whereof I speak, because I admit that I had similar negative feelings
>>about women after all of what happened, two years ago, not to mention the
>>threats on my life.
>>*I* got over it, which basically means that *anyone* can.  :-)

I was tempted to change the subject title to "Laugh of the week from
Mezias," but then I realized that this is no laughing matter; maybe
it *is* one to Mezias, though, just as it apparently was to Susan Garvin.  

Dean Kaflowitz
covered up for her as best he could, in response to a post in which I took
a flippant comment by Susan, and asked her whether she considers the 
accusation against Will to be all a big game, with no relevance to anything
going on in the real world.  Susan never answered the question, perhaps
thinking that Kaflowitz made me and everyone else forget about it.

>Is this a joke?  The pot calls the kettle black!  Will claims to have
>gotten over his irrational hatred of women?  Is this the same Will who
>was going to murder the woman who aborted a child he alleges to have
>fathered because she did not respect him?  I think far more than one
>smiley face was needed in this post.

The only one needed for this post, or the one to which I am following
up, is one for the sentence beginning, "Is this the same Will..." and
repeating a charge which has been thoroughly refuted by both Will and
myself.  (And probably also Don Beaver, whom Susan was telling not to
post his attempted refutations on all the same places where the charge
was aired, in her usual pro-force style.)

[Yeah, I know...but I don't see why the pro-choice side should have
all the fun with the term "pro-force".]

Quote of the hour:

"Mezias telling Elizabeth Bartley to get real?  This isn't the pot
calling the kettle black; this is the pot calling the milk black."
		--Peter Nyikos, in a post of last month.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Date: 24 Dec 92 19:08:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec24.133627.29765@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
[PHoney's rant deleted]
#I left in all the extra attributions to show that Susan Garvin
#was not, at least for the three postings preceding the one I
#quote, a part of this thread.  Yet Nyikos cannot resist telling
#lies and attempting flames of her here.  In fact, He went
#after her in other postings this morning where she wasn't involved
#in the discussion.  I conclude that Susan and others have done
#such a fine job of making Nyikos look a silly ass that he has
#an almost pathological obsession with revenge now.
#
#Good work Susan, Adrienne, Bob Blackshaw, et al. (the other
#names I mention were in another posting this morning in
#which Dr Giggles brought them up with his usual ipse dixit
#slanders against them).

Hey, don't sell yourself short, Dean.  PHoney has brought your
name up in a few other discussions and lied about you, too, so
you must have also done a fine job of making him look like a
silly ass.   He's obsessed with you, too.

#Dean Kaflowitz

What a great holiday name.

#"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
#spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
#so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger

Susan
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Dr. Giggles explains why people shouldn't reply to his posts
Summary: he doesn't read replies
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:53:33 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.725749252@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#Or I only read a small fraction of posts, even those following up to
#me.  Y'see, my account does not include `trn' or `rn', only what
#Humphrey calls "(eech) nn".  
#
#Go ahead and accuse me of whining, see if I care.

In other words, he's only interested in lecturing, not in discussing.

He's preserved his hypocrite standing, though, since he's still 
criticizing other people for not having read every word that he's 
ever posted, and he's still whining about some of his questions
going unanswered.  

He's not the first egotistical coward who has decided that posting is 
more fun than reading, and I'm sure he won't be the last.  Most
people who have no facts behind their arguments are reluctant
to hear responses.

I'll continue to point out his more obvious lies, of course, since
I'm not doing that for PHoney's benefit, anyway.  He doesn't want
to know the truth.

Susan
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan sinks to a new low. [Was: Meet P...]
Keywords: PHoney does spelling flames
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:12:22 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

# And now the .sig, reissued with the permission of Steve Chaney, omitting
# only his name, etc so that Susan does not start calling me "PHoneyChaney"
# or some similarly misleading name.

What savage weirdness is this?

Somebody hang a periodic finger on Nyikos's account.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``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,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 15:45:14 EST

Please take alt.society.civil-liberty out of the Newsgroups line when
you follow-up to this thread.

Follow-ups directed to talk.abortion.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:19:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.200825.22596@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec30.050611.25734@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Would "limited pro-concensus" be sufficiently descriptive, you think?
>
>"Sufficiently vague" is more like it.

Superficial, Larry. Very superficial.

>I think "arguing for legislation while claiming he doesn't want it"
>is the most descriptive I've seen yet.

I don't argue for abortion restrictions. I argue only against certain
absolutist positions. Learn the difference.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion