HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another long night at the keyboard in Raleigh
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:21:05 GMT

Patrick "March your fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:

> I just figured out why Reverend Doug's being so endearing today:  he's only
> been logged in on five different TTYs at State for going on 20 hours
> straight, now.  

Bwahahaha!  Gawd, are you stupid.  The system clock on this 
machine is slow, so 'fingering' this machine would give an
inaccurate login time.  

Is your pathetic little life so dull that you actually spend 
time figuring out how long other people have been logged in?

Hey, here's something for you to occupy your time--figure out 
how many hours the system clock on 'eceyv.ncsu.edu' is slow.  
That should be the most exciting thing you've done all week, 
besides using your toenails to pick snots from your nose. 

>Patrick "March your fat black ass down here" Humphrey


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:45:06 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 <1992Dec28.032026.15533@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>Disinformation from me? Petey, I insist. Either provide some proof of
>this "disinformation" or appologise. I'll stand in line behind
>Adrienne waiting.

Don't hold your breath - you're also behind me.  I asked him to provide
some evidence for untrue claims he made about me a while ago.  Naturally,
he was unable to do so, so he ignored my post.

>I hope your newsserver is stable...

Or maybe his newsserver went down again.  Yeah, that's the ticket...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DODie defends Operation Rescue
Keywords: liars, terrorists
Date: 26 Dec 92 20:32:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec26.183429.4243@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug "get yer black ass down here"Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1162@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## Of course, I didn't say that illegal means wrong - that's
## your own invention.  It's not even responsive to the fragment
## that you quoted.  
#
#  "Threads evolve, Finkelstein.  People can read an article and
#   reply to any piece of it or to the entire article.  They are
#   not required to stick to the subject of your choosing.  If
#   you don't want to discuss the new topic, no one will force
#   you to do so."
#
#       <555@blue.cis.pitt.edu>

That's true, Reverend.  Threads do evolve.  

Of course, that's not what happened here.  You built a little strawman,
and I didn't fall for it.  Feel free to pout for a while before you
resume lying.  After all, it's the holiday season.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Male Choice, How?
Date: 22 Dec 1992 03:21:30 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk (Dave Parry) writes:

>As some have said earlier, the only sure way is to get the snip.   

Dave, you forgot abstinence (from heterosexual, vaginal intercourse).
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52970 soc.men:21814 alt.dads-rights:3105
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Pro-Life Leaders?  Does their gender REALLY matter?  Or only if
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:54:43 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

Pardon me, but it seems that this discussion has moved away from the
issues of the rights of fathers to their children. Perhaps this may
have a better forum elsewhere.

In general, many of the posts over the last few months have gotten
way 'off topic' in terms of these news groups. For the benefit of 
the net.users at large, it might be a good idea if we all used 
more caution in our selection of appropriate groups.

Happy Holidays!

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 2 Jan 93 23:15:19 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
|The problem is, there is a bit of a difference between "pro-choice" and
|"pro-abortion".  "pro-abortion" holds that abortion is not wrong.  "pro-choice"
|holds that abortion is wrong, but not so wrong that people should not be
|allowed to do it.

Nope.   A "pro-abortion" person prefers abortion over other options.  
A "pro-choice" person feels that the choice to get an abortion
or give a resulting baby up for adoption or keep a resulting baby 
is the pregnant woman's choice, and nobody else's.

"Pro-life" and "anti-abortion" seem to me nearly equivalent in
current usage, though not in the meanings they seem to have.
"Pro-life" is the political euphemism for "anti-abortion".

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Just saying no prevents teenage pregnancy the way 'Have a nice day' 
cures chronic depression."  -- Faye Wattleton
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clavazzi@nux.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 05:20:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.013646.17778@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>] In article <1992Dec25.191755.12514@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>] clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>] 
>] > The *really* interesting thing is that [Mr. Holtsinger] apparently regards
>] > firebombs, death threath, vandalism, and couragous acts such as pouring
>] > gasoline into the ceiling of a clinic and dropping in a match as acts of
>] > "civil disobedience".  
>] 
>] Gee, I guess some 'civil libertarians' are too dumb to 
>] recognize a defense of 'free speech'.  The article that
>] I posted mentioned nothing about firebombs or death
>] threats, but it did mention several instances where
>] Operation Rescue had its free speech rights curtailed.
>] 
>] >The_Doge
>] 
>] Doug Holtsinger
>
>
>point of order, there are active OpResKrew members who
>are proud of their convicitons as Bombers. To deny this
>is to Deny mere legal facts. { a point we all know you
>would NEVER wish to do. } 
>
>The point brings you to Defend the Actions of the OpResKrew
>IN the Breach, as well as in the Rhetoric.
>
	Even more to the point:  DOD originally used the term "civil
disobedience", *not* "free speech", and offered it as a blanket defense of
the activities of OR.  I drew the (not unreasonable) conclusion that he
therefore regarded all of ORs activities as "civil disobedience".
	In my book, "civil disobedience" consists of passively refusing to
cooperate with laws one regards as unjust.  It does not include death threats,
bombs, and assault.  
	But perhaps DOD has a different definition.

>Now, We return you to the Question:
>
>Do You support Armed Terrorism as a Form of Free Speach?
>
	To which I must add:
	- does he support planting bombs as a form of free speech?
	- ditto for anonymous death threats?
	- ditto for assaulting clinic escorts and/or personnel?

>Or are you still confused and hoping to dream of 
>the Happy Land of Nick_at_Nite as a Political Reality?
>
>
>ciao
>drieux
>
The_Doge
ObQuote:	"We must find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker
		of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend."
			-- Margaret Thatcher, quoted in _The Times_,
			   7/16/85

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52814 alt.society.civil-liberty:7041
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:55:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Dec19.053627.26006@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>Ah yes -- "America, Love It Or Leave It" -- the favorite bumper sticker
>>of American... liberals?
>
>Nope, it's traditionally been a right-wing slogan.
>
>Which is not the point anyway.  I don't care if you stay or go.  I
>don't care if you work to get the tax laws changed.  But if you're
>going to start dishonest whining about how you don't have a choice,
>please take it somewhere else.  Either that or put up with me pointing
>out that you're full of crap.


Dihonest whining? Who's the one who is whining here? It seems that the
liberals generally start to whine when you say that they should
never be given money that wasn't theirs in the first place.

Sorry, as much as it may bother you, I am not free if half of my earnings
are confiscated from me. I don't think that those who espouse true
individual freedom are the ones who are full of crap.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)





Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Saturnalia I: "She shoulda kept her legs crossed"
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: Sat, 2 Jan 93 04:04:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.103608.1439@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <nyikos.725734675@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>1. Why do so many pro-lifers say of a pregnant woman seeking abortion, "She
>>shoulda kept her legs crossed?"
>>
>>ANSWER:  I have never heard of a pro-lifer say anything even remotely 
>>resembling this, not even on talk.abortion.  On the other hand, I regularly
>>see pro-choicers lampooning pro-lifers by depicting them as saying this.
>
>Peter, I've seen many pro-lifers say things like "she makes her choice when 
>she has sex". Other than being slightly more polite, how is that essentially
>different from "she shoulda kept her legs crossed"?
>
Kevin, you *know* that his server censors what he's allowed to read...
It obviously skips over the articles you're mentioning.

--
                  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: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:38:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.021611.412@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
}In article <1992Dec31.010805.20244@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}>
}>It seems that Gregg Skinner, Paul Lebow, and Michael P Noonan among others
}>think that slavery is a good analogy to abortion.  I maintain that there is
}>no good analogy to abortion nor is there any good analogy to pregnancy.
}
}If you lack the ability to abstract from actual, mundane EXPERIENCES of 
}pregnancy and/or abortion, Galen, how do you expect to ever discuss these
}issues intelligently?
}
}Perhaps you should consider just leaving the discussion to those of us who 
}CAN abstract... 

Well, I might, except then people like Kevin Darcy might jump in with
no counter.  Perhaps it escaped you, but using slavery as an analogy
is often unproductive, as many are confused as to who is the oppressor
and who is the oppressed, as I think Mark pointed out, in stating that
many pregnant women, not the fetus, felt enslaved.

To put it rather bluntly, Kevin, I tend to care more for the "actual,
mundane EXPERIENCES" as you put it, than I do for whatever abstracts you
might care to construct.

ps  how is your definition of the crucial dividing line which you can't
detect going?  I may have missed your response, if you made any.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 04:21:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.090805.8930@mic.ucla.edu> rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
[..]
>The argument that pro-sanctity-of-human-life advocates change their tune
>and don't care about the murderer's life is not accurate.  I would
>always think that it is a sad thing for him to die and wish it could have
>been otherwise, but I look at him in light of the fact that he took
>another life.  Like I said above, it takes great justification to take a
>life, and murder is one.  Noone can say that a mother saying "oh, it
>will make my life inconvinient" or "he will grow up poor and unwanted"
>can be classified as great justifications for an abortion.
>
	Your position, then, is that no one ever has or ever will be falsely
convicted of murder and unjustly executed?
	Please note that if this is not the case, you are supporting a system
in which a person who does not take another life is nonethless killed by the
State.  Which places you in the position of saying that it's OK to take
innocent human life in the interest of a "higher" goal - social stability,
in this case.
	Now please explain why it's morally acceptable for actual, undoubted
human persons to die in the interest of reducing the crime rate, but morally
unacceptable for zygotes or fetii to die in the interest of reducing the
rates of mental and physical distress and/or illness among women.  Especially
in light of the fact that some of those real, actual human persons will be
innocent of any crime.
	You're really better off just admitting that you're simply anti-
abortion and letting it go at that.  Actually claiming to be "pro-life" puts
you in an awkward position, philosophically.  Only the Catholic Church seems
to be logically consistent on this matter, since they are opposed to abortion,
capital punishment, and a host of other life-affecting issues.

>
>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.
	This is off-topic, but what is your source for that claim?  I'd be
*really* interested in how the figure of "number of murders prevented by
the deterrent of capital punishment" was obtained!
	And saying that "a law enforcement official told me" hardly
consititutes empirical evidence.  Knowhutimean, Vern?

The_Doge
ObQuote:	"There is no satisfaction in hanging a man who does not
		object to it."	-- George Bernard Shaw

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:35:31 GMT

> = (Peter D. Hampe) writes:

>firebombin is a form of free speech
>if and only if flag burning is truely a form of speech.

Crapola, GI Joe.

You can burn your own flag as legally as your own Xmas tree.

Unless you're firebombing your own property, and not claiming insurance,
firebombing is legal.                

So, when someone firebombs someone _else's_ property, they're criminals.




-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: DODIE's clarification for Steve Matheson.
Date: 24 Dec 92 13:51:23 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec24.002114.11825@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 

>Your question is ambigious.  By "significant distinguishing
>factors", do you mean factual differences or moral differences?
>I'll agree that there are factual differences between an 
>infant and a child in the womb, but no moral differences. 

This implies that forcing a women to go through labor and birth when
she and her doctor have decided that it is a threat to her health
carries no moral weight.  This is why Muriel wanted DODIE to share
with us the experiences that led him to have such a low opinion of
women.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53873 alt.abortion.inequity:6240 soc.men:22012 misc.legal:21963 soc.women:22030
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,misc.legal,soc.women
Subject: Re: Arranging for "The Care of A Child" as part of Male Choice...
Date: 2 Jan 1993 21:24:04 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>First of all, I still believe that you consider a man's consent to sexual
>activity to be an implicit agreement to raise a child.  Regardless of whether
>"a woman's body is involved," I do *not* support the notion of involuntary
>consent.  Indeed, if abortion *were* outlawed, and the man wanted to keep the
>child, and the woman did not, your own belief that "a child has the right to be
>supported" would mean that you believe that the woman should be forced to
>parent the child as well, due to the father's decision to raise the child.

Yes, I would believe that the woman would be required to contribute to the
support of the child (under the situation you have outlined above).

>I *would* like to see couples signing
>*some* sort of Pre-Sex Contract, though *not* the kind which is a consent
>to sex, but merely an agreement between the partners as to how any resulting
>child will be cared for, if he doesn't wish to be a parent, while she does.

I guess I'm more pessamistic than you.  We can't even get couples to agree
on child support when they've signed a *marriage* contract.  I really don't
think that a pre-sex contract would accomplish anything!

>Also, I'd also like you to respond to Gordon Storga's request re: securing
>proof that "children have the right to be supported by both parents", if you
>haven't already responded to him.

I submit that the "proof" exists in the overwhelming number of court 
settlements which mandate child support. But I suppose that isn't the 
kind of proof you're looking for.


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: DODie defends Operation Rescue
Keywords: liars and terrorists
Date: 25 Dec 92 02:30:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec25.002258.14537@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug "get yer black ass down here" Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1160@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
## I think that you have to see it for yourself, too.  It's hard to
## explain it to someone who has never seen it.
#
#I think what Mr. Kendig is trying to say is that he's
#seen too many biased accounts of Operation Rescue's
#activities to gain an impartial opinion of the group. 
#The relative difficulty in explaining their activities
#is irrelevant. 

I think that Mr. Kendig expressed himself quite well.  He certainly
doesn't need an idiot to interpret his comments.

It is hard to explain because people's biases interfere with their
willingness to believe what happens, idiot.  An unbiased commentary
sounds biased because of the extremity of the situation.  You
should know how violent you people get when you're whipped into
a religious frenzy by your (all male, all white) leaders.

## The book that Holtsinger got his bloody fetus descption from,
## _Caught in the Crossfire_ by Sue Hertz, is a good report
## of a year's worth of O.R. blockades in Boston.  
#
#The book that you describe is radically pro-abortion in
#nature.  Mr. Kendig wants an unbiased account, not propaganda.  

The book that you have quoted repeatedly is an unbiased account.
Hertz was not a participant in the blockades in Boston, she
was a reporter.

I'll remind you of your comments the next time that you seek
abuse in multiple newsgroups by posting "propaganda."

## There was a "48 Hours" telecast of O.R.'s attack on Atlanta
## that was fairly well done, too.  
#
#A story from the same network which did such a hatchet job
#on the Becky Bell story? 

No, Reverend, "48 Hours" is not on the Family Channel.  You should
get out more.

## Be aware that the name "Operation Rescue" is rarely used any
## longer.  The national organization was fined tens of thousands
## of dollars for violating an injunction in NYC, 
#
#The fact that they've broken the law is not indicative
#that their activities are wrong -- the phrase ``civil 
#disobedience'' quickly comes to mind.

The fact that apologists for this group of terrorists describe
their criminal acts as "civil disobedience" is fairly meaningless
to those of us who live in the real world, DODie.  

Of course, I didn't say that illegal means wrong - that's
your own invention.  It's not even responsive to the fragment
that you quoted.  Why didn't you just forge something?

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:14:42 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
->nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
->] OOpsy. Facetiousness alert. Meet drieux's liberal older brother.
->] Now we've gone and done it...

->So as to clarify, he thought Ronald Reagan was a Leftist....

but we've always liked him in spite of that character
flaw.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion