HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:25:01 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Aug13.055602.11940@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
>> and incest, and for the life of the mother.   

> And exceptions for his daughters and granddaughters.  They get to
> decide, it's their choice.  The rest of American women don't.

I think you should be ashamed of yourself for insinuating that
all women think alike.  Many women are pro-life.  Only a sexist
would mistakenly believe that all women are pro-choice. 


Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32080 alt.flame:12130
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:52:21 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug16.002316.16782@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> In article <l8lb54INNqbs@news.bbn.com> levin@bbn.com writes:
> >chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> >
> >|I take it you didn't know I'm from the human species? 
> >
> >Yet to be proven.
> 
> Proven. Now, it's up to us to prove if _you're_ of the human species.
> 
> If we go by the pro-choice stance of being "intellegent" or "with a
> brain," that would exclude you in an instant.

If we hadn't seen this already about 6,000 times, it would be hilarious.

As it stands, it's simply pathetic.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bigdave@texas.tdd.sj.nec.com (David Sweeney  x2987)
Subject: Re: Yelps from a blast.crater@apple.com (was Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level (was Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Reply-To: yo momma 
Organization: NEC-AM TDD, San Jose, California
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:49:54 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <lefty-170892101250@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>
>[ More yelping from a blast crater left after that devastating attack by
>Steve Franklin, deleted. ]

are we reading the same newsgroup?


>Lefty, you remind me of Saddam Hussein as he, like you, still claims
>victory in a battle in which you clearly have been annihilated.  

Interesting.  Saddam's more in power than ever and got the opportunity to 
kill off almost all of his internal enemies...  I'd say he won.  Not that
this in any way relates to the topic at hand, of course...


-- 
Dave Sweeney     bigdave@tdd.sj.nec.com
why the hell am I posting here?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:28:30 GMT

dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# Your post was a shameful, transparent attempt to slander Mr. Guerrero.

Did you really mean to write `libel' instead of `slander?'

Ooooh, goody.  Yet Another Libel Litigation Happy Pro-Lifer!

Better start a file for me now.

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

"So I've got my eye on you, punk, because I - let's face it - am the
Sole Representative of Law and Justice, nay civilization itself, in
this MY GOD NO.... BASTARDO!  you did it, that's the end, you've
doomed us all..."
                           -- Curtis Yarvin (impersonating Raoul Duke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: How many Republicans support their abortion plank? (Re: Another ...)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:40:44 GMT

<l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> (Ron Echeverri) writes:
> 	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
> dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
> plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
> platforms.

I read today that the full platform committee approved the plank
by a vote of 84-16 (plus or minus 4, since I'm writing this from
memory).

The plank calls for a constitutional ban on abortion, no use of
public funds for abortion, and appointment of anti-abortion judges.

Bush's frequently stated position is that he opposes abortion,
except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life.
However, the constitutional ban called for by the platform would
allow no rape or incest exception.  Only endangerment of the mother's
life sufficient to warrant abortion in "self-defense" would permit
it to legally occur. 

Apparently Bush does not support the platform position.  How many
Republicans do?  I know Rep. Henry Hyde does.  How many others?  I 
would be surprised if a majority actually supports such an extreme 
position.

I'm also curious what goal the Republicans for Choice movement had
regarding the platform.  If they wanted explicit language in support
of abortion rights, I can understand the difficulty they faced.
But it seems to me that if they had been able to highlight the
extreme nature of the current plank, they might have had better
success in at least moderating the language.

( Then again, maybe not.  I have no experience with the inside politics
of parties and conventions.  It could be that reason, discussion,
and compromise have little place at that level. <sigh> )

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:58:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.184216.29027@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>> No, Holtsinger, he said that all women deserve support of their right to
>>> choose.  

>> And that's sexist, because he assumes that all women would actually 
>> _want_ support of their right to an abortion, i.e. that all women are 
>> pro-choice.  Not every woman _wants_ support for abortion rights;
>> many women are pro-life. 

> Saying "All X deserve Y" is not the same as saying "All X want
> Y."

That's true, but the implication is dependent on "X" and "Y". 

If Lyman said "All people deserve support for their right to discriminate
against homosexuals", then that statement would carry a very objectionable
implication that all people would _want_ to discriminate against
homosexuals. 


>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A little known fact...
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:27:56 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>The Western ethic against infanticide gained its roots from
>early Judeo-Christian thought. 

(You pretty much despise J.C. thought, don't you, Atheist Holtsmussen?)

That's funny, because early Judeo-Christian thought as related in the bible
sure shows one contradictory "god", who seemed to enjoy killing whole
cities or tribes of people without regard to age, sex, or anything else
except that _some_ of those people pissed off the ol' Malevolent Master.

And...you mean there's people in the USA practicing INFANTICIDE?  "I
don't think so, Tim."

(How many times did Jeeee-zus mention "unborn children" or "preborn
babies"?  NONE?  You mean, you fanatic crazies _made it all up_ as a
cheap tactic?  I'm *shocked*.)
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: More yelping from Clefty (was Re: More Bleating From the Borg
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:43:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.233832.7895@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>BZZZZTTT !!! 

Where's that fly swatter?

>I _never_ run from conflicts on this newsgroup or anywhere else. 

Well, according to Gordon there are several that you have run from.  
Look for his recent post.  

I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that "few responses means 
a positive response" back at the single woman with child thread....

>>Hmm.  _You_ remind _me_ of some witless geek kid who sailed onto USENET a
>>while back and immediately and repeatedly made a complete fool of himself. 
>>He posted a lot of drivel, made inept attempts at forgery, lied, got caught
>>at it, lied again, got caught _again_, made believe he was a jet plane and
>>a space alien...

>You mean, I remind you of Scott Roby? No thanks, kid.  

Henny Youngman move over.  We have a new over-the-hill stand-up comic!

>And now you're bearing incredibly strong resemblance to a typical mindless
>outdated, highly ignored, no-friend-havin', dinosaur's ass-wiping
>neanderthal joke-meister whose specialty lies in jokes and not
>anything resembling an argument, and who dials 1-900-LIES-R-US to hear
>the latest "news" from Scott Roby, at $5 a pop (hey, that's Roby's
>lunch right there), who got splattered so badly that their ego is
>still numb a week later.... ... ..

Is there a flame in there somewhere?  It's all so dork and confused...
                                                   ^  (I know)

>Well, that could easily be you, or PatricKKK Harumphrey if I added
>"yanked out of the closet while taking off his Ku Klux Klan uniform".  

Hey, Steve,  I thought Patrick was out of line with his comment.
My question to you is: if he apologizes, will you then apologize 
for the above?



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Summary: Dennis lies again
Keywords: lies, Dennis, Chaney
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:27:58 GMT

In article <yd6mlza.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
#<1992Aug12.215027.1814@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
##<1992Aug11.181819.9370@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :


###Kinda like a barnacle.  Seriously, has someone *really* tried to get your
###net access removed?  Do you have proof of this accusation?  Isn't true
###that you think it was wonderful that Dan Bredy lost his net access?  And
###now you are whining that you think someone tried to remove yours.
##
##Susan Garvin? 
#
#I see a name.  I don't see any *proof*.

And you won't, since Dennis is lying again.

I have never written Chaney's sysadmins.  I did report his forgery
to my sysadmins at CMU, as policy here requires.  They contacted
CSUS and asked them to "take care of it."  They did not ask that
he lose access, they simply asked that he be reminded not to
forge headers.  I note that he has stopped forging headers.

##Well, as for the others, I wouldn't say they wanted my access removed;
#
#Then why did you imply above that they were trying to do so?

I think that he feels guilty about demanding that Dan Bredy lose
*his* access, and he wants to pretend that other people do the
same thing.  

Chaney isn't selfish, though.  He doesn't just lie to try to
protect himself.  Remember, he created Dennis Hall in an attempt
to divert attention from Kevin Welch.  (I personally think that
his support convinced KW that he was in the wrong.)

[text deleted]

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Barbara Bush on Abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:55:52 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

>I see on CNN this morning that Barbara Bush was quoted as saying that she
>didn't feel that there sould be an abortion plank in the Republican
>platform as the decision whether or not to have an abortion was a "personal
>choice".

>Still planning on voting for George, Dennis?

She said the same thing about homosexuality....

Still planning on voting for Bush, Dennis?

(He was pro-choice before, don't ya know)

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Barry Goldwater
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:00:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.170309.7192@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes to suzanne:
> -> You were agreeing with Keegan's myopic statement
> -> that the issue of abortion would swing the election
> -> one way or another, which is far from correct.
> 
> i explained my thinking on this in some detail, along
> with data from people whose profession is campaign
> management. i think you're a smart fellow, but if i had
> to bet my life on whether your political guesses were
> more likely to be accurate than the opinions of people
> who get paid for this kind of work, i'd go with the
> professional opinion.

I sure hope you never have to bet your life on anything like
that.  I've bet my life a few times recently on the sobriety
and competence of riggers and packers, and I don't even care
for making that bet from a certain perspective.

You and Suzanne are taking much the same position on
this, though I honestly don't think her's is the result of
as deep an understanding as yours.  I still disagree with
the analysis, but didn't really want to get too much into it.
I think the "swing vote" business is really something that
makes money for those same professionals, and is determined
after the election in order to support their contracts when
the next election comes around.  I think that, with most
polls having shown the country to be fairly evenly divided,
and with the serious nature of the recession, and with
the tax lies of Bush, and with the prospect of 4 more years
of Dan Quayle a heartbeat from the presidency, abortion
becomes less and less of an issue.

Let me put it another way.  Reverse the positions of the
two parties' candidates entirely except for abortion.  My
vote then changes and I think most people's votes would change.

> you made no comment on that and instead made this
> blatent assertion in a reply to suzanne.
> 
> that's really not like you.

You sound grouchy.  I think you need a trip to some pleasant,
northern clime.  Maybe you should go take in a Blue Jays game
and visit the Toronto Metropolitan Zoo.  Nice zoo, that one,
though I am not fond of seeing Bald Eagles in cages.

I wonder if the grizzlies are set up yet.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 19:33:41 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

> [Loren and Ilana discussing various forms of what they call
>  "non-contact sex", the details of which I just can't bear to repeat.]

>My gosh.  I've never heard such a ridiculous term in all my life as
>"non-contact sex".  What a hoot!  Tain't sex if it's "non-contact", 
>now is it.

>Why don't y'all just buy yourselves trashy novels and be done with it.

What are you selling them for :)?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:18:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.190940.6587@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.010931.6775@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
>> Obviously, the right to life argument, when used in favor of the fetus, 
>> would only apply if you believed the fetus to be a human life.  I, for one,
>> suspect that it is not - it is probably some form of canine or arachnid.
>
>A member of the human species is actually a dog or a spider?  That is the 
>funniest thing I've read all week.  You're in desperate need of a biology 
>lesson.  

I smiled as well but that was because I assumed he was being facetious.

Tim


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Another great reason to vote for Bush
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 20:31:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.183946.5674@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#Ripping a child apart with a powerful vacuum pump is 
#certainly not the same thing as "witholding assistance".  
#You are terribly ill-informed about abortion methods.

So are you, Holtsinger.  I'm sure that you can fabricate
a source which states that one abortion method is "ripping
a child apart with a powerful vacuum pump" just as you
fabricated one to back up your "big rusty nail" method.
You might start thinking about the relative sizes of
a cannula and an 8 week embryo, though - you'll
need to account for this to make your lies more
plausible.

Susan




Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31476 alt.birthright:387 alt.flame:12038
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.flame
Subject: newbie excuse #1 (Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting))
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:01:31 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

after being exposed in another lie, the hallchaney
person posting as:
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
-> >Chaney, you are insinuating that I, Steve Novak,
-> >sent something to your sysadmin.  I've never sent
-> >anything to anyone's sysadmin, much less a colon
-> >amongst t.a. text like you.
-> 
-> It was a joke, kid. 

no. it was another lie.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:17:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.232609.30286@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug15.195905.7786@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> In article <lefty-120892143620@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>> >
>> >Arguments?  You say you have _arguments_?
>>
>> I'm known for them.
>
>Not around here.

Go check the "Who will... the single mother?" thread. 

Oh, and check out my obliteration of Mark the Irate Cough Man. 

Memorialize the man; I'm about to burn him white-hot when I switch
from flames to nuclear fusion to plasma energy. My only hope is that
when I get done, he doesn't feel so low as to seek out Jack Kervorkian
to put him outa his misery.  

You might hence be surprised to see me abandoning other flame wars, to
concentrate on roasting Kaufman. 

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


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: maj1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Mark A. Jamison)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to not vote for Bush
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:07:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.131533.24782@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.050110.39709@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
>>>> But those who are "pro-life" believe that their position is a mandate from
>>>> God to go out and save the heathens, not to mention the children.
>
>>> Your statement is a gross mischaracterization of those people who
>>> call themselves pro-life.  Many religious people do offer reasoned
>>> arguments about abortion which are not based upon the existence of
>>> God.  In addition, there are many non-religious people who oppose
>>> abortion.
>
>> His statement is a generalization, not a gross mischaracterization.
>> He is being unfair to those who oppose abortion for non-religious
>> reasons, but there are many, many fanatical fundies on the anti-abortion
>> side.

Yo, can't you and the liberal media get it right?? Jerry Fallwell and Co.
are RELIGIOUS EXTREISTS, not fundamentalists, In fact I doubt you've ever
seen a fundementalist act the way they do..

>
>Your statement is an appeal to anti-religious bigotry.  Focusing solely  
>on the religious segment of the pro-life movement is designed to appeal 
>to anti-religious bigotry, in the same way that focusing on the color
>of a person's skin in a debate about Affirmative Action is an appeal 
>to racism.  

Not only is he focussing on the religious segment, but he's focussing
on the religious fanatic segment, who somehow believe that
the statement, "Abortion is wrong because God says so," gives them
the right to go beyond the law of the land to stop it..


--
______________________________________________________________________________
                       Still looking for Luthien
maj1@ra.msstate.edu                                 maj1@camlost.b17a.ingr.com
______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:20:12 GMT

> = Muriel "Sweet 16, Yet __ Yrs Old" Nelson writes:
>> = "I've always said I like that" Lefty writes:
>>> = (Stephen A Chaney) advises Steve Novak:

>>> But I admit; if I keep sinking down to your mentality, I'll be
>>> irrelevant to intellegent discussion here, too. Excuse me while I pull
>>> myself up from your level...  

>>First, you couldn't "sink" to Mr. Novak's level if you were tied to the
>>Goodyear blimp.

>I think that you are probably correct here.
>However, experimental verification could be interesting.

Especially...which part of him do we _tie_ to that blimp?              

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion