HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A Bare-Fased misrepresentation in same sentence
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:15:31 GMT

In article <34625@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> 
smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 

>> 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.

It's only incomprehensible to idiots such as yourself.  I haven't
taken a position on legislation that would restrict abortion.

>> 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.  

Well, that makes you extremely immoral, doesn't it?  

> Is that a clue about how to
> characterize your side of the issue?

Your delusions seem to be getting worse; I'm not on any 'side'.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 19:01:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.104329.21553@hemlock.cray.com> 
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>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.

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

No, I said that there's no moral difference between
a late-term fetus and a newborn infant.  If a woman's
life were immediately threatened by either a late-term 
fetus or a newborn infant, I would feel that she would
be justified in taking human life.

>muriel


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: MEET GEORGE TILLER, LATE-TERM ABORTIONIST Part Two
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria, pro-death
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:56:35 GMT

>  = vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>>pn> = nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>pn> The cold light of reality begins with the fee schedule.  Sixteen to 22
>>pn> weeks, $750; 22 to 26 weeks, $1800.  Beyond 26 weeks, $2200.  

>> I see your not too proud to go for a few cheap shots.
>>
>> (1) Nice innuendo.  (Do you do mathemtical proofs by innuendo too?)
>>    Care to make (& defend) a CLEAR statement that Dr. Tiller is primarily 
>>    motivated by money?  <y,n>
>>
>> (2) IF the fact the Dr. Tiller charges money for abortions demonstrates
>>    that he's only in it for the money, THEN what can we conclude when
>>    Dr.s & hospitals charge even more for live births?  

> Gotta share a little story with y'all here.  My mother is an ob/gyn nurse
> [...] a patient in the hospital for an elective abortion [...]
> was completely ready for the operation, and just before they were going
> to start it, the doctor asked the patient if she had brought the money to
> [...] This story is absolute fact.  
> You tell me, was that doctor interested that patients health?  [...]
>
> My dentist gives me a month to pay her bills.

Well folks, there you have it: two little stories that clearly establish
that Dr. Tiller (as well as all doctors who do abortions?) are primarily
motivated by money, whereas all other doctors are not.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: You want to talk about nature?
Date: 21 Dec 1992 09:02:56 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for FAQ (Was: Reconciling OT/NT)
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:00:09 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec28.011822.12450@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
#In article <nyikos.725128086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
##In <1992Dec22.063007.50924@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
##
#
#[Riiiip]
#
##Susan Garvin is at least a candidate for the title "pro-abortionist," 
##along with everyone else who sneers at every report of wrongdoing
##by LEGAL abortionists while choosing to blind themselves to evidence
##that certain illegal abortions never took place.
##
#We have yet to see any evidence of wrongdoing by legal abortionists.
#The crap you've posted about Dr. Tiller didn't show anything of the
#sort. His medical practices as you described them are certainly
#acceptable. You did post some hearsay evidence from a soruce (an
#employee who had been fired) which can by no stretch of the
#imagination (except yours) be considered either impartial or reliable.

Shhh.  PHoney thinks that charging money for a service constitutes
malpractice.  I wish that he'd speak to my oncologists...

I do sneer at PHoney's reports.  I also laugh at them.  

#[Riiip]
#
##[This includes opposing informed consent requirements, requirements that
##abortionists carry a realistic amount of malpractice insurance,
##requirements that abortions be done in EITHER a hospital OR licensed
##clinic, requirements that SO's be ALLOWED to witness the abortion,
##requirements that women be tested for pregnancy before D&C etc. are 
##performed, etc.  It also includes those spreading disinformation about 
##these requirements already being in place, while knowing it to be false.]
##
#You mean, like the disinformation you're spreading all the time Petey?

He must - I haven't seen anyone else posting misinformation on
this subject lately.  (Rev. Holtsinger lies about safety restrictions
now and then, but he's slowed down lately.  I think he's still
embarrassed because he cited a court case and claimed that it held
that abortion clinics weren't subject to the same public health laws
that other clinics are.  The case said exactly the opposite.  He
blamed it on the book he was quoting, _A Lawyer Looks at Abortion_,
or somesuch, which shows how good their sources are.)

PHoney certainly has some odd notions about what is standard
medical procedure.  I wonder if he thinks that a patient's SO
should be allowed in the operating room for all surgery.  I wonder
if he knows why they are not.  (Never mind - he is chock full
of ideas that would make surgery less safe.)

>[Riiip]
#
##As you can see, I make distinctions as above.  It is possible to be any
##subset of the set {pro-choice, pro-abort, pro-abortionist}, including
##(as in my case) the empty set.
##
#Here's something we agree on Petey. You certainly qualify as an empty
#set...

Make that three of us.

#[Riiip]

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53922 alt.flame:17559 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:672
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: 3 Jan 93 05:34:14 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> "Pro-choice Quality Control" is another way to
-> describe the way I see what I do, Larry. 

sounds to me like your "net.informants" group
revisited.

 'These quotes demonstrate only that I considered your
 (pl.)  rule-breaking public meta-discussion in
 talk.abortion worthy of mention to those who make the
 rules, enforce the rules, run the systems, discipline
 users, etc. I made no private requests for disciplinary
 action. In fact, I made no PUBLIC request for specific
 disciplinary action, either. I presented the possibility
 in the most general way possible. If bringing a clear
 rules violation to the attention of those who created the
 rules, IN THE NEWSGROUP DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE, is
 being a net.cop, then I wish more people would be
 net.cops, in that sense and that sense alone. I'd be more
 inclined to call such people "net.informants" or
 "net.reporters", however, since they aren't really trying
 to enforce anything themselves - they're just passing
 along information.'
     kevin darcy writing to susan garvin ---
     Message-ID: <1991Dec27.163135.11530@rotag.mi.org>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Victoria
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:53:13 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>In article <aidler.725417 859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA 
>(E Alan Idler) writes:

>}The child has *no* advocate and no voice -- yet faces grave 
>}consequences.  

>This is quite untrue.

I can't determine which of my points you are challenging.
In any case, I would challenge your assertion because:

1. who considers the child? (maybe nobody ...)

2. the child's entire existence is in the balance.

>}                        The physician only receives a fee
>}by performing the abortion and is, therefore, in no position
>}to be impartial.

>I don't think this sentence means what you think it does.

Do you presume that all physicians always act in the
best interest of the woman or child and never in their
own self-interests?

>}Therefore, the *only* way to provide an independent 
>}ajudication of these rights and do the best for all considered 
>}is to have the state provide an impartial tribunal to 
>}evaluate the situation.

>How did we ever get along before "states"?  Btw, Virginia is a 
>commonwealth, would they have to change if they were to provide
>a truly impartial tribunal?  And does that leave Canada Right
>Out?  Or would you like to claim a la Kevin Darcy that "*only*"
>means something other than singular, in this context...

1.  state == government in general (in this instance)

2.  A formal "court" probably isn't what is required (or
appropriate) for this process, but I believe the 
government has a duty to mediate the rights of the
mother and child.

A IDLER
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
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: Sun, 3 Jan 93 01:40:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.223147.9477@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.035312.21354@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>>You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between intentional
>>ignorance, and simply giving somebody a hard time.
>
>I find it far more effective to "give someone a hard time" by turning the
>spotlight on THEIR ignorance, than, as Keegan does, constantly turning the
>spotlight on HIS OWN ignorance, and hoping I'll eventually get annoyed by 
>the display of illogic.
>
What eventually Kevin? You rise to the bait every single time, making
yourself look as petty as Kegan could wish. If you're so certain he's
wrong, then ignorethe comments, and stand on your merits. If you can't
do that, then perhaps Kegan is correct about you.

>>Kevin, I presume you realise that if you did not react so predictably
>>to the baiting, it wouldn't be worth the effort of baiting you.
>
>I don't mind being baited, as long as each and every exchange shows the
>baiter to be more ignorant and immature than I am. Every time Keegan insists
>that "Kellmeyer and Darcy" is an "individual", he makes himself look stupider.
>I find that faintly amusing. My only "reaction" to the bait is to gingerly 
>strip the surface layer from his propagandistic phrasings so as to reveal 
>the basic stupidity of his claim, i.e. that "Kellmeyer and Darcy" is an 
>"individual". What a loser...
>
You seem to be a bit confused here Kevin. Your reaction is to come out
screaming, reacting in *exactly* the way you are intended to. If the
claims about your lack of consistancy and intelligence are correct,
that will be apparent by your articles. Your responses to baiting,
which is intended to provoke the exact reaction you provi, do nothing
to counter Keegans arguments about you.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:22:55 GMT

In <1992Dec23.071349.20095@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1086@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec22.153207.4729@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com
>>( Steve Novak) writes to Petey Honey:  
>>[text deleted]
>>>It's gonna be fun watching Sue Garvin embarrassing you again.  Welcome 
>>>back..."Professor".
>>
>>Actually, I think that it's going to be Mark Cochran who gets to be
>>the leader in embarassing PHoney for a while - Nyikos is posting a
>>lot of medical misinformation in his latest incarnation.
>>I'd also guess that Steve Adams, Eric Rescorla, and drieux will have
>>their turns, too, since Nyikos has decided to branch out into
>>theology.  

Well, yes, I am posting a lot of disinformation by Mark and even
restraining myself from providing instant rebuttals.  Just a few 
minutes ago I posted Cycle 3, and I must say, it was awfully hard
to resist the temptation, but I specifically promised to let Mark
have the last word [in the figurative sense: I did answer a question
from him as to where I stand in respect to something] in these first
three cycles.

But now, the kid gloves are off.  On Saturday I hope to have "Mark
Cochran, Master of the Big Lie technique, part 3" ready for your
perusal.

>>I'll add that there's plenty of material already available - these
>>guys can have fun even if PHoney runs for cover, er, his rewsreader
>>breaks down again.
>>
>Ain't it just an *amazing* coincidence how that happens?

Why, what did the latest disablement of my netserver coincide with?

Or are you just posting a Lefty-Kaflowitz flame having nothing to 
do with your perception of reality?

Note to networkers: no fair answering Mark's questions for him.  I 
want to know what HE thinks I "coincidentally" missed out on.
After all, he's a big boy, he knows how to answer questions all by
himself.  He's given PLENTY of evidence of it in Cycles 1, 2, and 3.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: a silly question from dodie
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:37:17 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->#dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->#->Does "TSAKC" do anything besides fabricating "net reputations"?
->#
->#the only people i know of, dodie, who'd even speculate
->#about something like that are the cowards who earned
->#their net reputation(s) and, like cowards, need someone
->#or something to blame for their failures.

->Is DODie pouting because he doesn't know what the acronym means,
->too?

i don't think he's pouting; nor does he seem to know
what the acronym means. he does seem to be trying to
plod his way through figuring out why people see him as
a liar. you's think he'd know, wouldn't you?

ask kebbie, dodie.

->I wonder how DODie blames the reputation that he has in 
->alt.sex, alt.romance.chat, soc.singles, etc. on TSAKC members.
->Maybe he thinks that we're controlling him.  Maybe he thinks
->we're controlling the people who laughed him out of those
->groups.  His delusions seemingly have no end.

that's why it might be a good idea for dodie to see a
therapist, eh?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:50:15 GMT

I've set follow-ups to head for talk abortion.   I can't figure out
what this has to do with Canadian politics, especially after I
contribute...


In article <aidler.725417 859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA 
(E Alan Idler) writes:

}The child has *no* advocate and no voice -- yet faces grave 
}consequences.  

This is quite untrue.

}                        The physician only receives a fee
}by performing the abortion and is, therefore, in no position
}to be impartial.

I don't think this sentence means what you think it does.

}Therefore, the *only* way to provide an independent 
}ajudication of these rights and do the best for all considered 
}is to have the state provide an impartial tribunal to 
}evaluate the situation.

How did we ever get along before "states"?  Btw, Virginia is a 
commonwealth, would they have to change if they were to provide
a truly impartial tribunal?  And does that leave Canada Right
Out?  Or would you like to claim a la Kevin Darcy that "*only*"
means something other than singular, in this context...

--
       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...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53331 alt.society.civil-liberty:7117 talk.politics.misc:65522
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
Date: 29 Dec 1992 17:40:46 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Peter D. Hampe) writes:
|> firebombin is a form of free speech
|> if and only if flag burning is truely a form of speech.
|> 
This is only true if you are firebombing your own property, there are
adequate safety controls to protect the community, and you do not
try to collect on insurance.  I assume you would also have to explain
why burning down your own building is an act of protest.

Now, if someone burns my flag, they will have violated the law.
But if they burn their own flag, it is 1) a legitimate form of
protest, 2) should be protected under the constitution, and 3)
is so boring as to be ineffective.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: an example of dodie's "honesty"
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:55:45 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <zbz2d3k@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
#dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes
#to susan garvin:
#
#->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, as most of the
#material you post.

No, actually it's a lot more honest than anything that I've
seen him post.  I do support the FOCA, however reluctant
that support may be.  Unlike DODie, I'm neither afraid nor
ashamed to state my beliefs.

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.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's Scared of O'Tuama??
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: Wed, 23 Dec 92 06:31:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.192449.10476@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by  Steve Novak <steven@advtech.uswest.com>:
>> 
>> Boy, just when it was getting good.
>
>Too bad you missed it.
>
>
>> I'm sure some of you noticed the fawning, nervous "smilies" of Suzanne as
>> she struggled to stay on the good side of Ms. O'Tuama.
>
>
>Obviously, I've never given a damn about being on _anyone's_ good side in
>this newsgroup.
>
Tsk Tsk Suzzie! "Love thy neighbor" is one of the tenants of the
religion you espose. That, of course, implies a desire to stay on
their good side. 3 hail marys for you...
>
>> C'mon, Suzanne!  Tell us more about all those "incredible freedoms" you
>> had to get all horny with your MANY male friends, and how this fits into
>> the "if you think of it, you're guilty" school of repressive Christianity
>> you follow.
>
>
>You jerk.  I never used the word "horny" or "lust" (as somebody else was
>throwing around here), nor anything like them, nor did I intend any meaning
>similar to them.  All that gutter stuff is all in your own heads.   Even 
>when it's been explained to you, you have no concept of what joy of a pure
>relationships is.
>
And now a bit of name calling! You're certainly giving us a fine
example of your christian beliefs today...
I think you better go recite a few rosaries and pray for forgiveness.
Pray for a clue while you're at it...

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:55:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Patrick, those pro-forcers sure like to threaten you.  

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

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh