HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Keegan's harassment of women
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:08:49 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <kph1n_l@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

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

>> Keegan only joins threads when either a) he is challenged, b) one 
>> of his pro-abort buddies is challenged, or c) a woman expresses
>> her non-opposition or support for abortion restrictions.  

> Again, Holtsinger whines about the fact that keegan doesn't lash
> out randomly at anyone who happens to be nearby.  

And rocker whines that my observations about Keegan are right 
on the money.  Why does that bother you, rocker?  

> Guess that makes
> it just that much harder for you to paint him as some kind of
> lunatic, eh?

No, I already knew that Keegan was a rad pro-abortion lunatic.
Everyone else knows that too, except for his rad pro-abort buddies,
who come jumping to his defense on command.  Did he ask
everyone to help him through another mailing list this time?
I always knew he was too piddling weak to defend himself. 

> So now that you've made up some criteria and assigned them to
> keegan, why don't you tell us what causes _you_ to attack people?
> Do share.

I can't help pointing out Keegan's harassment of women. 

>> Yet I've seen Keegan harass and verbally abuse
>> women for no reason other than their moderate positions on
>> abortion, in threads where he and his buddies weren't involved.  

> Then you'll be happy to post examples of this, won't you?  Surely
> you wouldn't, like Darcy, make an assertion you can't support.

Look at any thread where he attacks Ms. Bartley for using
the prochoice label.  

>> I think he wants to stifle the opinions of women who disagree
>> with him.  I think he wants it to appear that every woman on 
>> talk.abortion does not support abortion restrictions.  Those
>> who disagree with him will be verbally abused and harassed
>> until they disappear from talk.abortion.

> You do realize, I'm sure, that the paragraph above describes you
> quite well.  Using your definition of "harassment".

When have I ever verbally harassed and abused anyone who
didn't attack me first? 

>> I don't 
>> want to see women harassed off talk.abortion simply because Keegan
>> doesn't approve of their opinions.  You may not care much about
>> Keegan, but I sincerely believe that Keegan's harassment
>> of women may have the effect of stifling discussion.  In fact,
>> it may have already had that effect.

> Are women more easily intimidated than men, Holtsinger?  Are they
> more naturally prone to run when asked a question?

No, I simply value the opinion of women and I don't want to
see any of their opinions stifled by Keegan, the net.nazi.  
 
> Feh.  If this is what you think of people you "respect", I'd
> just as soon not have any part of it.

So put me in a killfile.  Nobody's forcing you to listen
to my opinion.  

>                      -rocker


Doug Holtsinger
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos and SAT
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:43:34 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Oct27.130414.29618@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU
> (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>>Second, it reveals that you believe that your scores and math
>>achievements somehow leak over into your performance in talk.abortion.

>I never said anything like this.  The closest I ever came was to
>say to Bense that if my credentials, which he showed quite a bit of
>skepticism over, were to be as I said they were, that would help
>my credibility were I a pro-choicer, but as it is, I am afraid

Actually, Peter, my point was to indicate to you that those self-same
credentials did not carry any weight what-so-ever considering your poor
debating performance. These poor performances have been discussed at
length, by many others, and will not be drug up again by me. If you
were a pro-choicer, those credentials would help you just as much as
they do now, considering that your posting style at the time was the
equivalent of chaney's, and in some cases worse. (People who think they
are borgs are easily understood to be missing a marble or two, while those
with a semblance of intelligence may be easily mistaken for sentient
beings until an extended examination.)

Your implications with your credentials were that you were both logical
and credible. Your arguments in t.a were neither at the time. Einstein
- a wonderful theorist and good violinst, but entirely unable to understand
the mechanics of tying his shoes.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Clearly NOT a FORGERY
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 00:33:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.174712.27216@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>>>>Path: wetware!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!decwrl!concert!rock!taco!csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu!dsholtsi
>>>>From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>>>>Subject: Keegan demonstrates his tendencies towards controlling people

>>I present as an alternative case, to my former concerns:

>>Note, if you will that Doug Holtsinger's post here has
>>a 'correct' "Path:" line that does specify an ncsu.edu
>>host in it.

>It would be *nice* if NCSU decided to update its set of maps so that the
>main news host appeared in the uucp maps, but "the maps" are getting
>quite out of date in some ways.  There are literally tens of thousands
>of sites that have news and mail connections that don't appear in "the
>maps" since they are already in the internet DNS database.

>Casting aspersions on NCSU because you are technically out-of-date is
>hardly conducive to you (already lacking) net.reputation.

Don't cast aspersions on drieux. He's not the one who doesn't see the 
point in putting uucp connections on the map if they also run internet. 
Current uucp rules still state that if it does uucp, it better be on the
map. Even if it uses internet or dances the cha cha cha most of the time.



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:33:59 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov5.063443.5768@wdl.loral.com> 
bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

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

>> That's typical of the pro-aborts -- they're only interested
>> in providing the choice to abort, nevermind about any other 
>> choices.  

> Go ahead, Mr. Holtsinger -- test our resolve.  Start trying to take
> away any *other* reproductive options, and SEE how fast you run into
> opposition from the very same people you see fighting for legal
> abortion now.

What difference does it make whether opposition to a particular
'choice' comes from a specific group of people or from societal 
and socio-economic forces?  If 'pro-choicers' were truly interested 
in providing choices, they wouldn't stop at providing only once
choice.

>J H Woodyatt              


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc,comp.mail.misc
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:27:32 GMT

In article <1doq3lINN1ng@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BxI4EI.11G@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>I am arguing that abortion should NEVER be paid for by the state or
>>anyone else.  It should be made illegal.  Similarly, men should NEVER 
>>"be let off the hook".  
>
>Well, there you are, Don.  Here's the guy you are sharing your male-choice
>banner with.  

Well, there you go again, Adrienne.  When you can't deal with content,
you resort to trivia.

Letting nobody off the hook sounds like a consistent position to me.
It says that everybody's choice should be the same.  It's not what
people typically call "male-choice" -- it's closer to "no-choice."
("Choice" usually refers to *second*-chance choice.)


>I don't think other posters were entirely incorrect when they said that
>the male-choice argument is simply another take on the make-abortion-
>illegal argument.  Not at all.

You don't think?  Not at all?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:58:35 GMT

schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard A Schnaufer) writes:

>ron_s@verifone.com writes:
>
>>It is
>>not the province or business of government to legislate
>>morality, or to attempt to codify morality in a series of
>
>Then why do we have laws that condemn rape, child abuse, murder, theft, and
>suicide?  It is obvious that those laws are indeed legislating a morality.

No they are not....they protect rights.  Killing, raping, and robbing all
deprive me of something without my consent.  If I conent to an action, as
does the other participant(s), then it is none of the governments business.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Keeganblather says it all (was Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric (was: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:25:39 GMT

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

> No, stale Darcy QUOTES are often the main ingredient (or, as Kellmeyer would
> probably put it - "raw material") of Keeganblather. But they don't actually 
> get blatherized (TM) until Keegan gets his filthy mitts on them.

Sorry, Kebbin, I can't resist a set-up line like that.  Perhaps you should
talk to Mr. Keegan about quoting stale Darcy.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "Republicans run on a platform that government is bad.  And when we
           elect them, they prove it!" -- Phil Harbison
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:29:18 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov8.033225.13187@netcom.com> 
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

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

>>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>> No, my argument is "infants" can be killed when they inhabit the body of
>>> an unwilling host and the only way to remove them is to kill them.  

>> But a child can be removed from the womb without killing them. 

> What's your opinion on abortion, then?

I wasn't expressing a preference for removing a child from
the womb during an abortion, I was correcting Storga's statement.  
By correcting his error, I wasn't supporting any part of his
argument. 

I believe that parents should have a general obligation to care 
for their children.  Bodily autonomy has nothing to do with it.
I think this is the second time I've told you that.

> Since removing the fetus intact involves greater expense and
> greater risk to the woman at the gain of only perhaps the slow death
> of the fetus over a few minutes instead of intentionally quickly,
> removing the fetus intact would be unfeasible and pointless.

Removing the child intact does not always pose more of a risk
to the mother.  I recently posted an article which showed that
killing, rather than removal, is often cheaper, faster, and
less painful, with about the same risk after 16 weeks gestational
age.  

Even if a person has the right to perform act X, where act X
results in the death of person Y, it does not logically
follow that anyone should have the right to kill person Y.

If I have the right to leave a severely wounded accident 
victim alongside the road to die, it does not follow that
I should have the right to kill them.  

>> ... it's the involuntary servitude to a person's sex drive 
>> which often precedes abortion and pregnancy.  

> Huh?  Are you saying that sex is bad, and that pregnancy is its
> punishment?

No, I was making fun of Storga.  

>Brian Kendig                             


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lenox@hardy.u.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:00:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.193824.11459@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes: [to Nyikos]
>factories in Antarctica, but surely you're not that pinheaded.

Hey, I'm offended.  People who really like CS theory are called 
"pinheads" here.  I don't think that Nyikos deserves this
label.  Why not call him something derogatory, I suggest "stupid".

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Manifest Destiny is NOT dead.
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:42:41 GMT

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
] In article <1992Nov3.195041.2701@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
[ too many canuks speaking to each other... ]
] 
] > Reminds me about Drieux's "everybody's a potential American" argument...
] I was just telling a buddy the other day that the real problem with
] the US of A is that Manifest Destiny ran out of steam at the Pacific.
] We have to push on, northward and southward, until every square inch
] of this fine continent is the property of the US of A.


1. Manifest Destiny DID NOT stop at the Pacific COAST,
as we still Hold onto Hawaii, in particular Pearl Harbor,
EVEN IF the WimpLiberals lost Subic Bay.....

2. Need We discuss the fact that the Canadians are
considering Joining, at long last, God's One True Country,
given the fiasco of their SocialistCommunistReferendum.

3. It is Clear that When the FerrisWheelOfKharma Stops,
Everyone will BE American! 

This is Intuitively, Self Evidently, Intrinsically Obvious:

A. America is the Best of All Possible Places, 
because this is the Best of all possible world,
and God Put Forth America to be a Bright Beacon
Of the OneTrueLight unto the heathens!

B. As all persons can Potentially Become Americans,
it logically follows from the argument of potential,
that they are Americans. { even if they are still
in denial about this Clearly Intuitively, Self Evidently, 
Intrinsically Obvious Fact of Nature. }


Hence it is Obvious that Manifest Destiny, Being
the Divine Providence of the OneTrueGod[tm] is
still working, EVEN IF SeXularHumanists wish
to argue, falsely I might add, against this
Clearly Intuitively, Self Evidently, Intrinsically Obvious Fact of Nature. 

ciao
drieux


ps: Well, they have been nice enough to prepare
every four years for a major migration of the
BleedingHeartWimpLiberalScum of the USA....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:09:21 GMT

In <_7h1=c#@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>->Pop quiz time, Kevin!
>[...]

>->(2)Have we ever seen you advocating "forcing" 
>->a woman to give up her child?

>kevin just reaffirmed that position a day or two ago.

Under some conditions, yes.  A poster once said that an unwanted baby
could wind up locked up in an apartment alone all day because the mother
is "unable" to afford daycare and "needs" to work (what, no welfare?).
That would be one set of conditions where taking away the child is
justified, IMHO.

Peter Nyikos


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46722 talk.religion.misc:20477 alt.atheism:20659
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Eat Hot Flaming Laser Death Monkey Boy!
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:04:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Nov4.190355.15617@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>Ok, all you have to do is write a multithreaded kernel
>using object oriented cobol for the 8088 family of chips
>to be used as a Multitasking Multiuser 
>DOS Machine.....
>

  Gads, drieux.  Lighten up a little.  I wouldn't wish that upon my
  worst mortal enemy.

  And they say the christian god is cruel.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:16:19 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov5.025402.18433@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 
sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

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

>> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>>  [.. Re: Clinton's election as president ..]
>>> 
>>> I think that I can let go of this battle for now. It has been a long
>>> and a hard one, and I'm going to take a well earned vacation. For this
>>> reason, I'm going to take leave of this news group. 

>> That's typical of the pro-aborts -- they're only interested
>> in providing the choice to abort, nevermind about any other 
>> choices.  

> .......*sigh*.......
> This is the kind of crap that's been deterring me from posting
> to this newsgroup.  At first, it seemed like it could be fun
> to converse with various people, to find out how they think, to
> give them a chance to meet and greet those with whom they might
> disagree, ultimately to find (maybe) that most of us want the
> best for babies and women and men and the elderly and...

I agree with you that most of us want the best for "babies and 
women...", but not everyone here wants to give any moral 
consideration to "babies".  I label these people "pro-abortion",
because they see nothing wrong with abortion. Most pro-aborts 
will hide behind the "prochoice" label, a label which implies 
that abortion is wrong, but that it should remain legal.  But 
when any pro-choicer (or pro-lifer) expresses the view that 
abortion is wrong, or that abortion is something to be concerned
about, the pro-aborts will attack that poster. 

From the tone of your post, you sound like a pro-choicer. Let
me give you some advice: using the term "babies" is not likely
to win you any friends among the pro-aborts.  They despise any
term which gives moral consideration to developing human beings.
They want guilt-free abortions, and the term "babies" carries 
a lot of guilt with it. 


>Steve Matheson  


Doug Holtsinger 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Mr. Stop Bit)
Subject: Them Other Choices (formerly: The battle is won. So long for now.)
Originator: judi@rac2.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:57:28 GMT

What: <1992Nov5.013419.24161@ncsu.edu>
Who:  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)

>> = smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)

>> I would urge people to work harder to make abortion
>> accessible now that its legality seems to be assured.
>
>But don't bother to work harder to make other choices
>more accessible.  Abortion is all we need.

Tell you what, Doug.  If I ever find out that people are picketting or
blockading adoption agencies or hospitals where babies are delivered,
then I'll escort for them too.

If I find out that people are trying to pass laws that restrict births
or adoptions, I'll be a birthing-rights or adoption-rights advocate
too.

Until then, I'll continue to work to make abortion more accessible.
--
I don't envy Bill Clinton.  But I wish him luck, and hope we all succeed.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy,alt.sex,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Warning: Nykios Does COMEDY
Followup-To: alt.sex,soc.singles
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:21:35 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] 
] Sounds about right.  A lot of "bizarre" laws get to look just a tad less
] bizarre when you read the fine print.  South Carolina has laws against
] "adultery" and "fornication", but to be illegal these must involve either
] cohabitation or habitual actions.
] 
] Even so, one would think that sometimes people would be prosecuted under
] the law, at the behest of jilted spouses and SO's, but one never reads
] of such things in the papers.
] 
] Peter Ny.
] 

1. nykios presumes that fornicators are not habitual.

2. nykios is supporting GROSS BREACH OF LAW.


you choose.


ciao
drieux


ps: they had silly laws on the Book in Wisconsin,
and the folks had a 'turn in day' and flooded the
state court system with KNOWN FORNICATORS who gave
themselves up to the POLICE for having BROKEN THE LAW....

pps: Come ON Beth.... You can CLEARLY show that this
is the sort of thing that happens when folks are allowed
to maintain their RIGHT OF PRIVACY.....


ppps: Also note folks that the UCMJ also has these Statues,
and when was the last time they Prosecuted a FLAGRANT HETRO?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:01:40 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov5.211028.24662@nas.nasa.gov> 
dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

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

>> And, while a non-viable child will die if the child is simply
>> removed from the womnb, it does not follow that a person should
>> have the right to kill them.  The right to kill does not logically
>> follow from the right to refuse bodily support.  I don't have 
>> the right to kill a dying person.

> has admitted that methods that would be used to deliver a
> non viable fetus live would be more expensive, take longer and
> be more painful.  Yet he still feels that it is worth it for 
> some bizarre reason.  

Please provide evidence that I "feel that it is worth" using
abortion methods that would simply remove a child from the womb,
rather than methods that would kill the child.  

>Dan King


Doug Holtsinger