HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Insulting Remarks Pervading Male Choice Discussion...Why?
Organisation: Disingenuous Idiots 'R Us, division of GOiDS 'R We, Inc.
X-To: Michal Leah Peri
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:04:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
MLP>  Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
(quoting Don Beaver saying "signed, another disingenuous idiot")
MLP>
MLP> >> disingenuous idiot,
MLP>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MLP>
MLP> >...And *all* this, just because I stole a single word from Heiner Biesel a
MLP> >used it too much!  :-)
MLP>
MLP> No, I think you stole some of his idiocy too.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In spite of your having chided Don on getting upset at you (ie., "Common
Decency... It must be an oxymoron), it doesn't seem as though you're showing
much common decency, either.

Let it be noted that it was not I who was the first to resort to insults here.

Methinks you shouldn't complain about Don seeming disrespectful, when you are
doing the same thing yourself.  However, I was somewhat worried, given our
seeming inability to come to any sort of agreement on *anything*, other than
to bitterly disagree, that eventually insults would be exchanged.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Be Alert, we need all the lerts we can get.
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 01:45:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.224341.9574@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan02.035011.4843@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1993Jan1.001959.29643@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.200825.22596@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>In <1992Dec30.050611.25734@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>Would "limited pro-concensus" be sufficiently descriptive, you think?
>>>>
>>>>"Sufficiently vague" is more like it.
>>>
>>>Superficial, Larry. Very superficial.
>>
>>That too.  :-)
>>
>>>>I think "arguing for legislation while claiming he doesn't want it"
>>>>is the most descriptive I've seen yet.
>>>
>>>I don't argue for abortion restrictions. I argue only against certain
>>>absolutist positions. Learn the difference.
>>
>>What's the difference?  
>
>The difference is that I dislike absolutes, whether they are pro-choice 
>absolutes, or pro-life absolutes. Furthermore, I _care_ about the 
>pro-choice position more than I do the pro-life position: if a pro-lifer
>starts spouting absolutes, I generally just chuckle, sit back, and watch
>him or her self-immolate, but when a misguided pro-CHOICER starts spouting
>absolutes, my instinctive reaction is to quickly douse the spark before it 
>does any real damage.
> 
With the end result being that you do indeed argue in favor of
restrictions on late term abortions Kevin. Just admit it Kevin.
There's nothing inherently *wrong* with your position, other then the
fact that you won't admit that your position is, in reality that early
abortions are Ok with you, while you favor late term restrictions.
Arguing in favor of late term restrictions, while denying that you are
doing so is an awful lot like DODie. Please don't put yourself in a
category with him. One is enough.

>>It *sounds* the same as someone arguing for them.
>
>Then don't just "listen", Larry -- try actually READING what I'm saying. 
>Carefully. If you do, I think you'll find that I argue against absolutes, and 
>certain kinds of just plain old illogic, but _not_ inherently _against_ any 
>(more-or-less relativistic) position on pro-choice.
>
>"Pro-choice Quality Control" is another way to describe the way I see what I 
>do, Larry. Maybe that's a little too whimsical, though, perhaps even bordering
>on presumptuous...
>
It's way past the border Kevin.

--
                  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: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: independent party? (was: Abortion, Caves, Galen)
Organization: Theoretical.
	<aidler.725417859@sanjuan> <1992Dec28.115856.25977@hemlock.cray.com>
	<aidler.725614614@sanjuan> <u7dtllg@zola.esd.sgi.com>
	<aidler.725888809@sanjuan>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:38:37 GMT

In article <aidler.725888809@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:

   cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

   >In article <aidler.725614614@sanjuan>, aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA writes:
   >|An independent party needs to consider the opinion of
   >|experts along with the interests of mother and child and 
   >|evaluate how realistic the woman's desire for an 
   >|abortion is compared with any reasonable alternatives.

   >Why?  Why is it the business of any "independent party"?  Why
   >not allow the woman or the couple (if it exists) to make
   >decisions about her body?  Have you heard of the concept of a
   >"right to privacy"?  

   I am extending human rights to the fetus.
   To extinquish those rights without an 
   independent evaluation is not just.

But denying an already-born person her rights is?  Sorry, but it don't play
in Peoria.

   >Would you like this "independent party" to make other decisions
   >concerning this woman's body as well?  Say, which birth control
   >method she should be using, which kinds of treatments she get
   >for various illnesses, etc.?

   How people manage their private lives is none
   of my concern.

...until they want to do something YOU don't think they should do.
(Obviously, subtlety is not one of your talents.)

   >Note that no child is involved in abortion.  The woman's
   >interests are the only interests to consider.  If you feel
   >otherwise, you have to prove your case.

   Parents have children.
   A pregnant woman is already a parent
   (whether you or she chooses to acknowledge it or not).

It doesn't matter what YOU think about it, because if you're not its father,
it's none of your business.  

(Stunning statement, there -- "Parents have children."...got any other
revelations we need to know?  Chew on this a bit -- why is it you never hear
either the man or the woman involved in the creation of an embryo described
as "parents" then?  They're always "parents-to-be".  Or is this some strange
BC dialect we're dealing with here?)

   A IDLER

I'd have to agree -- you're quite an idler.  You've managed to waste time
and not say much of anything in this article, that's for sure...

--PLH, these are *my* opinions.  You don't like that, I don't have a
complaints department.
--
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: does PHoney have a propeller cap too?
Keywords: like chaney, like PHoney 
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:55:43 GMT

now that PHoney is using chaney's .sig, can a propeller
cap, a cape and racing around a room wailing VROOOOOM
be far behind?

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52556 alt.abortion.inequity:6070
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: legislative solutions?
Date: 21 Dec 1992 08:59:03 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>Precisely my point. It is you and your ilk who are proposing legislative
>solutions to the "problem". 

Hmmm.  I'm pretty sure that I've not proposed any "legislative solutions"
to the problem of child support.  I think that the laws as they stand
are pretty close.  I agree that the implementation of the laws is often
unfair, but the that requires executive (or judicial?  what a mess!) 
solutions, rather than legislative.  We need the appointment of judges
that are free from gender bias, and social service agencies that are 
gender-blind.  I don't see that more legislation would solve the 
problem!

One exception:  I do agree with the proposal for more accountability
in how child support is spent (or saved for college, etc.)
However, I am not so naive as to think that that will solve "the problem".

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:29:53 GMT
	<1992Dec31.023605.21340@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<PATRICK.92Dec31085104@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1992Dec31.162748.11388@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Distribution: na
Organization: 59 Transitway Hang Gliders -- how do we get across 610?

In article <1992Dec31.162748.11388@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

   In article <PATRICK.92Dec31085104@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

   }<sigh> I knew I'd screw something up in that .sig...let's see, he's not in
   }the union, but he's trying to act like a clown, thus taking jobs away from
   }those of you who are in the union, thus...maybe you should teach him the
   }fine art of hang gliding over major urban areas?  :-)

   May I suggest LA during the last riots?  I hear there were some
   great thermals.  Landing was a bit dicey, though.  Of course,
   Dr. Giggles could just give those thugs detention, if he ever
   got into trouble...

I think you have an idea, there -- anyone have the number of whoever the
LAPD chief is, these days?  Just think of the billions we could have saved
if we'd had the Doc there on April 29...:-)

--PLH, a penny saved is about .71c after taxes


--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: When/where are abortion clinics blockaded?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:22:58 GMT

In article <1160@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>> I've heard an awful lot about Operation Rescue, and a lot of it sounds
>> very biased in either direction.  Before I make any judgement on it
>> for myself, I'd like to see it in action.

> 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. 

> 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.  

> 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? 

> 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.


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 20:57:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.204506.33939@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>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.
>
<long suffering sigh>
Maybe we should issue numbers or something. There's getting to be too
many people owed appologies by PHoney to keep track of it in your
head.

>>I hope your newsserver is stable...
>
>Or maybe his newsserver went down again.  Yeah, that's the ticket...

I bet his server is LYING to him again, and changing all the
atribution lines or something. You know how nasty some of those
vindictive AI newsservers can be...

--
                  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: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: t.a. FAQ (part 3 of 3)
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:57:05 GMT
Followup-To: alt.dodie.lie.lie.lie
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

No, DODie, people are saying that your habit of quoting only part
of what Tushnet said is dishonest, and that your claim that Roe
provided abortion on demand throughout pregnancy is a lie.  You've
only been told this a few hundred times.  Do you enjoy looking
stupid by repeating your lie at random intervals?

Why do you keep harping about Roe, anyway?  Haven't you had
time to forge any quotes about Webster or Casey?  

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?!
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:28:04 GMT

In article <725385149.14040@minster.york.ac.uk> 
cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>Peter Nyikos (nyikos@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:

>> [I've added talk.religion.misc and alt.atheism]

> And I have deleted them.
>  [...]
> It would be very much appreciated if more mature contributors out
> there if you would delete such cross posting in your follow-ups.
> 
> I am also asking Peter to stop it, but I do not expect much
> consideration, given past experience.

On my newsserver, there are 35 articles from pro-choicers
who have cross-posted to alt.atheism and talk.religion.misc;
seven of these have come from Gordon Storga.  Mr. Nyikos has 
cross-posted eight times. Why don't you also ask Gordon Storga
to stop cross-posting?  


>Thank you -- Chris Ho-Stuart


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:19:08 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
# >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# 
# >>   Excerpts from:
# >>      "Abortion foes stereotyped, some in the media believe",
# >>      by David Shaw, Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1990,
# >>      Reprinted in the Congressional Record, Oct 9, 1990 S 14817
# 
# > What is the point?
# 
# Ms. Garvin posted a one-sided and biased account of a woman's 
# encounter with Operation Rescue.  In response, I posted another 
# viewpoint of the group.  Sorry if that confused you.

Speaking of ugly, biased rumors of Operation Rescue...

I got word last night through a close friend in a position to receive
such news that Operation Rescue is planning to seige a hundred or so
cities in the middle of January.

He also said that (and this is the part I have trouble believing -- I
can chalk it up to paranoia if its wrong) they plan to branch out to
more overt anti-gay activity.  I couldn't get him to be more specific,
but he's promised to get me a copy of the press release.

Does anyone here on the net know anything about O.R.'s schedule for
January?  Is this just an annual revival meeting thing, or are they
planning on coming out to play?

Emailed replies would be fine.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Date: 24 Dec 92 13:49:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

The King of Meta-Discussion once again must have every little
word explained to him.  He gets just this one bit of humoring
and then he can go back to being a silly little socially
impaired geek by himself.

In article <1992Dec23.201930.369@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Dec23.132558.25246@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec23.013921.7465@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >> In article <1992Dec21.003426.21330@rotag.mi.org> 
> >> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >> 
> >> > Gee, seems Susie is perfectly willing to forgive someone who jokes, in 
> >> > alt.sex, about mass rape and doesn't apologize for it. I wonder if she would 
> >> > be as forgiving of someone who joked about something equally tasteless in 
> >> > alt.flame and DID apologize for making a mistake?
> >> 
> >> But that would require consistency from Garvin.
> >> 
> >
> >What this little discussion is about is the time Kevin Darcy
> >accused the victim of child molestation of being a child
> >molester, then he spent weeks trying to support his remarks,
> 
> Huh? Support my remarks? Are you suggesting that, after the initial
> article and responses, I _still_ claimed that Susie's SO was a child 
> molester? That's a lie.
> 

No, stupid, you spent weeks trying to support your remarks,
not the claim made in them,  You spent weeks trying to justify
your having made such an idiotic remark.  Don't you remember
what you did?
and claimed it was all a joke.
> 
> I admitted my mistake long before I apologized for it, Dean. Stop trying
> to rewrite history.
> 

You took your time about it, kibble.  No rewrite of history
there.  Stop lying, kibble.

 >Now The Reverend Douglas Holtsinger seems to find it
> >inconsistent of Susan to be unforgiving of someone who
> >called her SO a child molester.
> 
> It's inconsistent when she automatically forgives someone who jokes about
> mass rape, in a relatively "serious" group, and who DOESN'T apologize OR 
> even admit his error in judgment, yes.

I didn't notice the individual under discussion calling Susan's SO
a mass rapist (how do you rape a mass?  I should ask Suzanne Forgach).  
And your remarks were not a joke when you made them, and no
amount of your attmepts to rewrite history can change the
fact that you spent weeks trying to justify them on the basis of
how you read something Don had written.  You never tried the "It
was a joke" gag until you had failed to justify yourself for
a long time before.

Geez, stop lying kibble.  If you have to be a fool, be an honest
fool.  Wear your motley and do your verbal gyrations and give
an honest accoun tof your idiocy.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:39:09 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
->dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->}You're one ugly bastard, Keegan.  I never thought anyone
->}could stoop so low as to flame someone who's passed away. 

no one has dodie. but someone has tried to use a
person's death to unjustly flame someone else. do you
know who that person is, dodie?

the Siren persona who passed away is not the Siren
personna PHoney referred to. even a fool like you
should have been able to figure that out. but then,
perhaps you did figure it out and just decided that
lying was more important.

->As opposed to one who would chastize another in her name.  Or one
->who would taunt others because they are unable to contact her.

not to worry galen. the Siren Phonet referred to, and
the Sitren i referred to are not the same person whose
death dodie tried to turn into a flame.

see your therapist, dodie, really, before you climb up
on a tower with a rifle and do some real damage.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Apologies to Garvin, Keegan, clueless newbies, and Regard
Organization: We could use a little more.
	<PATRICK.92Dec29102508@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1992Dec29.201128.9065@jetsun.weitek.COM>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:54:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.201128.9065@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

   In article <PATRICK.92Dec29102508@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
   >In article <nyikos.725578290@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
   >
   >   Now let's see whether Adrienne is ... er ... woman enough to apologize
   >   for something in her follow-up that was, if anything, even more likely 
   >   to confuse the same clueless newbies.

  >Cut the crap about the "clueless newbies" -- you obviously like having a few
  >of them around when it suits your purposes.  You just don't have the balls
  >of a gnat, which is about all that would be required to make a sincere
  >apology.  You're about as sincere as Joe Isuzu, in this one.

   Actually, I like his problem with Adrienne's gender there. A little sexism
   slipping from beneath the Freudian slip? I've got a teddy that would look
   just cuddly on old Peter, Pumpkin Eater.

In that case, go for it -- but I *don't* want to see the pictures.  :-)

--PLH, never eat onion soup...


--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: the GROUP kevin darcy, again
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:38:27 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes to
kebbie:
->I would say that it denotes two individuals. One named Kellmeyer and
->one Darcy. 

that's what the overwhelming number of people who
posted to the thread said too. in fact, i believe there
was only one person who thought kevin darcy was a
GROUP. can you guess who that person was?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion