HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: A DIRECT QUESTION FOR HOLTSINGER...
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 04:49:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.014117.16767@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# In article <1992Aug26.003340.3223@wdl.loral.com> 
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
# 
# >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# 
# >>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
# 
# >>> Are there any circumstances under which you would support a
# >>> woman's right to choose an abortion? (Choose one)
# >>>
# >>> A. Yes.
# >>>
# >>> B. No.
# >>>
# >>> C. I'm not telling.
# 
# >> I don't feel obligated to answer "yes" or "no" because the 
# >> pro-aborts have a habit of misrepresenting my views.  I don't 
# >> believe the Constitution should grant the right to an abortion 
# >> under any circumstances, but that does not mean that I would 
# >> support legislation which banned abortions. 
# 
# > In other words, your answer is `C.'
# 
# No, that's not my answer.  Read the question again: 
#  
#    Are there any circumstances under which you would support a
#    woman's RIGHT to choose an abortion? 
# 
# Now read my answer:
# 
#    I don't believe the Constitution should grant the RIGHT to an 
#    abortion under any circumstances, but that does not mean that I 
#    would support legislation which banned abortions. 

Oh.  I get it.  We seem to be suffering from a misunderstanding of
exactly what it means to `support a right.'

The question boiled down to its nut was, `Are there any circumstances
under which a woman has a right to an abortion?'  And your answer was
that you thought the U.S. Constitution should not recognize (the
Constitution does not `grant' rights -- it `recognizes' them) any
right to an abortion regardless of the circumstances.  Your refusal to
indicate whether you would support legislation restricting
availablity of abortion really *was* a cheap red herring designed to
disguise your opinion behind a false cloud of uncertainty.

Thanks Doug.  You have neatly clarified your utterly wacko position in
the vaporsphere of hyper-screwheaded anti-abortion fanaticism.

How could I have been confused for so long?


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

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 21:56:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bu09ut.Es5@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
> If I may summarize my opinions, of which only the first has been
> our topic for debate:
>
> 1.  Your choice to compare specific relationships regarding
> cattle and fetuses suggests an analogy (Webster (1)) relating
> cattle and fetuses, one which I found objectionable.

Comparing cattle and fetuses was never my intent.

> 2.  "(for all X) enforce(belief(immoral(kill(X))))" does not hold
> in our society, if Webster(def 3) [COMPEL] is used, since our society
> does not compel persons to hold particular beliefs.  This supports
> your original conclusion in a strictly logical sense.  Thus, if
> you're ready to take a pound of flesh and hold to COMPEL as the definition
> of enforce, then the statement that a law enforces a belief cannot be true.
>
> 3.  However, if you accept Webster(def 1) of "enforce," namely
> "to give force to: STRENGTHEN," or Webster(def 2), "to urge with energy,"
> then then the statement that a law enforces a belief can be taken to mean
> that a law supports, permits the practice of, STRENGTHENS, or is motivated
> by a particular belief that may greatly offend or contradict persons
> who hold a different belief.

I think you'll have to ask the person who made the original claim what they
meant by "enforce".  I would guess that they did mean def 3, though.

> In which case, it is natural to conclude that a law permitting abortion
> "enforces" the belief that fetuses are not persons/children/human-lives.

Not really, because it's a religious belief.  For example,

> And yes, our laws do "enforce" (to a much lesser extent) the belief
> that killing cattle is not wrong.

Do you really believe that someone who believes cattle to be holy changes
their mind because it's legal here?  I don't; I think they're more likely
to see those who eat steak as sinners.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: People Concerned Until Childbirth
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:55:30 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <1992Sep4.005228.20374@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1992Aug30.010613.3907@crd.ge.com>, by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
> > dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to susan garvin:
> > -> I also wish that you would display the same
> > -> compassion towards the children who are going inside
> > -> the clinic to be killed.
> > 
> > can you name one chile who walked into a clinic and was
> > killed?
> 
> Can you say --- Becky Bell?

Please elaborate Suzanne.  What clinic?

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 22:38:55 GMT


For the record, I oppose the creation of any moderated abortion
discussion newsgroups, but if there really is a demand for such a
beastie, I would propose the following:

Since there is absolutely no reason to expect any moderator to be
`impartial' or `objective' because of the extremely polarizing nature
of the issue, a moderator should be free to censor articles based on
their content, thus removing any need for the moderator to even
pretend to objectivity or impartiality.

So... consider the creation of two groups, tentatively to be named:

	talk.abortion.anti

and

	talk.abortion.pro

...where each group has a moderator who insures that articles posted
to their respective groups don't receive the kind of criticism they
would receive in the unmoderated talk.abortion group.

Before supporters of a moderated t.a dismiss this proposal as silly, I
urge them to examine what the single moderated group would be designed
to accomplish, and compare my proposal with Mr. Holtsinger's on the
basis of which is more likely to meet those goals.

The next step is to ask why newsgroups are even needed, when mailing
lists will, in all likelihood, suffice.  In fact, I don't have a copy
of the List of Mailing Lists at the moment, but I wouldn't be at all
surprised if such mailing lists already exist.


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

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: All discrimination is not equal -- or wrong
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:58:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.004203.22844@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <AWERLING.92Aug31165912@dante.nmsu.edu> 
>awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>   Once people condone Patrick Humphrey's use of the term "fat black

Only one or two persons have condoned it.  I think the majority of 
both sides here agree the phrase was uncalled for.  

>My point is that once we start rationalizing these kinds of insults,
>any African-American can be a target for racist insults as long as 
>the attacker's reasons are "good enough".  

Or any caucasian can be targeted as a member of the KKK as long 
as the attacker's reasons are good enough?  Is that what you mean?
I agree -- this would be bad.

>Here on talk.abortion, it 
>seems that some people have fallen over each other to defend Humphrey's 
>use of the term "fat black ass".  

I think two people at most have tried to defend the remark 
itself.  Saying that Chaney brings out the worst in people is not 
the same as defending the remark made.  I myself stated that the 
remark was repugnant.  Why?  "Black" by itself is not offensive, but 
when stuck in between a derogatory "fat" and a derogatory "ass", 
the word is clearly being used in a derogatory fashion.  

Much the same way Chaney has used the words "church", "minister" 
and "gospel" in a derogatory way to describe some of my actions.  
Since religious affiliation had never entered into my arguments, 
his use of these terms obviously carry an ulterior, derogotory 
meaning.

>And Humphrey has made it clear that 
>he won't even apologize to Mr. Chaney.  I think that stinks.  

I'd drop the "even" from the sentence above, as it tends to obscure the 
fact that Patrick has apologized to everyone else on t.a..  Patrick knows 
the phrase was out-of-line.  Why he won't apologize to Chaney, I do not 
know.  That is between him and Chaney.  

Doug, you say that *nothing* justifys such racial slander.  If this is the 
case, then Chaney's racial slur of associating Patrick with the KKK is 
also unjustified.  (See how that works -- NOTHING can justify it.)  
I think both of them should stop such racial slurs.  I note that Patrick has 
committed his slur once, quickly repented to the public at large and stopped.  
Chaney, on the other hand, has committed his slur over and over.  I do not see 
you claiming that calling a person a member of the KKK stinks.  
Well, it does.  


>Here's the post which started it all:
>
   [post deleted]
>

One comment about the dialogue in the deleted post -- up until the 
regrettable remark, it was a dialogue between Patrick and 
Chaney *only*.  My name is in there due to Chaney's silliness, 
and not through any action of mine.   



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Suzanne finally sees the light
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:18:50 GMT

In article <l9kl7mINN6nc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.010011.16783@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>From article <+h6m50a.gordons@netcom.com>, by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
>
>>Yes Gordon, I know you've had a vasectomy.  You've posted it to
>>the world before.  And for the sake of the kids you didn't have,
>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>I'm glad.
>^^^^^^^^^
>
>So here Suzanne says that no life is better than a poor quality of life.
>
>Heck, that's what I've been saying all along. Glad that you finally have
>come to see the light of reason, Suzanne.

Yeah, shame on Suzanne. She shouldn't be imitating you like that. It
is not nice for pro-lifers to say such things about people. 

Of course, when folks like YOU say it, it's genuinely consistent with
your stance on this issue. 

Which says worse for you than it ever could for Suzanne. 


I believe Suzanne's point was that when they said "There aren't enough
homes for them. Spay or Neuter your pet.", Gordon Storga did just
that: he neutered himself like a good doggie. 

Good doggie, Gordon. Now I guess you deserve a Milk Bone.... 

And to Suzanne: Well done. 


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
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.
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:24:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> And abortion is not a matter of "trust", it's a matter of what's "right".  
>> Of course it is!  If abortion isn't right for you, don't have one!
>And if slavery isn't right for you, don't own a slave!

Here is one difference between slavery and abortion.  A slave is a walking,
talking, thinking person that can actually say that it doesn't want to be
a slave.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:32:02 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug26.170931.13175@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|People don't seem to have read the original proposal carefully.
|A moderated talk.abortion newsgroup would serve alongside the
|existing non-moderated talk.abortion newsgroup.  People who
|had their articles rejected on the moderated newsgroup could
|post to the non-moderated one.  Talk.abortion would remain
|untouched. 
|
|If we can find a solution to the moderator/volume problems,
|then I plan on putting out a CVD.  

I thought this might have gone by the wayside.  I was mentioned as
one of the possible moderators and I think given some approval by
others.   Thanks.

I do wish the vast amount of flaming and personal attacks were 
not present, but I don't know if I could be an unbiased moderator -
maybe that makes me a little qualified, I don't know. :-)  To be 
honest my stomach and spirit churns at some of the things I see 
posted and so I would not want to have to read over things with 
which I strongly disagree to the point of approving the posting 
of the same.  [I guess that's is what a moderator is to do, 
correct?]  Does that make sense?  Additionally, I may soon lose my
net access, but you never know.

Has someone been picked to moderate the new group?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.religion.computers,alt.flame
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Children Should Not Play With big words
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:03:36 GMT


A Small Child Posted to the Net:
>Translation: AstroBoy@dope-addicts.brown.jerry.edu (Dan King) read my
>article saying that I happened across a Commodore-DOS text converter
>which allows me to write articles at home, put them on DOS disks, FTP
>them onto my Nextnet account, and post to USENET. (Really, it's easier
>than it sounds.) AstroBoy@dope-addicts.brown.jerry.edu (Dan King)
>seems to be taking it as if I'd said I had a Commodore 128 and now I'm
>saying I have a NeXT. 

Ok happy campers did they change 'FTP' from 'file transfer protocal'
To 'Foot Transfer Protocal' so that we no longer have to call it
'sneaker net' when we drop on disk, race to far host, and read
disk in.....


Or is it really the case that the small child has a modem on 
some PCbox, and has to sneaker net between them....


even the dull witted could rig a null modem between them....

But I guess when one thinks from /dev/null, its
not surprising what comes next....

ciao
drieux



-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Badm
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 07:14:31 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep2.032432.10808@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
...
>The laws can't be changed until Roe v. Wade is overturned.  Until
>that time, the people of this country will be forced into accepting 
>the Supreme Court's edicts on abortion.

Ohmigawd!  That's just horrible, isn't it Doug.  Imagine that -- a
woman *forced* to choose to not have an abortion -- instead of being
told what to do by the government.  It's horrendous, that's what it is!
Call out the Nat'l Guard!  Circle the wagons!  Our women folk have been
told they can think for themselves!  The end of the world is near!

Seriously Doug, how can you write that tripe?  "people of this country
...forced into accepting ... abortion"  The supreme court basically said
that up until a certain time in the pregnancy a woman may choose for
herself whether or not to have an abortion.  How is that forcing anything
on any one?  Unless of course, you mean offending the delicate
sensibilities of the pro-lifers.

BTW, did anyone catch the closeups of Schwarzenegger at the GOP
convention?  Quayle and Bush make such a big deal of "family values" and
the "UnAmerican-ness" of Hollywood (i.e. A single unwed pregnant
successful woman is a prime example of what's wrong in our society) while
Arnie sits there, having committed unspeakable attrocities in his films of
violence and bloodshed.

Nah, gang shootings and violent assault are the result of unwed mothers
being accepted in society, not the result of murderous gratuitous violence
in films and TV.

"Submitted for your approval...", R. Sterling.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another Clueless Newbie
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:12:37 GMT
 <1992Aug26.093844.20481@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> <1992Aug26.233735.27613@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Aug27.031233.23455@gmuvax2.gmu.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug27.031233.23455@gmuvax2.gmu.edu>, cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.233735.27613@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug26.093844.20481@gmuvax2.gmu.edu>
>>cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:
>>
>>>Abortions are wrong!
>>
>>Truth by blatant assertion.  (Next time try stating your conclusions
>>*after* your "evidence", dear.)

[similiar comments presented without answers or even a shred of reason
 from Cynthia Swicegood to support her position deleted]
 
> Not as clueless as you think.

Maybe you're right, but how are we to know that when you post an
article which shows you hadn't thought about how easy it is to refute
your claims?

Why don't you attempt to make a couple of arguments to support your
views?  Then you wouldn't appear to be as clueless as some people
think you are.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:24:55 CST
 <1992Aug25.171746.26192@ncsu.edu> <SCOTTS.92Aug26113427@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> <1992Aug26.170931.13175@ncsu.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug26.170931.13175@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> People don't seem to have read the original proposal carefully.
> A moderated talk.abortion newsgroup would serve alongside the
> existing non-moderated talk.abortion newsgroup.  People who
> had their articles rejected on the moderated newsgroup could
> post to the non-moderated one.  Talk.abortion would remain
> untouched. 

Sure, that sounds ok, but who wants to go through the trouble of
waiting for posts on the moderated group rather than see the same
post immediately on the unmoderated?  I mean, everything posted
to the moderated is suitable for the unmoderated group, so why
bother posting in two places?  The moderated form of the post
would show up long after it's been followed-up several times.

Anyway, chances are quite good that every non-flame thread that
startson the moderated will turn into (at least slightly) a flame war
and the topic would end up exclusively on the unmoderated group.

So, in sum, I don't see the point of creating a moderated group.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Five questions for Doug Holtsinger
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 20:16:31 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep4.172406.5963@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep04.161541.40172@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> >garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> >> Well, DOD, can you answer any of these questions?
>
> > Of course he *can*
>
> But apparently you're incapable of remembering the answers which I
> have already given.

I don't believe you've given answers to all these questions; I certainly
don't remember seeing them, and others missed them as well if you're not
lying about posting them.  So if you don't object to answering them
(which you must not since you claim to have answered them previously),
why not answer them for us now.

Question 1:
   Did Susan Garvin satisfactorily provide a crucial
   difference between a late-term fetus and a neo-nate?

Question 2:
   Why do you keep claiming that "only 3 doctors perform
   third-trimester abortions" is unsupported, in the very same
   posts in which you say you don't like the source of that
   support?  (Note that the question is not about whether or not
   you *believe* the support, merely about its existance.)

Question 3:
   What *is* your problem with the beliefs of Judaism that leads
   you to ridicule them in your .sig?

Question 4:
   Why do you continue to claim that Roe guarantees abortion "on
   demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy" even
   though the decision specifically says otherwise?

Question 5:
   Why do you rely on the description of a "pro-abort" regarding
   the organization, but then question the veracity of the
   organization's facts on the grounds that it's a "pro-abortion
   organization"?

Oh yes - and please leave the preceding questions intact, if your
dishonesty doesn't prevent you from doing so.

(2 and 4 are the only ones I've seen you address; 2 was addressed
after I posted the questions, and you actually answered something
other than what was asked.  Hence the clarification in the question.)

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