HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: An Admission
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 23:36:23 GMT

why, kebbie, do you bother retracting anti-choice
statements you posted two and a half years ago when
your more recent anti-choice argiments are the
statements people now use to make judgements about your
position?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A child's guide to lying with statistics
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:08:18 GMT

In article <1272@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> I read some books on abortion that were published in the 50's and
> 60's.  I'll get the numbers again next week, but the estimates
> of abortion related deaths in those books were in line with the
> estimates that Nathanson so desperately wants to debunk.  

  "Note that there is no explanation for the methodology used to determine
   the number of illegal abortions."
 
  "Note the lack of specific reference." 

  "Note the lack of evidence to contradict this statement."

     <1290@blue.cis.pitt.edu>

> Further, anyone who asks a doctor who worked in an emergency
> room in an urban area before Roe can hear first hand accounts
> of how common these deaths were, and how unlikely the claim
> that 90% of all abortions were done in doctor's offices is.

  "Note the lack of specific reference." 

  "Note the complete lack of documentation" 

     <1290@blue.cis.pitt.edu>

> The fact that many hospitals had entire wards for treating 
> abortion complications is further evidence that this claim
> is constructed out of wishful thinking at best.

  "Note the lack of specific reference." 

  "Note the complete lack of documentation" 

     <1290@blue.cis.pitt.edu>

> (Nathanson likes to pass himself off as the
> driving force behind NARAL.  If one looks at the early history of
> the organization, or reads the words of the other founders, this
> claim is contradicted.)

  "Note the lack of specific reference." 

     <1290@blue.cis.pitt.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Susan sinks to a new low. [Was: Meet P...]
Organization: Check with us after the upgrade.
	<PATRICK.92Dec28131851@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> <1203@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:35:51 GMT

In article <1203@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

   In article <PATRICK.92Dec28131851@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
   [everything else deleted - enjoyed, but deleted]
   #Funny that you see it when YOU'RE on the receiving end of it, but it's
   #perfectly okay to use to bash others with...do you really like being that
   #much of a hypocrite?  

   I don't know why he's complaining - he types those three letters in
   more often than anyone else around here - I thought he wanted to
   be associated with them.  He's certainly go a fixation on race,
   though.  He's hypothesizing about the racial makeup of t.a. - I
   wonder what criteria he is using to assign race to posters.
   I wonder if he thinks he knows my race.

Hell, he probably thinks he knows what color everyone in my family is, as
well.  (Of course, he's plain wrong in at least a couple of cases, and not
even in the same area code on about ten others, but that's about par for the
course for PHoney.)

   I'm not sure if he enjoys being a hypocrite or not.  I hope so.
   I hate to see anyone spending that much time doing something
   they don't like.

I sympathize with that -- but just think of all that goodwill he's
generating for the USC with his ravings...:-)

   Susan,
   who wonders when Nyikos will post his apology to Adrienne for
   lying about her

About the same time he apologizes to me for his racist slur of me (borrowed
from Steve Chaney, no less -- the guy's about as capable of an original
thought as a Xerox copier...), I guess...<sigh>

--PLH, why do *I* wind up with all the literate versions of DJR?



--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Another long night at the keyboard in Raleigh
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 12:47:34 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->#i suspect that dodie hasn't seen a therapist in the
->#last few weeks. that would explain the erosion of the
->#superficial rationality which had appeared in a limited
->#way in some of his posts. now it looks like he's
->#backsliding.

->The deterioration has been dramatic, hasn't it?

it certainly has.

->I suspect that we'll see another blatant forgery of a quote
->very soon.  That seems to be his coping mechanism when he's 
->overwhelmed.

i wouldn't be at all surprised if this were the case.

the holiday season seems to do it to them every year.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:31:12 GMT

In article <1103@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:

> Using quotes around that phrase implies that Patrick actually
> said that.  I don't believe he did.  

Humphrey said, "March your fat black ass down here and tell
me I'm a liar, to my face."  I'll use that quote when I
reply to him in the future.  No doubt you'll still be
defending his remark.


> I've asked Holtsinger repeatedly
> to provide the article number for the quote, but he doesn't reply.

  <1684554D.HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> 


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: ding Ding, Planet earth calling
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:01:40 GMT

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

] In <1992Dec24.123651.12402@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >
] >5. has anyone schedule this years SecretKabalGathering
] >of the talk.abortion folks who are on the Side of
] >Truth, Justice and the American Way? And do we have
] >to invite those folks from outside the bay area as well,
] >I mean, well, They are SOOOOOOO WERID!
] 
] I resemble that remark...

And Quite Well I might add....

] >9. number nine, number nine, number nine.
] 
] I am *not* a number - I am a free radical!

BCR: Binary Coded RomanNumerals,

	"If it was Good Enough for Jesus,
		it's Good Enough for me...."

] 
] >10. I still think wooodyatt is confused, but not as basly as
] >cj, who has taken to Basic Black Leathers And strapping
] >LARGE MOTORS between her legs,
] 
] Things that make you go hummmm...
] or mmmmmm!!!


Well SomeOne had to say it...

Shocking! Just Shocking! that it is...


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
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: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 22:12:10 GMT

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?  

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: The FOCA and Roe v. Wade (was Mezias dropped during childbirth?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:07:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.174329.25082@wdl.loral.com> 
bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

> What I want him to answer, and I have been repeatedly asking him in
> various forms is:

I've noticed that after I post a response to your questions, 
you'll come back with brand new questions which you dishonestly
label as the "old" questions.  Other times you'll keep repeating
a question which I've already answered, and accuse me of not
answering it.

> Why are you undecided on every pending piece of
> legislation that might restrict women's abortion rights,
> yet you can find a way to decide about FOCA?

The FOCA is unconstitutional--Congress is using the FOCA 
to define fundamental Constitutional rights.  Congress 
does not have that authority, because the federal government
can only exercise powers relinquished by the states or
the people. 

My indecision regarding state abortion legislation has 
absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of
abortion legislation.  I'm mostly concerned about the 
effects of legislation on the health and welfare of
women and children. 

> If Roe vs. Wade was so bad, how would you like to see the
> Supreme Court act to change the status quo?

I would like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn 
Roe v. Wade.

> Mr. Holtsinger has been determined to leave these questions
> unanswered.  

The first one is a brand new question. I've already answered
the second question before. 


>J H Woodyatt              


Doug Holtsinger
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:13:41 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Dec23.054455.22725@netcom.com>,
by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):

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

>>So if a pregnant woman drinks alcohol and takes drugs,
>>thus 'attacking' her child and violating the child's
>>right to bodily autonomy, does it follow that the child
>>should have the right to 'abort' the woman? 

> Early evidence indicates that in at least some species (and probably
> humans) the fetus initiates the labor that will lead to its birth.  A
> fetus apparently already gets to end the pregnancy anytime it wants
> to.

Really?  What do you mean by "early evidence"?  I was under the impression
that the nature and source of the endogenous labor-inducing signal is
unknown.  There have been some *very* recent reports on this subject.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In respect of Suzanne
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:45:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: William's Marsh, North Swamp, er, Lot


In article <1992Dec22.182521.8808@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

   From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
   > steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
   >
   >> <about Doug Holtzinger>
   >>Only Rasmussen, Forgach and Chaney can equal his strange predilection
   >>for dishonesty and hostility.
   > 
   > Don't forget Nyikos.  I'd like to take a moment and offer a sincere
   > note of respect for Suzanne Forgach.  All of those mentioned above have
   > taken well deserved flame baths in the napalm of t.a.  Only Suzanne has
   > continued to post here.  Some might call it being a glutton for
   > punishment, some might call it naivity.  But whatever you want to call
   > it, at least Suzanne hasn't run away or threatened anyone and lost her
   > posting privileges because of it.  Although she has been known to take
   > forever to respond to a question.

  Well, with the volume of this newsgroup, can you blame me?  It takes a couple
  hours just to skim the headlines!   I'm sorry I can be slow responding, but
  I do have several competing demands on my time.

In that case, here's an idea that may be of help:  if you have access to GNU
Emacs there at NOAO, try Gnus -- you can wade around all the noise and only
read what you're really interested in, and do it a lot easier than if you're
trying it with rn, xrn, or (eech!) nn.  If not, twist some arms and get it
installed.  (Unless disk space is really at a premium there, in which case
you'll have a bit of a problem, considering that the GNU source takes a
*lot* of space -- but it's free, which ought to count for something.  :-)

   > I disagree with Suzanne on nearly everything, but I'll grant her this -
   > she's no coward.

   Hey thanks, Gordon!

   (Speaking of cowards, you know, I really do have a hard time understanding
    this cultural widespread fear of babies!)

As well you should -- it doesn't exist.  If there are all those evil, nasty
pro-choicers running around out there so afraid of the little tykes, where
are all those kids coming from?  (Hint -- one of 'em is from my own wife,
and she's most decidedly pro-choice, just like me.)

--PLH, ever the helpful and no, I'm *not* an Emacs fanatic, just bilingual. :-)
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:29:51 GMT

In article <1251@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>Oh, for Dean's sake.
>
>The Siren was, as Jim pointed out, more than one person.  The person
>who posted most recently to t.a. (the same person who wrote the
>letter about Chaney, the same person who wrote the "T.A. Guide,"
>the same person who argued for late term restrictions) ...

Correction: Siren never argued for late term restrictions. She was 
neutral. Of course, she was ACCUSED of arguing for late term restrictions,
but then, most of us Moderates get accused of that sooner or later by you 
Extremists. Siren was no exception in that regard.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: just call me mr..........
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 15:13:31 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->Just call me Mr. Pro-Choice Quality Control 

who was it that suggested kebbie might have trouble
with concepts?

heh.

 '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>
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 3.
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:36:24 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec28.003613.16323@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes: 

>Read it again, moron: "equal PAY for identical PAY". What the hell does
>that gibberish mean? Pay for pay?

You knew very well that it meant equal pay for identical work, moron.
It was correct in the original citing of the fact that it did not
require proof of discrimination.

>Are you an honorable man, Stephen? Can you honestly and forthrightly admit
>your mistake?

Yes, I made a typo in a discussion of equal pay for identical work
subsequent to our original discussion and long after it should have
been clear to an idiot what was meant.

>If your "reputation" is all you have to hide behind, then I predict you'll
>have only a temporary respite, if things continue like this.

I guess I'll just have to take that chance.

>Are you trying to tell me that "equal pay for identical work" has nothing
>to do with trying to combat discrimination??? What are you trying to pull
>here?

The same thing I have been telling you all along: Unequal pay for
identical work requires no proof of discriminatory intent for a
finding of illegal discrmination.

>I said "probably", Stephen. Then I considered the fact that maybe the laws
>were consciously written to relieve the claimants of the burden of proving
>intent. As it happens, that's how most of the Equal Opportunity laws are
>written. As for whether there is really a substantive difference between:

Now all of a sudden, you remember the conversation you could not
remember before because of my typo?  Aren't you embarassed to be so
disingenuous within the same post?  On top of that your substantive
claim here is incorrect: very few discrimination laws are written to
relive plaintiff's burden of proof.  Deletia of example in which Kevin
once again incorrectly claims that intent is presumed in equal pay
cases. 

>Whether one can generalize from the specific case of EMPLOYMENT discrimination
>to discrimination in general, is of course a highly debatable question too.

I am not trying to do so at all.  I have clearly stated the following
since the beginning: (1) I accept discriminatory effect as proof of
discriminatory intent in the case of advocacy of abortion laws.  (2)
As an example of a legal case where this reasoning is accepted, I
cited equal pay for identical work.  It's that simple.  Has been all
along.  Your diversions about *your* burden of proof, equal
protection, and the Constitution deleted.

>I have shown your "proof" to be irrational. That is sufficient. If you
>still cling to the notion that your "proof" is rational, why don't you
>respond to the crazed sniper example, i.e. a crazed sniper fires into a
>crowd, and kills more women than men; is the crazed sniper a misogynist?

I already did.  Now how about the crazed poster.  Fires random
thoughts into the net, jumbles them all up, and blames everyone else.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: a silly questionfrom dodie
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:46:29 GMT

In <1193@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

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

->In article <1992Dec28.033836.21404@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->#Susan "Tough Shit, Abortion Kills Children" Garvin writes:

->I guess "pouting" wasn't quite strong enough.  It bothers him
->more than I thought.  

or perhaps he just likes saying the word "shit" to
women. i wonder if that's something his therapist
recommended that dodie do.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:08:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.060029.1868@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>>> To those people, I ask:  who is qualified to decide
>>> when the health reasons are sufficient to justify an abortion?  

>> I believe that most physicians are qualified to determine whether
>> an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.  Why do
>> you believe otherwise? 

> [Mr. Holtsinger], he didn't say he believed otherwise.

Rheal Nadeau did imply that.  I'm not interested in 
arguing semantics with you. 

> And physicians do *not* determine that an abortion is necessary.

Please learn to read, I said that physicians are qualified 
to determine whether an abortion is necessary to save the 
mother's life.  Whether they feel that the abortion is
necessary, period, is an entirely different matter. 


[.. rest of rambling deleted ..]

>Mark Cochran          


Doug Holtsinger
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Date: 29 Dec 92 01:28:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Dec28.213933.3984@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:

}Galen Hekhuis reminds us that slavery and abortion have different
}purposes (he suggests "save the life of the mother" vs. "save the
}plantation").  His observation does not make clear to me the
}difference, unless of course Mr. Hekhuis feels the ends justify the
}means.

No, I do not consider that the ends justify the means, although it 
escapes me how such a belief could make anything much clearer to 
Mr. Skinner.  I don't think I reminded you that slavery and 
abortion have different purposes, indeed they do.  I think I
stated that they were two different things entirely.  I pointed
out that exemptions are backed for abortion legislation that 
were never even considered for slavery.  Were the two somewhat
similar, you might expect to find the same kinds of exemptions.
You don't.  You need not be very clever to figure that out.

Abortion and slavery are in no way similar.   I do not believe
the ends justify the means.  Clear enough? 

--
       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...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: DearOldDoug Says Modern Medicine Must Be Outlawed.
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:26:19 GMT

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

] In article <1992Dec28.014427.17833@wetware.com> 
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] > In Light of the recent court ruling in california,
] > referenced in the FREE-L mailing list, that a man who
] > had become a monk in the roman catholic church was
] > no longer vulnerable to chld support payments, does
] > not the following appear to be more Proof of the
] > 1. SeXularHumanist Konspirakii.....
] >
] > [.. article about an anti-abortion leader ..]
] 
] Since 'drieux' apparently buys into the theory that
] 'one bad apple spoils the bunch', I thought he might
] be interested in the following article about an
] abortion doctor who faces allegations of misconduct 
] and a jail sentence for income tax evasion.

say what?

or are you really arguing that only some
doctors must be outlawed....


ciao
drieux

ps: any time you wish to address the issues raised,
feel free to do so....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion