From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: DOD indulges his obsession with lists
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 05:53:05 GMT




In article <1992Aug28.211717.22840@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <Bto007.vo.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

#
##In article <1992Aug27.173821.28001@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
###List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin against me:

##I really think that you should go ask someone for a dictionary
##and look up the word "unsubstantiated," DOD.  From the context,
##you don't know what it means.

###a) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had been making up sources 
###   for an article that Susan Garvin had never seen. 

##As Galen said, it's a safe bet that the sun will come up tomorrow,
##even though we haven't seen tomorrow yet.  You could have proved
##me wrong, but you couldn't resist doctoring quotes again.  As
##Mr. Greenfield showed, you did make up the sources in that article.
#
#And it's also a safe bet that Susan Garvin will continue to post 
#false accusations.  

No, DOD, they're not false.  You lied.

##b) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had doctored a quote from a 
###   Planned Parenthood official from an article that had been
###   posted to the net. 
#
##I didn't accuse you of doctoring the quote, I asked what you had
##deleted.  I'm waiting for a copy of the article from CFC.  Until
##I see it, I don't know what you changed or if you faithfully 
##reproduced a quote for the first time.

I see that you realized that you were wrong on this on, DOD.

###c) Unsubstantiated accusation that I have willfully lied on 
###   talk.abortion.  
#
##Are you trying to claim that you have no control over your
##actions now, DOD?  If you're not, then we've all seen proof
##that you willfully lied in t.a. 
##
##Each time that you reproduce the doctored quote on Roe you 
##are effectively lying.  Each time that you claim that Roe
##granted the right to abortion on demand throughout pregnancy
##you are lying.  

#I have never posted a doctored quote about Roe. 

Sure you have.  You admit it a bit further down, and I proved that
the first time that you posted it.

#Roe v. Wade does grant the right to abortion on demand throughout
#the term of pregnancy.  I've posted proof for that claim, which
#many people have ignored. 

People keep ignoring it because you're lying about the
proof, DOD.  You ignore the statements of the very decision 
that you're discussing.  People generally ignore fools
who do such things.  

Here's the "proof" you posted, Holtsinger.  In article
<1992Aug15.172538.5884@ncsu.edu>, you posted the text
that appears after "ooc:".  The text in quotes, which 
follows your quote, disproves your claim.  (I am grateful
to J.S. Greenfield for typing in the section of Roe that
DOD excluded.)


ooc:  "The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant
ooc:   woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.  Specific
ooc:   and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy
ooc:   may be involved.  Maternity, or additional offspring, may
ooc:   force upon the woman a distressful life and future. 
ooc:   Psychological harm may be imminent.  Mental and physical
ooc:   health may be taxed by child care.   There is also the 
ooc:   distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted
ooc:   child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into
ooc:   a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise,
ooc:   to care for it.  In other cases, as in this one, the
ooc:   additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed
ooc:   motherhood may be involved.  All these are factors the 
ooc:   woman and her responsible physician necessarily will 
ooc:   consider in consultation."
ooc:
ooc:   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 177 (1973)


"On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici* 
argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to 
terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for 
whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree.
Appellants' arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in 
regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to 
support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, is 
unpersuasive.  The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also 
acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right 
is appropriate.  As noted above, a state may properly assert important 
interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and 
in protecting potential life.  At some point in pregnancy, these 
respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain 
regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.  The 
privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute.  In 
fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some *amici* that 
one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a 
close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the 
Court's decisions.  The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited 
right of this kind in the past. [citations omitted]"

See, DOD, you are completely in error.

### d) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had changed the meaning
###    of a quote from a Georgetown University law professor. 
#
##You did change the meaning, DOD.  You deleted entire paragraphs,
##and you deleted the last sentence of the final paragraph that
##you did include.  Why don't you write said professor and ask
##him if he would still attach his name to your version of his
##words.  Maybe you can find out what "lawsuit" means.
#
#But these paragraphs had nothing to do with the issue at hand.
#You might as well accuse me of doctoring the quote by not
#posting the text of the entire book.  

The last sentence certainly did have to do with the
issue at hand.  The other paragraphs are also applicable.
Face it, DOD, you get caught every time you try this.


##It's not my fault that you're a liar, DOD.  It's your own fault.
##I've merely pointed out your lies, as have a number of other
##people on the net.   Your netwide reputation as a liar is
##completely due to your own actions.  I can understand that
##you don't like the fact that people disregard your claims,
##and laugh at your ineptness, but only you can change the
##situation.  
##
##Try posting complete quotes, and try admitting it when there 
##are no sources to back up your theories.  Other people
##do it all the time, and readers respect them.  Otherwise,
##quit trying to blame others for your own very obvious
##shortcomings.

This advice still stands, DOD.  You posted another incomplete,
improperly referenced court decision today.  Have you always
been a compulsive liar?

Susan