HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:07:33 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
->>->[Over 40 lines of Kebbin defending himself as a group deleted]
->>
->>->Good Ghad Kebbin, this must really get under your skin, if you're
->>->going to post that much junk about it.
->>->You can think of yourself as a group if you want, I don't care. Just
->>->try to avoid the psych boys when you're doing so.
->>
->>i don't really believe kebbie thinks of himself as a
->>group. he simply needed to convince people that he was
->>a group once in order to slither away from admitting he
->>fucked up yet again. in the global scheme of
->>kebbie-dialogue, this was just more of the same.
->>
->I don't really think he considers himself a group either, but isn't it
->fun to watch him squirm?

i think you've hit on one of the key reasons that
people in several newsgroups poke at kevin. of course,
there are others. in fact, shortly after kebbin
appeared in alt.flame, a long time ago, i told him that
his posting mannerisms were such that, no matter what
he said, there would be a lot of people who flamed him.
that observation has come to pass far more dramatically
than i had imagined.


'Kevin, you try so hard to sound competent and intelligent, too 
bad it's an utterly wasted effort.  It is so much fun sometimes
to beat the shit out of those who are intellectually unarmed.
This is why so many people find it such fun to beat up on you.'
		Babs Woods
		<1991Apr10.223744.17188@jfwhome.FUNHOUSE.COM>


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53936 alt.flame:17560 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:673
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: another of kebbie's obsessions
Summary: 'just can't get you out of my mind'
Date: 3 Jan 93 14:35:09 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

in a flame of someone who hasn't posted in a couple of
months,

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> [...] the Wicked Witch of the North, aka Linda
-> Birmingham

i wonder how much more neurotic kebbie would be if she
was posting more frequently?

---------
'Mr. Darcy may I suggest that you enroll yourself posthaste in a
remedial english programme, your lack of reading comprehension is
astounding.  However, until you are able to secure such a class,
I recommend that in the future you read very slowly, saying each
word out loud as you come to it.  It is possible that this
method will help to override your megalomaniacal, paranoid,
"there's a sychophant behind every bush", thought process and
maybe, just maybe, you will stop presenting yourself as such a
complete and utter imbecile.'

					Linda Birmingham
					<91147.150725ADMN8647@Ryerson.CA>
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:46:25 GMT
Organization: NRL

Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)

In article <1992Dec25.064020.5573@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin 
Darcy) writes:

Just a check, Kevin.  Is the following statement a subtle call for forced 
abortion laws?

> That's a crime that the mother commits, of course, by bringing the child
> into the world prematurely, instead of waiting until her social and/or 
> financial circumstances are more conducive to the having and raising of 
> children.

....

> 								- Kevin


- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 20:12:15 GMT


I wrote, 

>> On a final note, I indicated that I include myself among those who
>> would leave the abortion choice to individuals.  As a result, I am at
>> a loss to understand why questions such as
>> 
>>     Why do you want to give special rights only to entities that
>>     occupy the bodies of women?
>> 
>> would be directed to me.  I am, of course, unable to answer.

psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

>The answer sticks in your craw, doesn't it?

No, I am unable to answer because the question relies on a premise
that is not true, namely the premise that I want to give special
rights to entities that occupy the bodies of women.  It is not
possible for me to explain why one wants to do something one doesn't
want to do.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:07:01 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec30.045125.9144@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
#In article <1223@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##It's very nice of you to want to share your bonus points.  As a reward,
##I'll let you judge the other category.
##
##(Whew.  I got out of that one...)
##
#Um... I don't think I can be considered an unbiased judge for this
#Susan... 
#I guess you'll have to do it after all. :)

I think I can still squirm out of it.  

I'd say someone like, oh, Larry Margolis would make a great
creativity judge.  (And if he doesn't want to do it, he can
pass it on to someone else.)

I'm only really good at judging colored semen contests, anyway.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
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: Fri, 1 Jan 93 02:37:14 GMT

In article <C03Ct6.GD6@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>Of course this discussion is a beautiful example of a pro-abortion 
>diversionary tactic.  To make an analogy based upon the legal and social 
>ramifications of slavery vs. abortion is folly.  The true analogy is much 
>more sinister in how it portrays society's ability to tolerate gross 
>inhumanity.  Slavery is just one example.
>
Did anybody else notice that Paul has started babbling here without
even knowing the position of the original poster?

[Rest of his babbling deleted]

--
                  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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: xmas Operation Rescue news from Louisiana
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:07:57 GMT


======================================================================
The Times-Picayune, 12/25/92, (B1)

AP - Baton Rouge.  A state district judge has ordered Kim Carmouche, 
an anti-abortion leader and unsuccessful Baton Rouge mayoral 
candidate, to pay more than $13,000 in child support or face three 
months in jail.  

District Judge John Peytavin also ordered Carmouche to pay $250.00 in 
attorney's fees to his ex-wife, Chris, within 60 days.  

Carmouche, the leader of Operation Rescue Louisiana, has been in and 
out of court over child support since November, 1985, when he first 
was found in arrears, court records show.  

This week, Peytavin adjusted Carmouche's $340 a month child support 
payments to $227 a month beginning Jan. 1.  

Carmouche is financially responsible for seven children, his attorney 
said.  He has three children from his previous marriage --- one is over 
18 --- and four from his present marriage.  Also his wife is pregnant, 
expecting another child any day, his attorney, Vincent "BZ" Sotile, 
Jr., said.  

In September, Peytavin found Carmouche owed $11,630, court records 
show, and when Carmouche failed to pay, the judge found him in 
contempt.  

Peytavin suspended the contempt sentence on condition Carmouche pay 
$6,000 by Jan. 15 and the remaining $7,285 by June 21, the court 
records show.  

Carmouche is employed by the Redeeming Word of Life Church in Baton 
Rouge.  The Rev. David Diamond, pastor of Redeeming Word, said 
Carmouche is paid by a coalition of churches, not just his church, in 
his capacity as leader of Operation Rescue Louisiana.  

Carmouche was named leader of Operation Rescue-Louisiana shortly after 
national anti-abortion activists ended their week long "Summer of 
Purpose" protest outside the Delta Women's Clinic in Baton Rouge. 
======================================================================

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:51:20 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec30.043340.25301@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.185537.33941@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>
>>What Kevin wrote doesn't even make sense.  "Deadly self-defense"???
>
>"Deadly self-defense" == "Self-defense that causes a death"
>
>What seems to be your problem with this term?

I can't put my finger on it, but it just sounds wrong.  Never mind.

>>He's trying to avoid saying "deadly *force* is generally permissible
>>against rape"
>
>What makes you know I'm trying to avoid it, Larry? "Deadly force" expresses
>the concept just fine. I think I might even prefer it.

Good, since it's more valid.

>>(which is true everywhere in the US that we know of),
>
>Where's the disclaimer about just how limited your "knowledge" is, Larry?

"that we know of".  I.e., I don't know it to be true everywhere.

>And what's this "we" bit? Is that a royal "we", or are you (both) turning
>schizophrenic on me now?

That's you and I, Kevin - a reference to your inability to come up with
a state in which it is *not* true.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Organization: The Nameless Mission
	<nyikos.725151713@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
	<PATRICK.92Dec23180930@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> <1142@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:45:54 GMT

In article <1142@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

   Patrick, those pro-forcers sure like to threaten you.  

   Of course, if he follows through on his threat, you already have
   the evidence that his only intention is to harass you.  I'm
   not sure if even Nyikos is that stupid - I'm inclined to
   believe he's just blustering.

So am I, but having been through this dust-up once with the late unlamented
David Rasmussen, why take chances?  :-)  Anyway, it's a good excuse for me
to play around a little with "encrypt"...

--PLH, six days at work during the 10-day University recess -- can y'all say
"hack"?  :-)

--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:48:02 GMT

In article <30DEC92.16371945@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> In a previous article, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) wrote:
> >In article <1992Dec29.175100.20873@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> >decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> > 
> >Yes Dean I can support my assertion,

1989 Ed. STATISTICAL ABSTR OF THE U.S. - Bureau of Census:
  by 1972 180 women died from abortions in the US.
  in 1972 there were 38,000 illegal abortions

1978 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gyn.
  study claims that the legalization of abortion "has had no major impact
  on the number of women dying from abortion"

"A Speaker's and Debater's Notebook" NARAL 1978
  claims that before 1973 the maternal death rate from illegal abortions was
  40 deaths per 100,000 with 200,000 illegal abortions per year.

Spin away folks!

> There is plenty of evidence to support this.  Ever hear of Romania?  
Check 
> out the October 1992 issue of the American Journal of Public Health 
(volume 
> 82, issue number 10).  An article titled "The Public Health Consequences 
of 
> Restricted Induced Abortion - Lessons From Romania" begins on page 1328. 
 
> 
> Some of the findings: 

 [ long list of stats deleted - PL]

> 
>                                 .... Heather.


For crying out loud, Heather, I can't believe that you would use stats
on a government run by that butcher dictator, Ceaucescu to support your
claims. Talk of mitigating factors - am I to ignore forced pregnancy and genocidal programs he instituted?

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: ding Ding, Planet earth calling
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:29:11 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

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...

>9. number nine, number nine, number nine.

I am *not* a number - I am a free radical!

>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!!!
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 23:14:06 GMT

In article <PATRICK.92Dec27114646@blanco.is.rice.edu> patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.233848.13472@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
> In article <BzuF2A.AIL@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec19.081855.14741@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >>In article <1992Dec18.165413.8758@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> >
> >>>Considering his tendancy to
> >>>argue both sides of any given question, I'd say he is the one who
> >>>needs to be concerned with moral inconsistancy.
> >>
> >>Arguing a position and believing it aren't necessarily the same thing, schmuck.
> >
> >Sure, kebbin.  I bet Karl Marx was really an aristocrat, too.
>
> The inability to see the other side of an argument is a sign of superficiality.
>
>Silly me -- I thought it was a sign of just plain stupidity.

Then take the matter up with Mark Cochran, who seems to think that seeing the 
other side of an argument is a sign of "moral inconsistancy" [sic].

> The uncriticized, unanalyzed viewpoint is almost certain to be a worthless
> viewpoint. As for Karl Marx, he probably COULD argue convincingly for the
> aristocratic point of view in a debate, because although he ultimately didn't 
> agree with it, he understood it and appreciated it up to the point of his 
> disagreement.
>
>Why am I reminded of a former grad student at NCSU who claimed he knew
>Aristotlean thought better than Aristotle?  

I have no idea why you would think such a thing, Humpty. From his works, I
know that Karl Marx had sufficient intellectual depth to be able to argue
compellingly from an opposing viewpoint. In fact, I may have even read some 
of his attempts to argue from an aristrocratic viewpoint, I can't remember
for sure. I can, however, speak with a fair amount of confidence on that
partciular point. Note however, that I never claimed to know Marx's thoughts 
better than he did...

>> > [lots of pee-pee waving about largeness of medical centers]
>
> [...]
>
>> Besides, it's not just the size of your medical complex, it's how you use it :-)
>
>Indeed -- I guess that's why we have UTMDAH down here, and not up in some
>ice mine in Michigan, eh?  (I wonder why we have such folks as Michael
>DeBakey and Denton Cooley around here -- I guess they just couldn't stand
>the competition for your pearls of "wisdom" up there at Moo U...:-)

I think you're confused, Humpty. "Moo U" is Michigan State (MSU), not U of M.
I've never heard anyone refer to U of M as "Moo U" before...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 1 Jan 93 00:50:32 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <C05C6A.Gru@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes
##a rather stunning display of pro-lie propaganda, beginning with:
#
###I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
#
##Nice trick, Heather.
#
#Got to admit.. you got me here.  Takes great still to take someone out of
#context though.

Oh, do tell us in what context your statement would be in any
sense correct.  In the context in which you said it, it was
blatantly stupid.  

#Congrats to your towering intellect.

You've yet to show any knowledge of human reproduction.  I wonder
if you really do understand that Heather could not get herself
pregnant.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:14:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.141748.11987@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
}In article <1993Jan3.061908.21508@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
}>In article <1993Jan3.033806.10827@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

}>>Galen, I can easily pay a medical drone to tell me whether a given fetus
}>>is "viable" or not, according to the accepted and universal medical 
}>>definitions.

}>I know I've said this before, but I guess I'll have to say it again.
}>Kevin, there is no "accepted and universal medical definition[s]" of
}>viability. 

}I'll go along with whatever the Supreme Court's definition of "viability" 
}is, Mark. This is not a matter of "right" or "wrong" or "correct" or 
}"mistaken"; it's only a matter of what definition one chooses. I choose
}that one.

Kevin, in one breath you say there is an accepted and universal medical
definition of "viability," then you say that you will choose the Supreme
Court's definition.  Are they not the same?  If there is an accepted
and universal medical definition of "viability," why would the Supreme
Court choose different criteria?  As a matter of fact, why would you?
Wouldn't you prefer an accepted and universal medical definition?
Wouldn't you expect medical types to have a better handle on viability
than jurists?

}The other so-called "issue", i.e. whether Kevin Darcy can detect the
}viability of a given fetus, is a diversion tactic, which has already 
}exploited more of my time that it deserves.

Perhaps you consider whether you can detect a line you call "crucial" 
a diversionary tactic, but others might think it rather natural to
ask whether you can define or recognize it.

}>>That's "two", not "too", I assume, and you're wrong...

I admit I spelled it wrong, and I admit other errors too.  Kevin protests
that he didn't screw up the way I said and patiently explains that he
screwed up in a different way.  The point remains that Kevin gets
confused about whom he is talking to, that much is undisputed.  Kevin
wanted to point out I was in error about how many people Kevin was 
confused about.  I'll go along with Kevin.  It only takes two people
to get him confused.  I thought it was three.  I apologize.

--
       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: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:29:56 GMT

In article <C00L3K.HwF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

> Since it is the *pro-choice* reasoning he is
> saying must condone infanticide, his (Doug's) beliefs can not 
> be used to back up his argument when it has been repeatedly 
> shown that many pro-choice positions *can* and *do* distinguish 
> between the born and the unborn and some can even disallow 
> infanticide and allow late-term abortions without any
> inconsistency.

Oh, I agree.  But these pro-choice arguments are often based upon
factual differences between "the born and the unborn" which carry 
no moral weight in themselves.  Pro-choicers have stated that
the child is inside the woman, which is a fact.  Why does this
fact carry moral weight?   The child is a member of the human
species, but wouldn't you claim that this fact carries no moral
weight in itself?  

You can choose to base your pro-choice arguments on facts
which carry no moral weight.  But then your argument is 
no less arbitrary than an argument based entirely upon 
the species membership of the child.  
 
>-Rob


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame