HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:20:30 GMT

Without any help fron anyone in article 
<nyikos.721974650@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
(Peter Nyikos) writes:

}The day you are an actual Dean of anything will be the day college
}students are done a serious disservice.

An actual Name Flame!  He did it without being "goaded" into doing 
it too!  I wonder what excuse he will use for this one.

1.  Mommie, they started it!

2.  I thought it was all a joke!

3.  Ignore it, and disclaim that he ever said it.

Can mention of the Nazis be far behind?


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Originator: jlharris@c00016-118dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:26:16 GMT


In article <1992Nov18.221201.17685@ncsu.edu>, blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu (BEKKI LYN) writes:

|> |> |> I don't see how this is going to hurt you personally...don't you think that
|> |> |> gays deserve equal protection under the law?  And how is keeping abortion
|> |> |> legal 'pandering' to the abortion-rights activists.  Most Americans believe
|> |> |> that at least some abortions should be legal.  And the Supreme Court has
|> |> |> said they should be legal, even though there were lots of judges appointed
|> |> |> by Reagan and Bush.
|> |> 
|> |> Equal yes, but not special priveledges for being different, including marriage.
|> |> It is pandering, just as outlawing it would be called pandering to the churches.
|> |> Abortion I *gasp* support in the case of rape or incest, or when the mothers 
|> |> life is in danger, but there must be some (dunno how) way to prove that a 
|> |> rape has happened, that remember is (yes I already said this) what the woman
|> |> now know as Jane Roe said happened to her, and later admitted was a lie.
|> 
|> Women who lie about rape make up about 1% or less of those reporting.
|> Yes, lying about something like rape is sickening; however, the 99% of
|> real rape survivors must have their rights protected.
|> 
|> I would imagine that if abortion is deemed illegal except through rape
|> or incest, the cases of women lying about rape will go drastically up, 
|> which would make it even more difficult for society to believe the real
|> rape survivors.
|> 
|> Since most rapists seem to go unpunished, making abortion illegal except
|> for rape or incest, would pretty much keep abortions from most of the
|> rape survivors.
|> 
|> Remember too, that a woman is *always* risking her life during a pregnancy.
|> Her life is always in danger.  A woman can go through a whole pregnancy
|> without complications, yet die during delivery.  Forcing a human being to
|> go through such a risk is repulsive to me, and I will do everything in my
|> power to keep women from being forced into such a gamble with death.

Yes but there is a "risk" although a small one, in any surgery including abortion
therefore you repulse yourself on your beliefs.  The issue of false rapes
is what makes me wonder of the logic of giving exceptions in a total rape outlaw.

-Johnathan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:38:48 GMT

In article <3ay1pyk@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>->>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>->>->Funny - she doesn't *look* shrewish...  :-)
>->>her .gif had me fooled too, for a while.
>->Larry has seen CJ in person
>then he doesn't have an excuse, does he?
An excuse for what, Mr. Keegan?
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:35:16 GMT

In <1df1iuINNe5j@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Nov06.231043.147510@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>> ( a bazillion line article

With a tangle of barbed wire at the left margin.  Had I known Larry would
make such a mess of what I sent him, I would have asked someone else to
do it.  I was naively hoping that Larry would take off his ideological
blinders long enough to look objectively at what I'd sent him.  Apparently
the decent man who is struggling to come out of him has a long struggle
ahead of him.

> all about how Peter's machine is down, he
>    is very confused,

I am confused about what Adrienne's thought processes are.  I am not
confused at all about attributions, forgery, or any substantive matters.

>    Larry about it.)  (Thank you, Larry, for taking what must have been
>    a *lot* of time to explain things)

All of it wasted, as I told him.  He was explaining things I already 
knew about.

>I find it *very* odd, if it was an honest mistake, and Peter can apparently
>send e-mail out....
>                   that he's sending mail to Larry.

Larry sent me e-mail and I was replying to it.  Adrienne has not sent
me any e-mail since she posted her "Get your attributions right" post.

>  Did I miss it and he
>accused Larry of forgery, too?  Am I simply second on his list to explain
>his error too?  Probably, I'm third, after Larry and after Susan Garvin.
>Yeah, that's the ticket.

Nah, there's nobody on that ticket, except that I am still trying to find
out whether Chaney was right about Susan.

Peter Ny.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: compromise
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 23:23:43 GMT


In article <nyikos.722027741@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
|Still playing along with Adrienne's gag, eh?

I think gags are more along Nadja's lines than Adrienne's.

---
c j silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: restrictions
Date: 23 Nov 1992 11:37:55 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1ej3u6INNiht@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
#In article <1egokhINNghu@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#>[doctor needs to kill almost born foetus to save mother]
#>I don't understand this.  If a woman and infant are in a car-wreck, and there
#>is only time to cut one free and save them, do you have a gut reaction to
#>someone who makes a snap decision to save the infant?  I only have a gut
#>reaction to the car-wreck.
#
#Frank, in the car-wreck, does the rescuer face the fact that one (the fetus)
#is the *cause* of the imminent death of the other (the woman)?  That
#*might* have something to do with it.

Firstly, It was Ms. Bartley's statement that she would have a gut reaction
against any doctor who would not give PRIORITY to the woman that I didn't
understand, not a doctor intervening to save a mother.  In future, please
quote me in the correct context.

Secondly, it can be argued with equal validity that the *woman* is the cause
of the imminent death of the *foetus*.  So your point does not change my
perception that the woman and child are equally important.

#Adrienne Regard
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: will we pro-choicers be sorry?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:49:16 GMT

In article <markts.721791228@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:

} a fundy friend of mine asked me the other day:
} "won't you feel sorry when you get to heaven
} and god tells you that those fetuses were alive?"

I've thought about this.  I think I'll be bummed enough at the
times I actually could have helped someone and didn't.  I
suspect protesting that you engaged in some bonehead legislative
agenda will be one of the lamest excuses.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:40:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.182957.25544@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>> But are you admitting that you sent e-mail to my system administrators
>> asking that someone should talk to me about my posts?  You don't
>> call that threatening?  What were you expecting them to do? 

> Even if your sysadmins threatened you, that would not make Larry's
> email threatening. 

That's easy for you to say, you're not on the receiving end.

> It struck me as rather polite, actually. 

In your opinion.

> Even if Larry had asked them to threaten you, his email STILL wouldn't
> have been threatening. 

In your opinion. 

> In fact, I fail to see how any threat Larry
> would make against your system admins would be anything but laughable.

You and Margolis obviously have far more control over your posting 
privileges than I do.

> Remember, Usenet is an anarchy.

Not when you're at a public University which can easily
revoke net access. 

>Eric Rescorla


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: ray fischer: lover of free and open communication
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:40:28 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes ...
>In talk.abortion, keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes to DODie:
>>->How do we keep you from reponding to future articles?
>
>>why don't you volunteer to moderate DODie's moderated
>>talk abortion group. then, you can censor whomever you
>>want.
>
>It's easy. Just killfile him, or don't respond to his articles. Let
>him blather away, and be content with the fact that it really gets his
>goat that you failure to rise to his assinine points. It's worked for
>me for months. :)

I know about killfiles, but ignoring him isn't nearly as much fun as
poking at him.  But he has been quiet lately (as have Forgach &
Chaney).  What gives?  Has an unequivocal message from the voters that
they just _might_ be wrong cast some doubt on their self-determined
moral superiority?

Is the universe about to end?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Description of the Fetal Remains from an Abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:01:10 GMT

In article <By0snG.3AI@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> 
smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:

> Okay, time to describe a different but equally gruesome medical 
> procedure...
> Supposing I wanted to replace a leg joint with a titanium-steel implant.

Abortion is a unique procedure because it involves killing a human 
being.   You can't compare it to an ordinary medical procedure like
a leg joint replacement, because they don't result in the death
of a human being.

>Lost Boy


Doug Holtsinger
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:41:56 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov17.060115.15568@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
writes to me:

>>The inability to name an equivalent burden is exactly what I call the
>>chastity belt theory of illegal abortion.  You are unhappy with the
>>rate of sexual intercourse in our society and you want to solve this
>>problem by forcing women to carry all unwanted pregnancies to term.
>>This is unfair to women.  Why should women bear all the burden for
>>solving what you perceive as too much sex?
>The first sentence I find incomprehensible.   What bearing does
>equivalency of burdens have on whether abortion should be illegal?
>The second sentence is comprehensible, but you've given no reason for
>believing it to be true and in fact it's not true.  The remainder of
>what you say depends on the second sentence.

Regarding sentence 1, let me put it in the simplest language possible.
You claim that you want to force people to be responsible for sexual
activity.  You claim you favor support laws, which would force both
men and women to support children financially.  Then you favor forced
pregnancy, which puts a special burden only on women?  The conclusion
in sentence 2 is drawn from the fact that among all the human
behaviors you have chosen to focus on sex and want to enact legal
restrictions on what women can do to control the consequences of that
action.  That strikes me as a control freak preoccupation with other
people's sex lives and a desire to punish women for engaging in
consensual sex.  You clearly have a different interpretation of your
opinions and their consequences for others.  I guess we disagree.

SJM





Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:55:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.131501.9420@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

> Let's see.  You cross-posted irresponsibly to a number of
> inappropriate newsgroups and someone complained to your
> administrators about it.  

Don't be stupid, I didn't cross-post my article.  I had 
posted one article each to soc.singles, a.r, and a.r.c, 
each on separate days.  Larry Margolis contacted my
system administrators and told them that I had been
"letter-bombing" newsgroups.  He didn't even bother
to contact me first to get the facts.  

> But I don't characterize Larry's mail as
> threatening since it contained no threats or requests for
> disciplinary action more severe than a 'talking to.' 

I don't care about your opinion.
 
>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: will we pro-choicers be sorry?
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:31:25 GMT

In article <1ebgebINN3rl@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <markts.721791228@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
>>
>> a fundy friend of mine asked me the other day:
>> "won't you feel sorry when you get to heaven
>> and god tells you that those fetuses were alive?"
>
>No need to wait until you get to heaven.  Ask a pregnant woman if a foetus is
>alive, or ask a doctor (hint: the doctor is less likely to slap you in the
>face).

The argument is not wheither the foetus is medically alive. THe argument
is wheither the foetus is Human and has a Soul.

I'm not going to feel *that* sorry when and if God tells me that the
bacteria that my body kills off are alive. And I'll be really damn glad
if I find out that my recently passed-away dog has a soul and is waiting
in Heavan or whatever is on the other side. As for the foetus, I really
can't see how those things can have souls until they develop a brain with
which they can experience. Until then, it is not human, and killing it
is not homocide.
>
>> if i thought that even might happen, i would be 
>> sorry indeed. but it won't. because they are
>> not. you are entitled to your own opinion,
>> even if its wrong.
>
>As are you.

Well, Hell, why don't we just say we're *all* wrong! When's the last time
*YOU* were certain beyond a shadow of doubt that God existed? 
If I was saying only things I abso-damn-lutely know are right, I'd end up
with a bunch of boring posts that look like this:

1) I know that I must exist, even if everything else I know is completely
false.
2) An assertion cannot be both true and false at the same time.

>
>> mark.
>
>-- 
>Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
>                               when you make us free your way"
>                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'

Lost Boy

*********************************************************************
* Never use logic on a Bible Thumper. It's completely alien to them.*
*                                       -Karen Uru                  *
*********************************************************************

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48246 alt.abortion.inequity:5148 soc.men:19444
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 09:25:32 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov17.064942.26959@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

I don't usually bother responding to Kevin, but he's so incorrect in this
instance that I am making an exception.  I won't bother responding to future
issues in this thread, but it is important not to get these things mixed up.

>What you describe is fraud, Adrienne. A criminal act. The man has been misled 
>into forsaking birth control, and therefore the risk has been brought upon
>the woman BY HER OWN ACTIONS. Do you condone this behavior? Would you SUBSIDIZE
>this behavior, if it were your wallet on the line?

This statement is not correct.

The woman in an act of sexual intercourse has not undertaken a contractual
obligation to use birth control.  She has not certified her knowledge in u
using it correctly, and she CLEARLY has not caused him through anything 
other than his own laziness to 'forsake birth control'.  If some fella 
doesn't want to be a dad, said fella can put a cap on it!

People lie.  We all know this.  We *all* know this.  Therefore, relying
upon the word of another person is AUTOMATICALLY stupid.  That's where
the whole growth of the legal industry sprang from.

Now, if you want to be a disingenuous idiot, go ahead.

But don't go telling other people that you can sue for fraud in an unen-
forceable situation, because that's doing people who would (be stupid
enough to) listen to you a GRAVE disservice.

Adrienne Regard
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 12:43:08 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.722026585@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Actually, my point was: "The only way Adrienne can avoid making an
>ass out of herself is to admit that she's been making one long practical
>joke, and I'm giving her all the chance in the world to do that, but
>she refuses to take advantage of it."
>You better be.  I don't do this for everybody, and I don't think I'll
>be doing it for Adrienne again.

Oh 

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

*grovel* *grovel* *grovel*

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

you heap big dangler, you!!!


Make damned sure you don't make an ass of yourself doing anything 'for me'
again, Peter.  It's been hard on the ribs, all this laughing.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: The Keeganoid demonstrates his control tendencies again 
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:56:38 GMT

In article <1cv1sah@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>How do we keep you from reponding to future articles?

> why don't you volunteer to moderate [Holtsinger]'s moderated
> talk abortion group. then, you can censor whomever you
> want.

It wasn't "my" moderated talk.abortion newsgroup, Keeganoid.
I only proposed a moderated newsgroup -- I never intended
to place myself in a position of authority to control the
newsgroup.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48873 alt.rush-limbaugh:10095