HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Susan misses the point of my :-)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:53:08 GMT

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

Susan, showing how she missed out on Larry Margolis speculating on whether
I had no sense of humor when I took a statement by him that had a smiley
on the end of it seriously:

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

Here is a copy of the post to which Susan is referring, large parts of it
still intact in the PATRICK.92Dec22 post to which she is following up.
  Anyone want to guess why she did not leave any of it in?

___________________________Copy of post_______________________________
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:01:53 GMT
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Distribution: na

In <PATRICK.92Dec22203643@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <1089@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>   I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
>   Dr. Tiller?  

>I suspect it'll be nigh unto the same number who have a news server that
>picks the oddest times to misbehave...:-)

OK, Patrick, you're asking for it: I will keep you informed, via e-mail,
of each and every time my netserver misbehaves, and when it ceases 
misbehaving, until you e-mail me the one-word message, "Uncle" :-)

PJN, glad he isn't as suspicious of other people as PLH.

__________________________________End of post_________________________

>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.

Even if I had not put in the smiley, I'm not sure the above could be
construed as harassment by someone who has now put up with dozens of
posts by her in which she calls me "PHoney" without so much as a
peep in complaint, and who has been even more consistent than Patrick
in being "suspicious" about my netserver failures--which some might
construe as harassment and even consider an un-smileyd version of the
above post to be a legitimate response to that.

After all, to escape the harassment in such a hypothetical case, all
Patrick would have to do is e-mail me the one-word message, "Uncle,"
even before the harassment begins.  I have no such option in the face
of "Petey Honey" "PHoney" or offers by Keith Cochran to fist me.

But then, Susan and Patrick are the two networkers who remind me most
of playground bullies who scream bloody murder at the first sign of
resistance from the ones they bully.

Peter Nyikos

PS  A standard joke about playground bullies is to depict them as 
saying "Stop hitting my fist with your face."  In the case of Keith,
another person who is great at dishing it out and unable to take it,
this could be revised to read, "Stop squeezing my fist with your 
intestine."


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:45:06 GMT

>   = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>  = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
dh> = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dh> Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-
dh> demand must argue that the child should not be considered
dh> as a person.  This position implies that newborn infants 
dh> are not persons, since there is no difference between a 
dh> late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers 
dh> must condone infanticide.

>> Are you really unable to identify any significant distinguishing
>> factors between a late-term fetus and an infant?!

> There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
> and an infant.   And there are factual differences between
> a fertilized egg and a non-fertilized egg.  The question
> is whether these factual differences imply moral differences.
>
> Merely asserting facts, without providing any underlying
> moral argument based on those facts, is not a very convincing
> argument.  You need to show a moral difference between
> killing a newborn infant and killing a late-term fetus.

Now wait a minute,  *I'm* not arguing anything -- *you* are.  
Hence *I* don't need to show anything, *you* do.
*You're* the one who casually asserted that (see above)
"there is no difference between a late-term fetus and an infant".
This strikes me as a rather incredulous assertion, regardless of 
one's position on abortion.  So again I ask:

o Do you really believe there are no significant distinguishing
  factors between a late-term fetus and an infant?! <y,n>

-Brian
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Forced pregnancy love fest, 1992.
Date: 27 Dec 92 13:37:04 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec27.012931.15358@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 
>In article <nyikos.724977400@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>> [... good stuff on human development regretfully deleted ...]
>
>I liked your references; mine aren't nearly as broad in scope. 
>I thought you might be interested in the following quote; note 
>the explicit comparisons between embryonic/fetal and postnatal 
>movements.

I'm so glad to see you two getting along ...
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: Wed, 30 Dec 92 21:05:00 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>I stated that without law there was no slavery.

>  So without law, slavery
>of the weak is possible, but is rather difficult to maintain.

These statements collide head-on.

I'm told you are making things "simple" for me.  Perhaps this is the
reason for the contradiction.  If so, instead of making your point
simple, make it clear (this point only; I agree that without law there
is still abortion).


  
                                 Gregg Skinner
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:04:14 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:

[Assuming fetuses receive legal personhood]

>Which is better?  Kill millions of *people* with abortion legal?
>Or kill tens-of-thousands of *people* with abortion illegal?
>**IF** the fetus is a person, then the choice is clear.
>  ^^
You still have the issue of life-threatening situations for the mother.  In
this case, you have to chose one way or the other.  In general, you would
still have to yield to the decision of the woman as to whether she is
willing to risk death (or die) in order to deliver.  If not, then she
should still have access to abortion.  Given the above assumption, of
course.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:05:44 GMT

In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

}These are the facts... there is NO statistical variation in the decline
}of abortion related deaths before and after the 1973 Roe v Wade decision.
}In other words, the legalization of abortion had NO effect on the safety
}of abortions.  90% of all ILLEGAL abortions before Roe v Wade were done by
}licensed physicians, in their offices!  The figures quoted by NARAL were
}patently false, and they have since ADMITTED that they lied through their
}teeth.  (NARAL is one of the primary forces that convinced the Supreme Court
}to rule for abortions in Roe v Wade).  NARAL claimed 5,000 - 10,000 women
}died every year from illegal abortions.  The actual figure was more like 50
}women.
}
}So in fact, statistically speaking, proscribing abortion would probably
}DECREASE the number of women killed each year from abortions.  If nearly
}all illegal abortions are done by "real" doctors, then those women who
}decided to break the law would still be in no greater danger physically.
}
}Chew on these for a while.  References available upon request.

Consider this a request for references.  Especially those that pertain to
the "fact" that 90% of all illegal abortions before Roe v Wade were done
by licensed physicians in their offices.

--
       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,alt.abortion.inequity
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Apologies to Garvin, Keegan, clueless newbies, and Regard
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 21:17:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.201128.9065@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <PATRICK.92Dec29102508@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.725578290@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>   Now let's see whether Adrienne is ... er ... woman enough to apologize
>>   for something in her follow-up that was, if anything, even more likely 
>>   to confuse the same clueless newbies.
>
>>Cut the crap about the "clueless newbies" -- you obviously like having a few
>>of them around when it suits your purposes.  You just don't have the balls
>>of a gnat, which is about all that would be required to make a sincere
>>apology.  You're about as sincere as Joe Isuzu, in this one.
>
>Actually, I like his problem with Adrienne's gender there. A little sexism
>slipping from beneath the Freudian slip? I've got a teddy that would look
>just cuddly on old Peter, Pumpkin Eater.

Now that *is* a revolting thought.
Things that make you go *barf*.

--
                  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,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:31:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.035312.21354@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.000606.29441@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.191937.5513@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec29.180548.22049@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec28.202908.11125@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Dec28.170536.18455@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>... ask yourself "Does 
>>>>>>the term 'Kellmeyer and Darcy' denote a group, or an individual?". Assuming 
>>>>>>you pick the correct answer, then the ignorance dissipates, and all is well 
>>>>>>again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I would say that it denotes two individuals. One named Kellmeyer and
>>>>>one Darcy. 
>>>>
>>>[Over 40 lines of Kebbin defending himself as a group deleted]
>                                    ^^^^^^^ substitute "Kellmeyer and Darcy"
>>
>>>Good Ghad Kebbin, this must really get under your skin, if you're
>>>going to post that much junk about it.
>>
>>Intentional ignorance blared forth for several months does tend to get just
>>a _little_ irritating, Mark.
>>
>You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between intentional
>ignorance, and simply giving somebody a hard time.

I find it far more effective to "give someone a hard time" by turning the
spotlight on THEIR ignorance, than, as Keegan does, constantly turning the
spotlight on HIS OWN ignorance, and hoping I'll eventually get annoyed by 
the display of illogic.

>>>You can think of yourself as a group if you want, I don't care. 
>>
>>Fine linguistic distinction went right over your flat head, huh? Pearls before
>>swine...
>>
>Kevin, I presume you realise that if you did not react so predictably
>to the baiting, it wouldn't be worth the effort of baiting you.

I don't mind being baited, as long as each and every exchange shows the
baiter to be more ignorant and immature than I am. Every time Keegan insists
that "Kellmeyer and Darcy" is an "individual", he makes himself look stupider.
I find that faintly amusing. My only "reaction" to the bait is to gingerly 
strip the surface layer from his propagandistic phrasings so as to reveal 
the basic stupidity of his claim, i.e. that "Kellmeyer and Darcy" is an 
"individual". What a loser...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: The Home for Homeless Homing Pigeons
	<1992Dec28.020456.16807@rotag.mi.org>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:52:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.020456.16807@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

   In article <1103@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
   >In article <1992Dec23.011900.6792@ncsu.edu> 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.  

   Not when it's embedded in someone's name. Then it's obviously a nickname
   which the poster is attempting to attach to the other referenced poster.
   E.g. Susie "the floozy" Garvin.

...or Kevin "ANYTHING to flame people who dare to disagree with my obviously
correct views" Darcy, right?  :-)

--PLH, talk about easy...I'm almost ashamed.

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:40:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.073531.4848@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
|> Oh, and please ignore the title of this post.
|> 
|> This thread is as old as the earth.
|> The only reason I haven't changed it is because it is easy to
|> recognize on talk.abortion as it is the only title that does
|> not make a direct attack on someone's integrity.  If you don't
|> understand what I mean, tap into talk.abortion sometime.
|> 
|> I have been trying to get a bearing on this issue (abortion) from the
|> legal perspective.  However, the talk.abortion group is merely a forum
|> for name calling.  They seem to believe in the "run down the hall
|> screaming while covering your ears" method of argumentation.  Can any-
|> one recommend a good source on the constitutionality of the Roe vs.
|> Wade decision.  Right now I could care less about the morality and
|> emotion of the issue.
|> 
|> Thanks,
|> 
|> Mike Noonan

Well, I didn't mean to post this to talk.abortion, but you guys
have to admit that that is all that happens here.  I thought maybe
I could learn something, but it seems that this group is just an
alternate alt.flame group.  I propose a rename:

alt.abortion.pot.kettle.pot.kettle.black.black.black

It would be alittle more appropriate, don't you think?

Mike Noonan
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: New Program Aims to Break Cycle of Teen Pregnancy
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:14:59 GMT

> = ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Here is an interesting press release from Catholic Charities USA.
>Note that the group's package (child care, social casework and 
>training) does not appear to include birth control.
>
> New Program Aims To Break Cycle of Teen Pregnancy
> [...]
>   LANSING, Mich., Dec. 18   -- Catholic Charities USA, the 
>largest network of human service agencies in the country, today
>launched an innovative, million-dollar project to help teen
>parents break the cycle of teen pregnancy.
>   The program supports teen mothers and their families while
>countering the negatives of teen pregnancy.  [...]

Although the title & opening paragraph claim the goal is to 
"break the cycle of teen pregnancy", the rest of the article only
talks about "supporting teen mothers" and "countering the negatives 
of teen pregnancy"

Sounds to me like what they're really doing is trying to make teenage 
motherhood a more reasonable option, which is certainly a noble cause, but 
I fail to see that they're doing anything about what the title suggests:
*preventing* teen pregnancy.

-Brian
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: more phoney disinformation?
Summary: yes
Keywords: me and the coroner
Date: 29 Dec 92 03:22:55 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <qd12bt@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
#nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#[...]
#->Also disinformation about the Becky Bell case due to
#->Susan Garvin and others who claim she died as the result of an illegal
#->abortion.
#
#trying to smear those who intimidate you intellectually
#won't earn you any points, phoney. your inference is
#false, as are many, many of your inferences. susan
#garvin has posted no disinformation to this newsgroup
#about the becky bell case. your efforts to create the
#impression that she has does nothing but emphasize your
#dishonesty and lack of character.

PHoney's just copying what he's seen other people do.  "Oh,
they called my buddy Doug a liar.  I'll call them liars and
then we're even."  It doesn't seem to occur to him that DODie
*is* a liar.

Becky Bell died because of people like PHoney.  Rosie Jimenez
died because of people like PHoney.  Worldwide, tens of 
thousands of women die each year because of people like
PHoney.  All of his lies, all of his stupid flames, won't
change this.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: More Bare-Fased Lies from the Reverend:
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 01:15:11 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
->>I'll happily stand on my net reputation for lying versus yours.  

->If there didn't exist people like our dear TSAKC who spend virtually all of 
->their posting time trying to fabricate people's "net reputations", then maybe
->"net reputations" would be a useful yardstick, Stephen. But with all the
->context-cutting, misdirection, obfuscation, and outright LYING that these
->folks do, do you really think that the resulting "net reputations" are worth 
->a damn? They are tainted by the obvious vendettas of the people that create 
->and sculpt them.

in kebbie's defense, it appears that he must have ben
interupted when he was writing this post. given
kebbie's repeated calls for evidence to support
critical claims and inferences, no one, not even
kebbie, imo, would be sufficiently hypocritical to toss
around allegations like these, apparently targeting a
group of people, without providing the kind of evidence
he so often claims is necessary. then again, i suppose
i could be mistaken and kebbie really is that
hypocritical. we'll see, i imagine.

        "I provide all of the necessary evidence for every claim
        I make, or retract it."
			Kevin Darcy
			<1992Feb11.054339.25284@rotag.mi.org>

"Your statement is meaningless without any supporting evidence."
			Kevin Darcy
			1991Jun15.164755.17932@rotag.mi.org
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:42:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.92Dec28215350@lludd.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> In article <1992Dec28.181720.27176@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi' (Iikka Paavolainen) writes: 
>   >From the post I got the impression that 'donations' to the church are
>   >completely voluntary in the US. Is this true? Here in Finland, when you join
>   >the church (as most people do when they are born), you have a set tax you
>   >have to pay to the church of 2% of income. This comes into play only after
>   >you are 18, of course.
 
>   But surely in Finland as in other Nordic countries you are free to leave
> the Church at any time and thus escape the tax?

It's been a while since I last lived in Finland, but if I remember
correctly you still have to pay some kind of a tax for maintaining
your records. The official business of the Church of Finland is to
maintain records of the population, and that's one of the official
reason they need money. The other reason is that without money
the Lutheran church in Finland would most likely crumble due to
lack of support.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Apologies to Garvin, Keegan, clueless newbies, and Regard
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:54:14 GMT
Distribution: na
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 <1992Dec29.211739.9858@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.201128.9065@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>
>>Actually, I like his problem with Adrienne's gender there. A little sexism
>>slipping from beneath the Freudian slip? I've got a teddy that would look
>>just cuddly on old Peter, Pumpkin Eater.
>
>Now that *is* a revolting thought.
>Things that make you go *barf*.

Especially if she's talking about "tire-iron" teddy ...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism