HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?!
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:45:19 GMT

<1992Dec27.202804.10035@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
><725385149.14040@minster.york.ac.uk> >cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>>Peter Nyikos (nyikos@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
>>> [I've added talk.religion.misc and alt.atheism]
>> And I have deleted them.
>>  [...]
>> It would be very much appreciated if more mature contributors out
>> there if you would delete such cross posting in your follow-ups.
>> 
>> I am also asking Peter to stop it, but I do not expect much
>> consideration, given past experience.
>
>On my newsserver, there are 35 articles from pro-choicers
>who have cross-posted to alt.atheism and talk.religion.misc;
>seven of these have come from Gordon Storga.  Mr. Nyikos has 
>cross-posted eight times. Why don't you also ask Gordon Storga
>to stop cross-posting?  

Probably cuz I'd tell him to fuck off.  I'll cross-post where I want to,
even if I don't ewven know it (who looks at those stupid newsgroup lines
anyway).  What might not be of interest to you is of interest to someone
else.

Get a life.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:14:34 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
->>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
->>LM> Note that Adrienne Regard was falsely accused of forgery not that long ago,
->>LM> by Peter Nyikos.  Peter edited a post he made in response to Adrienne, and
->>LM> got confused by his own editing.  I don't think it unreasonable to point
->>LM> out that Adrienne did not, in fact, write all the lines that some idiotic
->>                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
->>LM> piece of software flagged with her initials.
->>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

->Confused, eh?  I take it even my *second* attempted apology did not make
->it to the boards. 

margolis wasn't confused. he accurately understood what
happened when you posted your lie about adrienne
regard. it must be very embarassing for you to know
that, not only does the readership of several
newsgroups know that you lied, but they also know that
you haven't had the character to post an apology
despite having posted several articles in the interim.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Forced pregnancy love fest, 1992.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:59:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec28.203825.34012@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
#In <1189@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##In article <34641@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
##[DODie-PHoney lovefest deleted]
##
###I'm so glad to see you two getting along ...
##
##It may not last - DOD has put PHoney in an awkward position.  PHoney
##whined a lot about me setting follow-ups to misc.test - I believe
##he called it "dishonest."  He'll either have to chastise his little
##buddie DODie, or he'll have provided that much more proof that
##he's a hypocrite.
#
#It's always possible that his news server will go down, and he won't
#ever see the problem post.  It's a very convenient way to get out of
#awkward positions.  See how it has prevented him from apologizing to
#Adrienne?

His news server is even more versatile than we'd believed.  He was
able to see Mr. Matheson's comment on DODie's habit of setting
follow-ups to misc.test, but he's unable to read DODie's posts.
He asked people to tell him if DODie was setting follow-ups 
only to misc.test (or a variety of other options.)  I wonder
why he didn't ask DODie - PHoney seems to think that DODie
tells the truth while the rest of us lie, yet he didn't ask
DOD what he was doing.  

This time, it seems that PHoney has decided he'd rather be
thought an idiot than a hypocrite.  Let's see, he prefers
a label of idiocy to a label of hypocrisy, and he prefers
a label of hypocrisy to a label of mendacity.  I'll bet
that he starts claiming ignorance a lot more often - it'll
help him squirm out of situations when he's exposed himself
as both a liar and a hypocrite.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:40:33 GMT

Here's a portion of a fascinating article on the makings
of the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.  The article
reveals that Justice Blackmun, who is the principle 
architect behind Roe, wrote in a private memo that any
dividing line is ``equally arbitrary''.  Justice Stewart,
who joined Blackmun in the majority opinion, criticized 
parts of the decision as being ``legislative''.

---
From: The Washington Post, Jan. 22 1989, "The Abortion Papers",
by Bob Woodward

  "Ever since the Supreme Court issued its controversial
   abortion decision, Roe v. Wade, 16 years ago today,
   many legal scholars and millions of other critics
   have cried foul.  They have argued that the court was
   legislating social policy and exceeding its authority
   as the interpreter, not the maker, of law.

   New evidence has now surfaced that some of the justices
   who wrote and supported the opinion were doing precisely
   that, in at least part of the decision.  The opinion's
   author, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, said in one internal
   court memo that he was drawing ``arbitrary'' lines
   about the times during pregnancy when a woman could
   legally receive an abortion.  In another memo, Justice
   Potter Stuart, who joined the Blackmun opinion, said
   the determination in the opinion about these lines
   was ``legislative''.

   [...]

   Blackmun said in his memo to the other justices that he 
   had determined to set the cutoff at the first trimester,
   or first 13 weeks of pregnancy.  ``This is arbitrary,''
   he said, starkly acknowledging his problem.  ``But perhaps
   any other selected point, such as quickening or viability
   (of the fetus), is equally arbitrary.''

   [...]

   Justice Stewart, one of the six members of the court to 
   join Blackmun's majority opinion, discussed this issue
   in a Dec. 14, 1972 internal memo.  He told Blackmun and
   the other justices that he believed that the first-trimester
   demarcation line amounted to dictum.  [DH -- "dictum" is
   a legal term for explanatory language not essential to
   the ruling.] 

   ``One of my concerns with your opinions as presently
   written,'' Stewart said, ``is the specificity of its
   dictum--particularly in its fixing of the end of the
   first trimester as the critical point for valid state 
   action.  I appreciate the inevitability and indeed
   wisdom of dicta in the Court's opinion, but I wonder
   about the desirability of the dicta being quite so
   inflexibly `legislative.' ''

   [...]

   The ``legislative'' issue is important because it goes
   to the heart of the court's authority and legitimacy.
   The Constitution confers the federal legislative power
   exclusively to the Congress, so any discussion, even
   in internal memos, about the justices' ``legislative''
   purposes takes the court into perilous ground."


Doug Holtsinger
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another long night at the keyboard in Raleigh
Date: 28 Dec 92 01:49:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec28.002105.16152@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu 
(Doug "get yer fat black ass down here" Holtsinger) writes:
[text deleted here and there]

#Is your pathetic little life so dull that you actually spend 
#time figuring out how long other people have been logged in?

How long does it take you to do subtraction, DODie?  

#That should be the most exciting thing you've done all week, 
#besides using your toenails to pick snots from your nose. 

What are "snots"?  

I doubt that Patrick shares any of your disgusting habits, Reverend.

Why do you persist in believing that there are other people 
as twisted as you are when there's been no indication that
this is true?  Does it scare you more when you face the fact
that you're the only one?  What does your therapist say?

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:43:52 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 <C03G0J.H94@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>Larry.....Oh Laaaaarrryyy.  This is the ghost of old Dan Webster hauting
>you.  Have you looked up the definition of "child" lately, Larry?

Yup.

_Dictionary of Contempory American Usage_

    infant; child; baby.  An *infant*, in the general usage of the
word, is a *child* during the earliest period of its life when it is
still being carried about, "a babe in arms."  *Infant* and *baby* in
current American usages are synonymous, though *baby* is the everyday
word and *infant* would seem formal or a little archaic.  A *child*
is a baby or an infant but in general use it applies to persons below
the age of puberty and since *baby* is generally used of the very
young, a *child* commonly designates someone anywhere between weaning
and puberty.  In law an *infant* is a minor, a person under twenty-
one, and a *child* is any descendant, regardless of age.  *Baby* is
not recognized in the law as designating a category.

Why do you ask?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:45:59 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 <Bznxxy.752@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.193557.11096@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <BzMAvL.D2t@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec19.105022.6279@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>
>>>>But what on earth does support for anti-abortion have to do with either of
>>>>these?  Men who want reproductive rights should be supporting abortion on
>>>>demand.  If they don't then they are just fighting themselves, not women.
>>>>Because if abortion is totally outlawed, then you can BET the number of
>>>>men required to pay support will increase dramaticly.
>
>>>3.  Accurate paternity tests make things different from pre-Roe
>>>days, and the effects aren't predictable on the face of the matter:
>>>perhaps more fathers would be identified, or perhaps more potential
>>>victims would be able to prove they weren't the father.
>>
>>This is addressing wrongful identication, which seems to have nothing
>>to do with the number of men required to pay child support.  (The wrong
>>man won't be, but the right one will; the net stays the same.)
>
>No; you are assuming the true father is always among those "accused."
>
>Wrongfully-named men would now be able to prove that they are not
>required to pay support (as is right).
>
>In order to maintain the same level, according to your mathematical
>reasoning, the "right one" must then be named, found and identified.
>This is neither automatic nor simple.

True, but it's a process of elimination.  If the woman *wants* child
support, then she will, in most cases, be able to get to the father
eventually.  While women might not be able to name the father in a
few cases, I think this number would be dwarfed by the number of men
required to pay child support in your case 1, where there would *be* no
child if abortion had remained legal.  (Also, I don't see how this case 3
has anything to do with whether or not abortion is legal.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:06:09 GMT

In <1992Dec23.013921.7465@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Dec21.003426.21330@rotag.mi.org> 
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>> Gee, seems Susie is perfectly willing to forgive someone who jokes, in 
>> alt.sex, about mass rape and doesn't apologize for it. I wonder if she would 
>> be as forgiving of someone who joked about something equally tasteless in 
>> alt.flame and DID apologize for making a mistake?

>But that would require consistency from Garvin.

Yes, and could someone tell me whether any pro-choicer showed any more
consistency by flaming Michael Loomis while my netserver was

"conveniently"--Garvin, Humphrey, M. Cochran...

malfunctioning?

Or are they all "chickens of a feather," like PatricK said of pro-lifers
on one occasion?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: the GROUP kevin darcy, again
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: Random Guess Method
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 16:17:50 GMT

In article <#112c5+@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes to
>kebbie:
>->I would say that it denotes two individuals. One named Kellmeyer and
>->one Darcy. 
>
>that's what the overwhelming number of people who
>posted to the thread said too. in fact, i believe there
>was only one person who thought kevin darcy was a
>GROUP. can you guess who that person was?
>
Perhaps Kebbin has decided he can speak for Kellmeyer?
That might make him a group, in a twisted sort of way...

--
                  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: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: an example of dodie's "honesty"
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
	<1992Dec28.062609.26202@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:04:33 GMT


In article <1992Dec28.062609.26202@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <skz2lkm@rpi.edu> 
   keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James "Tough Shit, Abortion Kills Children" Keegan Jr.) writes:
   >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
   >>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
   >>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   >>>> Given your past statements on the FOCA, would it be 
   >>>> a fair statement to say that 'Susan Garvin supports 
   >>>> abortion legislation which Doug Holtsinger does not'?

   >>> it would be as fair, and as dishonest

   >> My statement was meant to illustrate that the term
   >> 'legislation' usually implies 'anti-abortion legislation',
   >> and that any statement which failed to rely upon this
   >> implication would be inherently 'dishonest'.  Glad we 
   >> can agree.

   > it was self-evident. 

   If it was self-evident that 'legislation' usually implies
   'anti-abortion legislation', then why did you make an issue 
   out of it? 

He didn't -- you just lifted that out from a comment he was making about it
being self-evident as to the lack of honesty in your posts.  The article
which you deliberately cut-and-paste that bit of deceptive editing was the
one before this one, as our NNTP machine got it here...can't you even wait
until the evidence expires before attempting to lie about someone?

(I notice you're setting the followups to misc.test, again, too -- and I'm
beginning to agree with Jim and Susan.  You have a screw loose, kid.  Maybe
I'd better let RUPD know they may have another visitor from Raleigh in the
not-so-distant future.  :-)

--PLH, like I said, Santayana was right -- and DODie's proving that.


--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Waiting for an appology from Peter Ny
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 09:58:53 GMT

Larry Margolis (margoli@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
: In <1992Dec28.032026.15533@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark
A. Cochran) writes:
: >Disinformation from me? Petey, I insist. Either provide some proof of
: >this "disinformation" or appologise. I'll stand in line behind
: >Adrienne waiting.
:
: Don't hold your breath - you're also behind me.  I asked him to provide
: some evidence for untrue claims he made about me a while ago.  Naturally,
: he was unable to do so, so he ignored my post.
:
: >I hope your newsserver is stable...
:
: Or maybe his newsserver went down again.  Yeah, that's the ticket...

On alt.atheism Peter Nyikos also insulted me without justification.  I too am 
waiting for an appology.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:04:28 GMT

In article <34624@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> 
smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 

>> The article reveals that Justice Blackmun, who is the 
>> principle architect behind Roe, wrote in a private memo 
>> that any dividing line is ``equally arbitrary''.  

> All rights are socially constructed.  
>  [... rest deleted ...]

Your comments have nothing to do with the article which I posted.
Feel free to wander off into some other subject, but don't expect
me to follow.  

If viability is an arbitrary dividing line, as Justice Blackmun 
puts it, then why should the states be bound to follow this 'arbitrary'
line?   What precedent is there for the Supreme Court to place 
'arbitrary' restrictions on the state's power to enact legislation?


>SJM


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 16:42:52 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 <1993Jan2.094941.7852@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.005219.9201@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>
>>Susan has proved to be one of the few people who are generally logical and
>>well-thought out in her responses and statements.
>
>Are we talking about the same "Susan", Gordon?

Susan Garvin.  But you knew that.

>>If Susan was to post something that conflicted with my experience of
>>knowledge I would correct her.  She hasn't as far as I'm aware.
>
>Here's an example from the top of a long list, Galen:

That's "Gordon" (speaking of knowing who we're talking about...  :-)

>do you "know" that
>Kevin Darcy been arguing for restrictions on abortion? See .sig.

We all do, since James Keegan posts an example every time you claim the
following is a lie.

>"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
>                                   Susie Garvin
>                                   Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
>                                   <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

This is true; you *have* been consistently criticized for exactly that.
That you've disclaimed all previous arguments in favor of restrictions
doesn't alter the fact that you *were* criticized for them at the time
you made them.

(You also *appear* to be continuing to argue for restrictions; although
you claim that's not what you're doing, the fact remains that your
arguments are indistinguishable from those of someone who is in favor
of restrictions.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: the one bad apple theory of pregnancy.
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 07:25:48 GMT

In article <6gt2w2c@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>->sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>->> I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
>->> Dr. Tiller?  
>
>->I haven't seen any refutation of his claims thus far.
>
>why would anyone bother to refute an unsupported claim?
>
Well, we know that DODie isa beliver in Truth By Blatant Assertion....

--
                  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.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: darcy admits opposition to 'choice'
Date: 1 Jan 93 03:48:14 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

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to larry margolis:
-> Perhaps a useful description can be obtained by 
-> introducing the notion of "concensus". Someone who 
-> was absolutely "pro-concensus" on the abortion 
-> issue would let the populace decide on each and 
-> every abortion restriction by vote (presumably, 
-> on a state-by-state basis). I wouldn't go that far, 
-> but my view tends a little that way for SOME 
-> post-viability issues. Would "limited
-> pro-concensus" be sufficiently descriptive, you think?

for years, i've been arguing that you wanted to
restrict women's right to terminate a pregnancy.
i'm glad to see you finally admit it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism