HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:29:59 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> It seems to be a signature of the pro-life mentality that one should never
>> publicly dissent from someone who's 'one your side.'  In fact the _only_
>> dissent I've seen in the pro-life camp (on the net, that is) is when Doug
>> Holtsinger and Steve Franklin delivered Bronx cheers to each other over
>> whether abortion is a religious issue or not.

> I am not "pro-life", and I don't normally express substantial disagreement 
> with pro-lifers in my posts because I know pro-aborts like you will gloat 
> over it.  I do sometimes send e-mail to pro-lifers when I disagree with 
> their views.

Am I to understand that you're anti-abortion?
 
>> On the other hand, it is very evident that pro-choicers are unafraid of
>> expressing disagreement with someone who's 'on their side.'  

> Really?  When was the last time you've publically expressed disagreement
> with any pro-abort in this newgroup?

About two months ago, I had some disagreement with James Keegan.  I've also
expressed disagreement with the D'arse-thing, but just about everybody else
does too.

>> Chris Lyman  
> [.. out of context quote deleted ..]

How does it feel being the target of your own tactics?

> You're a sexist for believing that all women think alike on the issue
> of abortion.

You are not fooling anyone.

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is "abortion on demand"
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:19:39 GMT

In article <Bsz9nx.41y.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your accusation Ms. Garvin. 
In case you forgot, here it is again:

------------------
In article <1992Aug09.021608.58582@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> I have more sources which I shall post shortly. 

> (As soon as he makes them up.)

Substantiate this accusation or retract it.


>Susan

Doug Holtsinger

 "Whatever else the abortion adversaries believe, most of them would also
  agree that there are entirely too many abortions in this country."
    --- New York Governor Mario M. Cuomo

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:34:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.204637.20295@ncsu.edu>
dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.005011.3902@menudo.uh.edu> 
>HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>> Consider yourself corrected.  Meet the anti-abortion but pro-choice person
>> that does more than pay lip service to the first part of his stance.

>Wait just a second.  Didn't you once claim that most pro-lifers do not
>agree with Steve Chaney's remarks?  If you're now claiming to be pro- 
>"choice", then what business do you have saying such a thing?  

<YAWN>

Guess what?  "Life" isn't spelled l-e-g-i-s-l-a-t-i-o-n.

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:48:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.183357.25988@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <Bsuyt7.B9M@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (You know who) writes:

  [To Patrick Humphrey]
>1) FACT: YOU SAID YOU HAD DOCUMENTATION THAT "CHANEY POSTS AS HALL." 
>2) FACT: YOU THEN RETRACTED IT BECAUSE I CALLED YOUR BLUFF TO SHOW AND
>   PROVE.

As I recall it, Patrick said "Documentation", Chaney said "What documentation?"
Then I said, "Umm, Patrick, don't you think confirmation is a better word 
than documentation?" and Patrick said "Yep -- my mistake".
And then Chaney continued saying "What documentation?" for another 
week while we tried to explain that Patrick had already corrected himself. 

>>I haven't lied about your account -- and you have.  That's already been
>>shown.  You're the one playing pranks, badgering a certain sysadmin at UD -- 
>
>Telling them to do something about the harassing e-mail I was getting
>from Scott Dog. 

I sent you email saying to please stop posting under the fictitious 
name of Dennis Hall or I would ask your sysadmin who the Dennis Hall account 
really belonged to.  

Now if you and Dennis were two different people, you had nothing to fear 
-- I'd simply be making a fool out of myself and you could laugh at my 
expense.

The only possible way my email could worry you is by the potential 
of exposing your Dennis Hall charade.  You weren't harassed, you 
were found out.

After my exposing your charade (which was perpetrated on all users 
of this newsgroup) you tried (unsuccessfully) to get ME punished when 
it was YOU doing the devious thing!!!  The worst thing I did was to 
talk to your school officials about enrollments and computer accounts 
(boy, that sure was sneaky  :-))  I never once tried to get you punished 
for your stupid charade.

>Why is it that he doesn't nag our system
>administrators or me, anymore? 

I don't nag you anymore except when you try to continue perpretrating 
your Dennis Hall charade.
I don't talk to your sysadmins' anymore because  you stopped bugging my 
sysadmin and the Dennis Hall posts have stopped.  That is all I ever 
wanted; nothing more.

>Because 1) They won't listen to him; and 2) Dick Smith will, well, as
>they say, deal with Scott Roby personally, in ways which Roby won't
>like it.  

The above paragraph is my candidate for second funniest post of the week.

>===============================================================================
>		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
>===============================================================================

You mean responding to you?  Very much.  But someone's got to do it.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:15:39 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Aug16.003415.17098@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <Bsy4qz.9vE@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>		Shhh, Scott. 
>		We know you're posting as Pat Harumphrey because
>		you both lie the same way. 

Hi Steve,
	Still having trouble keeping track of who's who, I see.  
When nasty Pat (fence 'em out or bash 'em in) Bucannon spoke of 
cross-dressing the other night, I thought of you; the pro-life/pro-choice 
cross-dresser.


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: More stale, tiresome attempts at character assassination
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:18:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.121119.11867@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Once and for all, put up or shut up.

> Just so you didn't miss it, Chris Lyman provided the material that
> "puts up" today already.

Lyman quoted Bill Clinton incorrectly, he backed off on his accusation
that I quoted Adrienne Regard out of context, and he re-posted
some of my quotes from Supreme Court decisions which were not
taken out of context. 

Your attempts at character assassination illustrate that you are
completely unable to address the substance of my arguments. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:15:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.222433.17054@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>   No, Dougie.  It's not bullshit.  As you pointed out, Americans
>in large numbers (like the MAJORITY!) support CHOICE, and not, as
>you have mislabeled, abortion.  And that is what the FOCA is.  In
>case you had not read the FOCA, it states that abortion shall not
>be restricted...Hey, Doug!  Stop moving your lips!  It just slows
>down your reading!...PRIOR TO FETAL VIABILITY!  Contrary to those
>false claims by the anti-abortion movement, the FOCA will not ban
>states from limiting late term abortions, prohibiting minors from
>having abortions, or provide for one nickel of government monies.
>This is precisely what the MAJORITY of Republicans support.  This
>abortion on demand mantra of yours obscures the truth, exactly as
>does everything else you utter.  

NOT! AMERICANS SUPPORT LIFE.

When it comes to an issue of life versus choice, Cough Man, go check
your law books and show me where choice > life. That's why legal
abortion is so badly endangered, Cough Man.  

Perhaps Bush hates broccoli because when he saw your brain, it looked
like broccoli. 

You are spoken like a true reject from your own pro-choice community
on USENET.

Excuse me while I get myself in good standing with my comrades, so as
to not share the same fate as you. 


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 22 Aug 92 01:34:02 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug19.210947.26366@spdc.ti.com>, Mike Serafin writes:

> How can you call a pregnancy that occured as a direct result of the 
> animal desires of a man and a woman "forced pregnancy".

Gee, Mikey, I thought sex was a perfectly natural thing.  Did you
know you are the result of sex?  You're unclean!  Gosh, we're even
born completely naked!

I think a good blow job from a willing partner would change your
opinion of sex *real* quick.

> When will YOU understand that YOU must take responsibility for
> YOUR actions.

And the moron brigade goes marching on.  Sigh.

A woman having an abortion does take responsibility.  She must
find some way to pay for it, she must deal with the physical and
emotional aftermath, and she must answer to her god(s).

> If you are not willing or able to take a pregnancy to term then
> maybe you should not be having sex.  

More constructively, you should not be voting Republican.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: UPI concocts a misleading story about Bush's abortion stance
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:25:10 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug14.214259.11532@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes a paranoid account about UPI intentionally
lying GHWB:

>That's clear, but it still leaves open the fact that UPI wrote 
>a false and misleading story about President Bush's stance on
>abortion, and you and Mr. Echeverri don't seem to want to
>recognize that.

(1) Given your penchant for misquoting, misrepresenting, and
concocting, Doogie, I thought you'd be the last to object.  (2) What
motivation does UPI have for this falsehood?  (3) Maybe, instead of
chasing our paranoid tail in circles, you might consider that Bush has
misrepresented and lied so frequently on abortion, that UPI was just
confused: What's his position this year?

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: So The bible Is NOT the word of God?????
Organization: Holy Mary Disbelievers in Luke 14:26
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:04:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.211557.8526@wetware.com> 
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>So let me get this straight then:
>1. since the verses in Numbers five clearly
>establish that God Understands how to commit an abortion....

Well, I think some would prefer that you say forced miscarriage, it's
more politically correct that way. I'm sure you'd understand. And remember
that the Bible is not pro-Choice, it is pro-Abortion at the husband's option
of course. It's kind of a variant on Parental Concent, that's all. If you
look at the fine print, it may even be part of the GOP platform. What do you 
expect from 2000 years old? Shirley, you didn't expect a balanced view, did 
you? I hope you don't mind if I call you Shirley?

>2. This should Not be taken to be a part of the DivineWordOfGod????
>Or is this just a Generic BibleBashingFest here?????

DivineWordOfGod, oh please. All written word is written by Homo sapien
sapien, excluding that written by chumps, oops I mean chimps. Not even the
grand and noble religious pro-Lifers really think that the Bible is the
divine (as in Pink Flamingos?) word of God, they just use it as an excuse
to push their beliefs onto the true moral majority. It's all about twisting
words and mixing messages, kind of a grand Willy Horton. After all, don't
you find it slightly ironic that the party of "get-government-out-of-the-
individual" is pro-Life? What did old man Bush say, that wise and noble old
CIA sage? He said he would respect his daughter's decision on what to do
with her child, that's pro-Choice my friend. Of course from the Supreme
Commmander of Desert Storm, it's just your typical CIA mixed message. But
now old lady Bush, she's the only one in that entire clan that has a
working brain, when asked if abortion should be a family issue, (like
Family Values - Mista SUB-liminal), said firmly, no, it is the decision only
of the mother and should not be in party platforms. I guess, no matter what,
there will always be fascists trying to limit our individual rights. Must
be a lot of money in fascism, at least some good arms deals anyway.

>( it gets so hard some days to tell the AntiAbortionistFetalIdolators
>from the merely AntiChristian..... )

I don't know about AAFI, but AntiChristian is the same as Christian. It's
the Luke 14:26 mixed message parodox, that's all. Now praise the Lord and
pass the ammunition will you, we've got a war to run here.

>But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.

Yes, you saw that post from some bozo warning us that homosexuality is
*pure sex*? That is something to be concerned about. No wonder it's so easy
to become addicted to the lifestyle. One brownie and your hooked for life,
it's worse than a little crack. They way I figure, if the government says
it causes rebellion, then it's not good. Against what?

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32495 alt.politics.elections:10974
From: heidi@wolf.net.com (Heidi Wolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: politics
Summary: Democratic platform statement
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:24:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: N.E.T., Redwood City, CA

In article <1992Aug19.192004.4214@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug19.163821.17023@ncsu.edu>  dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> In article <onv3s2k@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>>
>> > I am pleased to see the Democrats taking such a strong
>> > pro-choice stand, in an election where their opponents have
>> > adopted a plank that includes NO EXCEPTIONS for victims of rape
>> > and incest.  The Republicans are extremists.
>>
>> And the Democrats aren't extremists on abortion?  The Democratic
>> platform plank on abortion indicates that they support ...
>> unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout the term of pregnancy.
>
>This sounds like another Holtsinger lie.  Can you document this?
>
>(Note that both Roe v. Wade and the Freedom of Choice Act allow for
>restrictions on abortion after viability, and the current situation
>is a de facto ban on third-trimester abortions for anything other
>than serious medical considerations.)
 


Here is the relevant section, as reprinted verbatim from the 1992
Democratic Party platform.  (Source: article in alt.politics.clinton;
thanks to Mary Jacobs for posting the information there.)


        CHOICE.   Democrats stand behind the right of every woman
	to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, regardless of ability
	to pay, and support a national law to protect that right.
	It is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual
	Americans -- not government -- can best take responsibility for
	making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions
	regarding reproduction.  The goal of our nation must be to make
	abortion less necessary, not more difficult or more dangerous.
	We pledge to support contraceptive research, family planning,
	comprehensive family life education, and policies that support
	healthy childbearing and enable parents to care most effectively
	for their children.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: the weight of evidence
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:24:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.110540.12146@crd.ge.com> keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

Ziggy strikes again! 

===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:51:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.134746.29912@menudo.uh.edu> 
HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>Luke 14:26 "If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and 
>            wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own 
>	    life also, he cannot be my disciple.
>  I read it thusly:  One could not become a disciple without first being
>prepared to give up all that he had, "counting the cost."  It is not a
>simple command to "hate your parents." It was a very honest observation
>that following him was not going to be any kind of cakewalk.

Yes, but one should question whether it is such a good idea to follow such
a HATE monger. This image is quite a bit different than the popular image of
one who taught only love. After all, these could be the words of the Christian 
Devil, couldn't they? Luke 14:26 is only one of many tests, like: Follow
me and be Free. It is not easy being a free individual. And it is not easy
allowing others to also be free.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: A DIRECT QUESTION FOR HOLTSINGER...
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 12:45:38 GMT


   Would you support the right to abortion for adult women, whose
pregnancies are not at the point of fetal viability, and they can
pay for the abortion themselves?
-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Chaney admits he is Dennis Hall, or vice versa
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:49:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.215027.1814@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
] 
] >Dan King and Drieux were only two
] >whose mail I was shown by the system admins. Who typed 'd' right after
] >that, while laughing at them. It was getting on the verge of the
] >downright irritating because of the bogus prank by Scott
] >Humphrey/Roby, which was being picked up by Drieux and Dan King (who
] >first proved to the world that yes, there is life on Mars).
] 

Assuming that Chaney has said something true here
in regards to his sysadmin showing him email
from me, then he is admitting that his sysadmin
has shown him email about my queries in regards
to this 'dennis hall' manifestation....

Either that, or his sysadmin has the moral integrity
of Chaney, and likes to 'play games' with email....


Given the general concerns about 'hacked' accounts,
I did send email to the sysadmin about a possible
hacked account.... I did NOT get any email response.


I am pleased, though, that Chaney has finally put the
matter to rest by establishing the simple options of
his either/or....


ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.