HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Okay, who sent the anonymous e-mail?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:54:58 GMT

In article <1161@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>[There's a discussion in alt.rush-limbaugh about people being
>"kicked out" of unmoderated newsgroups.]
>
>In article <1992Dec24.231507.26670@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) said:
> [.. deletions ..]
>>almost exclusively.  Most of my articles had responses telling me how
>>stupid I was or thatI should leave the net until I 'learn proper procedures',
>>similar to what happened to Chaney and others, no matter how logical or
>>polite my postings
>>
>>   No one kicked me out either, I left voluntarily as well.  I had gotten
>>tired of the pointless flaming and the occasional nasty e-mail, sent
>>anonymously of course.
>>
>>Simon

I remember Dean Kaflowitz admitting in talk.abortion that 
he had sent e-mail to Simon Booth suggesting that he leave
the net, or words to that effect.  Perhaps Mr. Booth and
Kaflowitz would care to elaborate.
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: When/where are abortion clinics blockaded?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:06:39 GMT

I've heard an awful lot about Operation Rescue, and a lot of it sounds
very biased in either direction.  Before I make any judgement on it
for myself, I'd like to see it in action.

When and where are abortion clinics usually blockaded?  I don't know
anything about this stuff right now, mind you, but I'm curious.  How
common are abortion clinics -- only a few per state, or less scarce?
Are blockades the sort of things that are announced far ahead of time,
or are they spontaneous and covert?  Has anyone on this newsgroup ever
participated in blockading or defending a clinic?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fictional Gordon-Suzanne Dialogue on Trumped-up Case 3
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:37:29 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <PATRICK.92Dec21175456@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
#
#[PHoney's little fantasy about an encounter between Gordon and Suzanne
#deleted, to spare you the expense of all those Tums -- PLH]
#
#Hate to tell you, but it's already been done in this newsgroup -- some
#little boy named Steve Chaney tried it using me as his subject.  I
#appreciate your trying to provide a little (or, in this case, a lot) of
#humor into the discussion, but trust me -- we've already seen it happen
#before.  (I hope you're not planning on emulating Airplane Boy, though.  The
#admins here are wise to that trick, by now.)

Come on - PHoney loves to emulate Chaney/Hall.  He even sent e-mail
to other anti-abortion posters begging them to copy the Borgy-boy's
nicknames.  (He had limited success, obviously.  I've seen no one
but Reverend Holtsinger doing it.)

Besides, Nyikos seems incapable of originality.  He claims he's
going to post something called "the mendacity of Susan Garvin" -
didn't DOD just try to prove I was a liar?  I wouldn't be
surprised if PHoney uses one of DODie's old posts.  

Susan,
who wonders when Nyikos will finally post an apology to Adrienne
for lying about her
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: Yo Mamma...
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 04:34:33 GMT

clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.093734.12396@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>>] In article <1992Dec29.052441.17244@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
>>] >-- 
>>] >Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
>>] >Next Months Panel Topic: Graft - boon or blessing?
>>] >EOF
>>] 	Just what we need; a right-wing drieux wannabe.
>>
>>So what am I?

drieux is my evil twin.  he is just sad that as a 
GrenadaInvasionLybiaAirRaidEraVet there wasn't time for
the HitleriteCommieFascistLiberalReactionaryBallPointPenUsers
to properly organize a HomeFrontFifthColumnUprisingRevolt
with AppropriateFashionStatements.  As a result he has found
employment as a tax fattened parasite (much to the family
shame - we've told his mother that he's running numbers on the
waterfront.) and is trying to cover his shame by his defense
of TraditionalFamilyValues (whatever they are.)

I have in on good authority that he was kidnaped by a Gypsy band where
he played drums in the rhythym section until the invention of the Pill.

The Doge has obviously missed the other posts whereing I
was accused of being a Liberal.(Maybe - who can tell in
this era of turmoil and universal brouhahah.)

As to the sig line: Read your Cerebus!

chus
pyotr
 
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Months Panel Topic: Graft - boon or blessing?
EOF
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Months Panel Topic: Graft - boon or blessing?
EOF
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53561 talk.religion.misc:24795 alt.atheism:24608
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:32:26 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <C001Iq.2ED.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>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? 
>
>Yes.
>
>>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.
>
>Wow, I didn't know that.  What if you don't join any church - if you're an
>atheist or something?  Or if you belong to a non-Christian religion,
>such as Buddhism or the Temple of Set or such?
>
>Hmm...if you're exempt when you aren't a Christian, you might get some
>people who just pretend they aren't for a tax break! <g>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
>Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
>                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...

Germany has a similar law.  You specify protestant or catholic, usually
when you are born, and the money is taken out of your paycheck.  You
can leave the church, but it is not easy.  And most people who are
Christians (a) would not want to leave and (b) would not want to lie
in order to escape the tax.  The problem is that it is compulsory,
so there is no free giving in it, and at most a free acceptance of the
compulsion.

I lived in Germany for three years and was (and am) a member of a non-
denominational church, Die Christengemeinschaft (The Christian Community).
I checked the appropriate box on the forms and was exempted from the
tax.  Someone told me that the Kirchensteuer was established during the
Nazi regime as a part of the compromise between Hitler and the churches.
He agreed to let the established churches alone and even support them
if they would promise to keep out of politics.  I haven't been able
to vary this, nor do I know when the church tax was established in
Finland or other countries -- was it before or after or during that
time?

By the way, my ancestry is 100% Finnish. Shows how little I know about
the old country.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:27:32 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.724627328@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) post the latest in what I
describe as the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.  In it, the
a legislative agenda restricting the rights of women is disguised as a
response to a public health crisis.  The public health concerns
revolve around bad performance by an abortion provider.  This is the
one bad apple that leads by some incomprehensible leap of fetus
fanatic logic to a legislative agenda of forced pregnancy.

To believe this public health concern, I would at least like some
statistical evidence gathered by an impartial panel demonstrating that
abortion was on balance an unsafe procedure.  The two reasons lurking
in the background of this thin smokescreen are revealing: (1) Women
can't be trusted to consult with physicians and make decisions about
their own medical care.  (2) Doctors are engaged in a conspiracy of
silence about profiteering abortion clinics.

Maybe I am missing something in this theory.  I find both reasons
ridiculous.  Of anyone who would believe (1) I ask: Why is it that you
believe that the medical care of pregnant women requires government
intervention?  Of anyone who would believe (2), I would aks why you
disagree with the following: I have no trouble believing that the
medical profession does not *always* (or perhaps even often) act with
the best interests of the public.  However, absent a finding of strong
evidence of profiteering, I see no reason to investigate this
particular example of bad medical practice.  C. Everett Koop, the
conservative pro-life surgeon general under Reagan, came to more or
less the same conclusion.  We have other public health problems, e.g.,
tuberculosis, that are much more deserving of scarce intervention
resources.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: MEET GEORGE TILLER, LATE-TERM ABORTIONIST Part Two
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 08:45:08 GMT
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria, pro-death

kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>pn> =nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>pn> The cold light of reality begins with the fee schedule.  Sixteen to 22
>pn> weeks, $750; 22 to 26 weeks, $1800.  Beyond 26 weeks, $2200.  

>I see your not too proud to go for a few cheap shots.

>(1) Nice innuendo.  (Do you do mathemtical proofs by innuendo too?)
>    Care to make (& defend) a CLEAR statement that Dr. Tiller is primarily 
>    motivated by money?  <y,n>

>(2) IF the fact the Dr. Tiller charges money for abortions demonstrates
>    that he's only in it for the money, THEN what can we conclude when
>    Dr.s & hospitals charge even more for live births?  

>-Brian



Gotta share a little story with y'all here.  My mother is an ob/gyn nurse
and supervisor at a local suburban hospital.  Several weeks ago she was 
prepping a patient in the hospital for an elective abortion.  The patient
was completely ready for the operation, and just before they were going
to start it, the doctor asked the patient if she had brought the money to
pay for it.  The patient responded that she hadn't remembered, but that she
would get him the money within two days.  The doctor told her to go home and
come back when she had the money.  She went home and came back several hours 
later with the money, and the doctor performed the abortion.

This story is absolute fact.  I don't know the legal ramifications of
supplying the names of the hospital or doctor involved so I will not.

You tell me, was that doctor interested that patients health?  She was
ON the table ready for an operation and he sent her home.  Talk about 
playing with someone's fears and emotions.  Imagine if you were lying on
the operating table, ready to have someone hacking into your body, and they
suddenly changed their mind and sent you home.  If that doctor really cared
about her, he would have trusted her to pay the lousy few hundred bucks.

My dentist gives me a month to pay her bills.



Edward Simmonds


-- my opinions are my own and if you don't like them I'll just repeat them --

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:07:56 GMT

<1992Dec21.201836.6320@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
><BzMAvL.D2t@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><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.

>> 2.  Perhaps the consequences of feminism would give men equal custody
>> (especially the younger generations) hence reducing the number of men 
>> paying support (and the number of women willing to risk pregnancy).
>
>And if the Pro-lifers get their way, there would be millions more children
>born every year, more needing to be supported, more on welfare, thus 
>increasing our taxes, more abused and neglected children, thus making
>it necessary to put more kids in foster care.  More men taken to court
>to pay child support.  

You didn't read (2).

The conclusion, if "equality" were truly in place:  more *women*
taken to court to pay child support, and fewer women willing to
risk birth and lose custody, and thus fewer *men* taken to court.

I doubt the birth rate would double if abortion were outlawed.


>Your logic totally escapes me.

Clear.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:15:14 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->In <wgt2czc@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->>->I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
->>->Dr. Tiller?  

->>i don't.

->>i can't remember when phoney posted anything i
->>believed.

->Glad to see you don't believe Tiller's statement of purpose:

where did you see that phoney? is this going to be
another of those cases where you state something about
someone which isn't so?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:13:29 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 <BzL8ut.z9@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>None of us are suggesting that women be >forced< to give birth now, are we?

Maybe you're not reading the same articles I am.  This is talk.abortion -
anyone attempting to remove the right to abortion *is* suggesting that
women be >forced< to give birth.  I've also seen someone post that in the
case of a pregnancy, if the man wants a child and the woman doesn't, that
the woman be >forced< to bear the child, and the man pay her cash in
return.  I've even seen posts from *you* stating that if you don't get
your way regarding "mens rights", you'll try to take away women's right
to choose, thereby >forcing< pregnant women to give birth.

>Ah, you know, its interesting however when one considers just who MADE that
>child.  You see, under "feminist pro-choice" doctrine, the man did not have
>anything to do with making a child.  For if a child existed at that point,
>then abortion should not be permitted.
>
>Therefore, who made that child?  The WOMAN did -- unilaterally.  Since the
>man had no input into that decision process, just how do you arrive at the
>conclusion that he should pay for the majority of the cost?

Stupid argument - did you get it from Kellmeyer?  Both the woman and the
man provided half the genetic material to create the zygote.  The zygote
*develops* into a child.  The woman provides what's necessary to allow
this development, but she didn't *create* the child.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:21:40 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 <1222@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>No, no, Larry.  Reverend Holtsinger said he was just changing the subject,
>that it wasn't meant to refute what I posted.
>
>Personally, I think that he's adopted PHoney's new strategy
>of feigning stupidity when you get caught.  By pretending that
>the article he quoted wasn't meant to be a response to the
>testimony that I quoted, he can avoid trying to explain the
>fact that the two articles are unrelated.  To do this, though,
>he also has to pretend that he's too stupid to change a subject
>line or delete the attribution for my post.

Pretend?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Dec23.051627.12920@ncsu.edu>
	<CORWIN+.92Dec23123233@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Dec23.232957.10233@ncsu.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:03:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.232957.10233@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <CORWIN+.92Dec23123233@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> 
   corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
   >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   >>   Excerpts from:
   >>      "Abortion foes stereotyped, some in the media believe",
   >>      by David Shaw, Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1990,
   >>      Reprinted in the Congressional Record, Oct 9, 1990 S 14817

   > What is the point?

   Ms. Garvin posted a one-sided and biased account of a woman's 
   encounter with Operation Rescue.  In response, I posted another 
   viewpoint of the group.  Sorry if that confused you.

Your article had nothing to do with Operation Rescue.  It seemed to be
mindless blathering about the mediate and anti-choice folks.  Unless
you are asserting that all anti-choice people are member of Operation
Rescue, are you?

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"I think I've always been sensitive."
Phyllis Schlafly, on the plight of homosexuals with AIDS
San Francisco Examiner (9/28/92) 



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 02:52:24 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 to
->>kebbie:
->>->I'm game... Lets hear you explain the difference between a fantasy and
->>->a hypothetical situation which has NO basis or cantact with the real
->>->world.
->>
->>i can see you need to review some history, particularly
->>kebbie's explanation of the GROUP kevin darcy and the
->>INDIVIDUAL kevin darcy.

->You mean Kebbin thinks he's a group? He has Multiple Personality
->Disorder, or what?

it wasn't all that complex. when kebbie was addressed,
specifically by name, he claimed that a group was being
addressed. it was one of those funny and sad things
that kebbie does frequently. it seemed to me that it
was one of those semantics games he plays to avoid
admitting to a mistake which many readers saw him make,
which is why so many people have teased him about it
ever since then.

you might have something similar developing with him in
another thread, you know.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: In respect of Suzanne 
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:25:21 GMT

From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>
>> <about Doug Holtzinger>
>>Only Rasmussen, Forgach and Chaney can equal his strange predilection
>>for dishonesty and hostility.
> 
> Don't forget Nyikos.  I'd like to take a moment and offer a sincere
> note of respect for Suzanne Forgach.  All of those mentioned above have
> taken well deserved flame baths in the napalm of t.a.  Only Suzanne has
> continued to post here.  Some might call it being a glutton for
> punishment, some might call it naivity.  But whatever you want to call
> it, at least Suzanne hasn't run away or threatened anyone and lost her
> posting privileges because of it.  Although she has been known to take
> forever to respond to a question.


Well, with the volume of this newsgroup, can you blame me?  It takes a couple
hours just to skim the headlines!   I'm sorry I can be slow responding, but
I do have several competing demands on my time.

 
> I disagree with Suzanne on nearly everything, but I'll grant her this -
> she's no coward.

Hey thanks, Gordon!

(Speaking of cowards, you know, I really do have a hard time understanding
 this cultural widespread fear of babies!)


> Gordon

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion