HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:38:06 GMT

> = (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>> = Steve Novak writes:
>>> = (Peter D. Hampe) writes:

>>>firebombin is a form of free speech
>>>if and only if flag burning is truely a form of speech.

>>Crapola, GI Joe.

>OOpsy. Facetiousness alert. Meet drieux's liberal older brother.
>Now we've gone and done it...

That "Hampe" did give me pause.  But I wasn't smart enough to follow that
thought.

You got me, Peter.  BTW, how come your words have all
that...SPACE..between them?
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Idiocy of PHoney Nyikos
Keywords: pro-lie
Date: 24 Dec 92 18:40:03 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <fhv2fyp@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#->Gee, PHoney, don't you know what "mendacity" means?  If you wanted
#->to show that I was lying, it really would have helped if you had
#->included at least one example of me lying.  You didn't.
#
#it appears that phoney is trying the early-darcy
#technique of attempting to post so many characters that
#readers become numb and don't read the words made by
#the characters.

Did Darcy berate people for not reading every word that he
wrote?  PHoney seems to think that everyone is required to
read all of his posts - his main thesis in this article
was that I didn't reply to some comment he made months
ago.   I wonder how deep the similarities go.

#isn't it odd that he's made about 100 posts which have
#reached the net since he posted his lie about adrienne
#and none of his alleged apologies have appeared?

No, it's not odd.  I think he's lying again.  Another
pro-forcer has claimed that Nyikos sent *him* an apology
to Adrienne.  If this were true, why didn't that guy post
it for Nyikos?  

I don't think Nyikos has ever apologized to Adrienne, and I
don't think he's going to do so.  If he were, he would have
done it by now.  He's typed in, as you said, thousands of
characters.  He could apologize in less than 50 characters.

Susan

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53937 alt.flame:17561 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:674
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: what is a 'rampant twit?'
Date: 3 Jan 93 14:42:41 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) asks:
-> Do you have an objective definition of 
-> "rampant twits"? 

sure. kevin darcy, or someone like kevin darcy.

an individual who claims, when he's addressed by name,
that he's a group.

an individual who would use the sad fact that someone
was a victim of child abuse to flame.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
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.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 21:07:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.060807.11740@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <nyikos.725140792@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>I grieve for all the women who delay their abortions until the second
>>trimester so there will be more tissue and larger organs (perhaps suitable
>>for wholesale transplantation into WANTED newborns), and volunteer for
>>more invasive techniques so the tissue can be recovered in usable form.
>
>Do you grieve for all the women who delay their abortions until the second
>trimester because the lack of public funds resulted in delay in trying to
>raise funds?
>
He hasn't even been able to show that any woman is delaying her
abortion for the reasons he cited.

>>But you, what is your attitude?
>
>But you, what is *your* attitude?  Do you support public funding for abortion?
>(Note that what I'm mentioning is true for roughly 35,000 women annually in
>this country.  What you're mentioning is true for roughly, what?  Zero?)

His attitude seems to be to run away form it, and ignore it at all
costs. Seems to be a reality avoidance coping mechanism.

--
                  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: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Reverend Holtsinger regrets his defense of O.R.
Keywords: liars, terrorists, psychotics
Date: 27 Dec 92 00:57:11 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec26.214326.9932@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug "get yer black ass down here" Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1169@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
###sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
#### Of course, I didn't say that illegal means wrong - that's
#### your own invention.  It's not even responsive to the fragment
#### that you quoted.  
#
###  "Threads evolve, Finkelstein.  People can read an article and
###   reply to any piece of it or to the entire article.  They are
###   not required to stick to the subject of your choosing.  If
###   you don't want to discuss the new topic, no one will force
###   you to do so."
###
###       <555@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
#
##That's true, Reverend.  Threads do evolve.  
##
##Of course, that's not what happened here.  You built a little strawman,
##and I didn't fall for it.  Feel free to pout for a while before you
##resume lying.  After all, it's the holiday season.
#
#You said, 'It's not even responsive to the fragment that you 
#quoted'. 

That's right, too, Reverend, because it wasn't responsive to
the fragment that you quoted.  Did you think it was, or did
you butcher my words for your own entertainment?

#Earlier you had said, '[People] are not required to stick to
#the subject of your choosing.'

They're not, Reverend.  When they don't, though, they can
expect the person whom they are addressing to note that.

#The point is that you have two standards--one for yourself,
#and another for other people.  You're allowed to change the
#subject, but other people are expected to stick to the subject.

In your fantasies, perhaps, DODie, but in reality, this is not
true.  You can change the subject if you don't feel capable
of arguing the one that was being discussed.  I don't have
to accept the argument that you assigned to me.

#I didn't pretend to claim that you meant 'Illegal means wrong'. 

Did you talk to your therapist about this, DODie, or are you
unaware that pathological lying is a symptom of a deeper
sickness?

#I guess you wanted to change the subject so people wouldn't 
#recognize your double standard.  Have fun wiggling out of it.

No, DODie, you changed the subject.  You're trying to "wiggle
out of it. I'm not surprised, since you haven't yet shown
sufficient character to stay engaged in any discussion.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 01:11:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.165946.10441@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.094941.7852@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>[Lots of deletions]
>
>>UNRETRACTED 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>
>
>Kevin, this is not a lie. Whether you see yourself as arguing in favor
>of restrictions, or against the lack of them is irrelevant. A large
>number of people here interpret your remarks asbeing in favor of
>restrictions, 

The "large number of people" happen to be full of shit. I have supported no 
abortion restrictions whatsoever. I occasionally argue AGAINST pro-choice 
absolutism. That pisses off the Extremists (which make up the bulk of your
"large number of people", so it's not the least bit surprising that they 
would try to paint me as a pro-lifer). But arguing that pro-choice is not 
absolute is not the same as arguing that restrictions on choice is "good". 
As I explained to Larry, the arguments in question are essentially negative 
assertions, whereas the claim that I argue "for" restrictions clearly implies 
positive assertion, i.e. that the restriction(s) in question are in some way 
necessary or desirable. 

If it's easier for you to understand, try thinking of this in terms of a
vote. You might vote "no" on a given abortion restriction, and a pro-lifer 
might vote "yes" on the same abortion restriction. If I vote "abstain", then 
in a sense I'm voting against BOTH of you -- I'm indicating that I don't 
consider either of you to be "right" in an absolute sense, and I'm willing 
to abide by the outcome of the concensus, whatever that may be.

>You may not agree with those who criticize you, (we hardly expect you
>will agree with anybody) but that doesn't make this a lie.

She asserted not only that I have been criticized, but that I have been 
criticized "while arguing for restrictions on abortion". That is the part I 
consider a lie.

								- Kevin

"before i comment further, i want to say that you calling yourself
 a pro-choicer ("we as pro-choicers") is the single most damaging
 statement i've seen written on the pro-choice philosophy. you,
 kevin darcy, are, imo, the least pro-choice person i've seen post
 to this newsgroup."
				<1992Apr13.174429.2292@crd.ge.com> 

"i haven't seen kebbie argue for legislation."
				<1993Jan2.003223.3588@crd.ge.com>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Aaargh!  What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Organization: I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
	<PATRICK.92Dec19090024@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1992Dec22.164641.6234@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:48:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.164641.6234@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

In article <PATRICK.92Dec19090024@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
}In article <1992Dec19.005301.21226@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
}
}  gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
}  GJH>        TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
}  GJH>            T         S             A       A      K  K     C
}  GJH>            T         S             A       A      K K      C
}  GJH>            T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
}  GJH>            T                S      A       A      K K      C
}  GJH>            T                S      A       A      K  K     C
}  GJH>            T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC
}
}
} Aaayyiiee!!!  Now *you're* even saying this!  :-)
}
} My GOiD, it's more of a plague than the GOiDS!  :-)
}
} Seriously though, what *does* T.S.A.K.C. stand for?  I have asked this
} question of James Keegan about a zillion times, and given the lack of an
} answer, you'd think that it was some sort of national secreat!  (Well, perhaps
} he did answer, but the message got clobbered when ZOOiD crashed, as it did
} several times during the occasions when I have asked him).
}
} Just curious...  Thanks.
}
}It's a TSAKC thing.  You wouldn't understand.  (But keep asking Keegan,
}though, if your BBS tends to crash when you ask him.  That can't be all bad
}for us.)
}
}--PLH, TSAKC original member, and I ain't saying nothing about what it means
}either... 

   You probably shouldn't inquire about any group that would employ me
   as a hitman.  Besides, if I told, I might have to go to work...


	  TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
	      T         S             A       A      K  K     C
	      T         S             A       A      K K      C
	      T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
	      T                S      A       A      K K      C  
	      T                S      A       A      K  K     C
	      T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC

Same for me.  I have enough to do around here as it is.  (I left the repeat
of our logo up there, because darn it, I *like* it. :-)





--
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

            * Hit any key to continue, or any other key to quit. *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Basis for Roe Decision
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:12:41 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Supersedes: <1992Dec23.170446.6919@midway.uchicago.edu>

In article <1992Dec23.073531.4848@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>I have been trying to get a bearing on this issue (abortion) from the
>legal perspective.  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.

Your question is ambiguous, but I'll address both possible meanings.

1) What is the Constitutional basis for striking down anti-abortion laws?

Lawrence Tribe of Harvard has written a whole book on the subject:
"Abortion: The Clash of the Absolutes" or something to that effect.
The argument is that there's an inherent constitutional right to privacy,
as identified in the First Amendment's "freedom of association", the
Third Amendment's prohibition of involuntary quartering of soldiers,
the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure provisions, the Fifth Amendment,
and the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.  If the right to privacy extends
to contraceptive decisions, then it must apply to the personal autonomy
of the decision to have an abortion.  This was the reasoning of Roe.

Further arguments exist as to abortion rights as implicit in the Equal
Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, or (less plausibly) in
the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, though the Court has yet
to adopt either of these approaches.

2) What makes the decision itself Constitutional?

The Constitutionality of the Roe v Wade decision itself rests on Article
VI, Section 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy clause), and Article III
of the Constitution, vesting the judicial power in the Supreme Court.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637


-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
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 13:39:33 GMT

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.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Fictional Gordon-Suzanne Dialogue on Trumped-up Case 3
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:33:55 GMT

In <1094@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->Susan,
->who wonders when Nyikos will finally post an apology to Adrienne
->for lying about her

i wonder about that too. he is facing a dilemna, i
think. just about anyone who had been reading the net
for more than an hour or two recognized what had
happened. i believe several people pointed it out to
him within 24 hours. so, just about from the beginning,
phoney has been aware that he got caught lying. i
suppose, if he had his wits about him, he would have
apoogized and moved on. instead, in kind of a
darcy-like fashion, he tried to defend what he'd said,
despite the fact that the evidence clearly refuted his
case. now, he doesn't have all that many choices. far
too much time has passed. what has it been, six weeks,
eight weeks?A i know he's claimed his server has been
up and down. still, he's posted over 50 articles since
he got caught lying. i'm guessing he's going to
stonewall and hope it'll just go away.

it won't though.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:08:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.172746.50639@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec20.021358.18235@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>The point here
>>is that Cochran has thrown his support behind a "legal restriction" that
>>doesn't exist right now.
>
>No he didn't, that's your misinterpretation.
>
>>and his pigheaded refusal to clarify tends to give more credence to
>>that interpretation than to yours and Larry's.
>
>He *has* clarified, and your interpretation is incorrect.  I don't
>understand your pigheaded refusal to accept that.

He has NOT clarified, Larry, he has obfuscated. I asked him what his 
"restriction" was designed to "restrict". No straight answer. I asked him
about women in comas. No straight answer. I asked him about Abortion
Request Forms. No straight answer. I asked him for an exact definitions of 
"ask" and "her doctor". No straight answer. When he starts _answering_, 
instead of just _dodging_, then I might drop the subject.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:45:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.052045.701@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.081855.14741@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec18.165413.8758@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>Kebbin is just mad because we live in the Real World (tm) and not in
>>>some Darcian fantasy in which it is more dangerous to terminate a
>>>pregnancy then to carry the fetus to term. 
>>
>>Learn the difference between a hypothetical question and a fantasy, ignoramus.
>>
>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.

If you owned 5 unicorns, and I stole 2 of them, how many unicorns would you
have left?

By your "reasoning", the answer would be "0. Unicorns don't exist." The CORRECT
answer is, of course, "3. The laws of mathematics don't depend on whether
unicorns exist or not". So, unicorns are fantasy, but the laws of mathematics,
although abstract, DO exist "in the real world", and your answer is wrong in
the unicorn example. Unicorns may be fantasy, but the laws of mathematics don't
suddenly change just because unicorns are incorporated into a hypothetical
question about mathematics.

Similarly, your answer to my hypothetical late-term abortion question is as
WRONG as (5 unicorns - 2 unicorns = 0 unicorns), since the morality of an 
approach to the abortion issue is NOT dependent on whether a certain class of 
medical cases exists or not.

>>>Considering his tendancy to
>>>argue both sides of any given question, I'd say he is the one who
>>>needs to be concerned with moral inconsistancy.
>>
>>Arguing a position and believing it aren't necessarily the same thing, schmuck.
>>
>And this is the same guy who recently posted about "how
>counterproductive all this ad hominen garbage is"...

Yes. Which was why I corrected your inaccurate and misleading ad hominem above.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Saturnalia I: "She shoulda kept her legs crossed"
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.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 06:54:27 GMT

> Nadja
>> Peter "Have I shown you my SAT scores lately?" Nyikos

>>To date, I have posted concerning FIVE  bad apples, on three of them
>>extensively, with information from PRIMARY sources, including in one
>>case the victimized woman herself, testifying before the South Carolina
>>State Senate Judiciary Committee.  TWO of these abortion providers
>>are right in the Columbia area, and as I said in "Meet Ismail Elguindi,
>>Abortionist," the two together account for almost exactly half of the
>>5000+ abortions reported in the Columbia area in 1990, the last year
>>in which Elguindi did not have his license suspended for some reason
>>or other.
>
>Peter,
>There are more than FIVE bad apples being sued or investigated for botched
>births in California alone. By your logic, we should outlaw birth.
>
And in 1984, 2 mathematicians at a Colorado University became involved
in an arguement. Tempers flaired, and violence broke out, resulting in
murder. Since one mathematician commited murder, shouldn't we be
banning all mathematicians? (According to PHoneys logic anyway...)
After all, we'll all agree that mathematicians (even topologists) are
people, right?

--
                  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.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc