HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmin
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:20:31 GMT

In article <fh116kj@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
>>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> I'm glad you enjoyed my post to soc.singles, Mr. Margolis.
>>>> Despite your threatening e-mail to my sysadmin, I shall 
>>>> continue to post to soc.singles. 

>>> i'd like to see some proof of this allegation, unless
>>> it's just another lie, of course.

>> Here's the e-mail that Larry Margolis sent to my system
>> administrators, forwarded from one of the NCSU sysadmins.  

> [included post deleted]
>
> so are you going to apologize to margolis for lying
> about him dodie?

I provided the proof that Larry Margolis contacted my
sysadmins.  I'm not surprised that you're unwilling to
accept it.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Let's Play Attributions, Take 3
Followup-To: alt.flame
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 23:15:53 GMT


In article <nyikos.722187039@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
|In Take 2, I included a copy of a post by Susan Garvin in which there are
|some strange goings-on in certain attribution lines.

You're a nut case, Nyikos.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Not only are you obviously a boring conservative twit with sexual 
dysfunctions beyond the dreams of analysis, but also the proud possessor 
of a one track mind that just keeps going and going..." --Rebecca Ching,
on David Rasmussen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:22:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.185331.7112@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
}In article <1992Nov15.041148.5374@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
}>If DODie is an x-tian, he must believe that there is no such thing as an
}>"innocent unborn child," since, according to x-tians, all humans are born
}>with original sin which cannot be wiped away until one prostrates onself
}>to their chosen deity.
}Doug says he is not a Christian.

He may well have said that, but if you ask me he thinks he's the pope.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:06:33 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <By0u8w.Mv0@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.221554.37953@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1992Nov13.171159.15074@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1bk0euINN4lg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Horseshit.  The man has *no* legal obligation until a child is born.
>>>
>>>Horseshit yourself, Adrienne:
>>>
>>>MCLA 722.712. Child born out of wedlock; liability of parents
>>                     ^^^^
>>>
>>>       Sec. 2. (a) The parents of a child so born out of wedlock are liable
>>                                           ^^^^^^^
>>>       for the necessary support and education of the child. They are also
>>>       liable for the child's funeral expenses. The father is liable to pay
>>>       such expenses in connection with HER PREGNANCY as the court in its
>>>       discretion may deem proper. (Emphasis mine).
>>
>>You proved Adrienne's point - *no* obligation until *after* the child is
>>born.  The fact that he [maybe] has to pay expenses incurred *before* the
>>child was born does not alter the fact that there is no legal obligation
>>until *after* the child is born.
>
>Your 16-year-old child decides to drive your car into a store,
>doing $10,000 damage.  Are you liable for damages?
>
>Your 16-year-old child drives your car.  Are you liable for damages?
>
>Would you say that your right _not_ to pay for someone else's actions
>has been restricted, even before any damages occur?

This has nothing to do with anything quoted above, does it?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Suzanne Rollerblades for the Truth?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:29:05 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>> Hey, BC has his fingers in so many, er, pies, I'll stick around for the
>>> impeachment in a year or two.  :-)

>> What's he done that compares with Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate, or (possibly)
>> the Iran hostage deal of 1980?

> A)  NBC's Dateline did a story last spring of a man in Arkansas who was put
> in prison for a murder he didn't commit.  He _had_ thrown a rock and hit
> somebody, but his victim was well enough to be walking around in the
> emergency room.  She didn't live through surgery though, and the medical
> examiner testified that she died of the rock injuries.   It was later
> revealed 1) that the medical examiner had been found incompetant in many
> previous cases yet Gov. Clinton still kept him on the staff, and 2) that
> the woman had actually died of improperly administered anesthesia.   The
> nurse administering the anesthesia?

> Bill Clinton's mother.

Suzanne, you should be more careful.  Someone with access to a good library
might find out that you're lying:

1. The man did not go to prison for murder, unless the sentencing guidelines
   in Arkansas call for *six months* imprisonment for murder.

2. Clinton was not in office at the time of this incident.  He was working
   as a lawyer and was preparing a bid to be returned to the governorship
   after losing the previous election.

3. The woman did not die of improperly administered anesthesia, she died
   because operating personnel were unable to clear her throat so that she
   could breathe.

My source on this is the 8/3/92 issue of New Republic, pp 14-17.  Dateline's
case is based entirely on speculation and innuendo.

> In a taped conversation in which Ms. Flowers asked Mr. Clinton, "What 
> should I tell people if they ask me how I got this job?", Mr. Clinton
> responded, "Do what I do.  Lie."

There is considerable and credible doubt that the male voice on the tape
was Clinton's.  Got any more red herrings, Suzanne?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power."  -- Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:55:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.210034.25011@fys.ruu.nl>, johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston) writes:
> I believe the book "A Midwife's Tale" by someone whose name escapes me,
> about a woman who was a midwife in New England around the time of the
> American Revolution, also has several examples of child support being
> given in America, but I don't have the book with me to check.

Sorry for following up my own article, but the complete reference to
that book is:

 Ulrich, Laurel.
     A midwife's tale : the life of Martha Ballard, based on her diary,
   1785-1812 / Laurel Thatcher Ulrich.  1st ed.  New York : Knopf : Distributed
   by Random House, 1990.

The book is based on a very detailed diary kept by Martha Ballard. The
author describes how M. Ballard used to ask the mothers of illegitimate
children who the father was during childbirth, as that way she was more
assured of getting an honest answer! It's worth pointing out that the
reason child support was demanded from the father in these cases is
exactly the same as in America today; that otherwise, the care of the
mother and child would fall on the community: in this case, the parish.

-- 
Helen Johnston       | Astronomye is an harde thynge and yvel forto knowe.
johnston@fys.ruu.nl  |      -- William Langland, Piers the Plowman
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48781 alt.abortion.inequity:5202 soc.men:19653 alt.dads-rights:2655
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: 20 Nov 1992 08:22:30 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com


Will and me:

>AR> And the man is not absolved of his responsibility by saying, "Honey, did you
>AR> take your pill?"

>Yes, but what if *neither* took precautions?  Would you still blame the man
>and force him to be responsible?

Scuse, please:  "blame"?  "force"?  

>(Considering that you attempted to upbraid me by declaring that I was demanding
>to have the "right to insult" people, I somewhat believe that you have, on
>numerous occasions, claimed this right for yourself! 

Geez, Will, isn't it hard enough for us to discuss an  issue over the net
without to making shit up out of midair and yapping about it?

I don't give a hoot about upbraiding you.  You can braid yourself into
any configuration you choose.  I'm talking about your *arguments*, and 
that's all.  You have a problem with my style, and that's all.  Adjust!

>Excuse me, please, but it was *not* myself or Don who made the claim that the
>issue of men paying child support is connected with abortion being legal.  So
>I say again - it falls upon the person who made that claim, to prove it.

Well, I asked Don, on this net.  And he said he'd be perfectly happy to use
his vote as blackmail.  So did Karl.  Steve K isn't interested in even black-
mail.  I think once he saw abortion illegal, he'd drop the male-choice banner
like a hot potato but that's just speculation.  And, I'll agree with you
that proofs most rightly come from the asserter, yes.  But it would make
us all happy, and help the discussion immensely if you *did* have some
information and posted it.  If you don't, I understand: I don't either.  But
we *both* need to recognise that we are then flying blind.  And that arguments
based upon vague feelings of unease are hardly compelling.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DODie and censorship
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:57:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Nov21.074745.8177@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
#keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
##dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
##-#It wasn't "my" moderated talk.abortion newsgroup, Keeganoid.
##-#I only proposed a moderated newsgroup 
##
##how many readers, other than ms. bartley of course,
##supported your proposal to censor talk.abortion, DODie?
#
#I don't recall anyone (not even DOD) proposing that t.a. be censored.
#Are you lying again?

Moderated newsgroups are, by definition, censored.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:54:10 GMT

In <BxowEK.Kpp.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>That was, well, amazing.  In a burst of selective editing, Petey
>Honey deleted a reference line and spent hundreds of lines 
>replying to someone else as if he were me.  

It could be you are right about everything except the "selective" part.
It was a 500+ line post of yours I was following up to, and I may well
have deleted a reference line somewhere in the middle of the post.
But if so, it was because I overlooked it, not because I selectively
deleted it.  

Note to all readers:  In an earlier follow-up to this same short post
of Susan's, I carelessly assumed "reference line" referred to an
attribution line preceding the text of the article.  My mistake there
was just the opposite: I left in an extra attribution line, and I thought
that was what was confusing Susan, just as Adrienne was "confused" (or
at least may have thought some newbies might be confused) when I did
the same thing in following up to a post of hers.

Anyway, my apologies to Susan and whoever else [including myself :-) ]
who was confused by the missing reference line.  I honestly thought
I was talking about words due to Susan.

BTW I am curious to know whether Susan endorses the words I mistakenly
attributed to her.  They sounded quite in character with the other
things she has written.

>I guess he'll be accusing me of forgery now.

No, Susan.  Unlike Chaney, I am very careful about how I word my 
accusations.  I guess I overestimated the ability of people to
draw fine distinctions, though, and I guess some were confused
by *me* into thinking I had accused Adrienne of forgery.  To such
networkers, as distinct from those who were confused by *Adrienne*,
I apologize for the confusion.

Peter Nyikos  (Menu for today: crow and humble pie)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:39:42 GMT

cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
->gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU writes:
->> Before you get your kidneys in a downpour and your bowels in an uproar
->> let me point out that posting a summary of email is hardly a "clear 
->> violation of nettiquette."  You may be a bit unhappy about it, but
->> it is hardly a violation, much less clearly so.

->Keegie and DeMitrio disagree with you, Galen.  They think the
->mere mention of the existence of email is a heinous crime.

i don't know why cj felt it necessary to bring suzanne
lucia and me into this galen. i suppose she's still a
bit stung about having been exposed as a liar during
the last round.

--
  Penn Jillette described the smiley as "the hateful :) 
  which means 'just kidding' and is used by people who 
  would dot their i's with little circles and should have 
  their eyes dotted with Drano."
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmin
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:22:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

Mr. Holtsinger, posting abortion gunk to soc.singles is a serious breach
of netiquette, especially if you know that it is frowned upon (why do you
think we have different newsgroups and heirarchies?).  

By intentionally pouring unwanted bandwidth onto a heirarchy clearly marked
against such (check out the .newusers group and READ), you are wasting other
people's money; people who don't want the talk heirarchy with its intrinsic
noise-to-signal ratio and insoluble, interminable rants.

I hope if you do post that tripe to soc.singles again, you *do* get a good
talking-to by your sysadmin.  And I would feel the same way about anyone
who knowingly posted graphic descriptions of an illegal abortion to 
soc.singles.

Cut the crap.  Grow the fuck up.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Pro choice question
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Distribution: usa
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:17:13 CST
Originator: mccullou@sun-19.cae.wisc.edu
Keywords: choice question


In article <1eg9ngINNsuq@uwm.edu>, simon@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David Joseph Simon) writes:
> Hi there all
> someone named Brian I think from Arizona asked the question of pro-choice people:|>  "You say you have the "right to choose".  Who is the authority that grants you this right?
> I have a simple answer for this.|> 1.	Its called the constitution.  You know, the paper that grants us freedom of religion and freedom of expression.  Be sure and grab a copy of this next time you are at the library.
> 
>        	Dont shovel this "authority" stuff on me!! Who is the authority that grants you the right to harass pro-choice people at the homes, for expressing their opinions, something else also guaranteed in the constitution.
> And, who is the" authority" that give the anti-choice side the right to trash and judge everyone else's belief systems based on their own view of everything.
> 
> So spare me your whining about "authority".  I don't want to hear it.  
> 

I wouldn't go off claiming that the constitution says things it doesn't.
The constitution and its 27 amendments never mention the word
abortion or make any references to it.  Then again, this hasn't stopped
the supreme court from making a fool of itself in the 60's, when the
supreme court ruled that the consitution allowed 18 year olds the right
to vote.  The amendment to do that came _after_ that decision.  If
you read the constitution, it never mentions the age 18 at all. :)

People use the constitution for too much.  It is a foundation, not
the end all.  If people want abortion legal or outlawed, pass a law.
Don't try to read it into the constitution.  Of course I would never
last as a judge, if the constitution doesn't make a reference to it,
it isn't in the constitution.  A horrible attitude I know, but it is
real life.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49272 talk.rape:2822
From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:49:29 GMT
	<1992Nov20.024609.1796@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Nov20.024609.1796@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.164831.2395@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
> >               The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to 
>>          a question of when human life begins.
> No, it doesn't.  If you don't understand that, you really don't have
>much useful to contribute to the discussion.  Off to talk.abortion
>with you.

Actually, to a lot of people it _does_. If you don't understand that,
you really don't have any right to dismiss anyone with an arrogant
handwave like that.

Apologies for the irrelevant material on t.r, but Andy implied that he
doesn't read t.a, and his attitude irked me.

                                        Cordially,

                                             -g
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Guilty of (Fill In Th
X-To: DUANE HENTRICH
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:33:00 GMT

baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes...
DH> In article <1992Nov3.224502.11492@nevada.edu>, crail@nevada.edu (DONNA CRAIL
DH> OTZKE) writes:
DH> |> No, it is not fair for the father not to be informed about his wife/
DH> |> girlfriend's abortion.  It also is not fair to require women to notify
DH> |> her husband/boyfriend of her intention to get an abortion (or any electiv
DH> |> surgery) if he is not required to notify his wife/girlfriend of any elect
DH> |> surgery he is planning getting.

DH> In preparing to get a vasectomy I found out that many (most in our area)
DH> doctors will not give a vasectomy to a married man without the notification
DH> and counseling in the doctor's office of the wife. Not the law, they just go
DH> tired of being dragged into suits later on. Leastwise, that's what
DH> they told me.

WHAT!  You're *serious*??  And here we are, getting accused of oppressing
women, when this is routinely done with *men*?!

Do you know what other states this happens in?  Thanks!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * "I'm...I'm supposed to be dead?!" - Tasha Yar, Star Trek
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: My friend turns two
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 17:28:58 GMT


sf>In article <1992Nov20.011729.4677@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
dk>From article by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):
 
sf>Dan, you make me sick.   You paid to have a small child killed.   In front
sf>of your own eyes no less.
 
It helps me to know you feel this way.  I feel much better about
decisions in my life knowing that people such as you strongly
oppose my decisions.  Thank you Suzanne.
 
The post was fun to read and all.  Anyone that missed Suzanne's
post should go back and read it.  Very enjoyable.  Just a couple
of points of yours are worth responsing to Suzanne:
 
dk> Despite her feelings 
dk> about abortion, she knew it was the only choice available to her.  

sf>Crap.  You yourself had offered her help not to abort.
 
And she found my offer unacceptable for her circumstances.  
Of course you would have rather forced her to accept my offer.  
 
dk> Not as difficult as continuing
dk> the pregnancy, but difficult none the less.  

sf>How would you or she _possibly_ know?
 
I personally believe she is a much better judge of that than you
would be.  
 
sf>S. Forgach
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights