HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:13:02 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>say phoney, have you posted your apology for falsly
->>accusing adrienne of posting a forgery?

->I've tried TWICE to post something that would set the ball rolling in
->the direction of cleaning up this issue once and for all. 

there is no need to post something to "set the ball
rolling." you lied in making a false accusation. you
were exposed as having lied on the day you posted your
lie. that was a long time ago. you have made countless
posts since then.

i don't think that your posting an apology at this late
daye will regain you any of the credibility you lost.
on the other hand, i strongly suspect that you will be
confronted with the fact that you do not have
sufficient character to deal with your problem over and
over by numerous posters until you do deal with it.

->It included
->apologies to (gasp!) you as well as to Susan and Adrienne and clueless
->newbies, but my netserver LIED to me both times that it had been posted
->and even listed the first attempt in my index (the second was made during
->the week-and-a-half news blackout).  I'll see if I can dig it up today
->and (groan!) make a third attempt at posting it.

this claim rings pretty false to me. i don't know how
others will see it.

->While I have you on the line, let me join will (or, as I usually write
->his name, Will) in asking you:

->Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?

i'm afraid i've decided not to provide you with that
information.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: DODie gets caught lying and tries to squirm out of it
Date: 26 Dec 92 21:31:11 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec26.191257.5575@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <34634@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> 
#smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
##dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to
##<1992Dec24.170437.15166@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com(>>): 
#
#### When are you going to answer my question about why you refuse to take
#### a position on legislation 
#
### How many times do I have to repeat myself?  I am undecided.
### Try reading those three words slowly.  Hopefully it will sink in.
#
## Didn't [Mr. Holtsinger] just post his opposition to FOCA?
#
#Allow me to explain something to you.  When people on talk.abortion
#discuss ``legislation'', they are usually talking about legislation
#to restrict abortion.  Most people understand that.  Obviously you
#don't.  

No, Reverend, you're wrong.  When people on talk.abortion
discuss "legislation," they are usually talking about legislation
that affects abortion.  Most people understand this.  Some 
people understand it but pretend they don't because 
they lack the integrity to state their beliefs.  Some people
don't understand it at all - they think that this newsgroup
is about child support or infanticide.  Into which category
do you fit? 

Susan
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:59:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.725150678@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
(Peter "KKK" Nyikos) writes:

[lots of deletions, none of them marked]

#(1) Women generally DON'T consult with physicians, not EVEN THE ONES DOING
#THE ABORTIONS, prior to signing consent forms for abortions out in the 
#front office and (2) Abortion providers and counselors are engaged in
#a conspiracy of silence about profiteering abortion clinics, and won't
#release crucial information to the public, the State Boards of Medical
#Examiners, nor the Departments of Health (& Environmental Control, or
#whatever they are called in your state.)

(1) is certainly not true in Pennsylvania, and (2) is purely a fantasy
on the part of "Dr." Nyikos and his friends.  No such conspiracy
exists, and all pertinent information is reported  to the appropriate
authorities.  

Nyikos ignores the quality of care standards that the National
Abortion Federation imposes on its members.  He also forgets
that there are many women reading t.a. who have had abortions
and know what really happens in a clinic. 

Have you had an abortion in a free standing clinic, Nyikos?

#Meanwhile, 1,600,000 unborn children, most of them already in the
#fetus stage, are aborted each year in the USA alone.

The last year for which there were numbers reported is 1990.  1.4
million abortions were done in 1990.  1.6 million is yet another
lie from Nyikos and crew.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 09:30:54 GMT

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

>In article <1992Dec23.193014.13808@ncar.ucar.edu> 
>kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>>>> Do you really believe there are no significant distinguishing
>>>> factors between a late-term fetus and an infant?! <y,n>

>>> There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
>>> and a newborn infant, but I have not heard any arguments
>>> from pro-choicers which would give *moral* weight to these
>>> facts.  

>> It's your second try at it, but I still can't tell whether this is 
>> supposed to be a "yes" or "no" answer to my straight-forward question.

>Your question is ambigious.  By "significant distinguishing
>factors", do you mean factual differences or moral differences?
>I'll agree that there are factual differences between an 
>infant and a child in the womb, but no moral differences. 

I'd just like to point out that it is really not important that Doug Holtsinger
does not consider there to be any moral differences between the born and the
unborn; his attempted argument was that PRO-CHOICERS must, by their OWN
reasoning, condone infanticide.  Since it is the *pro-choice* reasoning he is
saying must condone infanticide, his (Doug's) beliefs can not be used to back
up his argument when it has been repeatedly shown that many pro-choice
positions *can* and *do* distinguish between the born and the unborn and some
can even disallow infanticide and allow late-term abortions without any
inconsistency.

>>-Brian

>Doug Holtsinger

-Rob
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan sinks to a new low. [Was: Meet P...]
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:46:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Ha.  Patrick said everything that I would have.

I'll have to talk to him about this.

Susan
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:51:23 GMT
Organization: NRL



Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line

In article <1992Dec28.163431.18194@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin 
Darcy) writes:

.....
> To a pro-lifer, no doubt this seems the height of hypocrisy -- violating
> one human's BA in the name of asserting the BA of another....

Hypocracy is the wrong word - I'm sure you believe the conclusions you 
make, despite the convoluted path taken to reach them.  You are a 
hinge-pin pro-abort - that is, your entire position hinges around a single 
concept - in this case, viability.  I don't envy you at all.  Viability is 
at best an arbitray line and a moving target at that.  Its an invented 
concept with no real way of testing for - like checking a book of matches 
by lighting each one in turn.  You live in a house of cards, Kevin.

-Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: More Bare-Fased Lies from the Reverend:
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 22:28:23 GMT

In article <34633@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>
>I'll happily stand on my net reputation for lying versus yours.  

I'll happily stand the validity of most "net reputations" against truth
anytime.

If there didn't exist people like our dear TSAKC who spend virtually all of 
their posting time trying to fabricate people's "net reputations", then maybe
"net reputations" would be a useful yardstick, Stephen. But with all the
context-cutting, misdirection, obfuscation, and outright LYING that these
folks do, do you really think that the resulting "net reputations" are worth 
a damn? They are tainted by the obvious vendettas of the people that create 
and sculpt them.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53312 alt.abortion.inequity:6211
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Date: 3 Jan 93 17:41:42 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Dec31.182305.9901@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> From article <1992Dec31.120002.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
> by cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu:
>> In article <1992Dec31.042143.2459@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
> 
>>> 	Now please explain why it's morally acceptable for actual, undoubted
>>> human persons to die in the interest of reducing the crime rate, but morally
>>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> unacceptable for zygotes or fetii to die in the interest of reducing the
>>                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> rates of mental and physical distress and/or illness among women.  
> 
>>      "Human persons" should be replaced by "convicted murderers" in your 
>> appeal -- to make it more specific to the thread.  Second, your use
>> of "zygotes or fetii" tends to dehumanize the unborn children you're
>> considering (definition of child is an unborn or recently born person).
> 
> I hope you're prepared to back this "definition" up, preferably with a
> quotation from a reputable dictionary.

     Is Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1991) reputable
enough?  The primary definition (i.e. definition 1 a) of "child" is
"an unborn or recently born person."

> [deletia]
> 
>>  The pro-life/pro-capital punishment position is also
>> logically consistent.  It assumes that there is a right-to-life, but, along
>> with this right, there is a responsibility not to murder (i.e. to unlawfully
>> cease another's right-to-life).  If one acts irresponsibly, then he is 
>> no longer necessarily entitled to his right.
> 
> I'm no legal expert, so I must query: Is that really the philosophy behind
> capital punishment?  It seems to be your philosophy, but is it a prevalent
> legal doctrine?

    I presented this in response to the claim that the Roman Catholic
position is the only logically-consistent position.  I am not an ardent
supporter of capital punishment -- primarily because of the possibility
of execution of an innocent person.  However, in theory, I believe that
a murderer should be executed.

>  I ask because I note that the Declaration of Independence
> asserts the existence of "inalienable rights" and, according to the (oh no!)
> dictionary, "inalienable" means "that may not be taken away or transferred".

     Incarceration takes away one's "inalienable" right to liberty.  Are
you suggesting that, in the name of inalienable rights, we should empty 
all of the penitentiaries?  

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
Date: 29 Dec 92 23:00:19 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec29.163531.6922@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( 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...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
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: Mon, 28 Dec 92 02:55:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.042943.4640@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.061712.28416@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec21.003824.21422@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec20.044415.25283@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <BzEy8s.7x8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>It is kind of funny how it's "okay" to yank a baby out of the womb piece
>>>>>by piece, yet it's "wrong" to let a newborn die a gentle death from
>>>>>hypothermia.
>>>>>
>>>>>The subject begs further reflection and dialogue.
>>>>>
>>>>And it would be nice if you tried to find some facts before the next
>>>>time you post.
>>>>Anybody who describes hypothermia as a gentle death is doing a fine
>>>>job of displaying a severe case of ignorance.
>>>
>>>Then enlighten us, O Great One. Is the pain and gruesome violence of being
>>>hacked to bits comparable to slipping away into permanent hypothermic 
>>>unconsciousness? We thirst for knowledge.
>>>
>>Hypothermia is not a gentle way to die. Ask anybody who has seen it
>>happen. 
>
>RELATIVELY speaking, though, compared to being "hacked to bits", is it not
>a gentle way to die?
>
That would depend entirely on the circumstances Kebbin.
If you're talking about a real, alive, sentient being being "hacked to
bits" then perhaps so. If you are (and I must assume you are, since
this is talk.abortion...) talking about hypothermia vs some method of
abortion, then I would say the "hacked to bits" is gentler. For the
simple reason that the fetus is dead before it is "hacked to bits". It
can't feel anything Kebbin. Not true of the person who is freezing to
death.

>>As for the "pain and gruesome violence" bit , can you show me
>>any people who have been so killed? I mean, other the Jeff Dalhmers
>>victims. 
>
>I decline to quibble over "personhood", Cochran. It is true, however, that 
>some abortion methods (D&C? D&E?) involve, in layperson's terms,
>"hacking to bits", do they not? That is my only point here.
>
Given that the fetus is neither alive at that point, nor capable of
feeling, what is your problem with this method?

--
                  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: an4149@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: You ARE killing
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:32:05 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: talk.abortion

You state that because a fetus may not survive without intervention outside the
womb that it is not a life and therefore may be terminated at our convenience.

After birth, and for some years children are not capable of surviving without
intervention, therefore we should be able terminate their life when they become
an inconvenience. 

The majority homeless and poor in our society would not be able to survive if 
it were not for outside intervention of some form, we should therefore be able
to terminate their life when they become an inconvenience.

Granted these arguments are absurd, but no more so than those that state that a
fetus is not a human life.  Argueably it does not experience life as we know it
but, does this make its life any less than our own?

We demand that responsible pet owners spay and nueter or otherwise prevent 
their pets from mating to control unplanned and unwanted pet pregnancies.
We are willing to make these decisions concerning our pets, but we will not
take similar responsibility over our own animal instincts.

During an abortion, you are taking a life.  Your actions and motives determine
YOUR true worth as a human being.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:11:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

It's very nice of you to want to share your bonus points.  As a reward,
I'll let you judge the other category.

(Whew.  I got out of that one...)

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:35:52 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (B. Munroe) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (B. Munroe) writes:

>>>.....  Neither pro-choice or pro-life -- just pro-responsibility  .....

>>Don't be shy...tell us: would you support anti-abortion laws?  Is this
>>"pro-responsibility" the same as pro-lifers pretending if a woman
>>gets pregnant she should be forced to carry to term?
>>
>>Thanks, Bob.

>I guess you first have to define what responsibility means to you.
>To me it means to live my life in such a way so as to cause as little
>grief, pain, duress, discomfort, etc. to other beings as possible.

That's a good definition of responsibility.  My definition would add taking
care of my loved ones if needed, but hey, that's a nit to make me look good
:).

>That's why I'm a bleeding heart, liberal vegetarian AR person.

(Ahem...what is an "AR person"?)

>That also means that I personally am a pro-life person.  It doesn't
>mean that I expect everyone to be pro-life - I leave that up to the
>individual.  In other words, globally I'm pro-choice - I just personally 
>choose to respect fetal rights.

It took me a while to get over the shock of you, a pro-lifer, not trying to
obfuscate WRT the word "responsibility", my reason for clarifying.  Read a
few t.a. posts and you'll see what I mean.

>By pro-responsibility I mean that the individual has to decide on which side
>of an issue to stand based on who they are.  This means researching
>and giving serious thought to an issue - informed decision making vs.
>raw reaction.

I agree.

>A vegan friend of mine classes meat-eaters into two groups: uninformed
>and evil (the term 'evil' is his - please flame /dev/null if it insults you).
>He says the 'uninformed' meat-eaters are those who have not yet realized
>that eating meat is bad (i.e. cruel).  He says the 'evil' meat-eaters are
>those who know how much pain and suffering that an animal goes through before
>ending up on a plate, yet refuse to change their lifestyle.

I am an evil meat-eater.  It seems "uninformed" meat-eating adults would have 
to be extremely ignorant of the world, or mentally impaired.  But I sorta see 
your point.

>I use the above example to illustrate what I mean by responsibility -
>changing your habits and lifestyle to reflect your true beliefs (no matter
>how different they may be from your friends', relatives', etc).
>
>Hope that clarifies things.

Yes.  Thanks muchly.  If everyone here starts answering as quickly and 
honestly as you did here, you're gonna ruin this well-carbonized flame fest 
called t.a.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: DODie's ethics
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:40:14 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


So, DODie followed me over to alt.rush-limbaugh and started harping
about Chaney/Hall's forgery again.  He didn't get the response that
he hoped for - only one person replied, and they disagreed with his
argument that "joking" forgeries should be ignored.  I responded to
that guy, explaining what CMU policy is.  DODie replied and gave
me his view of what one should do regarding following site policy -
ignore it.

For anyone who doubts that Reverend Holtsinger has the ethics of
a snake, I'm reposting his little "look the other way" rant.  

/begin included article/
From pitt.edu!uunet!wupost!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!rutgers!concert!rock!taco!eceyv.ncsu.edu!dsh Mon Dec 28 13:08:25 EST 1992
Article: 13464 of alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
Date: 28 Dec 92 05:10:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1186@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> Sigh.  I don't think that forging articles is a "harmless joke."

It hasn't been demonstrated that Steve Chaney's article
was indeed a 'forgery'.  He never intended to deceive 
anyone about the source of the article, hence no
'forgery' existed.  I think you complained about his 
posting so that he would be punished.

> I was told that it was CMU policy to report any forgeries of a CMU address, 
> regardless of the circumstances.  When Chaney/Hall forged a header
> of one of his posts to make it appear that I had posted it, I
> forwarded the entire article to my sysadmins.  

How hard would it have been to simply ignore the article?

> I thought that I'd let my sysadmins decide if it were worthy of 
> reporting to CSUS.

In other words, you forced the CMU sysadmins to contact CSUS,
since the sysadmins would be openly violating CMU policy if
they hadn't contacted CSUS.  Had you simply ignored the article,
nobody at CMU would have known that you had seen it.  But you 
forced the issue out into the open, where the sysadmins would
be required to deal with it.

> They informed me that they were reporting it, that they didn't find
> the joke to be funny, and that they doubted that the CSUS sysadmins
> would find it funny, either.  

And I bet you got a big laugh out of it, knowing that Mr. Chaney
might be punished, huh?  

> I don't know what CSUS did, but 
> Chaney/Hall ceased forging articles (as far as I know) after.
> I've never personally been in contact with the CSUS administrators.

That's right, just wash your hands of the whole affair.  No need
to dirty those little hands with a 'net.censor' label when you
can easily get your sysadmins to do your dirty work.  

> Holtsinger, on the other hand, posts the names and street addresses
> of corporate officials when he thinks that a user at a .com site
> has overstepped the limits of propriety.  

But Ms. Garvin, the user in question didn't object to my posting
of the street address of his company.  In fact, he found it
hilarious.  

> I'm still somewhat 
> amused that he would complain about me obeying the rules of
> my site.  

Oh yeah, you were just 'obeying the rules'.  What a cop-out.
You could have easily ignored the article, and nobody at CMU 
could have possibly known that you had seen it.   Admit it,
you wanted to see Mr. Chaney punished. 


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

/end included article/

Someone might want to tell DODie that many sysadmins read the net.


Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion