HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:16:56 CST

In article <nyikos.725159376@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec23.132558.25246@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec23.013921.7465@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>I have added alt.flame to the newsgroups.
>
>>> In article <1992Dec21.003426.21330@rotag.mi.org> 
>>> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> 
>>> > Gee, seems Susie is perfectly willing to forgive someone who jokes, in 
>>> > alt.sex, about mass rape and doesn't apologize for it. I wonder if she would 
>>> > be as forgiving of someone who joked about something equally tasteless in 
>>> > alt.flame and DID apologize for making a mistake?
>>> 
>>> But that would require consistency from Garvin.
>>> 
>
>Why am I NOT surprised to see Kaflowitz jump in to
>deflect well-deserved flames [thank you, Chris Lyman, for teaching
>me that phrase] away from Susan Garvin?

Harumph.  Chris Lyman is experiencing system problems which
prevent him from posting at the moment, thought he can still
read t.a.  Please refrain from taking his name in vain until 
he has a chance to return.

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:19:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.085744.20915@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin 
Darcy) writes:
> Newsgroups: talk.abortion
> Path: ra!darwin.sura.net!wupost!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!k
evin
> From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
> Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
> Message-ID: <1992Dec29.085744.20915@rotag.mi.org>
> Organization: Who, me???
> References: <34655@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> 
<1992Dec28.163431.18194@rotag.mi.org> 
<1992Dec28.173956.24228@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 08:57:44 GMT
> Lines: 31
> 
> In article <1992Dec28.173956.24228@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec28.163431.18194@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
> >(Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >

> I understand that there ARE some tests which can help whether a given 
fetus
> is viable or not, but I couldn't tell you what they are or what they 
involve. 
> I doubt that they could be performed "at home", though. You're the one 
with
> all of the medical contacts, aren't you, Galen? Why don't you ask them
> instead of me? You're more likely to get a definitive answer that way.
> 
> >At whose definition of "viability" would you begin to
> >allow abortion restrictions, not support, just allow?
> 
> What definitions exist? If you'll present me with some definitions of
> "viability", I'll tell you which one(s) I would accept.

Very clever debating tactic -  'Give me a choice of positions - then I'll 
pick the best one'

> 
>                                                                 - Kevin

Kevin - your house of cards continues to tremor.  You seem pestered by 
these attempts to pin you down on your sole criterion for favoring 
abortion.  I suspect that the viability line is so comforting to you 
because it gives you an apparent 'logical' justification for your views, 
and more importantly, gives you enough time should you, or a loved one, 
find themselves in an unplanned state of impending parenthood.

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:25:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Summary: Darcy lies and Holtsinger swears to it

In article <1992Dec23.013921.7465@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Dec21.003426.21330@rotag.mi.org> 
> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> 
> > Gee, seems Susie is perfectly willing to forgive someone who jokes, in 
> > alt.sex, about mass rape and doesn't apologize for it. I wonder if she would 
> > be as forgiving of someone who joked about something equally tasteless in 
> > alt.flame and DID apologize for making a mistake?
> 
> But that would require consistency from Garvin.
> 

What this little discussion is about is the time Kevin Darcy
accused the victim of child molestation of being a child
molester, then he spent weeks trying to support his remarks,
then finally apologized for it and claimed it was all a joke.
Now The Reverend Douglas Holtsinger seems to find it
inconsistent of Susan to be unforgiving of someone who
called her SO a child molester.

I think the Reverend Doug is something of an idiot, and I
feel secure in my expectations of consistency on that score.

Dean Kaflowitz

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then, I contradict myself.
I am large.
I contain multitudes.
-Walt Whitman "Song of Myself"

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: SJM slur alert
Organization: NRL
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:00:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.175354.2917@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> In article <C014v8.IGp@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
writes:

> I'll type slow so you can keep up Paul...
> It is a fetus, not a child.
> Repeat that until you understand the difference.

Gee, sounds just like mind-control.  Do you also run a Chinese-style reeducation camp for wayward pro-lifers?

I get it - its "fetus" just because YOU say it is - common usage be damned.


> >> ...not given the legal right to use their parents' bodies without
> >> permission.

> >Here SJM raises the bogus concept that the government never dictates how 
> >we use our bodies.  In fact, it does as a matter of course.

> Here Paul raises the bogus concept that because the government
> dictates some things, it should dictate all things. Guess we know why
> you're from a .mil site eh Paulie?

Please point out exactly where I said, or even implied the word, "all".

I also like the very practical way that you catagorize people.  Makes life easy.  Wait, I have to turn down the marching music I always play in the background... there, that's better.

> Here Paulie demonstrates that he is incapable of differentiating between a 
> pro-lifer and a fetus fanatic.  Here's a clue Paulie. Pro-Life != forced 
> birth.

I see, if one is against abortion he may have in mind just requiring the mother to keep her legs tightly crossed whenever the urge to push arises.  I'm just not right brained I guess.  Thanks for the clue.

> > I guess the millions of men let off the hook through the magic 
> >of the abortionist's wand is just incidental gravy.  Of course, men are 
> >just disinterested bystanders who have no stake whatsoever in keeping 
> >abortion legal.  And of course the concept of mothers killing their 
> >offspring is a good light to hold women to.  
> >
> Speaking of unsupported rhetoric....
> 

Go ahead, speak.  Which part is unsupportable?

- Paul     
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:22:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.043412.8538@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <=-22d2b@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>->[Over 40 lines of Kebbin defending himself as a group deleted]
>>
>>->Good Ghad Kebbin, this must really get under your skin, if you're
>>->going to post that much junk about it.
>>->You can think of yourself as a group if you want, I don't care. Just
>>->try to avoid the psych boys when you're doing so.
>>
>>i don't really believe kebbie thinks of himself as a
>>group. he simply needed to convince people that he was
>>a group once in order to slither away from admitting he
>>fucked up yet again. in the global scheme of
>>kebbie-dialogue, this was just more of the same.
>>
>I don't really think he considers himself a group either, but isn't it
>fun to watch him squirm?

Are you here for rational debate, Mr. Cochran, or for "squirming"?

								- Kevin
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 30 Dec 1992 19:22:45 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

In article <3366@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
|> In article <C015F4.IMK@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
|> >In article <1992Dec28.200350.23162@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian 
|> >Kendig) writes:
|> >> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
|> 
|> >> >and "Pro-Life" for the euphemisms they are and use the more accurate 
|> >labels
|> >> >"pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" instead.
|> 
|> >> Yeah, let's do away with euphemisms!  Tell me, are you
|> >> "pro-open-heart-surgery" or "anti-open-heart-surgery"? ...
|> 
|> >John - You've called a spade a spade.
|> 
|> No, he has called someone who thinks a woman should be allowed to choose
|> for herself whether not she will carry a pregnancy to term "pro-abortion."
|> This makes as much sense as calling someone who thinks swimming should
|> be legal "pro-drowning".  Or calling a free-speech advocate "pro-nazi".
|> It's an outright lie.  That you would call a direct lie calling "a
|> spade a spade" indicates that you are unable to tell the difference
|> between lying and the truth.  I'm going to find it difficult to give
|> any credence to any future posts from you.

Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:06:09 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:



>In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes
>a rather stunning display of pro-lie propaganda, beginning with:

>#I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  

>Nice trick, Heather.

>Susan

Got to admit.. you got me here.  Takes great still to take someone out of
context though.

Congrats to your towering intellect.


Edward Simmonds

- standard disclaimers -
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:12:01 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <tl5ikhs@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec9.022849.25114@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu writes:
>|>| = lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>|>>I honestly don't know.  If something were to somehow convince me that fetuses 
>|>>aren't human (For example, If someone found a way to prove that the soul 
>|>>doesn't enter the body until birth) then I would go back to being pro-choice.

Casper, the Friendly Ghost....

Sheesh Loren, what about us poor folk who don't believe in imaginary beings?
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: More Bare-Fased Lies from TSAKC:
Summary: More dreck from DODie
Organization: Not that far from wherever you are (unless you're in Raleigh:)
	<34633@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> <1992Dec26.222823.13078@rotag.mi.org>
	<1992Dec27.183725.7011@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:58:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.183725.7011@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

 In article <1992Dec26.222823.13078@rotag.mi.org> 
 kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
 >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.

   Does "TSAKC" do anything besides fabricating "net reputations"?
   I haven't really seen any pro-choice arguments from them,  
   with perhaps the exception of Galen Hekhuis.  Most of the
   others, like Susan Garvin, James Keegan, and Patrick Humphrey,
   seem to spend all their time attacking other people. Perhaps
   those are the "entrance requirements" into TSAKC -- you must
   spend a majority of your time fabricating "net reputations". 
   Hey Galen Hekhuis, you better get busy, or else you might 
   get kicked out!!

We don't fabricate net reputations, or anything else.  Folks like you and
Darcy, and Suzanne, and Phil Sevilla (remember him?), and Kevin Welch, and
Steve Chaney, and your former classmate DJR, managed to pretty well earn the
reputations they got on Usenet.  You want to whine about the bad rap you're
getting?  Look in the mirror -- there's the one you need to be talking to
first.

You've seen more than a few pro-choice arguments from us, but you ignore
them except when it suits your purposes, but that comes as no surprise to
those of us who have witnessed such questionable tactics in the past --
you're not doing anything that hasn't been done a few times already, and
you're accomplishing just about as much as your pro-force predecessors did:
you're illustrating just how good the pro-choice philosophy looks in
comparison to what you advocate.  Thanks for doing a good job, eh.  :-)

--PLH, giving credit where it's due


--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
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: Sun, 3 Jan 93 17:53:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.141748.11987@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.061908.21508@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan3.033806.10827@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>[Deletions, merciful deletions]
>>
>>>Galen, I can easily pay a medical drone to tell me whether a given fetus
>>>is "viable" or not, according to the accepted and universal medical 
>>>definitions.
>>
>>I know I've said this before, but I guess I'll have to say it again.
>>Kevin, there is no "accepted and universal medical definition[s]" of
>>viability. We have guidlines. We can say, with a resonable amount of
>>surety, that some fetuses are viable, and some are not. In between
>>these two points is a rather large grey area in which the fetus
>>*might* be viable, if it gets lucky, and if it happens to be delivered
>>in a major metropolitan hospital with ready access to the latest
>>technology. We can say that the lower limit on viability is about 20
>>weeks, *if* you're willing to settle for an infant that may survive,
>>but is permanently and severely handicapped, and may well require
>>permanent intitutionalization. We can say that after about 26 weeks,
>>there is a resonable chance of a relatively normal child being
>>discharged, with 6-8 months of hospitalization first. And a few
>>relatively minor lifelong handicaps, quite likely.
>>Please don't try to rationalize this Kevin, just admit that you are
>>mistaken.
>
>I'll go along with whatever the Supreme Court's definition of "viability" 
>is, Mark. This is not a matter of "right" or "wrong" or "correct" or 
>"mistaken"; it's only a matter of what definition one chooses. I choose
>that one.
>
The Supreme Court has made no decision on what the definition of
viability is Kevin. Nor is that wha tyou claimed. You made claims of an
"accepted and universal medical definition", with no reference to any
court definition. So it is plain that you were *not* making reference
to a court decision. 
Just admit it Kebbie, you were wrong.

>The other so-called "issue", i.e. whether Kevin Darcy can detect the
>viability of a given fetus, is a diversion tactic, which has already 
>exploited more of my time that it deserves.
>
I don't give a damn if *you* can detect it Kebbin. It would be nice if
*we* could detect it as reliably as is necessary for your "accepted

[Kevins defense of his "counter productive" spelling flames deleted]

--
                  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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin's double standard
Keywords: Garvin, pro-killing
Date: 28 Dec 92 16:39:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Dec26.214326.9932@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug 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>
> 
> > Threads do evolve.  
> >
> > Of course, that's not what happened here.  You built a little strawman,
> > and I didn't fall for it.  
> 
> You said, 'It's not even responsive to the fragment that you 
> quoted'. 

Thereby demonstrating that not only did Reverend Doug attempt
to misrepresent Susan's remarks with his strawman, but that he
was unable to respond with anything approaching a reasonable
answer to the matter in question.

Nothing to do with threads evolving, and let's be honest...
well, I'll be honest, you be Reverend Doug as usual.  You
weren't working on an evolution in the thread, you were
attempting a response to the matter under discussion, which
response was a failure.

Do try and be an honest fool for a change, Reverend.  Is motley
the traditional choice of your church for ecclesiastical robes?

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger
 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52707 talk.religion.misc:24444 alt.atheism:24191
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:31:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California

Followup set to talk.abortion

noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes ...
>What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?

Self interest.  Laws against murder, theft, etc., exist because
without them each of us would run a greater risk of being the victim 
of such crimes, and society as a whole probably would not work very
well.  Thus, it is in my interest and in society's interest to
prohibit those things which harm me and society.

Now then, how does this principle apply to abortion?  Clearly
self-interest is not an issue, since neither you nor I will be harmed
by an abortion.  And the case of society being harmed by the
availability of abortion is also doubtful.  Quite the contrary, a
decent case can be made for available abortions being of benefit to
society.

>Also, why should the federal government have jurisdiction here.  What is
>the precedent for the federal government to become involved in what
>clearly seems to be a state issue to me.  There are no federal laws
>against murder or stealing (unless it involves state borders or government
>property).  Why is abortion special in this respect?

Why should _any_ government have jurisdiction here?  It is a
fundamental principle of law that a person's property may not be taken
or used without either that person's consent or due process of law.
And highest on the list of properties is a person's own body.  How
then do you justify taking the use of a woman's body and giving it to
someone else without either due process or compensation?

>These are honest questions.  I expect some flames, but I would love for
>someone to calmly present a few answers, for indeed, I am no expert and
>am new to this forum.

Fair enough.  Those are my comments, and without any flames.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Operation Rescue
Date: 26 Dec 92 20:18:25 GMT
	<1162@blue.cis.pitt.edu> <1992Dec26.183429.4243@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Midnight Auto Supply

In article <1992Dec26.183429.4243@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <1162@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
   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>

Wonderful non sequitur there, Rev.  It's a shame Santa didn't bring you an
extra helping of simple common sense...



--
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. 
             The opinions presented herein are *mine*, not Rice's.     
  (Except for this one:  BEAT THE *&^%$#@! OUTTA TEXAS!!! We both share that.)