HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 03:05:04 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan3.011137.10390@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>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.

No, she said that you have been criticized for (calling yourself "pro-choice"
while arguing for restrictions on abortion).

I think this is another example of your problem with disambiguating ambiguous
statements.  The following:
   "Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
    himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
could be read as either:
   "Darcy has been consistently criticized for (labelling
    himself 'pro-choice') while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
or
   "Darcy has been consistently criticized for (labelling
    himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion)."

The first interpretation is clearly not the proper one, since the ones who
are criticizing you are themselves pro-choice, and so wouldn't be criticizing
you for simply being pro-choice.  The second interpretation shows that the
basis of the criticism is the hypocrisy in calling yourself pro-choice
while arguing for restrictions on abortion.  Regardless of whether you
have or have not argued for such restrictions only affects the validity of
the criticism; Susan simply stated that you *have* been criticized for it,
with which you've already agreed.  Therefore, Susan did not lie.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Can't we all just get along?
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:23:30 GMT
	<PATRICK.93Jan1153912@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1993Jan2.065858.21220@netcom.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: I *think* we're getting along here...

In article <1993Jan2.065858.21220@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

   patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
   >
   >Welcome to the wrangle, then -- you'll be a welcome change from such
   >paragons of honesty as Holtsinger and Nyikos (and maybe even that Chaney
   >guy, if he decides to come back).  I know there are at least a few pro-life
   >folks with their heads set on straight out there, as I've encountered a few
   >in person -- and we need more of them in this newsgroup.  

   Ah, Chaney's another one I'd forgotten about.  I'll admit that there
   are a few people on the pro-choice side who tend to be rather
   belligerent in their opinions... but I haven't seen anyone from the
   pro-choice side to match the utter cluelessness of Eric Gorr, or
   Simon, or clifton, or Jeff Price.  Maybe I'm just blinded by a
   pro-choice bias of opinion, but nothing in this rankles more with me
   than the opinion that pregnancy is "punishment" for having sex.

It doesn't do much for me *or* my wife, either -- of course, what really got
me was Suzanne Forgach's little gem that women who have premarital sex are
"lower than prostitutes".  You can bet Dale Ann and I had more than a few
giggles over *that* pontification.  (Obviously, Suzanne hasn't had to deal
with many farmers' daughters from South Dakota. :-)

  >Anyway, the rest of y'all can go back to the regularly scheduled food fight.
  >I'm going to be packing up and heading home for a well-deserved weekend in
  >about 20 minutes...
  >
  >--PLH, glad he didn't get to watch the dismantling of the Aggies by those
  >slugs from Notre Dame...

  Ah, you're the one who signs himself PLH!  I didn't recognize you at
  first.  I didn't think you were pro-life, though!  Or are you just
  playing devil's advocate?

No pro-lifer or "advocatus diaboli", me.  I'm the guy who, during the
Republican orgy here in August, was working all night, then staying up all
day after work to help defend clinics in west and southwest Houston from
Randall Terry and his traveling freak-show circus...

--PLH, still doing it occasionally -- the ball game ain't over yet.
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:34:26 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe) writes:
>When sex is consensual, nobody is being forced to risk getting
>pregnant.

Nobody is being forced to risk paying child support, either.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Thems Be Fighting Words....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:12:55 GMT

steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
] 
] > = (Paul Lebow) writes:
] >> = S Mezias writes:
] 
] >Here SJM raises the unfounded Orwellian fear of invasive government 
] >control.  

gee, should we cross post this over to talk.politics.guns,
and see if anyone would like to talk about National Level
Giggle Fests, and why we can trust our government to
do all the right things?????

We will skip past some of the 'restrictions' imposed upon
the CIA and FBI by those Fuzzy Headed Liberal Types....

] >> I really like your analogies for the fetus FANATICS.  They do often
] >> seem like CRAZED snipers to me, ... 
] 
] >(caps are mine - PL)

Hold On Just a Moment there Komrade Mezias....
Be careful what you go comparing to snipers....

I will presume your DraftBaitButt is several
letters short of a Klue about what Real Snipers
are all about, and are confusing them with the
rank amatuers who take random pot shots....


On The Side of all this, I keep wondering what
Brother Paul is doing posting from a navy.mil
sight, in the Bowels of WarMongerBabyKiller[tm]dom
where killing is not taken lightly....

I sure hope he doesn't pull a boner and say
something antisocial towards vets in his
effort to support his 'anti_abortion' position....


ciao
drieux


ps: KomradeSoftOnTheInternationalKonspirakii Mezias,
you can apologise anytime you wish....



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Slavery analogy
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:52:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.163240.15733@csrd.uiuc.edu>, skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> 
> To be sure, there are differences.  For instance, the fetus is inside
> a woman's body; the slave's situation is not analogous.  But those of
> us (myself included) who would leave the abortion choice to
> individuals must ask ourselves whether we would also leave the choice
> to keep slaves to the individual.  If our answer differs, we must be
> able to clearly explain why.  Arguing "slaves are people" will not do,
> for it is probable that not everyone agrees.  Certainly such a
> concensus had not been reached at the time of the Emancipation
> Proclamation.

Next time that individual lives inside that woman's body, I will
gladly leave her the choice of whether or not to make of that
individual occupying her body a slave.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Laugh of the week from Will Steeves.
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:45:42 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->yikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->#(And probably also Don Beaver, whom Susan was telling not to
->#post his attempted refutations on all the same places where the charge
->#was aired, in her usual pro-force style.)

->Prove this accusation, PHoney.  Repost an article of mine in which
->I told Beaver where to post his tripe, if you can.  (Of course, you
->can't, so you'll probably claim that your newsserver went down
->right after you apologized for lying.)

it looks like phoney is making up new, fake
accusations. perhaps he's trying to deflect attention
from his older ones, particularly his lie about
adrienne having posted a forgery, this is an  old darcy
tactic.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
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 02:09:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.044506.4750@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>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.
>
The issue of the existance of the class does become important though,
when you are using it as a basis for legislation. If you were using
your above example as the basis for the need to pass legislation
then the existance or nonexistance of unicorns would be an issue. If
you are using it as math, it may not be. In the case in question,
namely abortion, you are argueing in favor of legislation regarding
abortion based on a nypothetical situation with no basis in reality.
In short, a fantasy.

>>>>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"...
>
--
                  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: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:33:47 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
[everything but the following sentence deleted]
>That was an attempt by Holtsinger to quote Humphrey, to illustrate what 
>racist tendencies this redneck has.  

For ten points, spot the racial slur in the above quote.  For
10,000 points, guess what basis PHoney is using to assign a
race to Patrick.

Susan
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: PHoney's new obsession
Date: 29 Dec 92 00:52:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


It looks like DOD isn't the only one having himself a little
breakdown this season.  Dr. Giggles is joining him.  

Seemingly endless lines of text - repeating his old lies ("Becky
Bell didn't die from an illegal abortion," "All abortionists
are evil," etc.), accusing people of all sorts of things with
no evidence whatsoever, asking for people to read DOD's posts
and tell him what the headers say, asking people to do his research
for him, pretending that pro-lie pamphlets are reputable sources,
insulting everyone whose name he can spell, sprinkling hatred
with smilies, asking endless questions about what I assume was
a typo, trying to imitate others and failing miserably, assuming
that people memorize his every word, whining about his newsfeed, 
and worst of all...

boring us all with his every random thought.  

Someone let me know if his rants get any more entertaining.  I
can't bring myself to read one more description of his mental
processes.

Susan
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a silly questionfrom dodie
Date: 28 Dec 92 05:55:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


I said:
## Is DODie pouting because he doesn't know what the acronym means,
## too?

In article <1992Dec28.033836.21404@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#Susan "Tough Shit, Abortion Kills Children" Garvin writes:


I guess "pouting" wasn't quite strong enough.  It bothers him
more than I thought.  

Oh, well, at least it gives him something to do that doesn't involve
harassing women.

[DODie deleted or altered all the text that he included, so I
just deleted it all]

#I already know what it means, thanks to Mr. Matheson:
#
#  TSAKC == Tough Shit, Abortion Kills Children

Well, no, DODie.  That's not it.  Do keep guessing, though.  I'd
hate to have you disappoint people who think that you're 
obsessed with certain t.a. posters.

#Susan "Tough Shit, Abortion Kills Children" Garvin

(I corrected the attribution for this line.  PHoney should
thank me for sparing the net the impression that I wrote
the above when, in fact, Reverend Holtsinger did.  PHoney
seems to be overly concerned with such things.)

Susan "I'm not sure what it stands for" (I never sign my last name)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
	<1992Dec23.051627.12920@ncsu.edu>
	<CORWIN+.92Dec23123233@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:44:49 GMT

In article <CORWIN+.92Dec23123233@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

   In article <1992Dec23.051627.12920@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

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

   followed by 250 lines of meaningless drivvle which has nothing to do
   with the letter Susan posted.  What is the point?

You want a *point* from Reverend Doug?

Talk about optimistic...:-)

--PLH, hoping the Rev will show up when I'm actually at work -- I don't feel
like driving all the way in from Sharpstown just to see him...:-)


--

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52580 alt.flame:17223
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:15:02 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Dec19.081855.14741@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> 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.

Gee, there's some more of that counter-productive, ad hominem stuff that
Kevin finds so offensive.  I bet Kevin's going to be really pissed off when
he sees this!  Let's see who wrote it...

Oh.

By the way, is the difference between a "hypothetical question" and a
"fantasy", the same as the difference between a "hypothetical option" and a
"threat"?

> >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.

Of course, when somebody spends all of his time arguing a particular
position, his subsequent protests that this position isn't really what he
_believes_ tend to ring a bit hollow.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: t.a. FAQ (part 3 of 3)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:19:14 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec31.051501.16635@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.041831.22787@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>>> the term of pregnancy.
>
>> Dougie just can't stop lying about this.  Perhaps we should add the
>> refutation of his lies to the FAQ?
>
>You mean you're going to add more falsehoods to the ones
>that are already in the FAQ? :-)

Yes, we'd probably have to include your falsehoods in order to refute them.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 3.
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:16:00 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec22.164717.26839@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes: 

>>You claimed that equal pay for identical pay claims presumed
>>discrimination.  
>
>I don't recognize that gibberish. It's certainly not anything _I_ claimed.

You most certainly did.  I am not going to go and find it because you
are a well-known net liar.  I am busy, somewhat lazy, and will stand
on my net reputation plus people's own recollections of what they
read.

>It was about discrimination, Stephen. You should have read it more
>closely.

A quote about discrimination is not the same as a quote about equal
pay for identical work.

>>You are making an ass of yourself, Kevin.  
>
>And you're starting to sound really shrill, Stephen.

You are making an ass of yourself: (1) You claimed that equal pay for
identical work presumed intent.  (2) You post a case addressing a
different form of discrimination where intent is required in an
attempt to refute my claim that no proof of intent is required in
equal pay for identical work cases.  (3) You deny you said (1).

>>Equal pay for identical
>>work cases do not require showing discriminatory intent.  
>
>Perhaps not, due probably to conscious efforts to write the laws in such a
>way as to relieve the claimants' burden of proof, but most discrimination
>claims DO require a showing of discriminatory intent. 

Now you finally seem to get it.  That was exacly my point.  The
construction of claimants' burden of proof is entirely arbitrary.
This type of claim about our legal system is at the core of critical
legal theory.  If burdens of proof are arbitrarily constructed and
effect is sometimes sufficient, then my claim of misogyny stands on
those merits.  If you reject the proof of effect, then feel free to
reject the claim.  I have never said anything different.  

>Since you are the one 
>attempting to generalize from "equal pay for equal work" to other forms of 
>discrimination, the burden is on you to show that the generalization is
>valid, i.e. that the intent-neutrality of "equal pay for equal work" is
>the rule, rather than the exception. 

I brought up equal pay for identical work in the context of countering
your claim that intent was always required in discrimination cases.
You were wrong.  Why not admit and move on?

>I have given counter-examples where 
>discrimination claims DO require a showing of intent. I have put the ball
>back in your court. Now it's up to you to go the distance with your claim.

I have made my claim quite clearly from the start.  I find
discriminatory effect to be a compelling enough proof to warrant
a presumption of improper discrimination.  I have labelled this
improper discrimination misogyny.  Feel free to reject the claim that
effect is proof enough to draw my conclusion.  But you can no more
`prove' that it is not then I can claim to `prove' that it is.  I
guess people will just have to read our arguments and draw their own
conclusions.  

SJM
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Laugh of the week from Will Steeves.
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:47:35 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.724975331@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[Stephen Mezias' comments deleted - he's answered for himself]

#I was tempted to change the subject title to "Laugh of the week from
#Mezias," but then I realized that this is no laughing matter; maybe
#it *is* one to Mezias, though, just as it apparently was to Susan Garvin.  

I am amused when someone is embarassed by their own macho
posturing and tries to deny that they ever said something
when they clearly did say it.  I don't think that liars are
all funny, but clumsy liars, such as you, Steeves, and DOD
are funny.

#Dean Kaflowitz
#covered up for her as best he could, in response to a post in which I took
#a flippant comment by Susan, and asked her whether she considers the 
#accusation against Will to be all a big game, with no relevance to anything
#going on in the real world.  Susan never answered the question, perhaps
#thinking that Kaflowitz made me and everyone else forget about it.

I've forgotten all about it.  (Yes, Reverend Holtsinger, really.)
(Oh, yeah, PHoney, you won't get the previous reference.  Too bad.)

I'll answer your question now that I see it, though - no, I don't
think that reposting Steeves' own words and confronting him with
them was a joke.  I think that Steeves sincerely wishes that
he'd never posted that particular article.  He did post it, though.

[PHoney's assertions that Steeves didn't say anything about
killing his ex deleted]

#(And probably also Don Beaver, whom Susan was telling not to
#post his attempted refutations on all the same places where the charge
#was aired, in her usual pro-force style.)

Prove this accusation, PHoney.  Repost an article of mine in which
I told Beaver where to post his tripe, if you can.  (Of course, you
can't, so you'll probably claim that your newsserver went down
right after you apologized for lying.)

Susan,
who wonders when Nyikos will finally apologize to Adrienne for
lying about her
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show