HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Meet Petey Ny, propoganda specialist.
Keywords: PHoney does spelling flames
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:51:48 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.725153839@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
(Peter "KKK" Nyikos) writes:

[text deleted]
#In a more serious vein, Mark Cochran is quickly moving to the forefront
#of candidates for the label "pro-abortionist" (not to be confused with
#pro-abort: see my post on suggested FAQ entries).  He shows a most
#ready willingness to dismiss the testimony of a pro-choice feminist
#as "unsubstantiated hearsay garbage" while believing in the integrity
#of the abortionist who fired her.

No, PHoney, Mark is rejecting your testimony.  You're a known liar -
why should he believe you?

Congratulations on finally admitting that Tivis is a disgruntled
former employee with an axe to grind.  Your misleading comments
about her before made her appear to be an unbiased witness.

#Susan Garvin has posted lavish praise of Tiller in the past.  I wonder
#what she will say to impugn the testimony of Luhra Tivis, testifying
#before the Kansas State Senate.

I wonder what PHoney will say about these words from one of Dr.
Tiller's patients:

"I have to say that the staff and and the doctor of the clinic must
be the most courageous, committed and loving people I have met
in a while.  They treated all of us with the utmost respect and
kindness.  They will always hold a special place in my heart."

I think she knows a lot more about Dr. Tiller's practice than
does a lying buffoon who is merely speculating, or a
pro-lie convert who wants to gain acceptance by committing
perjury.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:08:07 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 <nyikos.725140792@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>I grieve for all the women who delay their abortions until the second
>trimester so there will be more tissue and larger organs (perhaps suitable
>for wholesale transplantation into WANTED newborns), and volunteer for
>more invasive techniques so the tissue can be recovered in usable form.

Do you grieve for all the women who delay their abortions until the second
trimester because the lack of public funds resulted in delay in trying to
raise funds?

>But you, what is your attitude?

But you, what is *your* attitude?  Do you support public funding for abortion?
(Note that what I'm mentioning is true for roughly 35,000 women annually in
this country.  What you're mentioning is true for roughly, what?  Zero?)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
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: Wed, 23 Dec 92 07:13:49 GMT

In article <1086@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.153207.4729@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com
>( Steve Novak) writes to Petey Honey:  
>[text deleted]
>>It's gonna be fun watching Sue Garvin embarrassing you again.  Welcome 
>>back..."Professor".
>
>Actually, I think that it's going to be Mark Cochran who gets to be
>the leader in embarassing PHoney for a while - Nyikos is posting a
>lot of medical misinformation in his latest incarnation.
>I'd also guess that Steve Adams, Eric Rescorla, and drieux will have
>their turns, too, since Nyikos has decided to branch out into
>theology.  
>
Jeeez, this palce is getting crowded...
Used to be you didn't have to stand in line to bash flame bait like
Petey...
'Course, most of the flame baits have the good sense to stick to one
line of tripe at a time...

>I'll add that there's plenty of material already available - these
>guys can have fun even if PHoney runs for cover, er, his rewsreader
>breaks down again.
>
Ain't it just an *amazing* coincidence how that happens?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Spoken Like a True Lunatic
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:09:28 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec29.000622.24041@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Dec28.154215.13989@rchland.ibm.com> 
#jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
#
## This is the same attitude I have seen from pro-lifers
## all along.  They'll get arrested to save a life, but
## once the baby is born they could care less.  Try to get
## some of these folks to support social programs like
## WIC or foodstamps.  
#
#Actually, most pro-lifers that I know support social
#programs like WIC and foodstamps.  And the poor tend 
#to be the strongest opponents of abortion.  
# 
#But I don't follow your reasoning.  If someone supports 
#the criminalization of an immoral act, then why must they 
#support those who wish to commit that act?  Does my support 
#of rape laws imply that I must satisfy the desires of  
#potential rapists?  If not, then what's the difference
#between that and abortion? 

Either DOD is "changing the subject" again and just included
the words "your reasoning" for the sheer thrill of it, or
he really has lost his mind.  Supporting WIC and foodstamps
is supporting those who might commit a criminal act?  What
crime would people who receive thoses subsidies commit in
their absence, dying without the Reverend's permission?

I think that the reverend forgets that the last two letters
in WIC stand for infants and children, and that both
sexes receive food stamps.  He wouldn't just be punishing
those evil baby-killing women by refusing to support the
programs, but also sainted men and those precious little
babies.  

DOD seems to be supporting a "children as punishment for
bad women" argument here.  It's a cute trick, ignoring the
woman until she gives birth and then ignoring the children,
but DODie's certainly not alone in his ability to do
this trick.

On another level, DOD's revealed that he only believes in
punishment, not in rehabilitation or prevention.  It
must be horrible to be that hateful.

Susan

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53913 alt.flame:17556 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:670
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: kebbie kwotes
Date: 3 Jan 93 04:14:03 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

in what some might see as an effort to deceive,

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) quotes me:

-> "i haven't seen kebbie argue for legislation."
-> 				<1993Jan2.003223.3588@crd.ge.com>

he quoted me accurately too. here's the remainder of
the quote he'd obviously like you all to see:

	"i haven't seen kebbie argue for legislation. 
	what i ahve seen him do, over and over, is 
	make the same arguments that those who wish 
	legislation make (while denying that he wants
	legislation, of couse)."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Unborn Children (Was: reconciling OT/NT)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:16:37 GMT

In <1992Dec22.064638.16320@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><nyikos.724980092@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>><1992Dec18.073137.15851@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) :
>>><1992Dec18.003658.13726@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) :
>>>>From article by madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann):
>>>>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >
>>>>> Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
>>>>> on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.

>>>>Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.
>>
>>>OK.  All us Atheists will now stop forcing death on unborn children.
>>>Since there are no such things as 'unborn children' it should be pretty
>>>easy to do.  Now then, can we get back to the abortion issue?
>>
>>Check out _The Secret Life of the Unborn Child_, by Thomas Verny and
>>John Kelly, Delta Books, 1988.  I'll be sending your ex-girfriend Beth
>>some excerpts from this book.  Since the authors buy into the Dominick
>>Purpura theory of timing of consciousness, she should have a great time
>>with the book, and maybe even order it for herself.  It comes in 
>>paperback for just over $10.

List price on my copy, ordered less than two months ago, is $10.95 US
and $13.95 Canadian.

>>Also by Thomas Verny (with Pamela Weintraub): _Nurturing the Unborn Child_.
>>Sorry, I don't have any publisher info on this one.

>Works of fiction do not make mythical creatures real, Peter.

Of the former book, R.D. Laing wrote: "A startling account of recent work
in this field...timely, balanced, useful."

Not the kind of review one makes for a work of fiction.

Sure, there are bits and pieces of fiction in it, like consciousness
beginning at six months when the available evidence points to a much 
earlier point in time, but it is also full of objective information on
actual experiments run by eminently qualified researchers. 

>>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of [...] Beth 
[...]								       ^^^^
>>Beth, did you give Gordon permission to call himself your "ex-boytoy" as 
>>well as your ex-boyfriend?

>I'm sure I can dig up the post somewhere, and I hereby give Beth, and all
>my ex-girlfriends permission to use me as their ex-toy anytime.  So there.

That's not the point of my question.  Beth, what's your side of the story?

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:14:33 GMT

In <PATRICK.92Dec22124808@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

What's this?  Did they exile you to the Rio Grande campus?  Do you still
expect Chaney to march over to your office as a prerequisite to your 
apologizing to him?  [Geez, you'd think the two of you could arrange to 
meet on neutral territory, like the Nyx office in Colorado.]

Clue to clueless newbies: Patrick did not write the above. I did.--PJN

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

>In article <PATRICK.92Dec19090024@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>}In article <1992Dec19.005301.21226@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>}
>}  gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
>}  GJH>        TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
>}  GJH>            T         S             A       A      K  K     C
>}  GJH>            T         S             A       A      K K      C
>}  GJH>            T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
>}  GJH>            T                S      A       A      K K      C
>}  GJH>            T                S      A       A      K  K     C
>}  GJH>            T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC
>}
>}
>} Aaayyiiee!!!  Now *you're* even saying this!  :-)
>}
>} My GOiD, it's more of a plague than the GOiDS!  :-)

Or Chaney's "Boyz n the [KKK] Hood" .sig.  I might revive it with the
top of the head cut off straight for the times I follow up to PatricK.
Really more accurate than the original .sig, assuming the KKK did not 
sign PatricK up while my netserver was down. :-)

>}It's a TSAKC thing.  You wouldn't understand.

So, mystify us.  Why keep us outside the maze of trying to find out
what it is all about when you can lure us in...?

>}  (But keep asking Keegan,
>}though, if your BBS tends to crash when you ask him.  That can't be all bad
>}for us.)

Me, I'm hoping it'll cause Keegan's BBS to crash.

>}--PLH, TSAKC original member, and I ain't saying nothing about what it means
>}either... 

PJN, letting PLH off easy by not putting in any fancy .signature this time.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Labels (was Proposed definitions for FAQ )
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:58:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.160904.19902@wetware.com> 
diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:

> First off, the basic scale does not really have
> "pro-choice" at one end and "pro-life" at the other.

Of course it does.  The issue is not "choice", the  
issue is "abortion". 

> It more falls out like this:
>
> |------------------------------------------------|
> ^Choice                                     Force^

Since abortion is most definitely "force", your scale
is ridiculous.  If you were really against "force",
you would be against abortion. 

Why not simply dispense with these "scales" and
"definitions" and get on with the debate? 
 
>Diana


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Equal Protection - Slur Alert!
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:40:35 GMT



In article <1992Dec28.011115.16504@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin 
Darcy) writes:
> In article <34559@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. 
Mezias) writes:
> >
> >I'm afraid we just disagree.  I find the FORCED PREGNANCY position to
> >be inherently and improperly interventionist in the lives of women.

(caps mine -PL)

Love this rhetoric!  The minor detail that to have an abortion one must 
already be pregnant is somehow left out.  The PR goal of this verbiage is 
to associate pro-lifers with Orwellian ambitions to not only control a 
pregnant woman's actions but to actually force her to become pregnant in 
the first place.  Gee, sounds good to me.



Kevin exclaims,

> >>The bazillionth time, Stephen, pro-lifers are NOT accusing women of 
being
> >>unable to make decisions about their bodies. 


Relax Kevin, SJM knows this.  But it doesn't have to be true for people to 
believe it.  Just saying it enough times gives it credibility.  I mean, 
would an intelligent person actually say something that wasn't true?


-Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 29 Dec 92 11:43:52 CST

In article <C015K3.Ip4@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
>In article <1992Dec28.115856.25977@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel 
>Nelson) writes:
>
>....
>> In article <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan 
>Idler) w
>> What if 'fairly rapidly' is too slow, and the woman
>> dies?  What if facing a 'state tribunal' is too intimidating?
>> Woulf you like to go back to the days of illegal, unsterile,
>> or self-induced abortion?
>> 
>> muriel
>
>Guess what Muriel? There were fewer abortion related deaths back then than 
>now -
>try a different line of rhetoric.  I know, the standard, "back alley, coat 
>hanger" image is so juicy and hard to resist by pro-aborts.  Keeps those 
>undecided folks shaking in their shoes. 
>
I'm sure you'll be supporting this claim with documentation
from unbiased sources, which will include the disclaimer
about the difficulty in gathering statistics concerning
what was at the time an illegal activity.

This is not just rhetoric for me, you misogynist twit.
I almost lost my best friend to a self-induced abortion
in 1969.  I do not want to see one of my daughters lose
a friend in this manner.  I'm prepared to fight your
agenda in order to protect the rights of young women
to make choices about their bodies.  

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 02:06:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.045523.164@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>Rev Doug "I'm a clueless asshole" Holtzinger writes:
>>Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:
>>
>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>>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.  [...]  neither you nor I will be harmed by an abortion.
>>
>>>> This is why pro-choicers must condone infanticide.
>>
>>> They do?  Funny -- my wife and I don't, and we're pro-choice.  I guess
>>> that means we don't exist by your "logic" 
>>
>>No, it means that your beliefs are inconsistent.  But you knew that.
>>
>No DODie, it means you have no idea what you're babbling about.
>As usual...

What a stunning refutation (NOT!)

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice, How? 
Distribution: na 
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:44:39 GMT

<bob1.725052705@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
><BzLC7y.39q@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>><1992Dec19.080107.14639@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>><bob1.724701599@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>>>>OK. We will inscribe male choice in law. Now, just how do we go
>>>>about doing this?
>>>>
>>>>	Prior to all sexual encounters a legal form *must* be signed
>>>>	by both parties.
>>>>
>>>>	If the woman changes her mind and proceeds with the prgnancy
>>>>	she relieves the man of all responsibility.

>>Now, if a woman WANTS to have a child with a man, THEN there should be a
>>legal form signed and filed.
>
>>That way there is an >affirmation< of support.  
>
>Yeah, its called a marriage license, etc. (not that it always guarantees
>the support by either parent).

The rights and obligations are usually very unclear to people
entering into such "contracts."  They are also variable and subject
to an unbalanced mix of conservatism and trendy feminist/socialist theory
(especially in Canada).


>>Which I believe this change would do.  Only a foolish woman would have a
>>child which she could not afford if she could not bill the man for half the
>>cost -- and men would have no reason to "run off" on their kids, as they
>>wouldn't be responsible for them unless they wanted them in the first place.
>
>Hey! Lets look at this from a practical aspect. I've seen numbers here of
>a father with a good job paying $1000 a month. Now, if the mother stays
>home with the child, that's not quite 'living it up' in my experience. If
>she works, day care is pretty pricey and I assume some of that $1000 is
>intended to be invested toward further education. As was suggested earlier,
>there should be accounting by the CP.

Daycare, should the mother want it, is usually billed above and beyond CS.
Also, the money is not intended for college education, which is typically
billed when the child goes to college.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:40:25 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 <1992Dec31.023534.12352@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <hb32rxl@rpi.edu>
>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> You're one ugly bastard, Keegan.  I never thought anyone
>>> could stoop so low as to flame someone who's passed away.
>
>> but someone has tried to use a
>> person's death to unjustly flame someone else. do you
>> know who that person is
>
>Sure, Larry Margolis

No, Dougie, he's referring to your flame of him.  My flame was justified -
the reason that Siren no longer posts is *not* because she was flamed off the
newsgroup.  Petey was wrong (as usual), and a fool (as usual) for believing
Chaney.

"Siren" was an amalgam.  The post telling of the death of one member said
that she was the one who had posted the most.  It was a reasonable
(although incorrect) assumption that the one who passed away was the one
who had posted the plea to not take her name in vain; nevertheless, the
fact remains that the main Siren poster is dead, and Petey was wrong as
to why she's no longer posting.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Reply to Storga in re Trumped-up Case #3
Keywords: abortion, adoption, children
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:56:23 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->In <6=s2a5k@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->>->Back before my netserver went deaf, I thought I'd posted this long-awaited
->>->response, but apparently my netserver had gone mute without my knowing it.

->>well, well. i read the previous statement and thought
->>to myself, "finally, he's going to apologize for lying
->>about adrienne."

->Why should a post with Storga in the title lead you to think that it 
->contained an apology to Adrienne?

storga being in the title was meaningless; that the
post was from you was not. you see, each post you make,
and there have been around 100 of them since you first
posted your lie about adrienne, makes you look like
more of a characterless liar. do you understand why?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion