HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:05:57 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Dec29.223707.23551@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>I do not argue "in favor of" abortion restrictions, Mark. That would imply
>that I preferred their existence over their non-existence. I do not.

Well, how would you phrase it?  Would it be fair to say that you're arguing
on the behalf of abortion restrictions?  (Or on the behalf of those who
support restrictions, if you prefer.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52818 alt.abortion.inequity:6163 soc.men:21746 soc.women:21871
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Date: 23 Dec 1992 10:27:46 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.725126664@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <rzs24pr@rpi.edu> 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.  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

My gohd, this poor bloke is going to have to apologize to his
newserver pretty quick, too!

One wonders why/how someone gets a ball rolling ina direction of
cleaning up, and why an apology is prefaced by a number of rolling
balls, but one suspends one's disbelief until phoney's newserver
quits lying.......





Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53232 alt.society.civil-liberty:7091 talk.politics.misc:65451
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:53:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec28.052048.18650@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nux.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
[everything else deleted]
#	In my book, "civil disobedience" consists of passively refusing to
#cooperate with laws one regards as unjust.  It does not include death threats,
#bombs, and assault.  

That's one of the problems that I have with O.R. (and with some other
groups) calling what they do civil disobedience.  Unless O.R. is 
protesting trespass laws, I don't consider what they're doing C.D.  
I think the phrase has changed in meaning these days - people
say they're going to do C.D. when what they mean is they're
going to get arrested for protesting.


Susan
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Meet Petey Ny, propoganda specialist.
Date: 24 Dec 92 15:10:19 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <nyikos.725152336@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
by nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos):

> In <1992Dec22.012821.14804@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>>In article <nyikos.724627328@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[Deletia]

>>>I put "sic" after "oxytocin" because I am under the impression that this
>>>is the name for the natural hormone, whereas the hormone administered 
>>>intravenously is known as "pitocin."  BTW, digoxin is a compound related
>>>to digitalis with similar action on the heart, and is not to be confused
>>>with the even more lethal chemical dioxin.

>>Incorrect, as usual, Petey. Pitocin is a brand name for a hormone of
>>either synthetic or natural origin called oxytocin.

> OK, I'll take your word for this one.  Note, I did say "under the
> impression".  Susan Garvin could teach you a thing or two about
> selective deletions.  You are making things way too easy for me
> by leaving the relevant text up there.

>>Digoxin is not "related to" digitalis, it *is* digitalis.

This isn't sci.bio or sci.med or sci.pharmacol, but it seems the
issue here is credibility, so allow me to inject some facts.  Feel
free to ignore them if they don't contribute to your agenda.

The Merck Index (8th edition) lists 8 main constituents of digitalis,
which is ground-up foxglove (sp. *Digitalis*) leaves.  The most active
ingredient in digitalis (in terms of cardiac stimulation) is either
digitoxin or digoxin, depending on which *Digitalis* species provided
the leaves.  Since the term "digitalis" is (I think) an all-encompassing
term (almost a lay term) for the various treatments, which nowadays
are probably purified digitoxin or digoxin, Nyikos' description of
digoxin as a "form of digitalis" seems to me to be essentially correct.
Cochran's statement that digoxin *is* digitalis is, IMHO, less correct;
digitoxin, too, is digitalis.  While perhaps "digoxin is *in* digitalis"
would be most accurate, the identification of it as a "form of digitalis"
seems most useful given the somewhat generic use of the term digitalis.

What are my credentials?  I can read the Merck.  So can you.  At least
Peter used the dictionary...

> Hmmm.  I don't have my dictionary with me, but it gave a chemical formula
> for digoxin, and it was NOT the same one it gave for digitoxin, which it
> identified as the chief active ingredient of digitalis.  
> 
> This was Merriam-Webster's 9th Intercollegiate Dictionary (Larry Margolis,
> take note!  Mark contradicted you rather badly about fertilized eggs)
> published in 1990. 

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:31:30 GMT

From article by eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley):
> In article <1992Dec18.001750.13308@noao.edu>
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>Since fetuses are children, abortion kills children. q.e.d.
> 
> Since fetuses aren't children, abortion does not kill children.
> 
> Now if you'd writen "babies", I would have had to grant that the
> statement was literally true.


Since you are granting that fetuses are babies, are you denying that babies
are children?

Abortion kills fetuses.
Abortion kills babies.
Abortion kills children.

Take yer pick.  All of these are true.

SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
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 03:40:29 GMT

In article <sdz20-l@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>->>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes to
>->>kebbie:
>->>->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.
>->>
>->>i can see you need to review some history, particularly
>->>kebbie's explanation of the GROUP kevin darcy and the
>->>INDIVIDUAL kevin darcy.
>
>->You mean Kebbin thinks he's a group? He has Multiple Personality
>->Disorder, or what?
>
>it wasn't all that complex. when kebbie was addressed,
>specifically by name, he claimed that a group was being
>addressed. it was one of those funny and sad things
>that kebbie does frequently. it seemed to me that it
>was one of those semantics games he plays to avoid
>admitting to a mistake which many readers saw him make,
>which is why so many people have teased him about it
>ever since then.
>
>you might have something similar developing with him in
>another thread, you know.
>
Wonderful. I know I once suggested to Kebbin that he let his
"contacts" at UMMC check his brain, but here we have it...
Further evidence that if they do, we'll lose him. I don't think they
have net access from the Psych Ward...

--
                  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,talk.religion.misc
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: PRO-LIFE SEASON'S GREETINGS
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:48:32 GMT

In article <nyikos.725752055@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>I hope I haven't offended you by leaving your name off the list of 
>people who require a mountain of evidence before taking any evidence
>of false statements by Susan Garvin seriously, while taking her word
>(or flimsy wisps of evidence) about other people lying.

Susan Garvin?  How did Susan Garvin get into this?  I thought we were
talking about Christmas. 

But if you're making a list, checking it twice, I'd be honored to make it
on as a fan of Susan Garvin's rigorousness and sincerity (if not always of
her sentiments).

>If I did, my apologies.  

To whom?  Susan Garvin, or me?

>Ever hear of Santa Claus?  ACLU?  Santa balancing creche scenes?

He doesn't balance them, dear -- he packs them up neatly in styrofoam
popcorn and stashes them away in his sack.  Balancing them would be
madness at that speed, in an open sleigh.

>>> [Petey hopes] that they [the aborted] may indeed experience 
>>> their First Birth
>
>>You'd like the 'little ones' who have already been *aborted* to experience
>>birth?  Are you a reincarnationist, or just incoherent?
>
>It was an allusion to the "Second Birth" in "Hark the Herald Angels Sing."

Do you always use 'first' to allude to 'second'?  Ever coach Little League?

>I say this for the benefit of people who tuned in late, since you know
>damn well 

Don't cuss.  Santa is watching you.

>what I was talking about, 

You overestimate me.  Which birth is which?  If you're tagged out on
first, do you get to steal second?  


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                   suzanne-lucia.demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:45:42 GMT

In article <BzBtKo.IK2@cup.hp.com> 
runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:

> I'm sure you'll agree that not all pro-choicers support
> unrestricted abortion-on-demand.  

Some pro-choicers have stated that you cannot be pro-choice
unless you actively oppose all restrictions on abortion.
I'm merely adopting their definition of 'pro-choice'.  

My posting wasn't directed at those people who support 
some restrictions on abortion. 

>Mark Runyan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:44:56 GMT

In article <1216@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> In article <1992Dec29.175100.20873@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> #In article <C015K3.Ip4@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
writes:
> ## Guess what Muriel? There were fewer abortion related deaths back then 
than 
> ## now -
> #
> #Have you any support for this assertion? ...
> 
> He can't support the assertion.  It isn't true.
> 
> If he read books on abortion that were written ...
> 
> If he read books on abortion in Great Britain, he would see
> 
> If he read books about abortion-related deaths today

> Jack Willke argues that no woman ever used a coat hanger to
> abort. 

I have no reason to believe what Jack Willke says.

 Some people believe his argument.  The people who
> do are usually men who can't imagine anyone desperate enough
> to put something like a coat hanger inside her. 

Susan - I have to say that this is pure bullshit.  It makes you feel good convince yourself that most pro-lifer's are men.  Guess again, misanthropist.

 I've
> known women who did just that.  People have stated publicly
> that they did just that.  Willke claims it's all a conspiracy,
> and that all these women are lying.  I wonder how he'd react
> to the story that my best friend's grandmother, who believes
> abortion is murder and watched her friend die from a self-
> induced coat hanger abortion, tells.  Why would she lie?

I'm sure she isn't.

Are you responding to Mr. Willke (obviously your pet punching bag) or me?

> 
> I think the attempt by the right-to-lie people ...simply don't care if their > brood sow lives or dies.


Well, there is some hope for you.  At least you feel compelled to dehumanize people before insulting them.

> Susan
> 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: TSAKC: Some guesses (Warning: may contain humor)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 01:49:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.010422.12574@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>Like most outsiders, I'm dying to know the significance of TSAKC.  But
>I don't even know what it stands for.  So, here are some attempts to
>break the code, with little or no knowledge of (or regard for) the
>context in which it has been used:
>
>
>Tough S**t, Abortion Kills Children
>	(I suspect that this hits closest to the mark, but I press on...)
>
>Tell Santa About the Kid's Cantankerousness
>
>Try Saying A Kind Comment
>
>Top Secret: Anglican Knights of Columbus
>
>The Sluts in Arkansas Know Clinton
>
>'Tis the Season to Avoid Kansas City
>
>Talk.Soc.Art.Kludge.Comp
>
>Tired Students will Accept Kentucky (fried) Chicken
>
>Too Scared to Ask the Knowledgeable Chaps (but I don't think they'll tell)
>
>These Silly Attempts are Killer Comedy (NOT!)

Tiresome Simpletons Assail Kevin Constantly

:-)

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 09:49:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.005219.9201@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>><1157@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>...showing absolutely *no* shame about quoting things out of context:
>>>In article <1992Dec24.023729.15109@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
>...
>>PS  I am not making all these anti-Garvin posts today because I have a
>>fixation on her, but because:
>>
>>1.  She throws so much shit in talk.abortion, I'm afraid a good fraction
>>of it sticks every day.
>>
>>2.  Since she is at least one of {pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-abortionist}
>>it will take a mountain of evidence to get a majority of regulars in this
>>newsgroup to take charges of her mendacity at all seriously, while a tiny
>>smidgin of evidence from her, or even her "good-as-her-bond" word appears
>>enough to satisfy:
>>
>>Mark Cochran   Keith Cochran   Patrick Humphrey  Dean Kaflowitz
>>Steve Novak   Steven Mezias  J H Woodyatt  Jim Keegan   Brian Kauffman
>>Dan King   Mark Ira Kauffman   drieux   Larry Margolis   Chris Lyman
>>Ron Bense   Lefty   Gordon Storga ...
>
>Susan has proved to be one of the few people who are generally logical and
>well-thought out in her responses and statements.  

Are we talking about the same "Susan", Gordon?

>That coupled with the
>fact that she isn't trying to get laws passed that oppress people makes
>her much easier to believe.  

Ideological bias. Ptui. I'll try to forget that I read that...

>Although she has been known to get after some people a little too much it's 
>no big deal.  

To you, as a more-or-less-neutral bystander of this "getting after", it may 
not seem like a "big deal", Galen. It can seem otherwise from a different 
vantage point, though, believe me...

>If Susan was to post something that conflicted with my experience of
>knowledge I would correct her.  She hasn't as far as I'm aware.

Here's an example from the top of a long list, Galen: do you "know" that 
Kevin Darcy been arguing for restrictions on abortion? See .sig.

								- Kevin

UNRETRACTED LIE
---------------

"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
 himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
				    Susie Garvin
				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:16:40 GMT

[On going debate concerning the states, the constitution and abortion....]

In article <1992Dec23.052521.20134@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
[Ray is writing in response to my query as to why the federal government
 should be involved in the abortion issue.]
|> >|> 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.
|> >
|> >I think that this is a state issue too.  The states all have laws
|> >regarding property possession.  Would you argue that these laws are
|> >not appropriate, or that the states should not have jurisdiction
|> >concerning, say, auto-theft?  If abortion really is a property issue,
|> >then it would seem to me that it is an issue tailor made for the states.
|> 
|> The US constitution, a federal document, states that no person may be
|> deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law.

I know I don't have a copy with me, but does anyone out there know where
the Constitution says this?  If this is true, why do we have state laws
protecting life and property?  Would you consider these laws to be
redundant and therefore unneeded?  I don't recall any "due process"
being outlined in the Constitution to handle murder and stolen property
cases.  You seem to imply here that the states should not meddle in any
issue involving life, liberty or property.  Do you really believe this?
And do you really think that the Constitution protects these things
sufficiently without any state laws?  It was always my understanding that
the method with which the Constitution handles these things is by leaving
it up to the states.  Perhaps out friends in alt.politics.usa.constitution
can help us out.

Was the "due process" you mentioned that is supposedly in the Constitution
used in the RvW decision?

|> >When you say "fundamental principle of law," do you mean a "fundamental
|> >belief of society"?  I was not aware that there are any fundamental laws
|> >that all societies have.  Indeed, I could probably name a society in
|> >which personal property was of little importance.  Perhaps a socialistic
|> >society?
|> 
|> I rather doubt you could find any society in which personal property
|> was of little importance.  Regardless, it is certainly a fundamental
|> principle of western law, and any exceptions are going to be very
|> rare.
|> -- 
|> Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
|> ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

Mike Noonan
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:46:48 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec23.212832.10957@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
[text deleted, before and after]
# Muriel, go ahead and take Doug on.  He ain't
#so bad.  You might find that your intellectual skills are sufficient
#to enable you to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion.

She's already made a meaningful contribution to the discussion.  You,
on the other hand, have simply repeated your tiresome flames and
praised a liar.  Somehow, I don't think you're in a position
to be handing out advice - did all of you get together and decide
to criticize others for the things that you most often do, or is it
just a coincidence that three of you have done it within 24 hours?

Susan


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: Fri, 1 Jan 93 07:16:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.010805.20244@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>It seems that Gregg Skinner, Paul Lebow, and Michael P Noonan among others
>think that slavery is a good analogy to abortion.  I maintain that there is
>no good analogy to abortion nor is there any good analogy to pregnancy.
>As I have little experience either pregnancy or abortion is there anyone
>who has been in such a circumstance who thought that this was slavery?  
>Is there anyone who thought that this reminds them of slavery?  Not in a 
>frivolous sense, but a serious enough sense that would allow one to frame 
>legislation.  Is there anyone who was reminded of anything, fried chicken, 
>perhaps?
>
I've never been pregnant, obviously, but I do deal with an awful lot
of pregnant women. And with more then a few who have had abortions in
the past. I have heard a couple of women liken their pregnancies to
slavery, yes. These fell into two camps. Those who said it jokingly,
and thought their distress was worth the eventual outcome, and those
who meant it, and excercised their right to abort the pregnancy. 
I don't think either group would have carried the analogy to the point
of basing legislation on it, certainly.

--
                  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