HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:02:51 GMT

In article <l#lzx3d@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->However, it would be
>->interesting to see you support a claim that I am not intellectually
>->honest. Can you do so?
>seems to be that you've supported it quite nicely.
That's not an answer, Mr. Keegan. I could equally well accuse you of
having blue hair and say that "Seems to be that you've supported it
quite nicely." If you don't explain how I've supported it, then
you haven't supported anything.
-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:42:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.204458.15934@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
># drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
...
># >Do you hold the proposition 'Abortion is Murder' to be
># >an intelligible proposition that can be exported into
># >Law in a consistent and meaningful Manner?
...
># I don't know about Peter Nyikos, but I believe the proposition can
># be "exported into Law" in a consistent and meaningful manner.
># Rape/incest/unhealth changes the balance of rights between woman 
># and fetus, permitting her to remove the fetus from her body.


># Whether this *SHOULD* be law is another question.
>
>Indeed.  That question opens a can of worms on the subject of
>enforcement and penalties and the practical aspects of its effect on
>society.  Which is why I'm not asking it yet.
>
>I think you've got your hands quite full with the one question posed
>in this article -- I wouldn't want to distract you from it.


I think you misunderstand why I am discussing this at all.

I am not interested in discussing that question, because it
reduces to a matter of belief.

The question of whether laws banning abortion could be *consistent*
does not require an argument about belief - I should hope.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:47:03 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <859n2sm.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>Abortion kills an organism whose only similarity to an adult human,
>for many weeks after conception, is its DNA structure.  

Nonetheless, such organisms continue to be killed up till birth, when they 
have much more than a simple DNA-similarity.

Furthermore, even if DNA-similarity is all that early foetuses have, so what?

I value them as they are.
I value them for the same reasons that I value born humans.

So why should I not press for laws to stop you killing foetuses when I
do press for laws to stop you killing born humans?

>We're killing it because its host, its mother, is not prepared to give
>birth to it.  

If that's the only reason, then why kill it?
Mere detachment is necessary.

>And we feel that when we weigh the needs and wants of
>the mother against the requirements of the unborn, underdeveloped human,
>the mother must be given foremost consideration.

The mother is given sole consideration.
The foetus is not considered second - it just isn't considered.

You may condone that - but I don't.

>It's not our place to make their decisions for them
>or to restrict their options for the sake of something that hasn't
>even earned the right to be called a 'person' yet.

I disagree.
It *is* my place, as a member of a democratic nation, to add my support to
to whatever "restrictions" I feel like.

And what does "person" have to do with the argument?

I value the foetus just as it is - person or not.

>You're entitled to your opinions, just as we're entitled to ours.

Good.  My opinion is that human foetuses are valuable and should be 
protected by law.

>You're free to live your life as you choose and make your own choices
>for how you're going to live it.  

No I am not.  I'm not allowed to restrict women's choice to abort their
pregnanices.  That is not freedom.  *I* am restricted by *your* views.

>Please accord the same respect to us.

Do you mean I should allow you to get away with rape then - if that is what you
choose?
Or murder, or robbery?

Well why should I allow you to get away with killing foetuses?

Because they are not "persons"???

So what?  What does their lack of "personhood" have to do with it?

tk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: choiseyoung@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Women in combat roles (was Re: Legal Questions)lo
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:55:26 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA



In article <1992Sep25.003648.25503@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> In article <1992Sep24.212119.2323@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) 
> writes:
> }From article by mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills):
> }>> Suzanne Forgach
> }>>> CJ
> }>>>> Stevens
>  
> }>>> |women do not WANT to be in combat roles.
>   
> }>>> John Stevens doesn't know what he's talking about.
> 
> }>>Hey, I certainly don't want to be in combat roles.  Do you CJ?
> 
> }Right here is where Kathi deleted the lines where I posted a poll ASKING
> }women readers whether they wanted to be in combat roles.
> 
> I know I wasn't asked (being male and all) but I have been in the Air
> Force, and have known women who do really wish to be in combat roles.
> Really.  Not just for the advancement either.  But because they really
> wanted to drop bombs, they really wanted to fire missles and fly planes.
> Yes, because they really wanted to kill!  They exist.  I have also been to
> several Marine Corps parties (courtesy of my brother) and have met 
> aviators of the female persuasion there that really wanted to squash heads
> and cause death.  They exist.  They may not have net access.  They may 
> not care.  But they do exist.
> 
> Apologies to drieux, but having a Wand of Wonder is not a necessary 
> prerequisite to killing...
> 
> 
> --
>        hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
>      Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
>  I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:34:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <BvCD9u.F4p@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> Good: we have found the problem: we are arguing different things.

I wasn't arguing, I was discussing (you've gotten me into
hair-splitting mode now).

You don't want to argue different things?  What are you, some
kind of Kommie?

Dean Kaflowitz

If communism comes a knockin' at your door
Don't answer it
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39894 talk.religion.misc:17543 alt.atheism:18294
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:35:22 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <nyikos.717897446@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <usglkrx.717686544@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:
>
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>>In <1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>>>><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>>>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>>>>> In article mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>>>> >In nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Are you a Wiccan, like Eric?

		__________________________
>nb. Storga has admitted to being a confirmed atheist.  I wonder whether
>that rules out being a Wiccan.

I doubt that it does. Many people who call themselves Wiccan or neo-pagan
are animists and do not believe in a god or gods.

>"Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and
>utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me.
>...Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
>		----The words of Jesus, spoken during the Sermon on 
>		    the Mount [Matt. 5:11-12]

Storga should soon be a saint by this criterion. St. Gordon and his
Unvirgin playmates... I like that one.

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Not a flame (was Re: Observations)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 18:17:37 GMT

<1992Sep25.185248.15614@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) said:
>
><1992Sep24.215536.14662@nosc.mil> reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL writes:
>>You people miss the point on the abortion controversy.....WHAT RIGHT DOES
>>ANYONE HAVE TO TELL ANYONE ELSE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODY OR LIFE?
>
>This assumes that the unborn is not human life.  

Huh?

...
>Okay.  Try putting a sperm inside a mother's womb (make sure it makes
>no interaction with any eggs).  Wait nine months or so, and check.  Any
>signs of human life?

Sure.  Or are you assuming that a woman's womb is not alive and human?

>Now try putting the fertilized egg in that mother's womb.  Barring an
>abortion or a miscarriage, wait about nine months.  Any sign of human
>life?

Again, yes.

>>THIS IS REAL LIFE, FOLKS; PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES; LIFE IS ROUGH; CHILDREN
>>ARE ABUSED!
>
>I emphathize with the you and the plight of those who suffer.  But why do
>we solve the problems of society by creating more violence (i.e. abortion).

Because it works.

>Why do we always have to resort to violence?  The victims we are picking
>on are the most innocent and defenseless people on this earth. 

Where?  Who is picking on defenseless people?  Are you referring to the
Baltic regions, or Iraq, or Somalya(sp?)?

>We all want real change.  

We do?

>                          But may I ask you to reconsider your solution
>of these problems today to be abortion.  

Well, abortion isn't going to improve the economy as a whole...

>                                         The innocents are dying.  Let us
>instead not blame our children in order to establish justice tempered
>with love and mercy.  

I agree that child abuse is a terrible crime.  WHat does that have to do
with abortion?

...
>I really don't think abortion is necessarily a religious issue.  There are
>athiests out there who are pro-life and I'm sure they don't subscribe to any
>church.  Why are they pro-life?  One of the reasons is because they believe
>that the unborn are indeed human life, and that human life has an intrinsic
>value in it which must be protected.

Everyone makes mistakes.

>I don't even bother looking up things in the Bible, the Koran, or Adam
>Smiths works, to justify the pro-life movement.  I see, I learn, I feel,
>and in the end, I understand, without having to resort to "religion."

I don't even bother looking up things in the Bible, the Koran, or Adam
Smiths works, to justify the pro-abortion movement.  I see, I learn, I feel,
and in the end, I understand, without having to resort to "religion."


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:07:32 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.26.79.24

---
smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
|Why don't you add me to it now and spare yourself further
|"boredom?"  I'm sure that I'll end up on the same side
|of an argument as Keegan again someday.  

Why would I want to do that?  You have interesting things 
to say.   So what if I disagree with you about Overpeck?
Reasonable adults will disagree now & then.  (Only the
immature & insecure demand total agreement from others.)
And agreeing with Keegan is utterly immaterial to me-- after 
all, I agree with him on many issues, though I find him 
utterly unworthy of my respect.

When you stop posting substantive articles about abortion, 
then I will consider reading your stuff a waste of my time here.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Whereas Usenet is a miracle to people possessing good communication 
skills, it is a trap for losers, because it deprives them of any natural 
way out of the pointless debate loops which they fall into so easily."
-- Michael Rigler, in talk.bizarre
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:25:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.033824.28685@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
<margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> In  <1992Sep25.164536.18161@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> > In article <1992Sep24.222132.130562@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> > <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> > >
> > > In  <1992Sep24.010702.7332@nntp.uoregon.edu>  eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.e
> > > >
> > > > How in the world could anyone consider a sperm or egg a person?  Makes
> > > > absolutly no sense and would be rather silly.
> > >
> > > I totally agree.  Whether or not the egg is fertilized, considering it
> > > a person makes absolutely no sense and would be rather silly.
> >
> >
> > huh?  Why?  (In reference to when conception occures)
> 
> Why are you confused?  I was agreeing with you that considering an egg
> to be a person would be rather silly.


I guess I am so used to people disagreeing with me that I didn't realize
that someone actually was...
:-)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: The Genesis of this whole silly SAT flap
Keywords: philosophy, ignorance
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:22:32 GMT

In article <nyikos.718154974@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
  [stuff deleted]

>Date: 17 Sep 92 15:46:28 GMT
>Message-ID: <nyikos.716744788@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>
>In <1992Sep13.155019.38256@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
>>In  <nyikos.716327790@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>> I can run circles around most people when it comes to
>>> science and philosophy.
>
>>You've certainly shown no sign of it; in fact, you've shown yourself
>>to be rather ignorant of logic and set theory.
>
>Note that Larry's first clause already accuses me of "showing ignorance,"
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>with the "in fact" going a good bit further.  Larry tried to wiggle off
>the hook several times, saying that the ONLY thing he accused me of
>was to have "showed ignorance", but the "in fact" clause uses the words
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"showed yourself TO BE rather ignorant."
  ^^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^^

Excuse me, but the operative verb in the above quote is "show", not "be".
Larry summarized his previous statement correctly.
The second clause merely adds new information about the subject area, but 
does not initiate any changes in the verb.  In fact, the same verb (show) 
is used in both clauses.

If he had wanted to say that you are indeed ignorant rather than just 
appearing (showed) ignorant, then he would have said:

** You've certainly shown no sign of it; in fact, you are 
** rather ignorant of logic and set theory.

Then the operative verb would have been "are" (as in "be"), but Larry 
did not say that.  In this example, the verb has been changed in the 
second clause, unlike Larry's original quote.  

See the difference?

I hope this clears things up.  

And as far as "showing" things goes, YOUR interpretation (above) of his 
statement is a good exhibit.  :-)


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was: THE SUFFERIN
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:53:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.024111.20319@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bogus) writes:
>
>It's becoming more and more obvious that if Nyikos has a stray 
>thought, he considers that thought to be convincing evidence.
>He and Suzanne have both made claims about Ms. Bell, and neither
>of them have substantiated them.  It is true that Ms. Bell
>had pneumonia when she died.  The cause of death on her death
>certificate was "septic abortion with pneumonia."  Nyikos
>gets his "information" from proven liars.

Can someone get us info on a famous president whose autopsy was
mistaken as "accidental death" when it was actually poison? 

The fact is, Bogus, an autopsy can be wrong especially when the
autopsy has no info as to where the damage occurred. We know it can
happen in several places in the reproductive system. 

This is at best a sloppy autopsy and by average conditions, a lie that
can be proven ONLY BY RE-ANALYSIS. 

In other words, Becky Bell's case is pure horseshit and is not to be
believed.  


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:48:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.224638.24714@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.213302.16675@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>(Eric Rescorla) writes:
>Oh, read:  (There is to much for me to type it all)
>
>MATT 7:1-6
>MATT 23:1-12
>MARK 7:1-15
>LUKE 6:37-42
>     11:37-54
>     16:16-17
>John 8:1-11
>
>I will summarize briefly.  Basically, in each of these passages Jesus was
>speaking
>about or to the pharisees.  If you are unfamiliar with the pharisees, they were
>the ones responsible for creating and enforcing (?) the laws which were
>primiarly
>designed to make people lead artifically "moral" lives.  
Clearly YOU are unfamiliar with the pharisees. The pharisees were a
sect of Judaism focusing on maintaining ritual purity. They ultimately
evolved into today's Rabbinic Judaism. The Pharisees were neither in
charge of creating nor enforcing these laws. Compare Sadducees.

>Making abortion illegal is very similiar (if not equivalent) to what the
>pharisees were doing, which Jesus hated so much.
This would support a general argument that ANY law enforcing a morality
is wrong. Is that an argument you want to make? Kiss murder laws goodbye.

Jesus's criticism of the Pharisees was directed towards what he believed
was their hypocrisy, valuing ritual purity over moral rectitude.

>(a) If x is any Real number, then one of the follow is true:
>x = 0
>x is containted with in the positive numbers
>-x is contained within the positive numbers
>
>(b)Also:  If x & y are Real numbers, we say x<y if y-x is contained within
>the postivie numbers
>
>(c)Also, if x & y are positive, then x*y is positive.
>
>Now that that is set,
>
>By (a), either 1=0 or 1 is positive or -1 is positive.
>
>By the laws of algebra, 1 != .  If -1 is positive, then by (c), (-1)(-1) is
>postive, so 1 is positive.  So in all cases 1=1-0 is positive, or 0<1.
>
>done.
Hmmm...CJ, whatcha think about this?

I, for starters, will need to see proofs of the fact that x*y is positive
if x,y are positive. A proof that doesn't make use of the fact that 0<1,
naturally.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 07:03:24 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep30.185401.4741@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne R
> >
> >You just don't get it, do you.  Having a child, bearing a child, carrying
> >a child, isn't about a child.  It is about the person who is having, bearing
> >and carrying.  Until the child is there, it's about the WOMAN.
>
> Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
> at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.

I think you're a little confused.  Nothing's being "dehumanized".  We all
know that it's a human fetus.  The point is, it's not a *child* until it's
*born*.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:03:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.005723.18401@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>From article by sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu:

>>> Since when did any suddenly get the right to tell anyone else
>>> what to do with their bodies??  If my fiancee got pregnant at this point
>>> in time she would definately get an abortion.  
>>> Why? You ask?  Because of the fact that she is an important source 
>>> of income in our relationship..  

>> Boy, you sure got it made in the shade, bub, don't you.   You're
>> gettin' her money and her sexual favors too, and you ain't even signed 
>> on the dotted line yet.  Let me guess, Mr. Sleeze Bucket.  You ain't
>> even set a date yet, right?   

> Why are you accusing HIM of being a sleaze? You have no reason
> to think that he is putting in any less money than she is. Why not
> say that SHE is getting HIS money and HIS sexual favors and SHE hasn't
> even signed on the dotted line, eh? 

I would expect a pro-"choicer" to blast the original 
poster for insinuating that he would exercise some 
control over his fiance's decision to abort. Is that
expectation not applicable when the man's financial
situation is at stake?  

 

Doug Holtsinger