HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Steve Franklin's "good trade" (Was Re: You want to win.)
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:38:45 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Apr15.115058.18267@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>in any case, I also have this little voice inside of me that is enraged
>by those that take the law into their own hands.

I don't care too much about the law - I care about justice.

Somehow, I just don't have any respect to those who just "followed
orders," even if everything they did was legal, but I do have a lot
of respect to those who helped escaping slaves before 1859, even
though it was against the state and federal law.

>   This doesn't change my mind any. 

I don't try to change your mind, I try to prevent you from using the
usual excuse of people who just "follow the law."  After reading 
STella's story you will not be able to say "I did not know."

>gone the route of the home-made abortion. If she only had some support
>throughout her pregnancy, I imagine there is a good chance she would have
>kept the baby. 

STella said, quite explicitly, that she did not want the baby and
explained why.  Why don't you look behind the "keep the baby"
banner and look on the life after?  Why can't you look on a young
and unhappy mother, about being stuck in the bottom, about being
frustrated, angry and a good chance of raising a very unhappy family?

>But, her parents were the first sign that she would 
>end the pregnancy, and perhaps much of the guilt should rest with them.

You are pretty good at throwing guilt around, don't you?

>In any case, it really bothers me to think that (without fear or concern)
>she could kill that unborn child. Boggles my mind. 

Do you care about the people who have brain damage that can be
repaired by fetal tissue?  What do you think about the people who
stop any research on that?  What do you think on the people who
block any import of the only progesterone-blocking drug to the US?
(Some cancers are strongly related to progesterone levels, you know.)

STella made her choice, and she paid dearly for that.  The anti-abortion
people make their choice and laws, and *other* people are paying for
them.  Somehow, you are not willing to destroy your very own life
for your very own ideals, but you have no problem with destroying
STella-like people in the name of these ideals.

>   steve

Hillel                                     gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Legal" doesn't necessarily mean "good" -- or "right" -- or "reasonable".
Do you really just base your actions on what is and isn't _legal_?  Do you
really just hand over all your decision-making power to the government?
                                       --  Diane Holt
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: just another view
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:05:02 GMT

>etheridg@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Jennifer Etheridge) writes:
>> = dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Some may argue against this, but I see no way that a fetus can be 
>> considered a member of society. 
>
>At one time in this country, blacks were not considered members of 
>society either. Women could not vote. Judging the value of human
>life has always been our downfall. 

So how long will it take for the humanity to evolve to the point when we all 
recognize the right of blood plasma to refuse transfusion on moral grounds?  
It rediculous (IMO) to compare the zygote/grown-person relationship with the 
white-man/black-man or man/woman relationship.  Why?  Because a person, of 
any race, sex, or religion, HAS A MIND, but a zygote does NOT HAVE A MIND.

-Brian
From: cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:42:32 GMT
Organization: Clyde's TreeHut BBS

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
> 
> Actually the Bible refers to fetus' as responsive humans more than once.
> 
> profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
> animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
> prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
> schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty


Kevin,
        I immediately thought of Luke 1: 41,44 "And it came about that
when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby [Greek: BREPHOS] leaped
in her womb; ... [and Elizabeth said]... 'For behold, when the sound of
your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.'"
(NAS)
        The baby in question, John the Baptizer, was said to be "filled
with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15).

        BREPHOS/baby is the same word used a little later for the _baby_
wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.
        In my own mind, at least, this validates my habit of referring
to the preborn as "babies".  If it was good enough for "Luke, the
beloved physician", it's good enough for me.

        King David definitely identified his _personhood_ as beginning
in the womb, in Psalm 139 "For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou
didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am
fearfully and wonderfully made" (v.13,14), but that doesn't show
_responsiveness_.
        What other references do you have to the preborn as _responsive_
humans?

Clyde Price, SysOp: Clyde's TreeHut BBS 404/767-1632/I'm a "whosoever"!
P.O.Box 667      Sec'y: Atlanta Christian Tech Society (meets 3rd Tues)
Red Oak, GA 30272-0667/ CIS#76616,3452 /cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us
* * John 3:16   F G s l t w t H g H o b S, t w b i H s n p, b h e l.* *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 05:41:16 GMT


In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:

>In article <1992Apr15.033005.14103@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:
>>
>>>In article <1992Apr15.012228.6818@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Sure, Steve.  Just like your church minded its own business during the
>>>>>Spanish Inquisition...got any more fairy tales for us?
>>>>and HOW many Christians were killed by non-Christian Romans and all
>>>>those crazy Ostrogoths, and Visigoths, and Vandals? ( I love those names!!)
>>>You might be interested to know that the Goths were generally
>>>Arian Christians.
>>
>>Sorry my friend.....not when they invaded back in the 400s AD.
>Actually, completely untrue.
>
>Allow me to refer you to Henry Chadwick's "A History of the
>Early Church."
>On page 124: "Not until about 318-320 were there signs that
>Arius's orthodoxy were highly questionable."

notice I mentioned Vandals.....there were many centuries of 
successive invasions. The first invaders(Vandals and Goths) were
heathen barbarians. The went through the HRE to Spain and Africa.
As the centuries went on, each wave of invaders became more civilized.
When Rome fell in 476 to the Ostrogoths, there was practically no 
fighting. These last invaders were Arian, converted by followers
of Arius who in  essence denied the Trinity. Remember that these
converted Goth were the ones closest to the Roman Empire. Soon after
the other Germanic tribes moved in (more Goths, Franks, etc.). 
Now we have a heathen majority again. 400 years later, Charlemagne
adopts orthodox Christianity. His opponent were the remaining arians
in Langedoc in the south of France (their civilization was destroyed)
and the Socinian tribes in Northern and Central Europe. Socinian
denied the Trinity also. hence, religious wars. BTW, modern day
Unitarians tend to go back to Socinians for roots.


>>Take a better history class.
>It was obviously better than the one you took.

Probably not......mine was in French
Next time......ask me to clarify before you attempt to prove
that motorcycle riders can have intelligence.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
>My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 

Yale.........uuuuuuuu....ahhhhhhhhhhhhh...oooooooooooo

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:29:09 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Distribution: na
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr7.005748.932@cs.yale.edu>  rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.170613.18155@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
> >In article <1992Apr6.201203.28022@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Er
> >I'm not sure you are going to garner favor from my gender by
> >making it known that you would wish DJR on any one of us...
> I'm not wishing him upon you, but us single guys gotta stick together....

Count me out of that party, ThankYouVeryMuch.  Let Davey go pal around
with his buddies in Islamic Jihad.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: On the matter of Slavery
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 04:03:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.005211.5226@wam.umd.edu> spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi) writes:

>While this is true, does it not say somewhere in the Creed something about  
>obeying the laws of the country in which one dwells? I'm pretty sure this  
>is custom among the Jewish community, 

It's not only custom, it's law; I believe Talmudic. If there is no
direct conflict between Jewish law and the national law of the country
you're in, you have to obey both. (If there *is* a conflict, you're
supposed to break the national law, but then again, historically if 
there is a conflict in a lot of nations, you'd be liable to run into 
pikkuach nefesh and end up obeying the national law anyway.)

>lev

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:03:01 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr8.222301.9443@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <ku6ajbINN5t5@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hyperon.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.010315.17924@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>>>   My logic is revolting... How utterly flattering. Thanks. In any case, your
>>>point that I refer to god as _He_ is defeated, since you lower to the
>>                                                          ~~~~
>>>opposite extreme with "she". 

>>So you are saying that "she" is lower than "he"? Your sexism disgusts me.
>>                                ~~~~~

>If one number is a, and it is lowered to b, and then we take a
>again and LOWER it to c, how can we assume that c is lower than b?

What? This looks like a bad usage of the English at best, and an
incomprehensible statement at best. There is a specific meaning to
the word lower, and I most certainly don't see it being used in
your response. If there is logic here, it is of the best Rasmussen sort.

>   What I did say was that we have made the mistake of denominating God
>as a "he" 2000 years ago, but some are no better by doing the same now
>solely to prove a point. Clealy she has lowered HERSELF (it was a she I
>think) by resortin to a tactic of two wrongs make a right. Calling God
>a "she" proves no point, and makes no corrections towards the attitude
>of a male "he".

You are wrong. There has been a great deal of impact on society for
thousands of years because your religion pushed that God is male.
Those who are involved in Goddess worship are simply trying to
balance things out a little, and repair some of the damage.

>   Dude, your effort was silly. Try and knock at my credibility by
>attacking anythign and everything I say with vigor? tsk tsk  - shame
>on you - don't you see I can't be beaten that way? Once again
>your effort at blatant misinterpretation fails. 

Despite your response, which makes no sense at all, it still appears
clear to me that you consider the female to be lower to the male.
This is, as I origionally stated, sexism.

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  )
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:10:19 GMT

In <cxkjfmh.zank@netcom.com> zank@netcom.com 
   (Mathew Zank) forms an opinion...

>I been told and flamed that the pro-lifers are not Nazi's, well
>sorry to say that is bull crap look at the facts. First some
>history Nazi Germany did outlaw abortion. Second Pro-lifers
>would outlaw ALL abortion even when the women's life is in
>danger, and these creeps would force a 13 year-old who has
>been raped to give birth. Third they like to outlaw birth
>control for all. And give power to the state to find out
>why a woman had a miscarriage. Bottom line is the pro-life
>views women as noting but walking baby bottles. So I say
>taht Pro-lifers are Nazis!!

Well I guess that just about says it all after all who could
argue with such an articulate and well reasoned individual
look at the facts.  First I know that the pro-choicers are 
happy that you're in their camp because psychotics are people 
too and pro-choicers support the rights of just about everybody 
to do just about everything but not Nazis.  Second, my wife is 
noting but a walking baby factory not a baby bottle and she like 
to outlaw ALL ignorance.  And give the power to pro-choicers to 
attend english classes.  Third they like to say Nazi Nazi even 
when pro-lifers are not Nazi's well sorry to say that is bull 
crap.  Bottom line is the pro-choice views Nazis as noting but 
walking pro-lifers. So I say taht Pro-choicers are dumb.  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: darcy's hypocrisy (was Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 17:34:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.232500.7553@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> keegan@rosebud.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>-> >...you are, in fact, flaming
>-> >susan garvin as part of your net.vendetta.
>-> 
>-> In other words ...
>
>why do you need other words? don't you understand what i said?
>you can tell me if you don't. as i offered, i'll be happy to
>repost a copy of the reply you seem to have missed. you did miss
>it, didn't you?

Grow up.

							- Kevin
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:22:07 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr10.213800.11294@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
#In article <1992Apr10.062848.283452@cs.cmu.edu>, Susan Garvin writes:
#|I haven't been lucky enough to see C.J., but I'm willing to bet that
#|she looks nothing like a first trimester fetus.  From what
#|I've heard, her head is proportionate to her body, and
#|she's fully developed.  I sincerely doubt that she has
#|gills.  
#
#Well, gosh, I could always repost that gif.  I have
#one of Keegan, too.

Oh, pretty please.  Both of them.  

Besides, proof that you don't look like a fetus would help
my credibility rating.

#Drieux has gills, though.


This I've got to see.  Do you have a gif of drieux, too?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:29:10 GMT

rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:

>In article <7425@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes:

>[Larry says]
>>>It *has* banned it for its followers; it *wants* to ban it for everyone.
>>
>>Slander.

>I don't know about the way they do things in Australia, Brendan; but in
>the United States, slander's a legal term and you have to be able to back
>it up in court. If you can do this, go ahead. If you can't, you're shouting
>pointless and inaccurate insults into the wind.

It's inaccurate anyway.  Slander is _spoken_. "The utterance of a falsehood
that damages another's reputation" according to Webster (not a legal 
dictionary).  Libel is written.  Brendan would have to prove _libel_, not
slander.  And, correct me Ted if I'm wrong, but don't you have to prove
_malice_ with respect to libel?

So, Brendan, it seems that you've made a major league mistake here.  I
suggest you research your terminology before making your cutsey one-liner
replies.


Jennifer
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RIs this guy pro-control, or what?
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:36:46 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr13.215435.21559@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
#In <1992Apr13.182357.9777@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

##It's not supposed to be funny.  It's BearCode, as anybody with half-a-clue
##would understand...
#
#Okay then rocker... Let's see how many people have half-a-clue. ANyone
#who knows what the hell this bearcode means, mail me. I'll count the votes
#and post the results at the end of the week. We'll see just how many of
#the hundreds that read this group "have half-a-clue". 

Okay, he asked for it.

I already wrote Franklin and told him that I knew what Keith's
bearcode was and that I knew that Keith and Rocker were two
separate people.  I suggest everyone who knows these facts do 
the same.  

Maybe someone could even tell him how he could find out, but
I'll leave that up to y'all.

#   I won't expect my mail to be overflowing, and then we'll see about getting
#you a new .sig "rocker"...

Anyone else think that Franklin is purposefully mimicking the
worst characteristics of the talk.abortion hall of shame
members?  I saw the Rasmussenlike attack on Muriel, and
here he is copying Darcy.

Dean help us.

Susan
From: cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:36:11 GMT
Organization: Clyde's TreeHut BBS

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> 
> Yes, it is difficult to argue with people who, when asked to back up their
> claims, say "because I said so", or "because [favorite deity] said so".
> Ever argue with a child?  That's it exactly.
> 
> The "unborn" don't have any rights.  How can you defend what doesn't
> exist, Mr Quixote?

Gordon,
        For once, I agree with you. In the USA, the unborn _don't_ have
any civil rights, just as in the past slaves had none, and free people
of color had few.
        Who's next?  Jews? Evangelical Christians?  The aged and
infirm whose "quality of life" (or whose nursing home bill) calls for
that ultimate euphemism of "euthanasia"?

        I freely confess that I'm a presuppositionalist, and that
my _only_ basis for saying "This is wrong, and that is right" is
based on my best understanding of Scripture, and my assumption that
the Creator has a right to comment on His creation.

        From a morally relativistic standpoint you would have a HARD
time "proving" that murder, theft, child prostitution, vivesection,
wearing furs, eating meat, voting Republican (or Democrat) or using
drugs is "bad", although I've heard all these activities vehemently
condemned.
        If there is no real standard for "right and wrong", then
we're only left at the mercies of whatever is currently "politically
correct".
        But then, that's where we're heading anyway, isn't it?


Clyde Price, SysOp: Clyde's TreeHut BBS 404/767-1632/I'm a "whosoever"!
P.O.Box 667      Sec'y: Atlanta Christian Tech Society (meets 3rd Tues)
Red Oak, GA 30272-0667/ CIS#76616,3452 /cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us
* * John 3:16   F G s l t w t H g H o b S, t w b i H s n p, b h e l.* *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 19:51:48 GMT

In article <gds9sNe00Uh_M5DY4Z@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes:
>keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
>>heim@vms (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
>>-> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes...
>>-> >I don't believe the someoneness (Cool word huh?) of the fetus
>>-> >is that important to the abortion debate.  I have my own
>>-> I started reading this group only about 1 week ago but I
>>-> always thought that was *the* issue.
>> 
>>well then, it's good that dan corrected you. personhood of the
>>fetus is only an issue when a prolifer is looking for an agruing
>>point. the issue is a woman's right to self-determination, her
>>right to control her body. those who try to make the issue
>>something else usually do so because they have no way to deal
>>with the issue of controlling women.
>
>    I'd have to disagree with this statement. I think the abortion
>argument is one of competing rights - where the right of a woman to
>decide what happens with her body is balanced against the right of the
>fetus to live to birth. 

Well, (a) no one here has successfully established that a fetus HAS
a 'right' to 'live to birth', therefore (b) you can hardly argue competing
rights until you have accomplished (a).

There is *no* provision under our constitution that provides a fetus with
a 'right' to 'live to birth'.


Even in the third trimester it is the STATE that has rights (wrt a 
compelling interest in the fetus), not the fetus itself.

Adrienne Regard
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SO.....it's not a child.....
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:42:07 GMT
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) says:

>In article <1992Apr15.000857.3382@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>> 
>> so if I were to introduce a bill to Congress that allowed vigilante
>> groups to beat the f**k out of drug dealers and kill them, and by
>> some miracle it passed, would that make killing them not murder?
>
>You are a violent little fellow, aren't you?

nope....just making an example.
I hate violence. BTW, i do not believe in the above actions.
But who cares what I think

>I can't understand why these arguments aren't clear to you.
>They aren't very complex statements.


I can understand why my examples don't penetrate your thick skull.

BTW, you are the master of non-complex statement. Do you have
a degree in that field???


-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV