HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 16 Oct 1992 08:34:09 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct15.212738.24181@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>I know you don't agree with this, but the attorneys I know not
>only concur with my comment, they indicate that it's acknowledged
>in law school.  Any law students that would like to comment?


Well, Bill, the attorneys *I* know would sue the attorneys you know, so we
are even.  Man, _this_ is silly!

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:23:58 GMT

Eric Rescorla (rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu) writes:

| >I wonder what Rescorla wants to know.  After all, most of the 
| >mail that passed during last May's painful personal quarrel
| >made its way to him, thanks to C.J.'s promiscuous and inap-
| >propriate cc's.  Stop chasing ambulances, Rescorla; there's
| >no more blood here for you to see.

| I want Jim (and now you) to retract your unsubstantiated
| public allegations.

Gee, Rescorla, don't *I* get the option of substantiating them
instead? Or do you just like C.J. better?

| >C.J. lied.

| Blatant assertion.  Are you going to support this?

Do I have to?  You've done such a good job of it already.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                          suzanne-lucia.demitrio@bbs.oit.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:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:37:52 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  <1992Oct12.203855.5133@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> Yes, that's exactly correct.  The pro-aborts who argue that women
> should have the right to abort by virtue of the fetus' residence
> within their bodies have reduced women to mere physical containers.
>
> According to these pro-aborts, pregnant women do not need to offer
> any justification for aborting -- these women might as well be
> non-thinking, inanimate objects which simply house a fetus. They
> ignore the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion, and instead
> focus all attention on the fact that a fetus resides within the
> woman's body.

Interesting argument, but much stupider than your usual attempts.
Clearly, if the women were non-thinking, inanimate objects, they
wouldn't be able to *want* an abortion.  It's the fact that they
are thinking human beings that makes it necessary to consider whether
or not they *want* a fetus inside them.  If the fetus was in a container
rather than in a person, there wouldn't be much controversy.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: God on Mt. Rushmore? (Re: Atheist for Christ
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:11:18 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Oct15.044155.9064@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.210029.2132@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
  [something about how someone else has to remove God everywhere...]

>If you're consistent, you will push hard to eliminate ...

>To say nothing of the Billions of $$$ necessary to take "God" off of
>all the monuments and government buildings, including Mount Rushmore.

God's on Mount Rushmore?  Oooh!  Tell me where!! I want to go 
visit again!  Sounds like they improved it!

>-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
Another version 2.0 bug, maybe?  Should we wait for release 3.0??


-- 
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*
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:47:52 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Adrienne.  She can be a Dr. Jekyll for a long time, then turn into Ms.
>Hyde, like she did against Martin Guerrero on the "I had an abortion
>two days ago" thread.

>Lots of other pro-choicers have this dual personality.  Some can be
>raving lunatics in private e-mail, yet be reasonably civilized
>on the net.  Others are more nearly the other way around.

Peter, have you ever considered that we are really sane, most of us
anyway, and that we sometimes must drop our tactics to those of the
obtuse opposition because we find that this is the only format that
makes any sense to them? From what I've seen, the pro-choice crowd is
mostly well-educated, where as the same cannot be said for the pro-life
crowd. (And you wondered why the church wanted to keep everything in
Latin!!!)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:38:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.023705.27291@rotag.mi.org> 
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <kwpz+-b@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>In article <_-pz9z@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>>> ...that is residing within her body.  Gosh, this whole debate is
>>>> so easy if you just ignore the pregnant woman.
>>>>
>>>> Are these welfare folk you disdainfully refer to currently residing
>>>> within your body?

>>> The debate becomes even easier when the pro-aborts such as yourself 
>>> turn the woman into a mere physical container.  

>> Holtsinger, I'd be absolutely fascinated to read your explanation 
>> of how I'm doing that.  Can you perhaps provide me with one?

> Your question "Are these ... folk ... residing within your body?" implies, 
> by picking out exclusively this one aspect, that mere "body residence" is 
> the only aspect of a woman's pregnancy that is pertinent to the abortion 
> issue. If true, this does in fact reduce the woman to a mere physical 
> container.

Yes, that's exactly correct.  The pro-aborts who argue that women
should have the right to abort by virtue of the fetus' residence 
within their bodies have reduced women to mere physical containers.

According to these pro-aborts, pregnant women do not need to offer 
any justification for aborting -- these women might as well be
non-thinking, inanimate objects which simply house a fetus. They
ignore the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion, and instead
focus all attention on the fact that a fetus resides within the
woman's body.  

>- Kevin


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Useful Delimiters of the Debate
Summary: Somebody changed the subject line?  How awful!  Flog them! 
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 17:59:20 GMT

In article <Oct09.001443.71852@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.184544.9172@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>|> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>|> ] In article <Oct05.212132.72636@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> ] >
>|> ] >	THAT ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.  YOU MUST SET SOME UNIVERSAL POINT FOR
>|> ] >PERSONHOOD SOMEWHERE OR I CAN CHOOSE TO DEFINE YOU AS A NON-PERSON AND KILL YOU.
>|> ] >	Understand?
>|> ] 
>|> ] Certainly.  Birth works wonderfully here.  It's obvious, it's usually messy,
>|> ] tends to be very noisy, and a lot of people generally know it's happened.
>
>	Somebody must be changing subject names on me; I didn't see
>Keith's reply...
>	Anyway, birth is arbitrary.  If you can set the mark at
>birth, someone else can set it at "being a member of the Master
>Race."  There is no difference.

There's a lot of difference.  Before birth, you can't see the "WarmCuteFuzzy
UnbornChild" without the use of a lot of sophisticated electronic equipment.

After birth, it's easy to see the child with your own two eyes.  And you
don't have to move around a pregnant woman in order to move the "WarmCute
FuzzyUnbornChild" around.

Birth (to me) defines a _natural_ point where personhood begins.  Before
birth, the z/e/f is completly encased inside a pregnant woman.  It is
completly dependent upon a single entity for nourishment, maintenance
of environment, disposal of waste materials, etc etc etc.  After birth,
it's not.

There is a fundemental difference between the "before/after birth" concept,
and the concept of "being a member of the MasterRace[tm!]".  The entire
concept of human worth is something that humans thought of.  Nature (or
God, the Goddess, TheCrapDiceThatRuleTheUniverse, or whatever) came up
with the birthing process.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Circles of Influence (was Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:27:21 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct7.184345.5510@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Oct7.121730.19860@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct7.030332.8476@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> >
> >}If my social reasons are directly starving certain people (like me buying
> >}a better car at the expense of not getting my son or daughter some food)
> >}then my social reasons are definitely not going to take precedence over
> >}the life of my son or daughter.
> >
> >How about the son or daughter of your neighbor?  The sons or daughters
> >in the next county?  The next state?  Another country?
> >
> If your neighbor was starving their children to death, wouldn't
> you do anything about it?

Mr. Guerrero, 60,000 people die of starvation every single day.  Two thirds
of them are children.  That's almost 15,000,000 children, _born_ children,
dying of starvation this year.

What are _you_ doing about it?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Summary: B-Ball  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 10 Oct 92 03:02:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.214354.2025@dscomsf.desy.de>, Poser@vxdsyc.desy.de                                      writes...
>In article <1992Oct8.050742.12207@news.unomaha.edu>, kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu 
>(Kurt Krueger) is in intellectual doldrums and proclaims this to all and 
>sundry in alt.fan.dan-quayle and talk.bizarre:
>|>drieux@wetware.com  writes:
>[Words of the Drieuxter muchly abriged. Forgive me, Master!]

>|>> ciao
>|>> drieux
>|>I'm not on drugs, 
> 
>Prove it!

Not in MY coffee cup you don't!

>Strike three!
> 
>Yer out!
>
The benches are clearing! 

>|>                     It rambles on and on without any meaning like some
>|>weird piece of Zen poetry.  
> 
>The Drieuxing that is not understood is not the Drieuxing ! Meditate on this
>koan before You post.
>
This is like a, like California like thing. Like right?

>|>                           This is yet another example of the failure of
>|>public schooling to teach people how to write clearly.  
> 
>PublikSkooling is HienousHooriBleahPinKommieSeXularHuManistPlot of 
>EvilBrainSuckingDeHuManisingAliensFromOuterSpace(OrEquallyBrainSuckingLiberaLibe
>eraLibraPinKommieDemoKKKRats)ToUnderMineLibertyAppllePieAndTheAmerrriKKKanWay,
>and don't You forget it, KKKomrade! Your SurReptiliousSubliMinalSubversive
>defence of same shows You To Be In League with THEM, ThankYouVeryMuch For 
>Klearing That Up, mein KKKomrade!!!
> 
Who are you calling Brain Sucking!?

>RightWingRantingAnarchistDefenderOfLiberAceTyFaithApplSauceIndividualChoiceAndTh
>heRightToKeepAndBearAutomatiKKKArmourPiercingOrdnance-ish, most assuredly!
>
GeTtiNgaLIttlECarRIedaAayYerNtwe?

>So, where is Your point? I understand him well, so why don't You? 
> 
Perhaps you could send those pills your taking my way, so we could
all GET THE POINT.

>Oh, I see, we've slipped on our Cape-n-Hood and emerged out of the closet (or
>phonebooth) as SYNTAX-MAN,
>MightyDeefEnderOfTheWrittenWordAvengerOfTheHelpleSSEllipsesAndRegularGoodAnalRet
>tentiveAllAround.
> 
>I'm impressed, simply impressed! What'll You do for an encore?
> 
He's from Omaha. Haven't you ever seen Children Of The Corn?

>|>Kurt R. Krueger
>|>kkrueger@unomaha.edu
>|>University of Nebraska at Omaha
> 
>       Till Poser         Internet: poser@vxdsyc.desy.de
>-F35- ZEUS DESY/Freiburg  Bitnet:   POSER@DESYVAX
>bldg.1b-235, Notkestr.85  Hepnet:   VXDESY::POSER (13313::Poser)
>   D-2000 Hamburg 52      Tel.: -49-40-8998-2004
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Male Responsibility
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:19:23 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 01:51:07 GMT

In article <6913@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) writes:
>>
>>Yeah.. Right. Did the drooling idiot god appear and inform you of this
>>undeniable fact. Get for real, whether zygote or not, we are going to abort
>>these collection of cells.. because it is not a person. I guess every sperm
>>would be sacred in your book, maybe you should keep a collection.

>Fuck You.

No thanks. I prefer not to have anything to do with men who wish to control
my life and my body. Any man who defines me as a breeding machine is not
someone that I care to even hold a conversation with.

>To inform you, I am an atheist, I do not believe in any god, I don't believe
>every sperm is sacred, I'm a democrat.

You're a reformed male controlling pig. You only believe every z/e/f is
sacred. The distinction is somewhat underwhelming.

>Reading your post, it seems that you are just the kind of person who tricks
>a woman in having sex with you (with out protection of course), and then
>when she finds out she has a baby, you ditch her, and don't give a rats
>ass about your child, that may end up in the dumpster.

And you're the kind of sanctimonious asshole who has sex with a woman 
and forces her to bear the physical, emotional, and financials costs of 
any pregnancy so that you can feel pure and moral and magnanimous to
the alleged unborn child. Easy, isn't it, especially when your part of the
deal lasts seconds and her's lasts years.

What a pompous, shallow, sanctimonious ass you are.




-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Perot's position on abortion (was Re: Perot's Economic Plan (4/4)
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:01:26 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct14.014735.24814@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.105815.6268@netcom.com> 
> mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes:
> 
>>                       A NATIONAL COMPROMISE ON ABORTION
>>
>> My personal position on abortion is well-known, but I will restate it just to
>> make sure there's no confusion:
>>
>> * I support a woman's right to have an abortion. It is the woman's choice.
>>
>> * I support federal funding of abortions for poor women. 
> 
> Where's the "compromise"?

He agrees not to force women to abort, and you agree not to force women
through pregnancy.  That's fair, isn't it?
 
> Oh, I get it, here's the compromise.  

Y'all had better treat that with contempt cuz I think I just quoted outta
context :)

Brian McBean -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: An Invitation
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:26:58 GMT


I would like to take this opportunity to invite all Pro-"Lifers"
to go to their nearest universities offering Womens Studies courses.

Take one -- maybe two.  It would be fun to see some of you in these
classes.

CRS
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: And now, Deep Thoughts by Jim Keegan...
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:43:05 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Oct14.135537.15439@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <0r1zvnj@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
>   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
>>
>>from what i've read, i think invoking misogyny happens when 
>>misogyny is evident. a good example of what i'm talking about 
>>is when someone replies to one of your posts and sees misogyny 
>>in it.

This is absolutely priceless. "A good example of misogyny would be like, 
if I were walking down the street, and a misogynist jumped out from behind
a bush. Another good example of misogyny would be like peering out the 
window one day, and noticing that misogyny is everywhere". Ha ha ha!!

>Oh yes, that's ever so substantive an example.  It would be
>even more incisive and uniquely Keeganesque, though, if you
>had appended "i know you are, but what am i?" to the last
>part.

The "Deep Thoughts" reference is a nice touch, Bill. My favorite Deep Thought 
(which I think is rather _a propros_ at this point) goes something like

	A child's face says a lot. Especially the mouth part of the face...

Keep this up, it's great.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Women have awareness! (Was Re: Walking down to the student center last night)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:55:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.045427.14832@beaver.cs.washington.edu> lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.023740.7589@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct11.005152.18738@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><1992Oct2.042310.4735@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.
>>>>
>>>>Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
>>>>moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??
>
>Simon, we have seen this all before but you need to work on those reading
>skills a bit more... If a pregnant woman is feeling (and responding to)
>something then that implies that the pregnant woman is aware (to some degree).
>It doesn't mean that motion implies sentience, got that?  Just because the
>pregnant women can feel the wind does not imply that the wind is aware.
>Note the similarity between the previous sentance and what you've said
>above.
>
>>>Trees move in the wind.  Bacon moves when it sizzles.  Fires moves as its
>>>fuel is consumed.
>
>You asked to be corrected if you were wrong and Gordon is trying to
>help you out in that way.  I'm sure he is paying you a compliment when
>he assumes you have the ability to understand what you've written.
>I'm sure he was quite serious and highly amused at your cognitive
>abilities.
>
>>Get serious, please.  You know fully well what I was talking about.
>>Unless the truth makes you uncomfortable.....                :)
>>
>>Simon
>
>Simon, a whole bunch of clueless people show up here every fall -
>People here have seen it all and are quite skilled in making you look foolish.
>If you look foolish on your own, it is less humorous.
>
>Amy Lenox
>standard disclaimer
>
I'm clueless because I show concern for children??  That's interesting.

I thought the goal here was to debate, not to make people look foolish.
That's the reason I keep my jokes to a minimum, and only when warranted.

Simon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:42:52 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  <38zz6t@rpi.edu>  keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> ->Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
> ->> Five months later, she's still at it.
>
> ->Actually, I believe that it was Keegan that brought it up
>
> the first post on the subject was the post in which cj
[allegedly]
> lied. you are welcome to dispute that but, if you do,
> please provide evidence.

I thought it was obvious from the context that I was addressing the
statement "Five months later, she's still at it" by pointing out that
not only was she *not* "still at it", but it was, I believe, *you* that
brought it up *now* (i.e., five months later).  Sorry if this was too
complicated for you to understand.

> ->> C.J. lied.
>
> ->I don't believe this has been shown.
>
> are you taking intellectual honesty lessons from
> rescorla? the evidence has been posted for days. you've
> seen cj's email offer to retract. you`ve seen her
> classless post where she implies an offer to retract is
> a retraction. what more to you want, a longer list of
> lies?

A question is not a lie.  *Asking* if Ms. Demitrio's post was in response
to your mailing is not a lie.  I've seen no evidence that C.J. lied.

And an offer to retract *can* be a retraction, depending on how it's
phrased.  For example, my statement above:
   I believe that it was Keegan that brought it up [five months later].

I said that because I believe that it was you that brought it up in
the thread "Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves?".
If you can provide evidence that someone else brought the topic up
"five months later", but earlier than your post, then I will withdraw
my statement.

See, this is an offer to retract that is conditional on evidence; if you
provide the evidence, then you can consider the statement retracted
without any further input on my part.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion