HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: You had to encourage me... (formerly: Let me state my view...)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:19:52 GMT

Hi folks.  I was just doing a post-holiday scan of t.a. when I ran
across this thread.  The song below seems to fit.  Happy New Year!

<1993Jan8.094418.26919@wam.umd.edu>, (Jay T Stein):
>> Elvis is alive on Mars.  There are exactly 223 chemical elements.  You will
>> be hit by a crazed toddler on a tricycle in your lifetime.  In a previous
>> life, I was Paul Revere's horse (gratuitous straight line to see who will
>> sink to the cheap shot).  Cats have souls.  You can't prove otherwise, so...

<1993Jan8.222413.28317@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> Aw, Jay, why did you have to stop?  Paul is dead.  Bill Clinton didn't
> inhale.  And, of course, the check's in the mail.


BLIZZARD OF LIES
by D. & S. Frishberg

We must have lunch real soon.
Your luggage is checked through.
We've got inflation licked.
I'll get right back to you.
It's just a standard form.
Tomorrow without fail.
Pleased to meet you, thanks a lot.
Your check is in the mail.

Marooned, marooned, marooned in a blizzard of lies.
Marooned, marooned, marooned in a blizzard of lies.
Your nose and knees aren't all you'll freeze
When you're in it up to your thighs.
It looks like snow, but you never know
When you're marooned in a blizzard of lies.

You may have won a prize.
Won't wrinkle, shrink or peel.
Your secret's safe with me.
This is a real good deal.
It's finger-lickin' good.
Strictly by the book.
What's fair is fair.  I'll be right there.
I am not a crook.

Marooned, marooned, marooned in a blizzard of lies.
Marooned, marooned, marooned in a blizzard of lies.
Better watch your step when your old dog Shep
Can't even look you in the eyes.
You're cold and lost and you're double-crossed
When you're marooned in a blizzard of lies.

We'll send someone right out.
Now this won't hurt a bit.
He's in a meeting now.
The coat's a perfect fit.
Strictly fresh today.
Service with a smile.
I'll love you, darling, till I die.
We'll keep your name on file.

Marooned, marooned, marooned in a blizzard of lies.
Marooned, marooned, marooned in a blizzard of lies.
Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart
And you're in for a big surprise
When you're marooned...
Marooned...
Marooned, marooned, marooned in a blizzard of lies.

Blizzard of lies.

-- 
|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:43:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.172328.9439@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = Dean Kaflowitz writes:
>
>[re: Lebow the idiot whining because Muriel is so _mean_...
>
>>I think Muriel's kind of zesty, myself.  Piquant.
>
>We don't call her "36 Flavors" for nothin'!!
>
>>I suppose if "Doctor" Giggles Nyikos sees this, he'll claim
>>I was kowtowing to Muriel in order to gain access to her inner
>>circle.  I am sure that's exactly what I am doing.  Yeah, that's
>>it.
>
>Unfortunately, when you reach her inner circle, you find you still must
>find the jewels...and clues are sparse.

Are you calling Muriel's inner circle "clueless" now, Stevie Blunder?

								- 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
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:53:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.000503.4625@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
}In article <1992Dec29.192416.5661@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
}>In article <1217@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
}>>In article <nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
}>>[everything but the following sentence deleted]
}>>>That was an attempt by Holtsinger to quote Humphrey, to illustrate what 
}>>>racist tendencies this redneck has.  
}>>
}>>For ten points, spot the racial slur in the above quote.  For
}>>10,000 points, guess what basis PHoney is using to assign a
}>>race to Patrick.
}>>
}>Let me guess... "Redneck" would be the racial slur, would it not? And,
}>like so much else, PHoney is assigning a race to Patrick based on....
}>his own fantasies.
}>Who'sz the scorekeeper?
}
}Galen is, of course.
}
}I wonder if Darcy is going to comment on Patrick being a "group" of people
}now...

No, Darcy will probably complain that Gordon isn't qualified to keep
score...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
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: Sun, 10 Jan 93 16:09:29 GMT

In article <markp.726677398@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>
>>>In <1993Jan8.164325.8820@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>
>>>>> = (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>
>>>>>(The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>>>>>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)
>
>>>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least in the U.S.  Where are you from?
>
>>>Fine; make that, "...she may not ethically choose..."
>
>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least by my ethics.  Which ethics are you using?
>
>Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards
>get involved in debates over ethical standards? Isn't it either
>pointless or self-contradictory?
>
Because it prevents people like you from imposing your own ethical
standards on the rest of the world.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:50:45 GMT

In <1is9upINNuk@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <markp.726677398@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards
>>get involved in debates over ethical standards? Isn't it either
>>pointless or self-contradictory?

>Uh, no.
>See, people who do believe in absolute ethical standards BELIEVE in absolute
>ethical standards and don't need to get into debates.  From their point of
>view, there is nothing to debate.

Uh, no.
I believe that absolute ethical standards exist. (If I thought ethical
standards were intrinsically subjective, it wouldn't make sense for me
to argue with others in favor of my standards.) But I'm by no means
convinced that the standards I presently hold completely correspond
to the absolute ideal -- just that they're closer than any alternative
I've seen. Show me better standards than mine -- and demonstrate that
they're better -- and I'll joyfully adopt them.

>Adrienne Regard

Mark Pundurs
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Mark Cochran caught making up the facts? (was Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:18:43 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1993Jan8.004814.17863@news.columbia.edu> 
rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>>> Transplant recipients had been identified with tissue matches for the
>>> heart, both lungs, both kidneys, and 2 liver sections. 

>>  "The baby's organs were not being donated.  Doctors had said
>>   Baby Theresa's organs would be too damaged for use as transplants
>>   by the time she died, and no matching recipients were immediately
>>   found."
>>  
>>   The Raleigh News and Observer, March 31, 1992

> Doug, this was AFTER several days of her organs deteriorating due
> to her body being unable to sustain them. This is commonly known as
> death.Lets kill you and see how your organs look in a week.

The article clearly states that the baby's organs were not
being donated partly because NO matching recipients had
been found.  Mark Cochran appears to have manufactured
his claim that there had been matching recipients. 
 
>Robert Johnston


Doug Holtsinger
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:27:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.202657.2066@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) writes:

>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):

>> You're frothing.  Calm down.  Many women consider an abortion the
>> ultimate in dignity,

>Yeah right.  Stripped and strapped on your back to a table, with a metal
>suction tube shoved up your vagina.   That's the "ultimate in dignity".

Well, if you want to take it that far, being stripped and strapped on
your back to a table, with your chest ripped open and your organs
clearly visible--I don't think open-heart surgery is dignified either.
Yet many people are willing to sacrifice their "dignity" for a short
period in order to have a better life later.

>> considering forced birth as the alternative.

>Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less
>so.

Sorry, we forgot that women would still go and get illegal abortions
no matter what the risk, if they felt it was worth it. We won't forget
that... ever.

Tep
-- 
If you wake up and don't want to smile, if it takes | Dear Lord, give
just a little while, open your eyes and look at the | me chastity...  
day, you'll see things in a different way. Don't    |    but not yet. 
stop thinking about tomorrow.       --Fleetwood Mac | --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Texas Instruments
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:38:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.013943.19023@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec29.235055.18645@mksol.dseg.ti.com> 
|> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:

[Doug here quotes the fourth position on abortion that I mentioned.]

|> > 4) Those who hold that abortions are ok for everyone.
|> >
|> > This seems logically consistent to me.  If abortions are not wrong at
|> > all, and you support abortion as a morally proper method of birth
|> > control to be used when accidents occur with "conception control"
|> > or when the potential parents change their mind, then whether you are
|> > right or wrong, you are at least *consistent*.  Why all this fuss
|> > about a simple medical procedure performed on the mother, right?
|> 
|> These people must also condone infanticide in all cases in order 
|> to be consistent.  What's the moral difference between killing a 
|> child one minute before it's about to be born, and one minute 
|> after?  (Note that I said moral, not legal difference).

Your asking my opinion?

[Begin opinion mode.]
It is my opinion that there is no difference morally, and should be
no difference legally.  Thus my voting record.  However, my definition
of life is broader than many others' definitions.  Thus their voting
records.
[End opinion mode.]

|> > In summary, positions 1 and 4 seem logically consistent to me.

For reference, position 1 was that all abortions are wrong all the time.

|> Position 4 is not logically consistent if a person does not
|> condone infanticide in all cases. 

Your statement is only correct if the person believes the infant
is not a person.  Position 4 is logically consistent if the person
believes the fetus is not a person.  This does not make it correct.
The "correctness" of position 4 is dependent upon the correctness
of the belief that a fetus becomes a human when it is removed from
the fetus alive.  This is what we are debating about.

The main point of my post was that the two extreme positions seem
to be logically consistent to me, and that I required more
explanation to understand (position 2) why if abortion is wrong
there can be exceptions ("liberal pro-life"), and (position 3) why
abortion is wrong for one person and ok for others (pro-choice).
I appreciate your attempt to explain position 2.

|> >Mike Noonan
|> 
|> 
|> Doug Holtsinger
|> 

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Revenge of RingKnockerWannaBe's
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:44:49 GMT

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

] In article <C01L6s.11v@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
] 
] >Young women obviously doesn't include the very young, unborn women.
] 
] Yo, TWIT!
] 
] Women are adults.  The "unborn" are not.  Therefore, the two are
] non-intersecting sets.  In other words, there are no "unborn women".


Now Beth.....

Be Nice to Paul, provide an illustration
including a decent ascii venn diagram
and he may be able to see why it is that
we also do not talk about the problems 
of Murdering UnBornGrandParents.....


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

"lets get linear, I want to get linear, linear"
				Olivia Newton Algegra
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos and e-mail
Date: 8 Jan 1993 08:03:09 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

me:
>> >nearly 3 months.  And *that's* assuming you actually
>> >manage to apologize for _your_ slander of me, idiot.
steve chaney:
>> SLANDER?! SLANDER?! Oh, pleeeeez, gimme a break! 
Dean:
>Dennis Hall...er, I mean Stephen Chaney, or whatever name he's
>using this week, is correct.  It wasn't slander.  It was libel.

Sorry.  I should have put it in quotes.  I was echoing Nyikos' word back
at thim.  That's why the emphasis on 'your'...
 
Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:40:18 GMT

In <1993Jan8.205944.28139@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

>In article <markp.726525430@dragonfly.wri.com>, markp@dragonfly.wri.com
>(Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>Let me make this explicit for Mark and other irony-challenged persons: I
>>hold AIDS patient's lives to have the same (high) value as any lives.

>*Any* lives? Let me guess. You're an anti-death-penalty,

No; I value murder victims' lives too highly for that.

>anti-euthanasia, 

Yes.

>non-leather-wearing fruitarian.

Sorry; should have said "human lives".

>Tep

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Deep Net Nine)
Subject: Re: Some people at lease hide it better(formerly: March for life)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: _Washington _Area _Clinic _Defense _Task _Force, Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:43:39 GMT

What: <1993Jan11.192648.15779@ncsu.edu>
Who:  jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)

>> = Jay T Stein
>>>= JEFFREY JAMES PRICE [to Patrick Humphrey]

>>>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>>>you wind up losing yours.....

[...criticism from me deleted...]

>>You're an embarrassment to humanity.  IMO of course.
>
>To Mr. Stein...

[...snip snip...]

>I have posted that this article has mistyped
>by me and should read....does NOT take.....could be just a freudian slip?

I accept your correction, and gladly withdraw my criticism.  In good faith
I will try to cancel the appropriate article.

>Please don't quote me as saying that I would wish someone hurt

No problem.  Actually I've been staying away from quotes lately anyway...

>My apologies...

...are gladly accepted.  Thank you.
--
But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.

     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: What is Mark Cochran's profession?
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:01:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.002657.7070@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>I'm curious to find out what Mark Cochran's profession is, 
>or his intended profession.  He seems to talk like somebody
>who's studying and preparing to make a lot of money as an 
>abortion doctor.  He jumps to the defense of abortion doctors
>who have been convicted of felonies, and he spews a lot of
>garbage about how wonderful the abortion profession is.  He
>doesn't seem to be aware of the field of medical ethics,
>given his past statements on organ transplantation.  So,
>don't be afraid Cochran, tell us your desired profession.
>

Last time I checked, there was no medical specialty known as abortion
doctor. I believe that you would find that all doctors who regulary
perform abortions in this country are trained in Obstetrics and
Gynecology. There is no such thing as the abortion profession. What group
do you know of that offers abortion to women, that doesn't also offer
to help them keep the baby if they so choose.

I know Doug's profession. I believe that it has been determined to
be Research Subject, ncsu Genetics Lab.

Robert Johnston


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
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: Sun, 10 Jan 93 14:23:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.023144.16009@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <mb#3!pd@rpi.edu> 
>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>
>>>James: remember, I don't care what you think.
>
>> that's ok. you did quite nicely here. 
>
>Hey moron, we haven't yet heard your opinion of the
>pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-lifers.

More of your utter nonsense DODie. Care to produce the article in
which this happened?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What makes me very sad (and I don't call anyone names!)
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:59:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

So you won't be on pins and needles as to whether or not you should
go to the library, suffice it to say that I won't accept as 
evidence anything presented by one who claims to have no opinion
about legislation wrt abortion.  You say you're tired, Doug.  Use
the time that you might have spent in the library to take a nap.

I didn't challange Doug to look up evidence, neither did I say
such evidence could not be produced.  I said that no one has
posted any.  Whether or not I would accept it isn't the 
point.  No one has posted any.  As a matter of fact, no one
has raised any objection except Doug Holtsinger, who seems far
more concerned about my definitions than whether any evidence,
facts, figures, or examples exist.  No one has even made up 
sources, quoted studies out of context, or fabricated anything
that would lead anyone to believe that legislation might indeed
produce any effect, much less the claimed desired one.


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:36:39 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan12.040613.6252@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.040034.20167@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan10.031610.14505@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan9.232819.14083@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan6.160656.4107@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Is a sleeper sentient?"
>>>>>Certainly. Just wake them up if you doubt it...
>>>>
>>>>Useless answer. A pro-lifer could just as easily say
>>>>
>>>>"Is a fetus sentient?"
>>>>Certainly. Just give birth to them if you doubt it...
>>>>
>>>Could say? Looks to me like one just did...
>>Look again. Without your psychological astigmatisms this time.
>Quit your whining and accept what you are Kebbin...
>>>To which I could reply
>>>*You* give birth to it and ask it yourself.
>>Relevance?
>Since you expect others to give birth to them, you should be willing
>to as well.
>>>Of course, this overlooks the simple fact that by the time you give
>>>birth to it, it is no longer a fetus.
>>In *EXACTLY* the same way that your answer overlooks the simple fact that
>>a person who has been woken up is no longer asleep.
>>Why is it so difficult for you to admit a simple mistake? Is this an ego
>>thing?
>>
>Nope, not at all Kebbin. I admited it was a poor answer when I replied
>to another article in this thread. I also corrected the mistaken
>answer to include examples of people carrying on conversation while
>sleeping, quite intelligently. One example I used was that of a
>hematologist I had occasion to discuss a patient with at 2AM. He was
>quite responsive, and remembered none of it the next day. He stated
>that he must have slept right through the conversation.

Or maybe (a far more likely interpretation) he was just so tired he forgot 
the conversation by the next day...

>Now that I've admited (again, just for you) that the original answer
>was a mistake, are you ready to admit your countless mistakes?

If you're admitting a mistake, why did you bring up the hematologist
example? Sounds like this "admission" is a hedged one.
 
>You can start with schizophrenia vs MPD, ...

That wasn't a mistake. It was a perfectly valid point about the difference
between specialized lexicons and common parlance. Any competent linguist 
would back me up on it. You never seriously disputed the point on linguistic 
grounds, so where do you get off labelling it a "mistake", anyway?

>...them move along to some of the others.

WHAT others?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion