HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon, you're no Orwell, or Bradbury, or Huxley, for that matter...
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:36:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct16.135246.24319@athena.mit.edu> purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.235931.14405@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>Well, obviously I am planning to write about a dystopia.  I think extreme
>>liberalism is a bad thing, and my aim is that one really bad thing might
>>promote something equally bad or worse from the other side.  I say again,
>>I am no facsist.           Simon.
>
>It seems to me that if you think "liberalism" is such a bad thing, you
>should write a novel about a "liberalist dystopia" rather than a novel

I think that's been done already, I have a film in my video collection
called "Amerika", about a Communist takeover.  I don't want to rehash the
worn-out "Red Dawn" concept.

>about a "facist dystopia".  After all, if the worst thing about
>"liberalism" is that it goads its opponents into behaving as piggishly
>as possible, it looks like the problem lies with "liberalism's"
>opponents rather than "liberalism" itself.

Well, actually I had thought about showinng the dangers of both types
of extremism, but it's not as simplistic as "We became nazis because
there were liberals around".  I'm trying to come up with something that
criticizes liberalism without being another "Amerika"-Russians takeover
story.  >


>Its like saying that gay people are bad because their mere existance
>incites gay-bashers to beat them up.  One hopes that you would recognise
>an argument of "he was gay so I was forced to beat him up" as completely
>and utterly morally bankrupt.
>
Now that's a bit simplistic, but interesting
But if one group is percieved as getting better treatment than another,
there might be a conflict.  This is what David Duke was trying to pull
in Louisiana--except in this case he was hiding racism behind the veil
of welfare reform, and using that as a reason to be a white supremacist.
Not an endorsement of course, just pointing it out.


Thanks for bringing this up.

Simon
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41446 talk.politics.misc:50388 alt.rush-limbaugh:6900 alt.politics.elections:15702 alt.politics.clinton:9147 alt.politics.bush:8248
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:46:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Richard Foy) writes:
>> = (Bruce Varney) has a nervous breakdown:

>>	I don't really give a shit what you care about you heartless
>>bitch. I am sick and fucking tired of hearing all this women's rights shit.
>>Get this fucking straight once and for all - ABORTION IS NO MORE A WOMEN'S
>>RIGHTS ISSUE THAN ABOLITION WAS A SLAVE OWNER'S RIGHTS ISSUE.

>Gee! It seems like you are angry!

...and totally beserk.  Anyone sitting next to Bruce, please slap the
shit out of him so he calms down.  Thanks.

Bruce, get therapy; they can do wonders with dysfunctional, asocial nut
cases like you these days.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41385 talk.religion.misc:17868 alt.atheism:18627
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:30:49 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Ivan A Derzhanski):

>> Appearing, maybe, but I think Occam's Razor cuts the other way.  I'm
>> told that Jesus was a very unusual kind of human being, as testified
>> by a lot of stories about him, and therefore I try not to assume that
>> he shared much with the rest of mankind.

>The whole point of his coming was to share EVERYTHING, including death,
>with the rest of mankind.

Gee, what a generous guy.  Sounds rather macabre to me.

This makes no sense, Forgach.  Even if Jesus WAS a god, why should
anyone care that he could fake being agonizingly tortured to death?
Do you REALLY think an "all-powerful god" would be actually affected by
some bizarre human "son" being killed?  

"I don't think so, Tim."

If he "died for our sins", doesn't he have to do it again?  He only
covered a brief portion of civilized mankind.

>Sheesh.

Gads.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:06:48 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct16.195559.12351@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
@cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
@# wdo@TEFS1.acd.com writes:
@# |(Susan Garvin) writes:
@# |>You want abortion to be illegal, Overpeck.  
@# |>When abortion is illegal, women die.
@# |When drugs are illegal women die.  So do men.  And children.
@# |Shall we legalize them, Susan?  
@# 
@# I'm not Susan, but I answer yes.
@# 
@# And yes, some of my reasons for supporting drug legalization are
@# parallel to my reasons for supporting legal abortion.
@
@Neither am I Susan but I agree with CJ and Steve Adams on this issue
@as well.  Is there someone counting or something?

Well, I am Susan, and I agree with all of you.

Some of my reasons are parallel, too, but I don't support legalizing
drugs that are currently illegal because I support legal abortion.
I think that Overpeck, who seems to be getting his logic from
Chaney these days, assumes that no one is working for drug
legalization, and that he can ask if we all feel guilty about
the deaths from tainted drugs, etc.  

I also agree with Steve Novak that it was a stupid analogy.  
You'd think that Overpeck would realize that there are no
analagous situations to unwanted pregnancies.  

Oh, and, yes, I'm sure that DOD or Kellmeyer, or one of the other
listfiends is counting.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:51:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.161201.9075@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>> = (Michael Polen) writes:
>
>>You still have to get past the fact that except in cases of rape or
>>incest, you are dealing with an invited guest.
>
>(Wearily...) No, and I'm sick of this lie.  Failed birth control, for
>example, is NOT inviting a child or pregnancy, Mr.
>I-really-want-to-punish-women-for-sex-the-hell-with-the-fetus.
>

Or it could be a case of " I-really-want-to punish-women-for-being-able-
to-do-something-that-I-as-mighty-all-powerful-man-will-never-be-able-to-do."


CRS


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42156 talk.politics.misc:51256 alt.rush-limbaugh:7201
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:19:28 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct12.194428.4759@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In  <9535@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>  mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>> Suppose your house is a boat.  You invite someone onboard.  You go for a

>Suppose you *don't* invite them on board.  Suppose you block off the
>gangplank with a big rubber sheet, and you slather the perimiter of
>the boat with stowaway-icide, but he still manages to sneak abord.

This is only analagous if you were raped by someone wearing a condom.
More analagous would be if the passenger was invited aboard but only if
here were wrapped and slathered as above.  Now through some accident
that was not your passengers fault the rubber breaks.

>Now, suppose there's a limited amount of food on board, and you don't know
>if there's enough to make it back to land.  If you let the stowaway share
>your food, there's a good chance both of you will starve to death.

Are you trying to say that the mother will die if the baby is not aborted.
As I stated previously, I am not opposed to self defense.  And this case
would fall within the self defense doctrine.


-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Webster says no child before birth
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:47:39 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Just like to mention that a friend of mine had a Webster's dictionary
onhand today (1986 edition (just a paperback thing)), and it happened
to specifically state that a child existed between birth and some other
later stage of life (puberty or adolescence).  If you need a reference,
I could track it down for you, but I can't see what it would prove.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:20:03 GMT

In article <grendel.718921500@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>Basically, the idea here is this: we _know_ Bush is corrupt.  We've
>had him and his senile predecessor for twelve years.  Now, Clinton
>may be corrupt as well, but there's always the possibility that he
>isn't.  We vote for him because of that possibility.

If Clinton was an unknown, this would be a reasonable argument.
However, Clinton isn't an unknown.  The "Clinton might be better"
argument ignores what he's promised to try to do.  It assumes that
he's lying.

The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Bush will agree with
Congress less often.  If you like the direction Congress wants to go,
Clinton is your candidate.  If you don't like the way Congress wants
to go, Bush is the lesser of those evils.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42290 talk.politics.misc:51382 alt.rush-limbaugh:7253
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:52:37 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct12.231554.16922@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>>In the above scenario, forcing the trespasser to leave will kill him.
>>Do you have the right to kill this trespasser?

>Is this YOUR analogy to pregnancy? (Gee, I've asked that a lot lately.)
>Where is the WOMAN?  Where?  I can't see her, just as you apparently can't
>see her in the REAL pregnancy.


If this is what you believe than you either haven't been following the
thread or you are deliberatley misreading it.
This is my analogy as to why a fetus is not a trespasser.  Though if you
worked at it you might say that the women is the captain, her body is the
boat and the baby is the passanger.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Choice for life
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:54:43 GMT

In article <BvxKoy.6sq@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.051757.29571@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <Bvt2tH.H4G@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct8.082415.1797@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>
>>>>In response to Garrett's comment's that my info on abstinence was
>>>>perhaps flawed:
>>>>
>>>>I'm not personally trying to tell people what to do.
>>>
>>>Sure you're not.  You're just advocating enactment of statutes that'll
>>>accomplish the same thing, while you say "but *I'm* not forcing anything on
>>>anyone!".  It don't play in Peoria, kid.
>>>
>>>>What I was trying to say is that sex is serious business (and highly enjoyable,
>>>>based on what I have been told), and that both parties involved should know
>>>>what they're doing, but I never said to outlaw it.  But I do think it ought to
>>>>be a part of a good relationship.  ok folks, fire aay.
>>>
>>>What you feel about sex is your business -- so it's your job to find someone
>>>who shares your view.  It's not your job to try to force everyone else to
>>>share that view by law.
>>>
>>>--PLH, lived with my wife for two years before I married her, and I'll be
>>>damned if anyone will force me to apologize for it -- especially some
>>>wet-behind-the-ears brat at a cookie-cutter school...
>>>
>>Now since when did I attack ANYONE'S personal life???
>
>Every time you open your mouth to preach about the evils of sex in any form
>YOU don't approve of, you're guaranteed to be taking a pot shot at someone.
>You're advocating using the force of law to make sure everyone else should
>follow YOUR views -- so, while you didn't direct it at me and my wife
>specifically, we happen to be two of the group of people your little tirade
>is directed towards.  You don't like my response?  Then don't listen -- but
>keep in mind we'll be listening to you.  After all, the price of freedom is
>eternal vigilance...
>
Now when have I said that sex was evil??  Unless me saying that sex is ok
between two people in a monogamous relationship is somehow an attack on ll
sex.  Is their anything in what I said that specifically says to outlaw sex??

I think not.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 06:29:52 GMT

ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

>>>	 1.  A woman should have a choice.
>>
>>Ah.  So you feel you've definitely established that a woman
>>_shouldn't_ have a choice.  
>>
>>I suggest to you that you would be happier living in a country such
>>as Saudi Arabia, where women have few choices in anything.

>I don't believe a woman should have a choice to kill her child any more than
>I believe a man should have a choice to kill his child.
 
But that man who wishes to "kill his child" isn't pregnant against 
his own wishes, is he?

>Don't you have anything better to do than go quoting people out of context
>and twisting their arguments into crap like that?

If you feel your argument is so easily "twisted into crap", perhaps
you should get a better argument.

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.perot
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Perot's position on abortion (was Re: Perot's Economic Plan (4/4)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:47:35 GMT

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"?

> We're thinking, reasoning human beings. Each human life is a precious gift. We
> should not create a human life unless we're willing to take responsibility for
> it. It is irresponsible for two people to create a human life they don't want.
> For democracy to work, for this nation to be whole, every single one of us has
> to take responsibility for his or her actions.

Oh, I get it, here's the compromise.  



Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Article to read
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 22:28:06 GMT

In article <26091@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:

>>This topic is important to me, because I teach special education
>>students.  I want to know how some of the rest of you feel
>>about this issue, and an important related one: that of
>>sterilization.  Should the parent of a mentally retarded child
>>have the right to sterilize their child, without his/her consent?

>Here come de flames. de flame, boss, de flame!

>Yes, they should.

This is an issue that I haven't yet come up with an answer on. It would
seem that it would be wrong, and yet one has to weigh the impact of 
retarded parents on their children...
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Untruths about Rush (WAS Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 08:31:28 GMT

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>In article <92281.220604KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
> 
>>Is Rush a feminist?  You be the judge.
> 
>Nope.

Well, it's settled then.

>Dan King

               -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:39:40 GMT

In article <+jzz2kp@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>   "Mr Keegan made the accusation publicly,
>   he should support it publicly."
>     <1992Sep30.144053.14798@cs.yale.edu>
>
>    "I think you should support it publicly.  If you
>    can't--or won't--perhaps you should consider
>    retracting the accusation."
>	<1992Sep30.010047.7477@cs.yale.edu>
>
>do you still stand by these statements, mr. rescorla?
Yes. If CJ has not retracted the claim that you asked for support
from the list, she should. Similarly, you have failed to show
that she was lying. You should retract that claim.

>->What it does show, however, is that it was reasonable for her
>->to BELIEVE that you had made such a mailing, seeing as you had
>->admitted it, which means that your claim that she was LYING
>->is ludicrous.
>
>no, it was not reasonable for her to believe i had made
>such a mailing. her false accusation was posted prior to
>the private email which she posted to support her
>original allegation.
Nonsense.
You sent a piece of mail to the list with the header "please post
your comments." CJ, rightly or wrongly, interpreted that as
an appeal for help. The fact that you AGREED with her in email
shows quite clearly that it WAS reasonable for her to interpret
your mail to the list in that fashion. It is insane to maintain
otherwise.

Whether or not it was reasonable for her to do so, however,
provided that she in fact did believe that it was an appeal for
help, she could not have been knowingly making a false statement,
and therefore could not have been lying. 

-Ekr





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: Turkey Hall
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:54:44 GMT

>In talk.abortion, ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>>We've got a choice to do *anything*.  Deuteronomy 30:19 is a commandment
>>from God to choose life, just like He commanded us not to kill or commit
>
>I believe it said "choose life then, so that you and your descendents
>may live". No where does it indicate that you "must choose life" or
>"I command that you choose life" or "it is my desire that you choose
>life". It is merely a rather common statement. "If you choose life, you
>and you descendents may live." Nothing more.

Don't dare put in an "if you" in there.  Let me give you a lesson in
grammar:

					"Choose life therefore, etc."
The other verson said something like:	"Choose life then, so that, etc."

These are what's called IMPERATIVE statements.  They tell whoever or whatever
the sentence is addressing to do something.  "Choose life".  "CHOOSE LIFE".
It doesn't say, "IF YOU CHOOSE LIFE."  It tells us:  "CHOOSE LIFE."

Got it now, or do you need to have another English lesson?

>Actually, it says: "thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not
>steal". (from memory, I don't have a bible handy, so I can't comment
>on the lie one, although I think it is similar.) These are rather unambiguous,
>wouldn't you agree? If he wanted to say the same for life, why not state
>"Thou shalt choose life, for yourself and your descendents."?

Don't ask me; I didn't write it.  But this quote comes in an entirely
different part of the Bible -- things aren't always stated the same way, you
know.

>I hope you do. Reading comprehension always seems to be a weak point
>for bible thumpers(bashers). If they had good comprehension, I guess
>the contradictions in the bible would drive them batty. :)

I have great comprehension, and actually, I would like you to email me a list
of these.  I've taken on many other people's prized Bible contradictions.

Nothing a bit of common sense and comprehension can't work through.

>>           Samuel Stoddard, Jesus freak and Bible basher.
>
>At least we now know your name.

Sorry 'bout that.  But "Mx. Rink" works for me, too....
-- 
Samuel Stoddard, the Weapons Master           JESUS IS LORD!!  HALLELUJAH!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
   thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
*=----                      --=* Romans  10:9 *=--                      ----=*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Recreational activity or career change?
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:17:15 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <26477@oasys.dt.navy.mil>  bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>
>Why don't you try prostitution,

Now *there's* a thought.  It's got to be more interesting than net.news...
:-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Doctors Assisting Suicide
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:06:24 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct8.030657.5367@samba.oit.unc.edu>,
Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) wrote:
> 
> But assisting someone else in committing suicide is still illegal.

Gee, this makes me wonder how all those prosecutors in Michigan can be so
completely inept that they've failed to successfully bring Jack Kevorkian
to trial in all this time.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.