HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 9 Jan 93 17:19:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>In article <1993Jan9.074243.9436@netcom.com> 
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>>I demonstrated that it is absurd to think that Christ himself would assist
>>>in any abortion.  Instead He would provide for the needs of both the mother
>>>and the child.  Which btw is just what a great many pro-lifers are doing.
>
>>While Christ would probably not assist in any abortion, nobody is
>>suggesting that _any_ Christian be required to do so.
>
>Some people are suggesting that Christians should be required
>to assist in abortions.  The Freedom of Choice Act, which Congress 
>is planning to consider soon, contains no conscience clause which 
>would protect hospital employees from facing punishment for refusing
>to assist in an abortion procedure.  And Bill Clinton has said that
>he would have no objections to using federal tax dollars to pay for
>elective abortions.

I see you don't know anything about Christianity, either.  Remember what
Christ said about taxation: "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto
God what is God's."  I suspect that the Romans were doing quite a few
things that were offensive to local Jews, including exections, worshiping
'pagan' gods, etc.  All funded by taxation.  And Christ told them to pay.
Go learn something about the topics before you post.

As for hostpitals, I would suspect that any decent hospital would allow
their employees to exercise their conscience, and not assign them such
duties.  There may also be applications of religious liberty exclusions.
All of this remains to be tested...but I suspect that this situation will
be resolved in the way I describe.

Bill Clinton is NOT the anti-Christ.  Therefore, Christians are to follow
the laws he signs, per Paul's letter to the Romans.  The only resistance 
should be to laws that compell us to personally violate God's will.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Nyikos smears everyone pointlessly
Organization: Etched in stone.
	<1992Dec24.023729.15109@ncsu.edu> <1157@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
	<nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
	<PATRICK.92Dec28182038@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> <nl9273=@rpi.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:09:51 GMT

In article <nl9273=@rpi.edu> cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

   patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

   >You're about as credible as Joe Isuzu, numbnuts.

   Oh dear, NOW you've done it, Patrick.  Watch this space for "Nyikos" to
   begin whining incessantly about sexual harassment, yet again demonstrating
   that he has no clue as to what the term means.

Yeah, I know -- but where else can we get so much entertainment by posting
just one line in an article?  :-)

--PLH, it's about time for him to post his SAT scores and add that third "K"
to my name, too...

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:34:19 GMT

From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>From article by patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
>>> 
>>> Is that so?  I've been here as long as you have, and strangely enough, I
>>> haven't seen any such activity -- 
>>
>>We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.
> 
> Crude, Suzanne.  Have you ever "looked" at Patrick's wife?  

Of course not - that was the point.  None of us have, which renders
the statement absurd.  Even if nobody else appreciates it, _I_ had a good
laugh! :-)   Notice I never actually insulted his wife.


> Are you
> implying that she is a lesbian who got herself pregnant by the "teaspoon
> method"

Never occured to me actually.  But a clever twist.


>>> Or are you saying you
>>> really think Heather got herself pregnant?  (That *is* a neat trick, if she
>>> really did that.)
>>> 
>>> --PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...
>>
>>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
>>wife.   
> 
> Are you saying that children are just property that are owned by their
> biological parents?  Are you saying that people who adopt are never really
> the parents of the child and should not be respected as such?

Not at all.

 
>>        I hope it drives you crazy.
> 
> How loving.  How Christian.  You actually hope that a man who marries a
> divorced woman would be driven crazy by memories of her ex-husband.  Is
> this what your "real" Christianity teaches you?
 
> Gordon

I think it pretty silly that so many people are so upset by someone simply
exposing the downside of such common life situations nowadays.   If it
_didn't_ bother Patrick, he wouldn't have a human heart in him.   Try
reading Hosea.

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 01:59:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.052343.14002@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.124438.25101@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan05.065315.27243@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>
>>>Wimmin is sweet.  You ain't.  QED
>>
>>Hmmmmm.  First I'm bitter, now I'm sweet.
>>
>>muriel
>>off to find a copy of _The Edible Woman_.
>>
>Sweet and sour Muriel...
>Sounds liek an oriental dish. I wonder if I can get some at the local
>Chinese take-out place? :)

Wouldn't you rather "eat in"? :]
--
=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???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker the one TrueGoddess[tm], Muriel.  Space Still Reserved... =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:57:42 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

> Can you honestly picture Jesus Christ helping some woman abort a child
> that His beloved Father is in the active process of knitting together?

Can you honestly picture Jesus Christ yelping pro-life slogans and assaulting
patients at a Planned Parenthood clinic?  Or making anonymous death threats
over the phone?  Or passing out flyers at a grade school saying that certain
students are the children of baby killers?

> It would be completely absurd.

Indeed.

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Respect for life in Brazil
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:02:32 GMT


I heard that Brazil (ob t.a note, where abortion is illegal) is the
place where they have so much respect for life there has been a 
stabbing of a soap opera star.  See what making abortion illegal
can do?

(Some people who read this newsgroup will quickly see the connection, 
if the past is any guide.)

--
       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: usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:45:46 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 20:09:23 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f 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: The Village Waterbed

In <C0CBnL.Myn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <C05Bpu.GLE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>>
>>>>In <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>>That's not a fetus.
>>>
>>>>Right - in most abortions, it's an embryo, not yet a fetus.
>>>
>>>Document this.
>
>>I just did - see my discussion with Steve Matheson.
>
>I'd prefer not too.  Reading all this pro-aborter propaganda is taking too
>much of my time as it is.  Simply give me one credible source showing
>that most abortions performed are done before the 8th week.  I should
>probably qualify that as most doctor induced abortions.

I'll email you the posts; the source is at the end.

>>>>>Don't call it a fetus because I doubt you know what a fetus really is.
>>>
>>>>Well, *I* think I do; what do *you* think a fetus is?
>>>
>>>A fetus is the prenatal stage of a species in which the unborn offspring
>>>begins to take on the basic physical characteristics of its post birth
>>>form.  In humans this occurs approximately 8 weeks after fertilization.
>>>
>>>Would you like anything more specific?
>
>>Yes - why shouldn't we call a fetus a fetus?
>
>A child is still a person.  A teenager is still a person.  An adult is
>still a person.  A fetus is still a person.

No, a fetus is not yet a person.

>>>I now know you don't know anything about prenatal development.
>
>>You conclude this because I prefer to use the more accurate terms?
>
>I conclude this because you refused to demonstrate your knowledge in
>this regard.  I could more accurately refer to my sister as a 21 year old
>white female, 5' 9" tall, 140 pounds, with 22% body fat, who happens to
>be legally defined as related to me under the definition of "sister".
>I'd prefer to call her my sister.

Assuming that you only have one sister, then either reference is
unambiguous.  Referring to a fetus as "a baby" is not.  (It's also
contrary to common usage.)

P.S.  In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> you said
"References available upon request."  People have requested them...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:05:00 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <kj+3a+d@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>>Pray tell, how would the mandating of certain abortion METHODS, e.g. 
>>>C-section versus D&E, "hamper women in the workplace"? This discussion 
>>>_is_ focussed on late-term abortions, isn't it?
>>
>>Are you aware that C-section is invasive surgery, requiring a rather
>>significant incision?  The recovery time for C-section (as for any
>>surgery) varies widely, from out of bed in a few days, to a lifetime
>>of significant pain.  The D&E, on the other hand, does not require
>>the cutting and resewing of muscle, skin, and membrane that a C-section
>>does.

>And what percentage of these procedures are performed "in the workplace" of
>the women receiving them, do you suppose?

Tee hee.

>This is NOT just an attempt to be facetious, Cathi. I hear that phrase
>"hampered in the workplace" a lot. I'm not quite sure how that's supposed to
>be different from the more generic term "economic oppression". Is the 
>difference just some gratuitous emotionalism, or does it imply that only
>WORKING women get economically oppressed in this manner (which sounds to me
>like a sneaky way of slighting women who choose to be homemakers)?

Good Goddess Darcy, even you can't be this stupid.

But I'll spell it out.

Recovery from C-section often requires a significant amount of BEDREST.
The woman is in NO SHAPE to return to her job.  Many of the jobs held
predominantly by women (service, clerical) take a _very_ dim view of
extended absences.  Since we don't live in Happy Bunny Land (thanks...
Chris?), the longer the surgical recovery time, the greater the chance
that a woman will LOSE HER JOB due to absence.  For a physical job such
as waitress, the time lost will be even greater until the woman recovers
her physical capacities.  The vast majority of waitresses (and waiters,
and other service workers) ARE NOT PAID when they don't work, leading
to economic hardship (at a time when medical expenses may peak).  When
applying for a new job, the employer will frequently ask why the person
left the old job.  If the potential employee answers "surgical recovery",
the employer may well decide not to hire them because they are a "bad
health risk".  If the woman answers "abortion" or "premature delivery",
the employer may refuse to hire them strictly on personal bias.  (There
are still employers who consider fathers a "good risk" because "They
need to provide for their families", while considering mothers a "bad
risk" because "They'll always be taking time off for their children.")

There are any number of ways in which mandating a more invasive surgical
procedure could have repercussions for women "in the workplace", Darcy.

>								- Kevin

               -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
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: Fri, 8 Jan 93 23:17:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.162410.10074@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>>> But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.
>>
>>> (1) Hold your breath for ten seconds.  Did you die instantly?
>>
>>She said "ceasing to breath" as in "permanent cessation", not
>>"temporary cessation".  It may not bring instant death, but
>>it's close enough for horse-shoes and hand grenades.
>
>She said "ceasing to breathe brings instant death."  I figured she
>means "ceasing to breathe brings instant death."  You interpreted her
>as saying "the moment you stop breathing PERMANENTLY, you're dead,"
>then admitted that death doesn't come the MOMENT you stop breathing.
>In other words, you've totally changed around what she said.
>
Even if Suzzie claims that DODies interpretation is *exactly* what she
meant, it is still wrong. Anybody who thinks differently should go
look up "mechanical ventilator" or "life support systems".

>Do either of you even _think_ before you post, or is your knee wired
>up in such a way that when it jerks, a flame is generated and posted?
>
Replace flame with "inane idiocy" and I think you'll be right on the
spot.

>-- 
>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
>/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
>_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
>  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
> /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau


--
                  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: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:48:42 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Say What??????
Date: 9 Jan 93 23:10:07 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
] In article <1236@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) wrote:
] > 
] > Susan,
] > who joins the others in wondering why Dr. Giggles separated his
] > list by gender
] 
] As do I.  I also wonder on what basis "Professor" Nyikos chose to lump me
] in with those of the male persuasion.


WHAT!!!!!

You mean You're a Girl?????

ciao
drieux


ps: oh well, there goes the GuyBondingRituals....


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:46:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.221244.18099@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>Take your time.  I think you would do well to come up with something better
>than trying to assert that "fatherless" is somehow like "innocent,"
>even if you are speaking in general terms.

fatherless doesn't go with innocent very well.  But in a sense, many children
that are aborted are fatherless.  I don't know the proportions of women 
who have abortion who are not married.

Link Hudson.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:04:08 CST

In article <1992Dec31.180506.9687@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

[deletia]
>Hard numbers.  Excellent.  To use them in the context of the embryonic-to-
>fetal transition (occurring at the beginning of the ninth week of
>*gestation*), we must convert your LMP timepoints to gestational time.
>This is done by subtracting 2 weeks from LMP weeks, giving us a very
>solid approximation of the actual gestational age of the fetus.  The
>result:
[deletia]
>
>Yes, it would appear that Peter (note corrected spelling) erred.  I remain
>fascinated by the inaccuracy of the "common definition": I've now found it
>in 2 different dictionaries (although both were Merriam-Webster), while
>I know of at least 2 embryology books that flatly contradict it.  Indeed,
>I have found no evidence that 3 months was *ever* considered the beginning
>of the fetal period.  It's a little unnerving, isn't it?
>
Actually, if you do a reverse conversion (date of conception
to LMP dating) you would get 11 weeks, which isn't that far off
from three months.  I think we argue gestational age issues a
lot around here without clarifying which starting point is in
use.

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Challenge to Chris Lyman -- Get a real argument! (was Re: Greetings
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:36:22 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.195319.12715@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>>>chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>In other words, you accidently let your true colors shine through.
>Chris Lyman, like so many other pro-choicers, can't seem to stop
>portraying pro-lifers as religious zealots, despite evidence from
>this newsgroup that many pro-lifers are opposed to abortion for secular
>reasons.  If the religious stereotype were to crumble, Chris Lyman

Dougie, I've yet to see a non-religious argument for a pro-life stance.
You've never succeeded in providing one, yet you claim to be an atheist.
Being non-committal in the religious arena myself, I feel qualified
enough to say that the entire diatribe you've let run rampant in t.a
has a definite religious undertone. Others here, being professed atheists,
have made similar conclusions. Just because you say you are a monkey
doesn't mean you are one, dougie.

>of abortion rights, if he is able to, instead of rationalizing
>his position using a stereotype that no thinking person could
>mistake as a serious argument.

The stereotype hasn't really been shown to not be true of the overwhelming
majority of pro-lifers. Or are we to assume that not all pro-lifers
are against abortion? (That's a "stereotype, too, you know. :)

>It is Chris Lyman who is unwilling to incorporate facts into his
>thinking.  He, and others like him, refuse to consider the fact
>that many pro-lifers are opposed to abortion for secular reasons.

<whew> After getting back into my seat (thanks for the laugh, dougie)
I have to tell you that if anyone here doesn't incorporate facts into
their discussions, it's you, dougie (at least of those who seem capable
of recognizing what a fact is, and do note I say "seem").

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: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: DODie Twitters of 77036-2409
	<1993Jan7.025534.26006@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1993Jan7.041723.25696@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:22:39 GMT

In article ,1993Jan7.004633.19382@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.025534.26006@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
>gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>> A bunch of lamentable but I guess true stories about children being
>> killed.  It doesn't have much to do with abortion at all, but it 
>> rather nicely underscores that illegality doesn't offer much protection.
>> It was illegal to kill those kids, I presume...
>
>As Ms. Forgach said to you once, "the law teaches".  Have you
>thought about what she said? 

Perhaps you should ask *that* question of the ones who killed those kids,
and see what *they* were taught...

--PLH, obviously, Rev ain't learnt much, has he?

--
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
Date: 10 Jan 93 02:06:49 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
-> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >The opinions of a few idiots on t.a about Kevin Darcy doesn't constitute 
-> >"common parlance", Mark. The very notion is absurd.
-> >
-> Kebbin, stop refering to yourself in the third person, or we'll all be
-> forced to remind you that you are *not* a group, nor are you of
-> sufficient rank to warrant the use of the royal "we".
-> As for the common parlance of t.a. I would say that the opinions of
-> the posters are the *only* source that defines common parlance (of
-> t.a.).

kebbin agrees with you mark. see:

        "Let the readers decide that for themselves, Jimmy. Let
        them decide for themselves."
		<1992Apr20.211120.26746@rotag.mi.org>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion