HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Reflections on the March
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:06:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.211521.9429@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> 
> BTW Dean, I'm sure glad the optimism is returning about the pro-choice
> future.

Mine has never flagged, Gordon.  I believe that Lyndon Johnson was right
whgen he spoke of a Silent Majority.  I believe it is out there, but
that harnessing that energy iss a difficult task.  I was gratified to
hear of the turnout in DC, and regretted being unable to attend due
to work commitments.  That seems tome to be one of the big obstacles
to harnessing that energy:  people have lives to lead that often
must come before causes.  But the energy is there.

I usually don't join in the discussions about improved birth
control and lessening the need for abortion.  It seems to me that
the value in that is self-evident, and I have seen enough people
who espouse the pro-life cause agree with those who espouse
the pro-choice cause on the issue that it seems a non-issue, but
sometimess I think of what it would be like if we did tap into
that huge energy of people, got them together, and moved forward
to produce such things as clean energy, improved contraception,
and so forth (had to stick that clean enegry thing in there).
Okay, so I have a few dreams.  So I would like it if it were
possible to join forces instead of joining battle.  Probably strikes
some of you as a strange thing for me to say.  So sue me.

So it's not a non-issue, contraception, but rather a forgotten
issue.  A pity.  I wonder what would happen if the organizers
of the rally in DC got together with the organizers of pro-life
rallies and tried to get a Better Contraception rally scheduled.
I even have the logo all figured out:  A condom, rampant on
a field of spermicidal jelly.

Dean Kaflowitz

Wrap that alto in plastic wrap; practice safe sax.

Wear galoshes; practice safe socks.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:49:39 GMT

From article by JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown):
>
> {deleted, big long legalease scenario}
> 
> Any problems with this idea?  For God's sakes, you've got 6 months
> to decide on what to do.  There's pro-life options, there's pro-
> choice options, there seems to be *fairness*.  Oh, now don't go
> talking about fairness to the child.           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That was why you got no answers, Jennifer.   You 'disqualified' any
responses you might not have liked before you even got them.   Fairness
to the third party, namely the child, is why there _is_ an abortion debate
in the first place.


> You and I both know that
> we didn't remember what went on between the age of -9m and 0months.

Does that mean you would legalize abortion up through the 2nd birthday,
since most people don't remember that far back either?


> You guys kept asking me for a 'suggestion'.  Well, here's one and
> it seems pretty reasonable to me.  Besides, if the government and
> courts and the legal system are going to get involved in our lives,
> it may as well be from the start and with both parental parties
> in mind.

The whole point is to have the legal system also keep the third party,
namely the preborn child, in mind.


> BTW, abortion is obviously legal.

But not for long >:-)


> -Jennifer

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:36:20 GMT

In article <1rvj=#h.zank@netcom.com> zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes:
>Okay, about a new name other than Nazi, about just dumb pigs?

I think you're being silly, but I'm not going to flame you for
that one. Go ahead.

>Matthew Zank * Eau Claire, Wisconsin

	-Nora

-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14625 alt.flame:6566
From: keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: birds 'n bees (was Re: Definitions, personhood...Ref:  Micahel R>)
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:20:38 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> The woman did not, in volitional terms, necessarily CREATE
-> >-> her pregnancy. She CREATED an orgasm, which had a use.
-> >
-> >pssst! may i suggest that you speak to a woman or two
-> >privately about this matter.
-> 
-> Why?

i feel strongly, kevin, that you should come by this data through
communications with your family or your school officials.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:30:15 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  <92100.151254JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>  Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
> Is your sixth finger or toe likely to grow into a "sentient being"?

Is an aborted fetus likely to grow into a sentient being?

Don't confuse the potential with the actual.

> Human is the adjective.  Being is the noun.  Sentient is a different
> adjective.  While a fetus is not "sentient" in the sense of "having
> finely tuned sensory responses", and may or may not (depending on the
> stage of development be "aware" of its own existence (although not
> "aware" in the psychological sense), it is a human being "something
> that actually exists". (Definitions from Webster's).

A fetus is a being that is human, but a "human being" is a term with
specific connotations; equivalent to "person".

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Pro-choice Catholics?
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:46:01 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr9.050113.7169@wuecl.wustl.edu>  dgp@venus.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
> <1992Apr06.222515.21583@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> >What you seem to be forgetting is that "pro-choice" really means pro-*choice*,
> >not "pro-abortion".  A person can be totally opposed to abortion, believe
>                                                                    ^^^^^^^
> >it's a sin, etc., and still realize that it's immoral to attempt to force
>                              ^^^^^^^
> >their views on someone else.
>
> I'm confused.  Why is it that the wrongness of abortion is something
> we can only "believe" or not, but the wrongness of imposing views
> is something we can "realize" ?

Good point; my choice of words reflects my personal beliefs.  I think
that the choice of words also reflects the proportion of the population
that feels that way, but this is all irrelevant to the basic point that
I was trying to make:
   Someone can be a "good Catholic" and believe that abortion is a sin,
   but also believe that forcing others who hold different beliefs to
   live according to the Catholic's beliefs is wrong, and so be pro-choice.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan, Muriel, Cathi, please read this...;-)
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:12:19 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr14.182617.4755@coopsol.com>  gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> <1992Apr10.184256.13194@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) said:
> ><1992Apr10.230121.25145@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >>
> >>We're proud of you, too, Gordon. In fact, we get together sometimes
> >>to have slumber parties and talk about you; don't we, girls?
> >>
> >Hey. My place. Tonight. There are already five teenage girls
> >giggling away there. Pizza's on the way.
>
> I'm on my way!!  I never miss a chance at pizza and teenage girls! Just
> try not to giggle while I'm there, OK?

Muriel addressed that to Nora - it wasn't an open invitation.  But hell -
if you're gonna crash, I might as well too.  (And I rarely giggle - tee hee.)

Larry Margolis,
   ex-boyfriend of Joy, Nora, mamma muriel, and Keith, the wonder-stud.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 02:05:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr2.141445.6742@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>
>   You misunderstand me completely. We do not focus our efforts
>judging others as you might think. We spend our time defending the unborn
>baby. What you see as an attack against your actions, is merely a 
>defense for the unborn child. IN our minds, you can have all the abortions
>you like, but no children/fetus/unbornbabies/whatever can be killed/terminated
>/removed in the process... Get it? 

"You misunderstand" the pregnant woman "completely". She "does not focus her
efforts" "killing the unborn child" "as you might think". She "spends her 
time" trying to end her unwanted pregnancy. "What you see as an attack" on the 
fetus "is merely a defense for" her Bodily Autonomy. "IN her mind", you can 
"defend the unborn baby" all you want, but no reproductive freedoms/choices/
decisions can be violated/abrogated/compromised in the process... "Get it?"

In other words, the primary-focus/secondary-effect argument cuts both ways, 
Steve.

								- Kevin
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:04:04 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes:
-> >->     I'd have to disagree with this statement. I think the
-> >-> abortion argument is one of competing rights - where the
-> >-> right of a woman to decide what happens with her body is
-> >-> balanced against the right of the fetus to live to birth.
-> >
-> >what "right" of the fetus are you talking about?
-> 
-> The purported "right" of living individuated human organisms
-> to not be killed without good reason, I would guess.

you can guess what he's talking about all you want. you can even
try to answer the same question i asked him: that is, 'what
"right" of the fetus are you talking about?'

first, of course, you'll have to establish that fetuses have
rights. then you can specify which right he was referring to.

        'Actually, my main reservation at this stage of the game
        is that the sobriquet "net.idiot" may not fully describe
        him. "Lord High Fuckwit", maybe...'  
		-- lefty@apple.com
	        <9108270050.AA04989@internal.apple.com>

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
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: Tue, 14 Apr 92 22:37:48 GMT

In article <16747@plains.NoDak.edu> compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.115437.26551@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

[Knights Of Columbus Stuff Deleted...]

>>   Buster? No... I say that we should halt the NEED for abortions. Not even
>>through contraception, but through proper education . It can be that simple.
>>One's own body is not just one's own body when you share it with another
>>sentient being...
>>   steve
>
>How, pray tell, do we halt the need for abortions through "proper education"
>alone?  What is this "proper education"?  How can we help people prevent the

Easy.  You tell eveybody that if they have sex before they're married, they'll
die.  Guaranteed.  And if they masturbate, they're commiting a sin.  And none
of that heavy petting or anything like that, or dancing where you can touch
each other either.  That's "true education".

>need for abortions, as you advocate, without making an effective birth
>control availible?
>
>Also, not everyone thinks that a fetus is a sentient being.  It certainly
>isn't before mylenation(sp?), which occurs at about 24 weeks.  Less than 1%
>of all abortions are performed after the 24th week (I don't have the
>documentation on this.  Any help?).

Sure thing.  According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 99.1% of all abortions
(I'm assuming America only) were performed before the 16th week of pregnancy in
1991.  Less then 100 abortions are performed every year after the 24th week of
pregnancy.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:23:07 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr14.171626.15538@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.045125.3507@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin  
>Brawley) writes:
>> jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") writes:

>Yes, I am serious. Basically, all rights can be waived; if they couldn't, 
>they would only be duties. A fetus can't possibly have the right to life
>because it can't waive it.
   Okay. Jen - take Hellen Keller for example. She couldn't do a whole
lot let alone express herself until her late teens (maybe early
teens?) Do you propose that she should have been killed because shecouldn't
waive her right? how foolish of your...



>No, just a [psych] major. Again, you must know what we women are doing....

No Jen... he doesn't care a whole lot what you do. He was just wondering
if you were a patient there rather than a student... 
   steve
p.s. - kate bush has done some great stuff!
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:08:19 GMT

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>Why do you value a fetus so much?  I mean, what makes it so important to
>you?  I personally think it's some sort of conditioning that results in
>this 'fetus worship'.

What makes you value your wife so much?  After all, she's simply a mass
of nourished "fetal tissue", dipshit.  "Conditioning"?  I conditioned
myself to care for human life?  Or was it YOU conditioned by society to
disdain children?

>>                              In any case, I apologize for my slip.
>>I am not yet used to these odds of 10 to 1 in a political and ethical
>>discussion. 

>Kinda makes you wonder why the pro-life side keeps claiming numerical
>superiority, doesn't it.  The abortion rallys tend to be 5 to 1 in favor
>of pro-choice (at least, from what has been posted here), and the postings
>here at at least 2 to 1 if not more.

Pro-Lifers claim majority because it is exactly correct.  The abortion
rally statement is outright fraud.  Last years march in DC had the Pro-
Death faction outnumbered almost 2 to 1 (and the pro-death clowns still
claimed a majority because they were relying on their own guesstimates
instead of the park service's official count).  So you believe this
system represents a perfect scientific cross-section of society?  Wake
up buddy boy.  There is more to society than your computer.


>Gordon
>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
>Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
>and darn proud of it.
>-- 

Kevin Brawley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:34:33 CDT


In article <1992Apr14.124354.22380@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> In <1992Apr14.030728.21623@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Apr14.022904.1885@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> >>From article by kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran):
> 
> >If he's so perceptive, he'd surely take note of a self-described devout
> >Catholic who spares no opportunity to tell us how loving her religion is,
> >while simultaneously condemning anyone who might disagree with her...then
> >again, maybe old Karol figures there's no use in trying to set you straight.
> >(Or, to put it in my native dialect -- if the Avenging Angel was to come
> >through here killing all the real Christians, he'd never cock his pistol at
> >*you*...)
> 
>    Sheeez Pat, WHy would Sue go through all of that when I've already
> done it. I've tried to share all of the facets of my religion with you
> people. We do not condemn you for denying the presence of God. Perhaps
> we pity you, but we do not condemn or patronize you. In any case,
> we'd mind our own business with abortions too if there weren't so
> many innocent victims in the matter (unborn child).

"so many"?  You mean if there were 1/10 the number of abortions
you would quit trying to make it illegal?

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: SO.....it's not a child.....
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:27:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.000857.3382@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:
> 
> >No, to illegally end the existence of a living human is called
> >murder. To legally do so is not. Abortion is legal.
> 
> 
> so if I were to introduce a bill to Congress that allowed vigilante
> groups to beat the f**k out of drug dealers and kill them, and by
> some miracle it passed, would that make killing them not murder?

You are a violent little fellow, aren't you?

And the answer to your question is that it would mean it is
not murder in the areas of federal jurisdiction.  You would
still need to pass the same or similar laws in the states.  Then
it wouldn't be murder in the states which passed those laws.
> 
> 
> Yeah......the death penalty is murder. 

No, it is not murder.  It is lawful killing in many states.

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

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  )
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:26:15 GMT

In <EJONES.92Mar31153007@umassmed.ummed.edu> ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu 
   (Erik Jones) writes: >
Steve Franklin wrote: >>

>     No matter how much you try and inanimate the fetus, and tell the
>>    girl 
      ~~~~
>Woman.  Get it through your skull.  Woman.  Women get pregnant, BOY.
>Women have to make these decisions, BOY.  

Girls frequently get pregnant, Erik.  Unless, of course, you would
characterize 13 year old females as women.  Most of them wouldn't  
consider themselves women.  Most of their parents wouldn't, either.
In fact, I can't think of anyone (yourself excepted) who would.

>Don't attempt to place yourself above 51% of the human race.

Use of the term 'girl' is not intrinsically condescending.  It quite
often applies.  

Bill
From: JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Date: 6 Apr 92 02:24:45 GMT
Organization: State Penn

In article <1992Apr05.211805.29956@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
<margoli@watson.ibm.com> says:

>In  <1992Apr5.062252.704@midway.uchicago.edu>  rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora
>gayle rivkis) writes:
>> Well, you missed my volunteering to be another of your ex-girlfriends;
>> I don't know if you consider *that* important enough to respond to, but
>> (batting eyelashes) you DID ask me...

What with all this business of being proud of ex-girlfriends, it is
very important to make this distinction:  is Gordon proud of the "ex"
part or the "girlfriend" part?  Just wondering :-)

>Why is everyone looking for / volunteering to be *ex*girlfriends; I
>need a *current* girlfriend...  :-)

I dunno, Larry.  Can I be your ex-girlfriend? :-)

Joy Haftel               "But were there ever any
JKH107@PSUVM                    Writh'd not at passing joy?"
                                    --Keats
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:19:03 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA

From article <1992Apr7.055355.4336@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, by rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>>From article by ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman):
>>> I went to the "We Won't Go Back" march yesterday, and I had a terrific
>>> time. It was quite incredible. I have never seen so many folks in one
>>> place at once. The speakers were inspiring, I met lots of friendly
>>> people, and I am more dedicated to the cause than ever.
>>> 
>>Yeah, you're grinning now, but yesterday's crowd of 1/4 million does not
>>even come _close_ to the 1.5 million that died of abortion last year.
>>Yup, those of us defending them are mored dedicated than ever too.
> 
> Crap.  What about the 10 million people that starved to death last year?
> Don't they count?  

Sure they do.  Our Supreme Court has not yet ruled THEM "non-persons" to
be disposed of at will.


> What about the 1/4 million Iraqis killed in the war?
> Don't they count?  

Sure they do.  Our Supreme Court has not ruled THEM "non-persons" to
be disposed of at will.    Defense of _other_ persons in the course
of a war just _might_ be a legitimate issue to have a war over.


> What about the kids killed by guns and drugs and 
> abuse and neglect?  Don't they count?  

Sure they do.  Our Supreme Court has not ruled THEM "non-persons" to
be disposed of at will.   Drugs, abuse, neglect, and the shooting of
minors are all illegal.  What floodgates to you wish to open by legalizing
such horrors?


> I'll believe anyone to be "Pro-Life"
> when their concern is for _life_ and not just abortion.

You are very disegenuous, Ray.   You won't ever believe _anyone_ to have
any concern for anyone else as long as you see _anything_at_all_ wrong with
the world.   Therefore, your problem is in your own head.


> Ray
> rfischer@cs.stanford.edu

Suzanne Forgach