HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
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: Fri, 20 Nov 92 01:13:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.013748.8796@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.214406.23543@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>> How to reconcile the Old Testament God with the New Testament God, (they
>> do appear to be quite different):
>> 
>> He mellowed.
>
>Jesus came!

What is he?  God's Sexual Athlete?
--
=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???=
=***************DON'T SHOOT!! I'M REALLY A BLACK BEAR!!!**********************=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:15:41 GMT

In <9416@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


>I've already played "out of context quotes from and blatant lies
>about court cases" with the Reverend Holtsinger, Dr. Giggles.

>I tell you what, though - you post an apology to Adrienne for
>wrongly accusing her of forgery when you were too stupid to
>understand attributions, and I'll post the entire majority
>opinion from Roe.

Still playing along with Adrienne's gag, eh?

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:29:05 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
->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:
->>->>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
->>->>->Funny - she doesn't *look* shrewish...  :-)
->>->>her .gif had me fooled too, for a while.
->>->Larry has seen CJ in person
->>then he doesn't have an excuse, does he?

->Don't need one, neither.

that's right you don't. btw, peeper rescorla is
unusally interested in this matter, although it appears
he hadn't read the thread.

->And if I did - I saw drieux in person at the same time.  That should
->excuse a lot.  :-)

seeing drieux is an experience, i'll admit. did he let
you use his bathroom?

	Penn Jillette described the smiley as 
	"the hateful :) which means 'just kidding' 
	and is used by people who would dot their i's
	with little circles and should have their eyes 
	dotted with Drano."
		San Francisco Chronicle, 10/06/92

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:19:30 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 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 <3ay1pyk@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:
>->>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>->>->Funny - she doesn't *look* shrewish...  :-)
>->>her .gif had me fooled too, for a while.
>->Larry has seen CJ in person
>
>then he doesn't have an excuse, does he?

Don't need one, neither.

And if I did - I saw drieux in person at the same time.  That should
excuse a lot.  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:39:15 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

Jay Wise from Trinity College writes:

>First of all, the "taxpayers complaint" doesn't carry much weight.

Maybe to you the taxpapers complaint doesn't carry much weight,
but to me, it degrades me to an accessory to murder. I rather
not have the title irregardless of your viewpoint.

>Tax-paying pacifists are still forced to contribute funds towards, say,
>B-1 bombers;

So. That is a matter of national defense.  It is not a case
of murder, but rather self defense. Do you not know that killing
in self defense is not murder?

>federally funded abortions are a matter of health care,

You mean "federally funded abortions are a matter of unhealth care."
Neither the mother nor the unborn child gets healthier as a result
of an abortion, especially the latter.   Health care?  Geez. Give
me a break.

>a matter of equity,

What?  Are we now talking about loans against property?

>and if the government decides accordingly, I don't think
>you have much of a case.

Think again.  Read the part in the U.S. Constitution with regards to
bringing grievences against the U.S. government.

By the way Jay, you go to Trinity College, right?  Have any
insights to why they call it that?               



-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Ceccarelli
brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu
From: spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: restrictions
Date: 22 Nov 92 10:13:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.214322.27934@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>  
lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.134317.21957@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,  
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
> >In article <1992Nov17.055146.5262@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray  
Fischer) 
> >writes:
> > 
> >}Of course not.  But to argue that the life of a born -10 minutes
> >}fetus is less important than the life of a cat is equally absurd.  
> > 
> >Depends on the cat.  If it eats bats, I'd tend to agree with you, but
> >if it eats frogs...
> 
> This depends a lot on species, but a cat that eats bats just gets a good 
> meal.  A cat who eats frogs might die from the experience.  Some frogs  
have 
> various toxins in their skins.  I have never heard of any bats that do.
> Unfortunately for both the cat and the frog, the frogs are more likely  
to 
> be eaten by a cat, since they are more likely to be within range of the 
> cat's pounce.  Chalk one up for bat flight.
> 
Actually, one recent National Geographic had an article on just that  
topic, a Phillipine frog-eating bat. With pictures and everything. 
Eeeeeeeeeeew, like really gnarly, ya know?


ciaosers,
jeff

lo yisa goy el goy cherev, lo yilmedu od milchama.......but until then,  
make damn sure you've got the biggest stick around, capisce?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Garvin refuted
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:47:21 GMT

In article <ar110=m@rpi.edu> cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>In article <nyikos.722267650@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>> [.. Jeff Greenfield's post ..]
>
>>> BTW I am curious to know whether Susan endorses the words I mistakenly
>>> attributed to her.  They sounded quite in character with the other
>>> things she has written.
>
>>Of course she does endorse Jeff Greenfield's bogus arguments.
>
>Trying to control women again, Dougie?

Are there misogynists hiding under your bed again, Rockie?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:15:43 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>A sentient fetus is a "person" in the phenomenological sense of the
>>>word.
>>>
>>This statement is not correct.
>
>It is correct, you simply refuse to seriously entertain the possibility
>that there is such a thing as a sentient fetus.  

And you refuse to seriously entertain the possibility that there is no
such thing as a sentient fetus?

>>It has yet to be demonstrated that a fetus is capable of
>>sentience.
>
>So?  It has yet to be demonstrated that your whole life has not been
>a dream and that we are not all just figments of your imagination.

Utterly pointless.  It has yet to demonstrated that you are a human
being.  So what?  Given that not much of anything can be proved
absolutely, you've got to get the data that's available and take your
best guess.  From all the evidence I have available, the pregnant
woman is almost always clearly a person while a 12-week fetus isn't.  
I might well be wrong, but I'm less likely to be wrong than one who 
claims sentience for a 5 week embryo.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Why is Nykios AntiBible?
Keywords: slavery, pro-life
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:52:46 GMT

In <1992Nov8.184806.26949@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>] 
>] A brief excerpt from his article, "Uncivil Liberties," which appeared
>] in the March 1990 issue of _Crisis_, follows, closing this post.  
>] 
>] 	  Unless the anti-slavery principle holds true absolutely, other
>] 	exceptions to it will also be possible.
>] 	
>] Peter Nyikos


>Well its clear that this citation of yours is
>intended to establish that you are AGAINST
>biblical principles, and what the BIBLE has
>to say about Slavery.

Moses led the Israelites out of slavery.  Paul sent a slave back to his
master, but this master might well have been as kind to the slave as 
though it had been his own child, no?  What conclusions am I supposed
to draw from all this?

BTW the quote is from Alan Keyes, not me. 

>Which leaves us with the simple Questions:

>Why are you at War with GOD? And why do YOU hate the Bible?

>Will You REPENT of your SINS!

>And Be SAVED!

I believe you are being satirical.  What do you care about whether
anyone follows the Bible, or God, or not?  If you do care, which kind of
person do you prefer?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: na
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:47:52 CST


In article <1992Nov20.215541.16604@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Nov20.204529.17560@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> I'm not claiming that third-trimester abortions are performed
> for "trivial" reasons; I'm saying that Roe v. Wade does not
> permit the states to prohibit post-viability abortions.
> 
> > From Roe v. Wade:
> >   "On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici*
> >   argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to
> >   terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for
> >   whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree."
> 
> Right, the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion is dependent
> on the availability of a physician who's willing to perform the
> abortion.

I'm glad that you pointed out this restriction (that the woman find
a willing physician).  It refutes your assertion that Roe v. Wade is 
unrestricted.

-- 
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: jmayson@nyx.cs.du.edu (John Mayson)
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
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: Mon, 16 Nov 92 04:45:20 GMT

In article <Bx9o7F.139.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1dbr70INNch0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#In article <adams.720977803@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>The FOCA is just a bill.  It's a bill that has a very good chance of
>passing both houses, but it's still just a bill.

"I'm just a bill... And I'm sitting on Capitol Hill..."

Sorry, couldn't resist.  Those of you that didn't watch Saturday morning
cartoons in the 70's, forget it.  :-)


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:44:28 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 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 <1992Nov20.234559.20074@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.221931.97865@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> I'm glad you enjoyed my post to soc.singles, Mr. Margolis.
>>> Despite your threatening e-mail to my sysadmin, I shall
>>> continue to post to soc.singles.
>
>> This statement is not correct.
>
>Are you saying that you didn't contact my sysadmins?
>Or that your e-mail wasn't threatening?

Both that I didn't enjoy your post and that I didn't send any *threatening*
email.

>You e-mailed
>the postmaster at 'ncsu.edu' that someone should have
>a talk with me about my posting to soc.singles.
             ^^
It wasn't even clear that it was you, Dougie - you omitted your name from
the header.  (I'd guess because you knew that what you were doing was
wrong, but of course that's just a supposition.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: twisting (Thans for life)Read!
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:29:25 GMT

In <1992Nov6.211805.3125@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes ...
>>Again, I make the point.  will a FETUS become a cow or a horse?  No!  It will
>>only be a baby.  By stoping its development, you are taking away the potential
>>for life. Correct (I did say potential)?  If it is not going to be able to live
>>then you are ending its life before life-- Correct?

Not correct.  You are bending over backwards to satisfy the pro-choicers,
all to no avail.

>Again, I make the point.  will an EGG become a cow or a horse?  No!  It will
>only be a baby.  By preventing its development, you are taking away the 
>potential for life.

Its potential for a life such as we have been enjoying all these years,
assuming you are talking about a zygote, and not an unfertilized ovum.
Its life is nipped in the bud.  But it is a biological life.  The life
of a sentient fetus is infinitely more of a life than even this.

> Correct (I did say potential)?  If it is not going to be 
>able to live then you are ending its life before life-- Correct?

>Sheesh.

Talk about ingratitude.  Clifton humors you, and you say "sheesh"
and proceed to lampoon him:

>So then, do you think people should be required to have as many
>children as possible?  Require women to be pregnant for the first time
>by the age of 18?

Peter Nyikos
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:43:09 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32776@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

[If I want to make a practice of torturing cats for fun]
>Then, make sure you move to a community or state where they have not
>enacted protections of animals on the basis that your right to torture
>animals is not outweighed by the right of animals not to be tortured.
>Or, move to a remote location and do as you please.

Do you believe it is in principle wrong for a community or state to
enact such protections?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: To Lost Boy...Re  The thoughts of a fetus
Date: 23 Nov 1992 10:22:23 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov20.005040.8750@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>In article <Nov.19.12.27.06.1992.15494@andromeda.rutgers.edu>, hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:
># I think this is who I'm sending this to... It's in response to your "what 
># really pisses you off about prolifers", or whomever.
># 
># Did you know that the human fetus can dream?  Recent studies have found that
># the human fetus can actually dream!  
># 
># "Think" about it.
>
>Did you know that cattle dream?

Cattle aren't human, of course.  There is that.

Just what evidence of a foetus' sentience _would_ you accept?  

>Pass the horseradish.

Get it yourself :-)

>| J H Woodyatt              
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION AND THE 5-WEEK LIMIT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:03:46 GMT

In <1992Nov8.233052.18819@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720712272@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>}In <1992Oct30.130948.10139@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>}>                     No "pro-life" type has yet provided any examples
>}>or statistics that legislation of any type would bring about the
>}>changes they seem to desire.
>}
>}Because the idea of a 5-week limit is totally untested.  

>Uh, you might want to read that again.  I said that there have been no
>statistics concerning legislation of any type.  I suppose that neither
>the 4.999999-week limit nor the 5.00001-week limits have been tested as
>well.  Peter, you even quote what I wrote before you responded to it!
>Do you have trouble reading or just an extremely short attention span?

The *idea* has not been tested, nor the idea of anything below 12 weeks.
Must I spell everything out?

>}On the other
>}hand, LOTS of countries have a 12-week limit [again with exceptions
>}similar to the ones I would grant after week 5] and that seems to
>}have worked quite well.  

>Where legislation has brought about desired change as opposed to no
>legislation?  Since there are "LOTS" of countries that have tried this
>I should assume you'd have no trouble offering some stats, but you,
>continuing a trend, do not.  Sigh.

Hey, don't go away.  I wasn't sure you were interested in pursuing this
line of thought.  An example: Hungary had one of the most liberal 
abortion laws in the world once, and births were outnumbered by abortions
at one point.  They introduced a 12-week limit and that seems to have
worked out well.  I don't have stats with me now, but perhaps some other
reader can find them easily.

Stats may be somewhat beside the point, except stats on how much the law
is flouted.  I think rarely, because some recent Hungarian immigrants
had trouble believing that abortion is available here for any reason
all the way up to viability.  And they would have voted for Clinton,
were they citizens.

>[a posting containing stats about Romania and abortion mentioned]

>}I missed that one, and am very curious about it.  I would appreciate
>}a repost, or an e-mailing.

>I don't have it archived, and I can't recall who posted it, but could
>it be reposted or mailed to Peter?

Heather Sims has already done so.  Thanks, Heather.

Peter Ny.
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Date: 23 Nov 1992 13:16:53 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov21.032439.15438@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>From all the evidence I have available, the pregnant
>>>woman is almost always clearly a person while a 12-week fetus isn't.  
>>>I might well be wrong, but I'm less likely to be wrong than one who 
>>>claims sentience for a 5 week embryo.
>>
>>On what basis do you assign these 'likelihoods'?  Up there you said
>>you were guessing.
>
>Well gee.  Lets see.  A woman can actually say whether she wants to be
>pregnant and can even say why.  A 12 week fetus not only cannot do the
>same, but can't even survive outside of the mother.  A 5 week embryo
>doesn't even have the needed equipment to talk.
>
>That's a pretty good start.

Sentience != survival  (I can't survive outside a city)
Sentience != speech    (People don't always talk during their sleep)

Plus, There are lots of things which _I_ am aware of and think about for which 
_you_ have no evidence whatsoever.  As Ms. Bartley says, absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence.

Guess again.

>Ray Fischer                   
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Medical Enforcers? (Was: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:49:02 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
->#I think it will deny abortions in cases of rape and a handful of
->#sex-selection abortions.

->This is the most chilling sentence in this article.  Your lack
->of compassion for rape victims is disgusting.  "I'm sorry, but
->your attempts to deal with this trauma took too long.  A woman
->in Chicago has decided that you must give birth to the rapist's
->child because you didn't meet her coping deadline."  

i thought it was the most chilling sentence in ms.
bartley's article too. 

->I think that your scheme would deny abortions to women who
->aren't wealthy and/or well-connected.

i agree. i think that class-discrimination could have
been inferred from ms bartley's posts last spring but i
don't think too many people were analyzing what her
position was when they were defending it.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmin
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:06:58 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->>> I'm glad you enjoyed my post to soc.singles, Mr. Margolis.
->>> Despite your threatening e-mail to my sysadmin, I shall 
->>> continue to post to soc.singles. 

->> i'd like to see some proof of this allegation, unless
->> it's just another lie, of course.

->Here's the e-mail that Larry Margolis sent to my system
->administrators, forwarded from one of the NCSU sysadmins.  

[included post deleted]

so are you going to apologize to margolis for lying
about him dodie?

Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion