HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:51:19 GMT

In <1993Jan9.075154.10306@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>In <30DEC92.17224243@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>Once again, consent to sex, with or without using brains, does not equal 
>>>consent to nine months of pregnancy.  
>>
>>Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>>fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.

>Driving = Chancing the possibility of dying.  (Simple biological
>fact.)  Therefore: Consent to driving = consent to dying.

Try again, Ray. Simple substitution (sex -> driving, pregnancy -> death)
shows the parallel conclusion to be

Consent to driving = consent to cahnce of death

which is perfectly true.

>-- 
>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:44:40 GMT

In <1993Jan12.023353.3191@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <markp.726770654@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <1993Jan10.160929.2895@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>In article <markp.726677398@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>>In <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least by my ethics.  Which ethics are you using?
>>>>
>>>>Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards
>>>>get involved in debates over ethical standards? Isn't it either
>>>>pointless or self-contradictory?
>>>>
>>>Because it prevents people like you from imposing your own ethical
>>>standards on the rest of the world.
>>
>>But now YOU'RE holding ME to an absolute ethical standard: "Don't
>>impose your views on others." If ethical standards are, by definition,
>>subjective, then so is the standard you're imposing on me.
>>
>I'm not attempting to impose any standards on you, I am simply
>preventing you from imposing your standards on others. I doubt you're
>bright enough to see the difference.

>>Don't you get it, Mark? Your relativism saws off the branch on which
>>it sits.
>>
>The technical term for what you've just posted is
>"pseudo-philosophical bullshit". 

The technical term for what you've just posted is "trying to
bluster your way out of a corner." Abortion is a matter of ethics,
and ethics is a branch of philosophy. If you can't take the
philosophy, get out of the kitchen!

>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

Mark Pundurs
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54190 talk.politics.misc:66264
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:30:21 GMT

markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>(Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>>(Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of pregnancy by
>>>>   having sex (if you're a woman, of course); but
>>>>B. This in no way weakens your right to your body, or your consequent
>>>>   right to an abortion.
>>>
>>>Try again, Ray. The parallel conclusion here is
>>>
>>>B. This in no way weakens your right to life, or your consequent right to 
>>>   an abortion if your life is imminently imperiled.
>
>>So you're arguing that unless a woman's life is threatened, rape is
>>acceptable?  
>
>No.
>
>>After all, her life isn't necessarily being _imminently_
>>threatened; 
>
>But often, it is.

As is the case with pregnancy.  May a woman therefore act towards the
fetus as she would a rapist?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Followup-To: talk.abortion, misc.test
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.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 02:36:09 GMT

In article <C0KBxJ.10x@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:

[Deletions of irrelevancies]

>My remarks are directed at ideas not people.  
>
You wrote:
"You are a bitter person Muriel."
That doesn't sound like a remark directed at an idea, it sounds like
a remark directed expressly at one individual person.
Are you going to admit this was a personal attack, or are you going to
pull a DODie and continue to lie about it?

--
                  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: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:51:48 GMT

In article <C0IBst.F62@news.cso.uiuc.edu> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
>If you oppose abortion at any time before birth how do you justify
>this usurping of a woman's right to choose ?
>
>If you don't oppose abortion at any time before birth what is the
>fundamental difference between the child/non-child the day before
>and the day after birth ? (if there is no difference then why is it
>OK to terminate before but not after ?)
>
>

This is too easy. Before the mother had only the options to carry to
term, or to abort. As forcing a woman to carry to term is an unjust
invasion of her rights, this is not to be tolerated.

After birth, there is an option, other than killing the baby or
keeping the baby which is available. At NO COST to the mother,
the child can be put up for adoption. No cost in the sense of 
without infringement on her bodily autonomy, as well as in a monetary
sense.

The difference has nothing to do with the fetus/baby itself, but
rather with the options available to the mother.

Robert Johnston



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:50:28 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1993Jan05.065315.27243@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com
(Larry Margolis) wrote:
> 
> In <1378@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >In article <lefty-040193163025@lefty.apple.com> 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.
> 
> Wimmin is sweet.  You ain't.  QED

Me?  Not sweet?

Listen, you troglodyte mouth breather, I'll have you know that I'm as sweet
as the day is long.  And I'll break all the arms and legs of anybody who
says otherwise.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:50:25 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan6.045359.13257@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.070455.20287@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1384@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>
>>>I've never seen Beth Bartley lie about anything on t.a.  I find
>>>her extremely credible.  
>>
>>Do you believe her informed claim that she is "pro-choice"?
>>
>Certainly. She states quite plainly that she is pro-choice early in
>the pregnancy, and in favor of restrictions for late term abortions.
>Given that she doesn't try to lie about or hide her views, I have no
>problem viewing her as pro-choice.

"i think anyone who would ask if someone who openly supports anti-choice
 legislation (and who would go as far as imprisoning women who have abortions) 
 as ms. bartley does is pro-choice is a complete and utter fool."
				James G Keegan Jr, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com
				5 Jan 93 12:48:50 GMT
				<1993Jan5.124850.10173@crd.ge.com>

So now you're a "complete and utter fool", eh, Mark?

I wouldn't take that crap if I were you... 

<snicker>

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:38:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.171307.9379@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu
(JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

[Adrienne's statements removed for brevity. Sorry, A.]

|>In article <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu
|>(JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes;
|>
|>>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
|>>you wind up losing yours.....

>Please Adrienne....
>
>Do notice that I hoped he did not have a serious turn and wind up
>getting hurt. I am very concered [sic] that he not accidentaly [sic]
>cross with the wrong por-lifer [sick!] and wind up getting hurt.I am
>sure this is something that both would wish to avoid.
>Please look closer into my statements and not just be flame happy.

Bullpuckies. You hoped somebody would die. Note the absence of a
negative adverb in the phrase "does take a serious turn" above.

I think I've discovered a small, little known sect that split off
from Mormonism recently, of which J.J. is founder, leader, and sole
member. Worshiping the angel Moronic, he frequently speaks in
tongues and tries unsuccessfully to convert people to the anti-choice
side.

[sincerest apologies to any _real_ Mormons out there--this flame is
directed squarely at J.J.'s anti-choice, pro-violence rear end]

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:34:46 GMT

> = (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>> = (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>|> = 00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:

>|>   How many people are going to DC on the 22 to March for Life?

>>Not me -- I already *have* a life, thankyouverymuch...
>>--PLH, I see enough of *those* yahoos while I'm defending clinics, anyway

>You are so noble Sir Patrick .. You defend clinics against those that wish
>to take a away women's choices...I commend you and here by Knight you Sir
>Pat. 

I agree.  All hail Sir Humphrey the Defender!!

>Ever thought that these "Yahoo's" are just defending life..

Heck no; what a silly thought.  Everyone knows they're just trying to
cram their religious agenda down everyone's throat.  I mean, have you
ever SEEN some of these creeps?  Tossing their own kids in front of
cars?  

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

What a surprise.  Another pro-"life" piece of shit wishing death on a
born human being.  

Jeffrey, you human pustule:  go suck some mucous; but watch out for that
thermometer!


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:22:18 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan7.224312.5846@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):

>> 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.   I hope it drives you crazy.

Aw....  Suzzy, are you jealous of Cinder (Conrad Vincent) and T.
Costello's roles in helping the pro-choicers?

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:09:11 GMT

In article <C0E0rw.6KA@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.133209.20757@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com
> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >Paul Lebow is now answering his own strawman argument.
> >He, curiously, deleted my demonstration of how he is
> >completely wrong in his statement of what Heather's
> >question assumed, and responds instead to his own
> >remarks of what Heather's question assumed.
> >
> Dean Kaflowitz objects to my interpretation of a question posed by Heather, "Do
> you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away rights from
> the pregnant woman?"  I pointed out that the question has an obvious answer:
> one can not.

You spent hundreds of lines avoiding an answer to the question, and
finally grudgingly admit an answer.  A reasonable debater would
answer the question and then address the logical consequences.

> To me, a question with an obvious answer is, by definition,
> rhetorical.  It is a statement rather than a real question.
> There's nothing
> wrong with that, but I feel totally justified in my interpretation.

Isn't that special?  This is really all so much spin-control by
you Mr Lebow.  You originally answered the question by stating
that Heather's question assumed certain conclusions.  I demonstrated
that it did not.  You avoided that discussion entirely, and now
declare victory ("I feel totally justified...").  The fact remains
that your interpretation was incorrect; the assumptions you assigned
to Heather's question were not inherent in the question but instead
were your own inferences.
 
> If the question were, "How will the rights of a the pregnant woman change if
> the unborn is given increased rights?"  I would consider this a meaningful
> question.

So what?
 
> As I said before, I think your reinterpretation of Heather's question and
> invalidation of my inferences to be quite presumptuous.


So sorry, darling.  I consider myself thoroughly chastised.  Last
time I felt this way, I'd forgotten to extend my pinkie whilst
sipping tea at a garden party.  Imagine my mortification.

Well, at least you admit that they were inferences and not
inherent in Heather's question.  It's a start.  I find your
declaration of victory very amusing.  The technique always tickles me.

Dean Kaflowitz

She got a nosejob
She got a nosejob
Her schnozz turns up instead of hanging down
She got a nosejob
She got a nosejob
And now she's the prettiest girl in town.
-From an album put out by Mad magazine about 25 years ago
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: t.a. FAQ (part 3 of 3)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date:  4 Jan 93 15:54:54 GMT

In <1992Dec31.050943.25509@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>-> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>-> >Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>-> >the term of pregnancy.
>-> 
>-> Dougie just can't stop lying about this.  Perhaps 
>-> we should add the refutationof his lies to the FAQ?

I have yet to see a definitive refutation.  Can anyone cite an instance
of a woman who had to give birth because of third trimester restrictions?

If not, I would hardly think Holtsinger is guilty of *lying*, even 
though he may be repeating a false statement.  However, he may allow
for a few exceptions via the loophole "essentially," especially if
the exceptions simply failed to avail themselves of the options open
to them and changed their minds about having an abortion after 
encountering a bit of resistance on their first tries.

>oh dodie lies about everything. peohaps it's just a
>necessary emotional outlet for him. maybe he needs
>that. his therapy seems not to have worked out for him.

geez, and we pro-lifers are regularly flamed for indulging in 
baseless speculation.  Where is Larry Margolis when you really
need him?

BTW perhaps the reason that third specialist in late-term abortions
(Tiller and Hern being two) is such a "mystery man" is that he may
not put any restrictions on reasons for aborting at any time before
birth, and so his identity is revealed only to those whom Tiller
and Hern have rejected as being too blatantly out of line with
their already lax standards.  Can anyone confirm or refute this much?

Peter Nyikos
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:10:10 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan4.180408.23151@hemlock.cray.com>,
by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):
> 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.

Don't forget that the embryonic-to-fetal transition occurs at the
*beginning* of the ninth week of gestation, or the beginning of the
11th week since LMP, which is after 10 weeks since LMP.  That, I'm
sure you'll agree, is not 3 months.  The unnerving thing is that
the writers of the dictionary didn't do the hair-splitting, leaving
it to the contributors to an unmoderated Internet talk group.

> I think we argue gestational age issues a
> lot around here without clarifying which starting point is in
> use.

That's for sure.
--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: does dodie approve of chaneyhall's and suzanne's attack of patrick's wife?
Date: 9 Jan 93 21:48:23 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

In article <1993Jan9.172802.7769@ncsu.edu>
	dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> We haven't yet heard whether James Keegan condones the
-> remarks of a pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-
-> lifers. 

prove it, unless you're just lying again as you so often
have in the past.

since you seem to have defended suzanne's attack of
patrick's wife, do you approve of her tactics?

do you approve of chaney's tactics in attacking
patrick's wife?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Reading Skills...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 10:59:26 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] In article <1993Jan11.090339.14762@wetware.com> 
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] >>      In addition, a number of these laws have been found unconstitu-
] >>    tional.   Others  obviously  would  be, in light of Supreme Court
] >>    rulings. Virtually all the state laws would be subject to consti-
] >>    tutional challenge if used as the basis of prosecution against an
] >>    individual doctor."
] 
] > Note that there is no information as to which of the
] > At LEAST TWO TYPES of laws have been struck down as
] > UnConstitutional, and for what reasoning.
] 
] That is entirely besides the point.  I merely wanted to 
] show that the existence of a law does not mean that it 
] can be enforced without being constitutionally challenged.
 
Does this Mean you have been lying all the time
when you have been ranting about NO LAWS on abortion
since Roe V. Wade????

Even Your Own citation here refutes your previous claims.

Why do you argue with yourself DooDie?

ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"Let's Get Digital, Digital"
	Olivia Newton TheHideousMachOSFKonspirakii
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:26:59 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1993Jan7.194710.935@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu writes:
|From article by cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio):
|||   margoli@watson.IBM.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|||   |Children.  No way in hell would any child of mine be raised Christian.
||Sheesh, Larry.  Marry an atheist.  No way in hell is any child of
||*mine* going to be raised Christian, either.  

|Hey Larry, that sounds to me like a proposal, if ever I heard one.
|Can I be matron of honor?  huh? huh?  Can I?  Can I?
|Or how 'bout best man?

Babe-acious as Larry is, he isn't as babe-acious as my Springing
Lance of Love, especially when Lance wears his leather pants.

||My own Christian 
||childhood is to thank for my vehemence in this matter.
|Then it wasn't Christian in the first place.

One of things I love about Christians is the way they fall all
over themselves to say that this or that self-described Christian
isn't really Christian.  My parents would take issue with you,
Suzanne.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Your sweet little book is a bizarre collection of out-of-context 
quotations, misquotations, misleading quotations, non sequiturs, errors 
of fact and just about every other dirty intellectual trick known
to man." --Tim O'Neill, on the JW's anti-evolution book
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Patrick's Doomed Business Venture 
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:51:23 GMT

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

| --PLH, if I could sell clues to DOD at a nickel a pop, I could
| retire at 38

Nah.  He wouldn't buy them.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion