HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:03:45 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.721969112@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> Since you have so many insults to spare, Lefty, perhaps you could get 
> Mr. Loomis to answer a couple of questions I posed to him a while back.
> Portions of the relevant post follow after my signature below.  I've
> reiterated some of these questions, including in a post with "Loomis"
> in the title, to no avail.

Fight your own battles, Nyikos.  Don't expect me, of all people, to fight
them for you.

In the short time since you blossomed, like some particularly noisome
fungus, onto the net, you have created the unshakeable impression of a
person who, despite his claimed academic qualifications, can neither hold
up his end of a rational debate, nor distinguish fact from innuendo, nor
apparently count beyond five with any degree of reliability.

You make preposterous claims, without benefit of supporting evidence.  When
called on these claims, your response (if you make one) seems to boil down
to "Prove me wrong!"  When someone _does_ go to the effort and prove you
wrong, you news server goes down, or deaf, or mute.

Add to that your complete inability to tender much deserved apologies to
the people you have maligned in various ways with no apparent
justification.  I include in this score Adrienne Regard, Gordon Storga,
Larry Margolis and Susan Garvin.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you are, in fact,
whom you calim to be.  Certainly you've offered no tangible evidence that
you have any grounding in logic or rhetoric.  The worst of your postings,
in fact, argue strenuously against it.  Do you honestly believe that
pro-choicers are blowing up clinics for the insurance money?  Do you expect
_me_ to believe it?

> >Try to improve yourself, Darcy.  You might, against all odds, make it to
> >human in your next life.
> 
> Perhaps you could spare some of your indignation for Mr. Loomis.

Sorry, Mr. Loomis has done nothing to cause any indignation on my part. 
I'm saving as much as I can for Mr. Darcy and yourself.

Mr. Loomis, quite rightly, took issue with your effort to use an individual
case of malfeasance to tar an entire profession.  I believe I posted on
exactly this point a while back, asking you whether you thought that there
might ever have been a case of a mathematics professor raping one of his
students and asking whether you felt we should ban the teaching of
mathematics on this account.

Curiously enough, you never responded.  Perhaps your news server had "gone
deaf".  Or "mute".  Or "blind", for that matter.

Or perhaps _you_ had simply "gone stupid".  Oh, silly me!  You've been
stupid all along, haven't you?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@kimbark.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:34:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.234305.5904@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.215532.7928@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>}In article <1992Nov17.162948.18306@nas.nasa.gov>
>}dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>}>In article <1992Nov17.055146.5262@netcom.com>
>}>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>}>>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
>}>>right of a woman to end the pregnancy? 

>}>No there is not.  At least not legislative. 

>}Truth by Blatant Assertion.

>I take it you have some figures or facts or examples or something, or
>are you proposing Untruth by Wishful Thinking?

I'm not saying Dan's wrong -- see my article in response to him; I
more-or-less agree with him; I'm saying that asserting something
without an explanation (let alone proof) is a very bad way to debate.

-- 
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: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: J. Price's Search for the Holy Clue
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:02:30 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)

>>> I'm not going to punish her she punished herself by getting pregnant.

>> Her husband had sex too.  What equivalent punishment should he bear? 
>> Before you get carried away, your solution of abstinence is unreasonable,
>> unworkable and unenforcable.  You may wish to rant on about this, but most
>> of the world will be unsympathetic and rightfully so, imo.

> Its worked for me... The only reason it doesn't work is because people can't
> control their hormones. Abstinence is not the answer responsiblity is.

I'd be much obliged, Jeff, if you'd answer the question.  Here it is again:

>> Her husband had sex too.  What equivalent punishment should he bear?

A friendly soul emailed me a good response: in some African cultures, the
father-to-be is hung upside-down by his heels for the duration of his wife's
labor.  Considering what a tough time my wife had with her first labor, I
would have accepted that consequence without complaint.  Could you?

>>> So is being new a crime?

>> No, and neither is being clueless, but being clueless sometimes carries 
>> heavy consequences.  There are clues embedded in the responses you are
>> getting from other people, as well as from me.  Don't leave home without
>> them.

> I happen to like being cluless all the same. Besides its fun everyone should
> try but be careful don't let your hormones get you carried away...

Hey, if you're clueless, how would you know what kind of pranks your hormones
are pulling on you?  They could have short-sheeted your bed.  They could be
giving you a hotfoot right now.  I wouldn't be the least surprised if they
stuck a "Kick Me" sign on your back.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power."  -- Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: can someone help Doug Holtsinger's site
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:48:28 GMT


I'm not the only person who is having problems with
doug holtsinger's site....

But Maybe Small Sites like UB.com and Lawrence Livermore Lab
don't really understand the internet?????

ciao
drieux

ps: interesting how these things sorta 'fall apart.'

>>From ub-gate.UB.com!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uucp Sun Nov 15 02:11:03 1992
>>Return-Path: <ub-gate.UB.com!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uucp>
>>Received: by vladimir.wetware.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.1)
>>	id <m0mqgvw-000026C@vladimir.wetware.com>; Sun, 15 Nov 92 02:10 PST
>>Received: by wetware.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.3)
>>	id <m0mqg07-0007pFC@wetware.com>; Sun, 15 Nov 92 01:10 PST
>>Received: from lll-winken.llnl.gov by ub-gate.UB.com (4.1/SMI-4.1[UB-1.8])
>>	id AA28764; Sun, 15 Nov 92 02:06:41 PST
>>Received: by lll-winken.llnl.gov (4.1/LLNL-1.18);
>>	id AA29252; Sun, 15 Nov 92 02:06:39 PST for wetware!drieux@ub-gate.ub.com
>>Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 02:06:39 PST
>>From: ub-gate.UB.com!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uucp
>>Message-Id: <9211151006.AA29252@lll-winken.llnl.gov>
>>Subject: Warning From uucp
>>Apparently-To: ub-gate.UB.com!wetware!drieux
>>Status: R
>>
>>We have been unable to contact machine 'ncsuvx' since you queued your job.
>>
>>	mail ncsuvx!csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu!dsholtsi    (Date 11/08)
>>Attempts will continue for a few more days.
>>
>>	Sincerely,
>>	lll-winken!uucp
>>
>>#############################################
>>##### Data File: ############################
>>>From ub-gate.UB.com!wetware!drieux  Sun Nov  8 14:31:17 1992 remote from lll-winken.llnl.gov
>>Received: by lll-winken.llnl.gov.llnl.gov (smail2.5)
>>	id AA27015; 8 Nov 92 14:31:17 PST (Sun)
>>Received: from wetware.UUCP by ub-gate.UB.com (4.1/SMI-4.1[UB-1.8])
>>	id AA08354; Sun, 8 Nov 92 14:15:16 PST
>>Received: by wetware.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.3)
>>	id <m0moJuw-0007pDC@wetware.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 92 13:11 PST
>>Received: by vladimir.wetware.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.1)
>>	id <m0moKql-000026C@vladimir.wetware.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 92 14:11 PST
>>Message-Id: <m0moKql-000026C@vladimir.wetware.com>
>>Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 14:11 PST
>>From: ub-gate.UB.com!wetware.com!drieux (Drieux)
>>To: csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu!dsholtsi
>>Subject: Re: Stop The World I want to get off....
>>
>>
-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hi Diddle, Diddle, the Cat and the Fiddle,
The Cow Blew Up on the Launching Pad
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:00:11 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Nov9.190651.26177@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov9.174836.9036@netcom.com> 
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
> >>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) asks rocker:
> 
> >>> How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
> >>> before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term 
> >>> abortions?
> 
> >> I've seen very few pro-choicers answer this question. 

I've seen no definition of "good cause", nor any statement of who would be
making the determination of whether a particular "cause" is "good", or how
that determination might be made.

Until I see a better set of definitions here, I would support no
restrictions on a woman's right to decide to end her own pregnancy.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: 21 Nov 1992 03:07:48 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>De Sade, who I have read and who specifically states that he wants what
>he writes to be sexually stimulating, is loaded with rapes of the most
>unbelievably aggravated sort.  So I find the insistence that rape has
>no sexual motivation odd.


Using De Sade to study sexuality is specious at best.

							--  Michal
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48778 alt.abortion.inequity:5201 soc.men:19651
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 20 Nov 1992 08:03:32 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BxzHMB.LvI@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1ebu7hINNchd@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Nov17.180422.14301@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>>>>In article <1eb9ucINNjb0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>>>>People lie.  We all know this.  We *all* know this.  Therefore, relying
>>>>>upon the word of another person is AUTOMATICALLY stupid.  That's where
>>>>>the whole growth of the legal industry sprang from.
>>>>>Now, if you want to be a disingenuous idiot, go ahead.
>>>>
>>>>Life is full of hard choices, isn't it?  But, you know, if the choice
>>>>really was that hard, then yes, I'd rather be a disingenuous idiot,
>>>>than live my life in the manner implied by the above posting.
>>
>>What is so hard about donning a condom to protect yourself?
>
>Perhaps here's the problem:  in the last couple of posts I've seen,
>only the women seem to believe that condoms are highly reliable.
>That's an interesting comment in itself.


don, you are having a hard time getting you own reasoning straight.

IF the woman WANTs a child enough to entrap a man, she isn't about to use
a birth control method, is she?  She isn't about to be thinking that condoms
are 100% reliable, is she?  No.  THAT woman will support completely his
choice NOT to use a condom.

IF the woman DOESN'T want to become pregnant, she very well may use her own
method of birth control -- and will probably tell him so, if he were curious
enough to ask.  And he may trust her birth control to be 'enough', or he
may ACTUALLY engage the gray matter between his ears and figure that ADDITIONAL
birth control is in his best interests, TOO! 

Now, if you are the random man, and you don't know the woman very well,
you are going to have a hard time telling the difference between woman
#1 who says, "Don't worry, honey, I've taken care of it" and woman #2 
who says, "Don't worry, honey, I've taken care of it."

But the result of sexual congress with these two women is likely to be
different in some significant fraction of the cases, right?

So, what is a fellow to do?  A THINKING fellow uses birth control HIMSELF.

It's not foolproof (maybe that's your problem (-:), true.  But it's a 
damned sight better than nothing.

And a fellow  can also push for better research funding of improved methods
which has hit a real slowdown with the religious right making waves.

Or, and this is the important part: he can go off on an unrelated tangent,
an essentially punitive tangent that defeats his own purposes, and get
precisely no where.

Good luck.

Adrienne Regard
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Date: 16 Nov 1992 18:45:02 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov15.060741.21036@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Depends on what one means by "morality". Many people think the province of
>"morality" is restricted to certain sociological areas and/or that the term
>implies pure subjectivity and/or a metaphysical/spiritual foundation. I 

Everything can be said to be pure subjectivity, even science.  Robert M.
Pirsig in his book 'Lila' proposes that _everything_ is morality, also
including science.

>								- Kevin

-- 
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: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: compromise
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.
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 00:31:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.211033.23547@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <By166q.1xD.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>}In article <nyikos.722214039@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>}
>}[text deleted, before and after this paragraph]
>}
>}#You are talking gibberish. I did not remove any attributions [in fact, I
>}                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>}#left in one too many; I've admitted this mistake in a number of posts].  
>
>You know, I've kind of wondered about this.  How do you not remove any
>yet leave in one too many?  Doesn't leaving "in one too many" imply that
>you have removed some?  If one were to claim that one did not remove
>any attributions, wouldn't one naturally claim that they, in fact, should
>have deleted one, rather than saying "I left in one too many"?  

(Psst.  Galen.  It's one of those "set theory" things that us poor souls
without PHoney's PhD wouldn't understand...)

--
=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!!!**********************=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48353 soc.men:19486 soc.women:19810 alt.politics.homosexuality:7326
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:17:34 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <nyikos.721945583@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov10.045329.17021@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>>According to the CDC (March, 1992) the highest rate of new HIV infection
>>is among WHITE MALES, AGES 18-22.  How many more have to become seropositive
>>before you say "enough is enough", Peter?  Oh, let me clarify that.  The
>>highest rate of new HIV infections is among white HETROSEXUAL males, ages
>>18-22.

>Is that so?  And are you comparing the respective population bases?
>Are we talking absolute numbers or per capita rates?

>How much of this could be avoided if people refrained from anal
>intercourse?  In Australia they are not so squeamish about this as
>they are here, and so you will hear the words "anal intercourse" on
>Sunday morning TV, though there will be a warning to parents that the
>material may not be suitable for youngsters.

Peter, the HIV virii don't look around the body and go 'excuse me. I
didn't realize this wasn't an anus' and then die. HIV can enter through
any broken membrane or skin surface. Through itty bitty microtears that
can't be seen with the naked eye. A microtear looks like the Holland Tunnel
to a virus, OK?
 
>Who is "you"?  I never said anything one way or the other about the two
>"middle" grounds you mention, and I am pro-woman.  Have you forgotten
>about the Black woman you wanted to give a bum steer, Sledovatel
>Cochran?

>In my real world there is a nurse whose son got killed because he would
>not acquiesce to gay kidnappers.  In my real world is a man who was
>kidnapped and sodomized and made to commit fellatio at gunpoint by a 
>known homosexual, who said in no uncertain terms that he, the victim, 
>would be killed by him, the kidnapper, regardless of how often he did
>the fellatio or submitted to sodomy.  The kidnapper is free now after
>serving 1 1/2 years in prison, and the victim is alive, and wants to
>stay that way, so neither you, Sledovatel Cochran, nor anyone else in
>this newsgroup will be able to drag any more information about these 
>two incidents from me.

Gee. In my real world the het Green River killer kidnapped and killed about
forty women in and around Seattle, where I was going to graduate school
at the time.

And another het man killed four women one summer in Salem, Oregon. 

Somehow, your focus on the very few attacks committed by gays makes me
think that you are homophobic and anti-female. I'd be more impressed if
you were as upset about all those women killed by heterosexual males.

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:45:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.173850.14175@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1ead9cINN8a5@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>Did you all have the same problem with wave-particle duality?
>>Lemme see.  Light is particle and light is wave.  I cannot reconcile these
>>ideas without throwing out all preconceived notions.  You say wave and
>>I say particle, let's call the whole thing off.
>
>Sigh.  More quantum pseudoscience.
>
>Light acts like a particle sometimes and like a wave sometimes.

Wrong. Light acts like light. Always. "Particle" and "wave" are just our
idealized notions, and in different situations they describe light (or
leptons, mesons, baryons...) with different accuracy.

	Sven
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Let's Play Attributions, Take 3
Summary: Susan Garvin's claims of idiotic misunderstanding on my part examined
Keywords: forgery, tampering with evidence, lying, false accusations, empty
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:30:39 GMT

In Take 2, I included a copy of a post by Susan Garvin in which there are
some strange goings-on in certain attribution lines.  I made no changes
in the text I saved.  I wonder whether Susan can make the same claim about
herself.

In this post, I will repeat some parts of Susan's post, to better compare
it with a later, more complete post that she made.  The excerpts will be
split up to make comparison of the posts easier.  First the "topmatter"
and attribution lines.

Note to the uninitiated: the date of Oct 29 you see below is the date
I saved the post to my files.

	________________________24 Oct post___________________

From talk.abortion Thu Oct 29 11:03:02 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin on Forgery
Followup-To: misc.test
Summary: I think it's wrong, Chaney likes to do it
Keywords: Chaney/Hall, flame, typical
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1992 02:30:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct22.160749.18540@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
	________________End of excerpt from Oct 24 post___________________

I followed up to the above post, pointing out anomalous features.  Susan
followed up to this on November 1, deleting everything in my post.
Here is the "topmatter":
	_____________________Beginning of Nov 1 post______________

From talk.abortion Thu Nov  5 18:27:45 1992
~From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
~Newsgroups: talk.abortion
~Subject: Re: It's a bird, it's a plane, it's...
~Date: 29 Sep 92 15:56:56 GMT
~References: <1992Sep23.012619.28726@csus.edu> <Bv0Grt.9GG.2@cs.cmu.edu> <1992Sep23.160756.8470@wdl.loral.com>
~Sender: news@csus.edu
Organization: California State University Sacramento
~Lines: 56
____________________________end of excerpt____________________________

A feature above that has never been explained to me: certain lines are
preceded by ~ and others are not.  I hope someone can tell me why.

I wonder which of the above set of excerpts is closer to the original
posts.  Susan Garvin claimed on October 24 that she was "deleting only
the text that followed the pertinent lines."  In her November 1 post,
she makes no such sweeping claim, except perhaps where she says,
"The following articles are included in their entirety."  In her 
October 27 post from which I included a fragment above, however, she
said "Here are the two posts from which he [Chaney] claims that I forged
quotes, exactly as they appeared on t.a. (Of course, I changed ">"'s to
"#"'s so that my posting software would accept the message....)".
This October 27 post seems to agree right down the line with the Nov 1
post, with the change of > for #.  In particular, the crucial "Oh, I
love it..." line is preceded by ONE MORE # than the immediately 
preceding attribution.

What is the source of the discrepancies, I wonder?

Peter Nyikos