HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: MARK-OF-THE-BEA$T bar-code$/scanner$
Summary: Babylon, by UPC bus of course!
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Nov7.054458.15761@scic.intel.com>
Date: 7 Nov 1992 23:33:09 UTC

In article <1992Nov7.054458.15761@scic.intel.com> 
sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley) writes:
>In article <BxBL91.41A@inews.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>'Del Monte Sliced Peach Halves in Light Syrup' is not the same as UPC! Laugh
>>now, but try it when the Great Whore of Bablyon sits on your face!
>I truly hope, for the sake of Mr. Harvey, that his post is a parody of some
>sort....

Oh, now I $ee where you got CONfu$ed. In my oriGINal po$t I $aid, "C'e$t
un Central Ma$$if" when it fact it would be better Engli$h to have $aid, 
"Ma$$if Central", the French pREFERing po$tFIX, of cour$e. N.O.W. my po$t make$
$en$e, right? Good. You know, MANy people $eem to think that rELIgion i$
nothing more than cLEVER marKETIng and Free Ma$on con$piracy gone wrONG,
but I a$$ure you, that i$ far from *THE TRUTH*! *IT* i$ far more HIDEou$ than
that. Look, Free Mason claim they aren't a religion, see what I'm
sayin'? What? Reinhard Gehlen? Nope, never hEARd of him, $orry. Yo X, $he
wa$ your girl? Damn, I had ta drop'er, $he caught on ta pla$tic and I
ju$t couldn't $top'er. You're livin' foul and it ain't yo $tyle. You
$ee, there ain't no rea$on for you to be $keezin', 'cau$e it ain't the
$ea$on. Are you wit' me on this? One-87-thousand G!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Whining and Loosing
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 10 Nov 1992 00:31:08 MST
Organization: Brigham Young University

Marco Westerweel (messiah@nevada.edu) writes:
#In article <92312.140801ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:
#>Source: "The Salt Lake Tribune" Thu. Nov. 5, 1992  p. A16):
#
#>House:     Democrats 259 (60%)  Republicans 175 (40%)  Other 1 (0.002%)
#>Senate:    Democrats  58 (58%)  Republicans  42 (42%)
#>Governors: Democrats  30 (60%)  Republicans  18 (36%)  Independent  2 (4%)
#
#>State Legislature control:
#>          Democrats  35 (70%)  Republicans  14 (28%)  Independent  1 (2%)
#
#All the more reason to have a Republican in the presidency. If the Democrats
were any good at thier jobs they would have worked at trying to get bills
#passed by compromising w/ the Republicans so that at least some of their
#policies would be spared from the veto.
#
#>These numbers reflect the moderacy and political persuasion of the majority
#>of American voters. There is NO place for screwed-up religious fanatics
#>and laissez faire neo-Nazi/Reaganomics in this nation.
#                   ^^^^^^^^
#That's the first time I've ever heard that term used in Reference to a
#Repulican. Care to define in what context it is meant, or is it *PURELY*
#rhetorical? And who are these "religious fanatics" you refer to?
#
#>Casper.    isscck@byu.vm.edu

I'll give you a clue: so long mutants from hell like Dave Duke feel
perfectly fine to run as Republicans, and individuals like Pat
Buchanon would only half-heartedly denounce such characters, I think
the GOP has something to look at.  If the Republicans are smart,
they would dump both Pats and the self-righteous "moral majority"
gang, and choose for moderacy (Kemp/Powell, e.g.).  Perhaps you
have noticed it too: the majority of people care more about
political ideas and competency than about ideology.

#Marco, LV, NV, USA

Casper.    isscck@BYU.vm.edu
From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:34:34 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <g28uTB7w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>1) What is the soul?

Mu!

2) What is the purpose of human life?

Mu!

Bill
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 8 Nov 1992 23:22:35 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

>> >1) What is the soul?
>> The body inhabited by a spirit born of our Heavenly Father.

>Question 1 grade: 50%

>The soul is not a combination of body and spirit. The soul is the
>individual spirit in the body. The body by itself is nonliving matter.
>The soul is the person, whether in or out of the body.

Then how does this soul interact with the body?  You still must resolve
the mind-body problem.

How do other animals fit in here?  They seem to have living bodies, don't
they?  Or do they have sould as well?

>> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
>> To become perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect.

>Question 2 grade: 95% (best yet)
>The purpose of human life is to reestablish our forgotten relationship
>with God. In this way, with God's mercy, we can become perfect.

Perfect?  I thought no one was perfect.  And what is this forgotten
relationship?  Are you saying that humans once had a relationship with
this god thing?

keith

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20498 sci.skeptic:19075 alt.censorship:8612 alt.sex:35052
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: ATTN: Ross Williams--others ignore (was Re: A gender neutral...)
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:43:00 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

I apologize for having to post this to the net...

RW,

I can't seem to get any mail to safb.af.mil to answer your email.  Do you
have any other address I can try?

Jonathan

-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: MARK-OF-THE-BEA$T bar-code$/scanner$
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:30:27 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

I must say that I laughed very hard after reading this, but just in case
the guy's serious... :)

mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

>                           THE "MARK OF THE BEA$T"

>               ALL Christians are PROHIBITED by Revelation 14:9-11 from 
>          cooperating with the "MARK-OF-THE-BEA$T" bar-code, OCR-
>          number, and magnetic-strip scanning systems, (as found in 
>          local libraries, supermarkets, retail establishments, etc.), 
>          which also THREATEN to SUBVERT Individual Privacy and 
>          Freedom. 

No more than putting labels on things.  "Egad!  It's got 'Del Monte
Sliced Peach Halves in Light Syrup' written on it!  It's the devil's
doing I tell you!"


>               The scanners can serve THE SAME CRIMINAL PURPOSE as the 
>          TV cameras in the book "1984"! 

I'm afraid that's technically completely invalid.  A bar code is just a
set of lines that are easy for a simple mechanism to distinguish and
translate into numerical values.  It's similar in many ways to Morse
code.  The idea being that a computer has a very difficult time
distinguishing alphanumerics.  You can think of it as an "alphabet for
computers".  It's impossible to read a bar code that's covered or
otherwise hidden.  Now, if you want to talk about "smartcards" and
other systems that transmit their ID code as a person carrying them
passes through a scanner, those can in fact be used to monitor who's
going where, but not what they're doing, and only if they're wearing
the card.

>               The UPC bar-codes are probably the most blatant form of 
>          the "MARK OF THE BEA$T" so far, with the "NUMBER OF THE 
>          BEA$T", 666, ALREADY CODED INTO THEM.  Each of the so-called 
>          "guard patterns", pairs of thin lines spaced close together 
>          at the beginning, middle, and end of each full-length UPC 
>          bar-code, is IDENTICAL to one of the two codes for a 6. 

Maybe on some codes, but certainly not most.  You forget that these are
human artifacts, and we humans have an undying propensity for jokes.  I
expect that someone thought it would be funny to put "666" into a code,
in much the same way that "42" (most popularly from the HitchHiker's
Guide to the Galaxy) finds its way into such things as .tiff format
headers as the identification string.

>               WARN YOUR FRIENDS!

>               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
>          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 

Yes, we'll be sure to distribute it around the globe so everyone can
write your name into their list of "religious nutcases".

>                                   Robert E. McElwaine
-- 

Wulf                    |Every silver lining has a cloud inside it.
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:50:06 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <76790001@teecs.UUCP> to@teecs.UUCP (Norman To) writes:

>Which god/religion gives us an easiest access to heaven?

Religion doesn't get one to heaven.  Only knowing Jesus will.

"Jesus said, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh unto
 the Father but by me.'"  (John 14:6)
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors/Baasha & Judas
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:07:05 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Nov09.015557.4878@microsoft.com>, bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
|> 
|>   I Kings 16:6,8
|> 	  Baasha, King of Israel. died in the 26th year of Asa's reign over 
|> Judah.
|> 
|>   II Chronicles 16:1
|> 
|>   In the 36th year of Asa's reign, Baasha built a city.
|> 
|> 
|> (pwhite)
|> /	
|> /It sounds to me like there are two guys with the same name. The way it
|> /looks to me is that during the 36th year of Asa's reign, there were at
|> /least 3 guys running around claiming to be king of Israel: Omri,
|> /his son, Asa and the other Baasha.
|> 
|> No.
|> 
|> As the passage says, Asa was king over Judah, NOT over Israel.  There
|> were not three men running around "claiming to be king of Israel".
|> 
|> What you have to do, as I pointed out to you, is find two men in the
|> line of kings of Israel who both are named Baasha, and who both ruled
|> during Asa's reign in Judah.  You have not done so, and the records do
|> not indicate any such situation.
|>
Would you elaborate please? It seems to me as if I've done what you ask
in that the verses above, based on times related to Asa's reign have
different time spans related to men named Baasha, both of whom are 
referred to as king.
|> 
|> 
|> >and how does the Bible answer simple questions on the death of Judas?
|> 
|> /(pwhite)
|> /Already commented about this, can repeat if interest.
|> 
|> I read the comments.  Did you read mine?
I may have missed your comments, would you please repeat them?
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
            His anger lasts only a moment, 
			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:26:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.222949.17885@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>When you tell me that you want me to change the language that I speak,
>my decision not to do so may be based on the fact that someone I care
>a lot about wants me to speak the way I do.

Your speech patterns depend wholly on the whims of a loved one?  Get
help.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20499 alt.atheism:20668
From: RBNMTM@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Biblical support of atheism was Why Did Jesus Lament?
Date: 30 Oct 92 22:06:59 GMT
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

It is a wonderful thing when you only know half the story and base your
Jesus also said "Tear down this temple and I will build it up in three days.
He knew full well he was to meet his death apon entering Jerusalem, see his
reply to Pete.  If he knew he was to meet his death, there has to be another
reason for his lamenting.  I have my OPINION but it is just mine.  Also,
remember that the bible says that he was a man of all passions, he had
emotions just as you or me.  I suggest that you read the Bible more
throughly.  Facts or events are scattered throughout several books and
composing complete ideas are difficult.
I know you know this and I am not trying to insult you but made the mistake
and was trying to help.
Also refering to Islam, I find it unique that they see Jesus only as a man and
ignore HIS many claims to Deity, "if you see me you have seen the Father",
"before Abraham I AM" but do accept the some of the teaching of the Bible.
One discussion I had with a Muslim over the Net accepted the Book of
Revelations.  I do claim some ignorance about Islam and am trying to learn
more.  I do not intend to insult anyone and hope no offenseis taken.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:09:47 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Nov12.162456.17316@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
|agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
|>In article <76790001@teecs.UUCP> to@teecs.UUCP (Norman To) writes:
|>
|>>Which god/religion gives us an easiest access to heaven?
|>
|>Religion doesn't get one to heaven.  Only knowing Jesus will.
|
|Aww, shucks, then anybody who lived before 0 A.D. after about 30 A.D.
|has no chance of getting into heaven?
|
|Doesn't matter to me.  I'm already in heaven -- heaven on Earth!  If
|you want to see what the Christian realization of the "perfect world"
|might be, read _The Handmaid's Tale_ by Margaret Atwood.  Then try to
|tell me that what we have today _isn't_ heaven.

Is every one in heaven here on earth today?  Or is it just some
or is it just you?????

There seems to be a lot of pain, for it to be heaven now.  Maybe
you don't see the physical world as real??  

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc,rec.scouting,talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: SeXularHumanism Corrupting the Boy Scouts?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:01:40 GMT

kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
] 
] 2) Scouting organizations in the Far East have made references to
]    "God" optional. (Similarly, when BP set up scouting, scouts
]    promised to do their duty to the King; in the U.S. this promose
]    was, of course, dropped.)
] 
] - Carl
] -- 
] Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


I am JUST SHOCKED to hear that the American Faction of the Boy Scout
Movement has SO POLLUTED the Boy Scout Standards as to delete
the promise to do their duty to the King!

Just Becasue some have been Lead Astray to believe that
WAR AGAINST GOD's ONE TRUE VICAR on the Throne Of England
some how excuses things..... IS NO EXCUSE for them to
Corrupt the MORALS of YOUNG PEOPLE into believing that
this Abomination and Violation of Rom 13:1 is Justifiable!!!!!


Why If they No Longer Pledge their Duty to the King!

What Next?

ciao
drieux

ps: some day we can end this ABOMINATION before God
and return to our proper place as a Crown Colony!!!!


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:05:25 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-061192224827@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
|In article <73887@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
|Pitts) wrote:
|> Good point.  The Christian approach does not meritted high intellect
|> else all would not be able to gain membership.  That is not to
|> say intellect is to be despised, but I would say that it can keep
|> the focus on your ability (i.e., man's ability, in general) and
|> so keep you from focusing on God's ability.
|
|I agree that a meaningfule universal religion would be understandable
|for someone in Borneo as well. This is the reason I don't know why
|Christianity needs usually 4-10 years of intensive training 
|(speaking about my Lutheran background).

We are encouraged to study to show ourselves approved - rightly
handling the word of truth.  However, I personally don't think
that college type training is required for one to be a teacher/preacher,
if this is what you are talking about.  However, one is to study
and an academic environment is a good place to attempt to do this.
We (Christians) must remember that the Holy Spirit is our teacher
and he guides us in all truth.  One should rely upon one's academic
background in their ministry, but one should rely the Holy Spirit and 
continue to learn as he teaches and leads us.  [Some groups practically
require college degrees and these have their worth in that one is
said to have studied, but one can and should study apart from that, too.]

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: RBNXHS%ROHVM1.BITNET@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu
Subject: BITNET mail follows
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:05:00 GMT

Subject:      Re: The Song of Solomon (VERY LONG, But Very Much Worth Reading

This is in response to noring@netcom.com's question on Song of Solomon:

Jon, You asked as to whether Muslims consider the book of Song of Songs (songs
of Solomon) to be divinely inspired or not. We, Muslims, don't have any idea
as to its authenticity, nor to its ever being revealed to Solomon.

Solomon (Sulayman) alaihe was-salam (AWS), the son of David (Dawud) (AWS), is
considered to be a prophet of God. Some prophets received heavenly books as
revelations (from God). The major such heavenly books are: The Taurat given
to Moses (Musa) (AWS), Jabur to Dawud (AWS), Injil to Jesus (Eesa) - the son
of Maryam (Mary), and The Qur'an to Muhammad (SAWS) - the last Prophet of God
for humanity. As I mentioned, there were other books which were also sent to
other prophets of God, including:Abraham (Ibrahim), Enoch (Idris) (AWS);
we, however, don't know the names of these books; in the Qur'an these are
simply mentioned as sahufa (or sahifa), something like booklets of Prophets.
Muslims, however, do consider the present form of the Bible to have been
contaminated by additions, deletions and copying errors. As such, despite the
fact that Torah, Psalms and Gospels were revealed to Moses, David and Jesus,
respectively, we cannot pinpoint how much of the present Bible retained those
revealed messages, and how much got corrupted. That is why, we don't consider
the present text of the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. Biblical scholars
also believe that most of the books of the Bible to be pseudopigraphic, and
these are based on translated (or interpreted) versions from the original
tongues in which they were originally revealed, e.g., Hebrew and/or Aramaic
(not Septuagint - from which the present text is translated into). To Muslims,
therefore, Bible simply does not merit any reverence. The only book that we
consider to be the inerrant Book of God, retained in its textual purity in
the original tongue since the very day the messages were revealed to Muhammad
(SAWS), is the QUR'AN.

I hope that this has clarified your question as to how Muslims feel about the
Songs of Solomon. As a reader of the Bible myself, I have always thought of
the Songs as spiritual, beyond the material passions, as otherwise reflected
throughout.
- Siddiqui.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:03:32 GMT

In <Bx9J8z.5F1@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>In article <72646@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>
>>Jer 1:5   "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you
>>      were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to
>>      the nations."
>>
>>The passage talks about God's foreknowledge - and how he had 
>>selected Jerimiah BEFORE HE WAS BORN and BEFORE HE FORMED HIM.
>>The point is that if God looks upon a person before he was
>>born and before he was born as a person to do great works for
>>Him, then how can one say the unborn person has NO worth.  God
>>had already planned for Jerimiah to do many things.

>So Jeremiah was known by God before he was formed, i.e., before 
>conception.

Not i.e.

I have posted on this recently, in follow-ups.
Very briefly, ancient and mediaeval
writers spoke of the distinction between the formed and unformed
fetus.  The Qur'an speaks in several places of the unformed z/e/f as a
"clot", while the Hebrews speak of it as a "golem".

>  So:

>	**EITHER**

>Jeremiah's conception and his birth were pre-ordained 
>and there was no choice for either the sex partners that concieved 
>him and for the mother that gave him birth, 

>	**OR**

>all sexual partners do have a choice to have sex or not and all 
>mothers do have a choice whether to give birth or not and the soul 
>of Jeremiah was "installed" in the first appropriate (and wanted) 
>conception to occur.

You are building on a false premise, IMHO.  If your premise were true,
it would make sense to discuss these matters, but I think you are in
violation of Occam's Razor.

>BOTTOMLINE:
>I don't see how the special case of Jeremiah (set apart) advances the 
>cause of either side of the abortion debate anymore than a discussion of 
>Mary's special case of conception would further the cause of either 
>side of the birth-control debate.

On the other hand, if my interpretation is correct, it makes all the
difference in the world.

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20425 sci.skeptic:19012
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:09:15 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

In article <1992Nov3.190918.8182@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.041300.25164@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
[Clayton says homosexuals 4 to 13 times more likely to be child molesters]
>>References please. The APA has repeatedly denied these claims, and
>>sexual abuse clinicians have repeatedly stated that it is primarily
>>*close*family*members*, 95% of which are heterosexuals, which
>>abuse children. The above is quite simply, a lie.

>Not to defend Clayton, but these statements don't contradict.  P(A given B)
>and P(A and B) don't have to be anywhere near each other.

I think you mean P(A given B) and P(B given A): "the probability that a
given child molester is queer" and "that a given queer person is a
child molester".  You have to posit a very small number of queers
before Clayton's assertion makes any sense. Given that the Right assert
the existence of vast floods of us poised to corrupt society, they
can't have this claim as well.
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc