HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- saying hi to Betty)
Subject: Some Park Service Estimates (formerly: The March in D.C.)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.  [and applying member, T S A K C]
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:39:25 GMT

From the Gospel of: <1992Apr07.072555.8447@liebe.uucp>
According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

[ writing to Alison Rebecca Colman ]

>"...never seen so many folks in one place..."
>
>You obviously missed last years Pro-Life march on D.C. where they out-
>numbered the Pro-Death 2:1.  I don't have this years figures (yet).
>
>Kevin Brawley

Okay, let's cut through some of this garbage and reveal some official Park
Service estimates for marches past:

This year's pro-choice march attracted 500,000 people,  An anti-abortion
counter-demonstration drew 200.

This year's anti-abortion march drew 70,000 people.  A pro-choice counter-
demonstration drew over 500. 

Last year's anti-abortion march drew 20,000 people.  There was no counter-
demonstration, but I was part of a small pro-choice contingent (about 20
people), and my favorite moment was a marcher telling us we should be
killed.  I told him that I was impressed by his reverance for life.

The 1989 pro-choice march boasted 300,000.  There was no counter-
demonstration, but there was a small contingent of anti-abortion people,
several from Operation Rescue.

Not that these numbers would mean anything to you Kevin - when antis
outnumber us, you attribute it to America being "pro-life" but when we
outnumber you (which seems to be more typical) you write it off as 
evidence of the degeneration of society.

Nice cake you have there Kevin.  Do you plan to eat it all at once?
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"Birth is an event, not an action taken by the mother."    -- Doug Holtsinger
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: safe contraceptives (was Response to "Bible and Abortion")
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:42:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: shinobu.1992Apr6.164237.2688
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr6.004458.29336@pegasus.com>, Len Howard writes:
|In article <SFRAZIER.92Apr2170709@cs.ulowell.edu> sfrazier@cs.ulowell.edu (Scott Frazier) writes:
|>[...] Personally, I
|>believe that the abortion issue will not be settled until a safe,
|>affordable, reversible, and 100% effective female contraceptive is
|>available.  

|Scott, please excuse me for intruding, but I must submit that a safe,
|affordable, reversible, and >99% effective female contraceptive IS
|available now, and it is just not being used.  Oral contraceptives
|meet close to your criteria. [...]

Safe?  *I* won't use it.  The side effects can be too
extreme.  The increased risk of cancer is not a risk
I'd like to take.  Would *you* accept those side-effects?

Some women can't take the Pill. Those women deserve
better alternatives.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
<attach here the Nicole Hollander "Sylvia" cartoon about 
 the side-effects of the male pill>
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:37:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.204324.2029@csusac.csus.edu> cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.161010.256852@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>Well, Susan, seeing as that you've stumbled into some mis-facts as well,
>you, too, owe me a retraction, seeing as that I am not Steve Chaney. 
>
>I most sincerely hope that you pursue this, so that you may wind up
>having *your* system administator chewing on your hide, in addition to
>the ones here at CSUS. 
Only a total asshole would report someone to their sysadmin for
expressing an opinion.

>I'm really getting bored with this harrassment, because anyone with
>sense knows it's a lie, and with the original harrasser having been
>punished for this, it should serve as a lesson to his followers. 
Hmmm....
Only an idiot would characterize this as harassment.

Fuck off, Chaney.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:04:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr14.014334.28124@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> In <1992Apr13.185951.9661@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
> 
> >In <1992Apr13.170223.10279@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> 
> >     Now hold on a minute. An unborn baby represents 50% of one's lover?
> >I don't know about you, Steve, but the majority of us sexually active
> >folk have lovers who are multi-cellular, and we reproduce by sexual
> >means, not by
> >neatly dividing in two. Did you ever get past the section
> >of your biology text that dealt with amoebas?> 
>    Oh... sorry - I guess I should have remembered what audience I was 
> dealing with. Go read pages 25-88 of your biology text to learn about
> meiosis. 50 % of the genetic material comes from the father. I didn't think
> I'd have to go into details but apparently you don't get biology class
> until grade 10.

Steve, you might be surprised to learn that, because of the difference
between X and Y chromosomes, while 50% of a woman's genetic material
comes from the father and 50% comes from the mother, slightly
more than 50% of a man's genetic material comes from his mother
and slightly less than 50% of his genetic material comes from his
father.


Dean Kaflowitz
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Date: 6 Apr 92 07:13:34 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <92096.222445JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>  Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <1992Apr05.211805.29956@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> <margoli@watson.ibm.com> says:
>
> >Why is everyone looking for / volunteering to be *ex*girlfriends; I
> >need a *current* girlfriend...  :-)
>
> I dunno, Larry.  Can I be your ex-girlfriend? :-)

I don't know - I told you that I had gone out with someone else named Joy.
Is this more Joy than one man can handle?

> Joy Haftel               "But were there ever any
> JKH107@PSUVM                    Writh'd not at passing joy?"
>                                     --Keats

                           Damn - I was going to use that quote.
OK - how about:            "Little Joys refresh us constantly..."  -- Richter

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 19:53:13 GMT

In article <FiXcJB5w164w@bluemoon.rn.com> orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:
>2) Because I concede that child care and the overnight stay problem
>are real.  However the job surity problem is strange.  If I had to
>leave town for a few days I could arrange it with my employer.  I 
>don't understand where one's job would be in jeopardy.

So, just because it isn't a problem for *you*, you can't imagine or
don't know that it can be a problem for someone else?  Some people
just aren't as fortunate as you are, Craig.

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:20:50 GMT
Reply-To: mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Ferrari International

> Ron Bense

>    Since this *desireable* :) ex-girlfriend has this reaction to DJR
>(whoever the hell he is, I missed all his threads, evidently) I vote
>him out, totally hopeless case or not...I'm not in the charity business:)

Mmmmm ... a club of men without girlfriends who *want* girlfriends?
Now this I can't resist ...

So, Dean, are you in on this?

(I personally think that DJR should be excluded on a technicality.
This is a *men's* club, I presume?)  :-)

>So, I'll ask, will you be my *ex-girlfriend*?

I might be your *ex-lover* ... I'm nobody's "girl," and it sounds
more sophisticated.

-- 

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 02:09:53 GMT


In a previous article, cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) says:

>In article <1992Apr12.225456.2931@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, Matthew A. Lewis writes:
>Matthew A. Lewis seems to have only two response
>modes: 1) insults, and 2) violent suggestions.  Hey, 
>Steve Franklin: What do you think of your fellow 
>pro-lifer?  Do you like his methods?
>


not pro-life.....sorry

later 
-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 1 of 2
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 19:25:24 GMT

In article <31248@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>In article <1992Apr07.195721.7883@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <31067@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>
>>>...in answer to my questions, "Even *if* the foetus was identical-bar-location
>>>to a baby...", they still said that they would condone abortion.
>
>>HORSESHIT.
>
>I don't think so Adrienne.  I received at least two replies answering in the
>affirmative.

Tommy, you are either referring to my arguments ("Adrienne's position" as 
you began this particular strain
                                 In which case "two replies" from other 
people mean diddly, since they are obviously not me.

OR

You are referring to other people's arguments ("SOMEONE ELSE'S position"
which is *not* what you wrote)
                               In which case, labeling it "Adrienne's
position" is a little ....   er  ..... "misleading" don't you think?

Who exactly is being dishonest here, bub?

>>LOCATION, dickweed equals WOMAN.
>
>I think you left out a comma...

Tommy,

Trust me.

Out of consideration for the net, and yes indeed, even consideration for
you, I have left out a whole LOT of things.


>Why Adrienne!  That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

I seem to get no credit for the restraint I've shown to date.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: SNOOPER IN THE NET
Summary: Idiot loose at Penn 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:57:50 GMT

In article <73942@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lester Bangs) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.000353.23910@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.202536.21326@hubcap.clemson.edu> conradv@euler.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent) writes:
>>>
>>>
>
>>Funny words, coming from someone who had no qualms about being a third party
>>in something that didn't concern him -- in case your memory's that short,
>>you were the one who apologized to Susan *for* Welch...
>
>No, Patrick.  I am the one who apologized to Susan *for* myself.

No, Kevin...you did that well *after* you sent your little whine to Conrad
so HE could mail it to Susan.  (Why are you responding to something I
aimed at him, anyway?  Thanks for doind your part to prove my point...)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
    *"The opinions expressed by Patrick do not necessarily represent those
             of Rice staff, management, or any living person."*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:21:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.041544.6250@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>           set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>           morals on others. 
>
>If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
>can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 
Nonsense.
I could have premise A: No human should force a woman to carry a
pregnancy to term.
Premise A has several fatal flaws. The first obvious one is that
you should substitute "person" for "human life."

>Premise B: A fetus is a human life, and therefore a fetus should have
>           the right to determine its own set of morals. 
>
>Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life. 
If you make the substitution I suggest, you need to postulate
that a fetus is a person. I won't do so.

>Conclusion: If you support premise A, then it leads to the correctness
>of premise C, which says that abortion is wrong. If you disagree with
>premise A, then you agree that humans can force a woman to carry a
>pregnancy to term.  
Nonsense. Take a course in introductory logic.

The thrust of your basic argument is:
A-->B
~A-->~B.

This is known as the fallacy of the inverse, and is not a logically
proper conclusion.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:03:12 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes to cj:

-> I bet the fetus is a helluva lot more intelligent than you.

i see you know as much about betting as you do about fetuses. i'm
available to gamble with you at any time.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Proforce. Procontrol. A Rose by any other name
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 17:47:25 GMT

In article <92100.112410ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.005107.23864@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>
>>Also inaccurate. "Pro-control" implies control for its own sake,
>>whereas I propose "control", if at all, only as a means to an
>>end - justice. I'm no more "pro-control" than ANYONE who wishes
>>to change ANY law for ANY reason.
>>You may feel free to pin the label "pro-justice man" on me
>>anytime, Linda.
>
>This from a man who has stated that the default position of an
>unwanted pregnancy where a "contract" has not been signed should
>be the woman either aborts or forfeits child support?

She can't "forfeit" what she never had a right to in the first place. Her 
failure-to-abort INCURS a liability, Linda, just as my failure-to-apply-braking 
might incur me liability in an auto accident. Tell me, do you believe in 
civil liability for automobile accidents? Does that make you "pro-control"?

>This from a man who has stated that a man who has abdicated his
>role in birth control still regains the right to dictate to the
>woman her options?

That is a gross distortion of my views. I disown your characterization 
above. Feel free to attempt an honest rewording at your earliest convenience.

>This from a man who has stated that women should not publicly
>identify their attackers?

Also a gross distortion. For one thing, you are adding a gender component 
where I added none.

>This from a man who makes allegations and then does not support them?

I always provide the necessary support for my allegations, or retract them.

>This from a man who feels he can publicly threaten someone with debt
>collectors over an imagined service charge?

It is not for you to determine whether the service charge is "imagined"
or "real". You are not empowered to make that determination. Nor is your
_opinion_ of the legal merits of my claim of any measurable value unless 
you have some formal credentials in Contract Law.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: Plan of action?
Organization: Clark University
Date: 10 APR 92 23:10:14 GMT

Abortions are going to happen, no matter what lawmakers decide.
How do anti-choicers plan to "save the children" of women
who intend to have "illegal" abortions, if RvW is overturned?
I guess continued harassment of doctors is the obvious answer,
although in such a case physicians probably wouldn't be involved
most of the time. What then?
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:31:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
>> = (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>>Cut it out, Chaney.  We're wise to you.  Comprende?

>Chaney? What is this, a practical joke that won't die? 

Indeed you are, Incestor.

>...but to insinuate that I am Chaney [sic] is a gross mistake on your part,
>and you owe me an immediate retraction.  

:-)  Oooh.  I can hear Patrick shaking all the way from Texas.

>And seeing as that the proof is that I am not Chaney, and seeing that
>someone who's tried to imply that I am, has been busted by their
>sysadmin,...

Who would that be, "Dennis"?  (Hee hee)  This jerk ain't _serious_, is
he?

>I advise you to cut this out unless you want to be the next person
>that gets brought down.

BWA-HAHAHAHA...hee hee hee...oh, what a MEAN little boy.  Heh heh.

You wouldn't be a big bad BLOWHARD, wouldja, "Hall"?

>- Dennis Hall

R-r-r-right.  Sure thing.  Uh huh.  Yup.  Oh, hey, *I* believe you,
Insipid <*winkie, wink*>


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@jaynes.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:14:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.203855.28178@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr12.190500.918@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr12.165452.17782@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>>In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) says:
>
>>Yea, sheesh, Gordon.  Just because the Catholic Church "did" the Spanish
>>Inquisition is *NO* reason to go around broadcasting that fact.  Just because
>>the early american settlers slaughtered the American Indian is *NO* reason to
>>say that they actually MURDERED any of them.
>  No - that was not his point. He is not denying that the Inquisition occurred,
>or that it was a malicious waste of life to satisfy the power-hungers of a
>power-minority. Instead he is pointing out that the actions of the past
>when different individuals are concerned cannot give an effective judgement
>of the future.

Except if we wish to make the case that the Catholic Church has made
a horrendous moral faux pas in the past and is very capable of making one
in the future ... ie BIRTH CONTROL, ABORTION, ETC.

>   The suitable logic would be "Just because the early american settlers 
>slaughtered the American Indian is *NO* reason to say that all Americans
>would kill anyone who was an inconvenience to them..." (as they had considered
>the Indians who hindered their goals of plunder and conquering...)

And don't forget that their status on this earth was lower than cattle BECAUSE
19th century Christians believed they were "unGodly". 

>You answer that one for me...
>
>   NO smilies can make up for you erred logic friend...

Erred LOGIC. Hardly. 


anne
From: GB0012@SIUCVMB.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:17:57 GMT

judi at wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein) writes:
-

| From the Gospel of: <1992Apr13.201033.1000noao.edu>
-          ^^^^^^
Forgach, thank God, *doesn't* speak for Christianity.
-
| According to:       forgacnoao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
-
| >>> = Joy Haftel
| >>  = Alison Rebecca Colman
| >    = Suzanne Forgach
-
| >>>I think it is better to be alive.
-
| >> How do you know?
-
| >Because the fact that we're ALL going to die someday is just that - A FACT.
...]
| >Therefore, if you die or are killed _young_, you definitely DO LOSE
something -
| >namely the rest of your natural life that would otherwise have been yours.
-
Gee, Suzanne.  I suppose that not even the Kingdom of Heaven can comfort
you for the loss of this 'natural life' that would have been 'yours'.
-
You can't play it both ways.  A standard ration of life is somehow 'yours'
by right, but control of your body is not?
-
Or are both subject to the will of God?
-
Believe it or not, Suzanne, you belong to a faith that defines this life on
earth as a pilgrimage and preparation for being with God afterwards.  You
are expected to do your moral best with whatever is sent to you;  but you
aren't supposed to whine because the train ride's too short.
-
for
the fetus] to be alive' -- clearly it is not, unless you believe in an
afterlife which penalizes the inexperienced and sinless.  Can you guess
what it is?
-
Suzanne Lucia.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Adobe
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:23:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.155823.21769@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.013917.279@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>here we go:
>>A large portion of women who have abortions are promiscuous and/or
>>sleep around and/or are sluts. You're in college. Look around you.
>>Why is it that every relationship has to have sex????? I'm not
>>against sex in relationships, but if you have it in every one
>>(whether that be 2 or 100), you're a slut.
>
>
>But, it's a *grand* idea to force these sluts, these sleeparounds, these
>promiscuous people to become PARENTS isn't it?  
>
>Parenthood as punishment.  What a wonderful, wholesome, family-strenghtening
>ideal!
>
>Adrienne Regard

 What about all those slutty men they're sleeping with?  What punishment
 should we cook up for them? :-o
   
 Janice Kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.