HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:26:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug19.014910.16390@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> Funny, how Planned Parenthood supplies, besides birth control,
> absolutely nothing that would reduce the number of abortion customers
> they can get. Such as:

You're lying.

> 1) Crisis pregnancy assistance:
>  - Planned Parenthood has a negative (read: black hole) record on
>    providing favorable conditions for women to carry babies to term
>    if it proves the least bit convenient.

You're lying.

> 2) Housing:
>  - Poor, money-strapped pro-lifers do more to provide pre and
>    postnatal support (including homes) for pregnant women. PP does
>    no such thing. 

You're lying.

> 3) Alternatives: 
>  - Planned Parenthood? Alternatives to abortion? Do the letters
>    N, O, T and ! (guess which order) have any meaning?  

You're lying.

> 4) Sex Education: 
>  - After the talk about birth control, does PP ever tell the students
>    that abstinence is as EQUAL an option as sex? Once again, the
>    letters N, O, T and ! (and !!!) bear great resemblance here, to the
>    answer to this question. (And no, PatricKKK Harumphrey, I did not
>    assert abstinence > sex. I said that according to PP, abstinence
>    != option worth teaching.) 

You're lying.

> The list goes on and on. 

You're lying.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:26:18 GMT

In article <usglkrx.714260356@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:
>serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>>...If neither the man nor the woman has the
>>emotional or financial ability or desire to raise a child then one must take
>>the only alternative available, DON'T HAVE SEX!  Who gave us the right to
>>have sex regardless of the cost?  
>
>   So, in other words, my husband and I should have been celibate up until
>now (the first 2 years of our marriage), and should remain celibate for the
>next 4 or 5?  We have been taking turns finishing up college degrees, and
>are unable, finacially, to support a child (heck, there are times we can
>barely support *ourselves*).  Maybe it works for some people, but I really
>don't think that 7 years of celibacy would be the best thing for a marriage.

Yeah, but it would be one hell of a great "Seven Year Itch" to scratch... ;-)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on p
X-To: RAY FISCHER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:38:00 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes...
RF> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes ...
RF> >since I'm speaking up, I'd do it just once, and say what I've
RF> >got to say:  I believe the choice is whether to conceive a
RF> >child or not, *not* what to do with the child ("fetus") after
RF> >it is conceived.  You've made your choice before you're
RF> >pregnant.  If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
RF> >end of discussion :-)

RF> You're a sexist because you would punish women for having
RF> sex while avoiding any consequence for yourself.

Actually, I disagree that he is sexist?  Why?  To say that he is sexist, would
imply that he desires different treatment for men and women...  He does not
*just* want to force women to "take responsibility," but indeed, men as well.


RF> You're a hypocrite because you expect other people to live to
RF> standards you are unwilling to adopt for yourself.

Well...I don't know whether that is true or not, but I didn't see any quotes
from him, which indicated that he was unwilling to take responsibility, if he
were to be in that situation himself.


RF> And you're a coward because you're unwilling to support and
RF> defend your comments.

Wait for his reply first, sheesh!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * We pause for station identification...
-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:00:55 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug19.011112.23588@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> I've never quoted you or anyone else out of context.

This is a lie.  You've done so many times.

In article <1992Aug7.015850.14920@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>"Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do it."
> -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention

---------------

> Chris Lyman is a sexist for believing that all women think alike on
> the issue of abortion.

Doug is a liar.  Chris Lyman has never posted anything that would
imply this.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A little known fact...
Summary: ...from a little thinker.
Date: 16 Aug 1992 20:59:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: GOP Busters -- Republicrats out of Houston!

In article <1992Aug16.183005.5309@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <Bt1wD7.E4y@rice.edu> 
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>>>   "The change in Western attitudes to infanticide since Roman times is,
>>>>>    like the doctrine of the sanctity of human life of which it is a part,
>>>>>    a product of Christianity."
>
>>>> Says nothing about Judaism.
>
>>> No, but the other source which you deleted does mention Judaism.
>
>> And they're both from the last half of THIS century -- the trouble is, since
>> you're talking about *early* Judeo-Christian thought, you're missing the
>> mark by, oh, 2000 years or so...
>
>Didn't you notice that the quote is a historical commentary? 

Of course.  Did you notice all you're doing is spinning your wheels?
(You can't prove your assertion any more than you can disprove it.  Now, go
pace and click around Daniels Hall a bit...)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
             The opinions presented herein are *mine*, not Rice's.     
  (Except for this one:  BEAT THE *&^%$#@! OUTTA TEXAS!!! We both share that.)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32284 talk.politics.misc:40382 alt.politics.clinton:2155 alt.politics.bush:1971
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: STOP THE TERRORISTS!!!
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:05:00 GMT
Organization: LLNL


	Read the July/August 1992 _Humanist_; it has a cover story of
how some pro-choice activists defended the Buffalo clinics earlier
this year.

	They would be good people to talk to :-)

	Also, a group like NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action
League.

	Pro-choice people have managed to get legal injunctions
against anti-abortion terrorists in some places.

	I recently read of some such characters going to jail
somewhere in Florida.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A Scott Roby Prank (Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:57:38 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug14.001042.24929@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>> 
>> 	"Dennis Hall" was reportedly sexist and arrogant? I guess that
>> being sexist did not endear him to the abundance of female
>> pro-choicers here.
>> 
>> 	I wonder if us pro-choicers can start a boycott of Steve
>> Chaney, just as we had done of David J. Rasmussen.

I bet we pro-lifers could start a boycott of several folks, starting
with Scott Roby (who started the Dennis Hall prank), Patrick Humphrey
(a serial liar who continued the Dennis Hall prank and who started the
Conrad Vincent prank in order to try and one-up Scott Roby), Mark
Kaufman (a religious extremist hiding behind his pro-abortion,
religion-bashing raving lunacy), Drieux (who is just plain lunatic),
or a number of other folks.  

Two can play that game, you know. 

>> 	Say, what's happened to DJR? I haven't seen him post in an
>> awful long time.
>
>
>The way I heard it from somebody in the know, he simply moved away.

Pat Roby/Humphrey said DJR came looking for him. Maybe; that little
shit-shoveler from Texas (Patrick, that is) talks a lot of heavy crap
on USENET. Perhaps DJR went down to say something to Pat's face that
he dared him to say, like when he dared me...  

>Suzanne.


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Date: 15 Aug 92 22:37:35 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Aug14.004438.7696@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>
>Well, whaddya know, s/he/it's in Berkeley! 
No, actually CJ lives in Palo Alto.
Can't you get anything right?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: There's every reason to vote for Bush
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:17:55 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>the drawbacks of aborting the pregnancy.  I got back a response savaging
>me from this man who does not know me from Adam, calling me a misogynist
>and other things of that sort.  [I don't suppose he's ever seen my
>COERCED ABORTION post of last month.]  Interesting object lesson in
>how flamewars get started.

Gee, you wondered? With the pretty horribly uneducated views you spout,
anyone is pretty much justified in flaming you to bits, if they so choose.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 06:33:23 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: world  

<1992Aug13.160255.25185@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
><1992Aug12.175955.12581@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug12.163616.22514@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
[drivel deleted]
>Top ten reasons why Kodak won't bring back Dan Bredy:
>
...
>4) He joined TSAKC (The Stupid Ass Kneejerks Coalition) looking to be
>   a part of the Catwoman, Kathi and Gordon Storga (etc.) commune, and
>   his wife caught him during her vacation from the family dog house.

Excuse me, little one, but I don't belong to a commune, nor have I 
ever belonged to any group by the name of TSAKC.

Judging by your list I'm sure David Letterman is sleeping quite well.

>Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
>scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...

Oh look!  The little one pretends he is Dan Quayle.  Sure little boy,
everyone calling you names and heaping scorn and derision upon is proof of
your great honor.  <snicker>

BTW, do you still feel honor is very relevent to you?  Or did you forget,
again.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: MoRe on that Ten Commandment thing
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:25:04 GMT

loftis@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Loftis) writes:
] |
] |Technical Trivia Time, AGAIN:
] |
] |if we read the commandment as 'thou shall not kill'
] |then it follows that:
] |
] |1. the Military Must be Disbanded as AntiChristian
] |
] |2. the police Must be disarmed as AntiChristian
] |
] |3. even the Vegans are going to HELL as they kill
] |InnocentVegetativeLifeForms....
] 
] I was not attempting to state that since the 10 commandments thing, that
] abortion should stop.  I was attempting to reply to another post that
] was stating that I would be sent to hell for committing such an act.  

{ This is News???? The FetalIdolators have been hoping that
they can run around Damning Folks to HELL, and hope that this
will make them sound like they are in touch with Christianity... }

] My overall theme is that I had previously stood against abortion.  This
] notion was changed when I saw that situations that it made sense.
] Therefore, I am now pro-choice.  Giving each individual the right to
] choose.
] 
] I hope this clears this up....
 
Kirk,

Well to be honest, it does clear up one point, and that is
your stand on the abortion issue. It does NOT clear up the
above set of Questions. 

For the OldBies from t.a, the debating point is OLD HAT,
and some may remember the great amusement I personally
enjoyed, after warning folks, that their use of some
sembalance of 'Moral AbsoluteIsm' in regards to a 
'literalist' interpretation of that 'commandment' was
going to lead them into certain complications. I was 
then informed that I had a 'wildly spinning moral compass.'

And then the Justice of God brought these persons face to
face with the very problem I had tried to forewarn them
about, as we went into the Persian Gulf War....

Suddenly it was Clear that Massive Air Bombardment,
and the use of 'Daisey Cutters', and FAE's { two
of the munnition systems rated in KiloTonnes,
without Being Nuclear!!!! Talk about Bang for the BUCK! }
were on Their God's Side in the struggle....

And many of us wondered where their 'Moral AbsoluteIsm' in regards to a  
'literalist' interpretation of that 'commandment' had wandered off to...


ciao
drieux

-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ck10322@china.medtronic.com (Cameron Kaszas)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Only God Can Help Us!
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:41:12 GMT
Organization: Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN

>> I`m a Christian, thus pro-life. 

> I'm a Christian, thus pro-choice.

Ooops!  I apologize for this statement (>>).  I realize that Christians
come in all shapes and sizes...  Furthermore, I was not even right
to call myself pro-life, because politically I am not.  However,
it is inconceivable TO ME that it is God's will for any abortion 
to ever take place. But that is just my feeling, I don't think I
have the right to force others to agree and act accordingly.  I would 
not want someone of another religion telling me what I can and can't 
do! 

Now, my problem.  My closest friends, and even my wife, don't like
my "new" views on this matter.   Since I deeply respect these people,
and we stand side by side on most other matters, I am worried that
I have somehow been led astray since stumbling onto this network,
and being exposed to more secular/liberal/radical thought?  

Can any of you pro-life Christians give me some reasons why I
should be politically pro-life?  I believe God does want
us out there doing everything we can to let people know that he created
the z/e/f for a reason, and he will take care of everyone involved,
and that his will is that every z/e/f to be 
carried to term. So you don't have to argue along those lines.
I guess my main question is how does he want us to do this?  Should
it be in our political agenda? 

Cam
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: More data for the FAQ, Please
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 07:13:36 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug7.110330.17026@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) :
>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>] orr@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
>] >Gordon:
>] >Your sig. is disgusting.  You talk of yourself of being the ex-boy toy
>] >of several women.  Did you get their permission before writing that?
>] 
>] Permission????
>] Hell, I _begged_ Gordon to be my ex-boyfriend.
>
>1. Gordon is allowed to be the Ex-Boyfriend of
>anyone he wants, including myself.

I'll take it under advisement. ;-)

>2. Rocker is a CheapHussy who will Be anyone's Ex-PerKin.

Geez!  You mean I didn't have to buy her dinner and take her to the
movies?  Sheesh, I could've saved $12!

>3. Wes is a little slow on the uptake, so folks
>be nice and type those posts slowly....

Wes has already acknowledged he error of his ways.  No need to embarass
the boy further.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:37:58 GMT

In article <Bsz6qn.1yo.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

Posting as Garvin again, eh, Adrienne?

And if I'd have reported Dan Bredy, it would have been mentioned so by
the letter that YOU got from Kodak. I believe that perhaps they saw it
themselves and that Dan Bredy is lying: no one reported it.

Yes! PERHAPS KODAK THEMSELVES SAW HIS ARTICLE AND PULLED HIM OFF !!!

Oh, and yes, Susan, you did get the letter: your address was listed in
the mailing list and I have the letter on hardcopy.

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:01:47 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug15.190117.5666@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> I was expecting what I got: proof, via this thread, that the only
> thing that pro-aborts want, on this net, is a flame war.

What you got was proof that, if you don't act like an asshole, you won't
get *flamed* for acting like an asshole.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to not vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:21:26 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

DH> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
LM> = Larry Margolis writes:
DH> = Earlier Dougie:

DH> Your statement is a gross mischaracterization of those people who
DH> call themselves pro-life.  Many religious people do offer reasoned
DH> arguments about abortion which are not based upon the existence of
DH> God.  In addition, there are many non-religious people who oppose
DH> abortion.

Two responses to this drivel:

(1) I have NEVER heard a well-reasoned anti-abortion argument.  At least
religious fanatics have an excuse.  What's yours, atheist?  

(2) No.  There are very few non-religious people who oppose abortion.

LM> His statement is a generalization, not a gross mischaracterization.
LM> He is being unfair to those who oppose abortion for non-religious
LM> reasons, but there are many, many fanatical fundies on the anti-abortion
LM> side.

DH>Your statement is an appeal to anti-religious bigotry.  

What about all the Marching Morons at anti-abortion clinics, Mr. Fake-Ass
Atheist?  Why have we _NEVER_ heard you complain about their
pro-religious elitism?  Hypocrite.

DH>Focusing solely  
DH>on the religious segment of the pro-life movement is designed to appeal 
DH>to anti-religious bigotry, in the same way that focusing on the color
DH>of a person's skin in a debate about Affirmative Action is an appeal 
DH>to racism.  

Ah, the ol' racism re-surfaces.  (Where's those cloying "mama" .sigs,
"Rasmussen"?)  Even more amazing, you bigotted piglet, is that
your second statement is dead wrong.  Focusing on a person's skin
color WHILE DEBATING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION would seem nearly impossible NOT
to do.  We _have_ Affirmative Action because those white folks running
all the governments and corporations did nothing BUT focus on the color
of a person's skin in the pre-A.A. days.

Thanks for shining a spotlight on the typical rancidness making up the
nuttier pro-lifers personalities, almost without exception.  

"Focusing solely on the religious segment" of pro-life is focusing on the
main reason for anti-abortionism.  Makes you uncomfortable, huh,
atheist?  For example, we sure as hell have never heard any kind of
well-reasoned argument against abortion from you.

Try one right now, if you're capable.
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion