HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: UM, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 04:55:23 GMT

Rev Doug "I'm a clueless asshole" Holtzinger writes:
>Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:
>
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes: 
>
>>>>> What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?
>
>>>> Self interest.  [...]  neither you nor I will be harmed by an abortion.
>
>>> This is why pro-choicers must condone infanticide.
>
>> They do?  Funny -- my wife and I don't, and we're pro-choice.  I guess
>> that means we don't exist by your "logic" 
>
>No, it means that your beliefs are inconsistent.  But you knew that.
>
No DODie, it means you have no idea what you're babbling about.
As usual...

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Pro-Lifers must condone rape
Date: 25 Dec 92 00:46:07 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Dec22.175326.23496@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Yes, the homeowner has the right to fight off the burglar,
>because the burglar committed an immoral and illegal act.   
>The mere existence of an innocent child in the woman's womb
>is neither immoral nor illegal.  

Let's extend your logic to another case, eh?

Let's see, sex isn't illegal.  So, if a retarded man decides to forcibly
have sex with an unwilling woman, and this man has no clue that he's doing
something wrong, then the woman can't defend herself because the man is
"innocent".  That's brilliant, Holtshead.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<PATRICK.92Dec19090024@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1992Dec22.164641.6234@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<PATRICK.92Dec22124808@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<nyikos.725127273@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:29:07 GMT

In article <nyikos.725127273@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

   In <PATRICK.92Dec22124808@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

   >}It's a TSAKC thing.  You wouldn't understand.

   So, mystify us.  Why keep us outside the maze of trying to find out
   what it is all about when you can lure us in...?

I believe you are already mystified.  And no one is "keeping you
outside the maze of trying to find out".  You are perfectly free to try
all you like.

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"Didn't you hear me say I wasn't going to read God's mind?"
Phyllis Schlafly, (San Francisco Examiner 9/28/92)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:05:33 CST

In article <PATRICK.92Dec28125214@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.020456.16807@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>   In article <1103@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>   >In article <1992Dec23.011900.6792@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>   >>Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:
>   >
>   >Using quotes around that phrase implies that Patrick actually
>   >said that.  
>
>   Not when it's embedded in someone's name. Then it's obviously a nickname
>   which the poster is attempting to attach to the other referenced poster.
>   E.g. Susie "the floozy" Garvin.
>
>...or Kevin "ANYTHING to flame people who dare to disagree with my obviously
>correct views" Darcy, right?  :-)
>
>--PLH, talk about easy...I'm almost ashamed.

I thought that was Kevin "Unicorn Bait" Darcy.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject:  Minor Point on Terrorism
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:49:21 GMT

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
] In article <1gs5tdINN88o@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
] ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
] 
] >It is similar to the difference
] >between being willing to risk your life to defend another, and giving
] >in to terrorist demands.
] 
] No.  Terrorism is illegal.

Minor Technical Point her Beth:

'terrorism' is the 'Freedom Fighting' of the Forces of Darkness
and Ikky Yukky Badness.....

ciao
drieux

ps: I have to go around this in the british/irish, Zionist/PLO
gambits, not to mention discussion about the events of 1775ff.

pps: it is dangerous to be asserting 'Pro_Life' stuff while
itching the detonator of a firebomb.....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52652 alt.abortion.inequity:6113
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: You want to talk about nature?
Date: 22 Dec 1992 07:32:25 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>Ummm... What do you mean? Elaborately decorated abortion sticks were not
>uncommon among so-called primitive people.

Neither was maternal death.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Slavery analogy
Organization: Clark University
Date: 23 DEC 92 17:32:20 GMT

In a previous article, skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:

>I disagree that the analogy is bad.  Though imperfect (as any analogy
>must be), slavery is perhaps one of the best analogies I have seen.  I
>will note some strong similarities.
> 
> 
>    Fetus                                 Slave
>    -----                                 -----
>    Considered by some to be the          Considered by some to be the
>    property of the woman.                property of the slave owner.
> 
>    Denied personhood by some.            Denied personhood by some.**

Fetuses are denied personhood by more than "some".  The US legal system, the 
IRS, and various religions are among the many that do not consider fetuses to 
be person.  Part of the problem is that you can't award the rights of persons 
to a fetus without taking away the woman's rights to freedom and bodily 
autonomy.

>    Abortion abolitionists say            Slavery abolitionists say
>    person.                               person.
> 
>To be sure, there are differences.  For instance, the fetus is inside
>a woman's body; the slave's situation is not analogous.  But those of
>us (myself included) who would leave the abortion choice to
>individuals must ask ourselves whether we would also leave the choice
>to keep slaves to the individual.  
		       ^^^^^^^^^^	
Which individual, the slave or the slave owner?  There are two individuals in 
the case of slavery.  A fetus that lives inside a woman's body is not exactly 
"idividual".
  			
>If our answer differs, we must be
>able to clearly explain why.  Arguing "slaves are people" will not do,
>for it is probable that not everyone agrees.  Certainly such a
>concensus had not been reached at the time of the Emancipation
>Proclamation.

The fact that fetuses are living inside a woman's body is a BIG difference 
between slaves and fetuses.  Leaving a fetus inside a woman subjects her to 
all kinds of health problems and risks.  A slave owner faces no such risks. 

Another important distinction is that a slave may wish to not be a slave.  
Slaves have developed, functioning brains.  Aborted fetuses are not capable of 
having wishes and desires.

>                                       Gregg Skinner

				.... Heather.
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: independent party?  (was: Abortion, Caves, Galen)
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:37:15 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <aidler.725614614@sanjuan>, aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA writes:
|An independent party needs to consider the opinion of
|experts along with the interests of mother and child and 
|evaluate how realistic the woman's desire for an 
|abortion is compared with any reasonable alternatives.

Why?  Why is it the business of any "independent party"?  Why
not allow the woman or the couple (if it exists) to make
decisions about her body?  Have you heard of the concept of a
"right to privacy"?  

Would you like this "independent party" to make other decisions
concerning this woman's body as well?  Say, which birth control
method she should be using, which kinds of treatments she get
for various illnesses, etc.?

Note that no child is involved in abortion.  The woman's
interests are the only interests to consider.  If you feel
otherwise, you have to prove your case.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I would not wish to be hasty in censuring any one; but I always
speak what I think."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:48:21 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>>Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
>>dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
>>
>If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
>I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
>certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
>You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
>difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
>*another persons* body.

Hacking a baby into pieces I think qualifies as attacking another person's
body.

>Try not to post without engaging yoru brain.


>--
>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
>These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
>your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
>Ghost of Elvis. So there.

Edward Simmonds- Sick of ignorance

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Summary: More of the same from PHoney.
Organization: Not until January 11.
	<nyikos.724958170@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:29:07 GMT


In article <nyikos.724958170@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

In <1992Dec16.161647.17734@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:

>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>LM> Note that Adrienne Regard was falsely accused of forgery not that long ago,
>LM> by Peter Nyikos.  Peter edited a post he made in response to Adrienne, and
>LM> got confused by his own editing.  I don't think it unreasonable to point
>LM> out that Adrienne did not, in fact, write all the lines that some idiotic
>                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>LM> piece of software flagged with her initials.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Confused, eh?  I take it even my *second* attempted apology did not make
  it to the boards.  My netserver has finally recovered some of its hearing,
  but my table of contents, aka index [despite lack of alphabetical order]
  does not show it.  It does, however display Part 2 in the MEET GEORGE
  TILLER series, but that's neither here nor there, because it has falsely
  displayed many things as having been posted before, while often failing
  to display things that have been posted.

Sounds like it's operating about as well as you do.  :-)  (If you're that
intent on getting your infinite-loop repeating message out, though, you
should look into alternate means of access.)

  Note that Larry Margolis does not say wherein my "confusion" lay.  He is
  quite willing to let the net go on believing that I still "don't know how
  attributions work," whereas I figured *that* out a week after stumbling
  across USENET.

So that means you accused Adrienne of forgery knowing she hadn't done
any such thing, then.  Figured you'd come clean on that tall tale sooner or
later...:-)

--PLH, the truth outs again...
--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:24:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.064721.18859@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:

>>> Zygote and fetus are medically correct terms.  

>> And 'gravida' is the medically correct term for a 
>> pregnant woman.  

> It is *a* medically correct term, not the only one by any means.

The term 'gravida' is the usual counterpart to the terms 
'fetus' and 'embryo'.  Of course, 'gravida' doesn't have
any emotional appeal, unlike 'pregnant woman'. 

>> The only people with political agendas are those
>> who are inconsistent in their terminology.  You
>> should either stick to 'medically correct' terms,
>> or use the terms 'woman' and 'child'. 

>" Woman" is perfectly correct medically terminology 

Can you show me any textbook on embryology or obstetrics 
which mixes the terms 'woman' and 'fetus', instead of
using the terms 'gravida' and 'fetus'? 

>Mark Cochran


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 02:56:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.013646.17778@wetware.com> 
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Gee, I guess some 'civil libertarians' are too dumb to 
>> recognize a defense of 'free speech'.  The article that
>> I posted mentioned nothing about firebombs or death
>> threats, but it did mention several instances where
>> Operation Rescue had its free speech rights curtailed.

> point of order, there are active OpResKrew members who
> are proud of their convicitons as Bombers. 

Name one 'bombing' that Operation Rescue has either condoned
or endorsed.

> The point brings you to Defend the Actions of the OpResKrew
> IN the Breach, as well as in the Rhetoric.

Nonsense, I can defend Operation Rescue's right to free
speech without holding an opinion on their actions.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Peter & Gordon
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:49:11 GMT

<nyikos.725748973@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Dec30.004116.8052@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><nyikos.725147807@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>><1992Dec22.010745.13877@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>...
>>>I posted "The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 1" just now.  There will
>>>be SEVERAL more parts to this series, unlike the one-post shot against
>>>Gordon Storga, who is turning out to be much less malicious in his 
>>>accusations than Susan.  I've even developed a bit of fondness for him,
>>>as for a wayward child.  And he is the child of his parents, and of the 
>>>universe, as pointed out in the fictional dialogue with Suzanne.  He is 
>>>also a child of the 20th century, of which you will be reading more in
>>>upcoming posts, but y'all will have to wait a while unless bozos like
>>>Novak and Garvin and Mezias and Lefty and Kaflowitz decide to post 
>>>*documented* accusations against me, thereby reducing their number a
>>>hundredfold.
>
>>I'm truly touched by your open admittance of your feelings for me, Uncle
>>Peter.  May I call you Uncle Peter?
>
>Sure, unless there is an SAT-type in-joke involved, like somebody allowing
>others to call him "Uncle" is sufficient reason to flame him for the
>rest of his net.life.

No in-joke I know of...  I'm suffering from the flu right now so it would
be difficult for me to even think of being that subtle for now.

>>Thanks.
>
>You're welcome.

So kind.


Gordon
-- 
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
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:55:37 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <34636@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.033234.4258@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
>
>>      o  "deadly self-defense is generally permissible against rape"
>
>I can't say I know much about this issue.  Are you saying that a woman
>who is being raped cannot use deadly force to stop the attack?

What Kevin wrote doesn't even make sense.  "Deadly self-defense"???
He's trying to avoid saying "deadly *force* is generally permissible
against rape" (which is true everywhere in the US that we know of),
and throwing in "self-defense" because the use of deadly force to
stop a rape might not fall under the umbrella of self-defense.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:21:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.175953.699@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

  > = (Doug "Socially Stunted Liar" Holtsinger) continues to refute Patrick's
   apology:
  >>Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:
  >>> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
  >>>> = (Ray Fischer) writes:

  >>>> Self interest.  [...]  neither you nor I will be harmed by an abortion.

  >>> This is why pro-choicers must condone infanticide.

  >> They do?  Funny -- my wife and I don't, and we're pro-choice.  I guess
  >> that means we don't exist by your "logic" 

  >No, it means that your beliefs are inconsistent.  But you knew that.

  Heh, heh.

  No, it means you try to impose your rather pedestrian views as someone else's
  beliefs.  Christ, everyone knows it, Doug.  Except you.

If nothing else, with him around it's a LOT easier to cast my vote for the
1992 Net.Idiot...:-)


--
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. 

                         You can rn, but you can't hide. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:47:26 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <nyikos.724958170@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec16.161647.17734@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>
>>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>>LM> Note that Adrienne Regard was falsely accused of forgery not that long ago,
>>LM> by Peter Nyikos.  Peter edited a post he made in response to Adrienne, and
>>LM> got confused by his own editing.  I don't think it unreasonable to point
>>LM> out that Adrienne did not, in fact, write all the lines that some idiotic
>>                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>LM> piece of software flagged with her initials.
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Confused, eh?

Yes; I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were confused
rather than motivated by malice when you falsely accused Adrienne.

>I take it even my *second* attempted apology did not make
>it to the boards.

No apology from you to Adrienne has shown up here.

>Note that Larry Margolis does not say wherein my "confusion" lay.

Note that it wasn't relevant to the point I was making in the above post.

>He is quite willing to let the net go on believing that I still "don't know how
>attributions work,"

Note that I *did* post what I gleaned from our email correspondance.  That
your newsserver wasn't working is not my problem, and doesn't justify yet
another false accusation from you.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:01:53 GMT

In <PATRICK.92Dec22203643@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <1089@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>   I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
>   Dr. Tiller?  

>I suspect it'll be nigh unto the same number who have a news server that
>picks the oddest times to misbehave...:-)

OK, Patrick, you're asking for it: I will keep you informed, via e-mail,
of each and every time my netserver misbehaves, and when it ceases 
misbehaving, until you e-mail me the one-word message, "Uncle" :-)

PJN, glad he isn't as suspicious of other people as PLH.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.q
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Thought for the day
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:07:50 GMT

In article <1hkqb6INNj7n@mirror.digex.com> q@access.digex.com (The Omnipotent) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.231358.18006@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>Why not bring it up here?  This newsgroup is dead anyways.
>>Why doesn't somebody send out the rmgroup?  
>
>Because this group is NOT dead, you ignorant toadie.

Kinda reminds me of the "Bring out your dead" scene from _Monty Python and
The Holy Grail_...

"I'm not dead yet!"

<THUMP!>

Heh. If only alt.fan.q could be put out of its pathetic misery so easily...

							- Kevin