HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:44:52 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->>->Jim accused CJ publicly of lying. That made it public.

->>you're lying, rescorla. cj accused me of asking support
->>from a private mailing list. that made it public. my
->>subsequent calling her a liar for lying simply
->>continued that which cj had already begun.

->Jim, you seem to have a somewhat itchy trigger finger in accusing
->people of lying. Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary.

"Jim accused CJ publicly of lying. That made it
public." is this statement true, rescorla? no, it is
not, as you agree below. did you know it was not true
when you posted it? yes you did. you were lying.

->I will agree with you, however, that CJ accusing you of asking you
->for support made it public. 

you really don't have much choice, unless you
perpetuate your lie.

->Nevertheless, the flap had long died down.
->It was your choice to bring it up again in a public forum.

i have no comment on these last two remarks. i left
them in only for the enjoyment of my lurker fans who
seem to be chortling over the label of "Darcy, Jr."
which one of them came up with for you.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42554 talk.politics.guns:22120 alt.conspiracy:11265 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5351 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6833
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:43:24 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Oct13.214900.18471@advtech.uswest.com> mgooley@advtech.uswest.com (Mark. Gooley) writes:
>Please remove talk.bizarre from the Newsgroups: line when following up
>threads like this one.  Thank you very much.

I do believe this is a first in net.history.

							spl


-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Twit twit twit/Jug jug jug jug jug jug/So rudely forc'd./Tereu"
                - T. S. Eliot, "The Waste Land," III. The Fire Sermon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:14:22 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <92280.165319DANW@wuvmd.wustl.edu>, dan <DANW@WUVMD> writes:
> ONe thing that I have always held to is that I don't have _any_ right
> to be pro-choice or pr-abortion.   Since I will never get pregnent
> I will never be put into the position of having to decide one way or
> the other. 

What if your wife is pregnant, and she is wondering whether she should
abort or not (for whatever reason you can think of)?  What if she
values your opinion, and looks to you for advice or consolation?
Are you just going to tell her "Sorry babe I don't have to decide
for you, you're on your own"?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:13:15 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Village Waterbed
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Oct15.213018.10535@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
..In article <1992Oct10.232122.13523@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
..>Ok, Simon, let's get to the "extreme" circumstances.  If my Aunt Ann
..>gets pregnant and tries to carry to term, she *WILL* have her spinal
..>column snap, and wind up being paralyzed and in a wheelchair for the
..>rest of her life.
..>
..>She's on the pill.  Ed (her husband) uses a condom every time they
..>have sex.  They don't want to go in for steralization on the hopes
..>that they will come up with some sort of precedure that will fix
..>Ann's back, in which case they'd love to have another child.
..>
..>She gets pregnant.
..>
..>Would you let her have an abortion?
..>
..>Why should she have to ask you?

>I thought I already answered this-

Nope.

>In this case, everything possible should be done to ensure both the
>safety of the mother and the unborn child, however, if all other
>measures are exausted, abortion might be necessary, but only as an
>absolute last resort.

Just wondering - is that "last resort" before or after she's paralyzed?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Not a flame
Summary: Trying to keep my flamethrower turned off...  
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:35:12 GMT

In article <1asgclINNeee@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BvpJJ8.A5p@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.000647.26246@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>>>I'm not stretching, and I found it to be a reprehensible remark
>>>>not even worth a reply.  
>>As for Adrienne Regard, she wrote, *without* a smiley-face (the usual
>>indicator of humor):
>>    Who's "we", white man?
>
>I didn't use a smiley because in the context of some fellow telling me
>what *he* figures *we* should do about some OTHER PERSONS pregnancy, the
>comment *isn't* a joke.  I'm not joshing with people who would remove 
>from a woman they don't even know the right to make personal decisions.
>
>Maybe that's hateful, I dunno.

Your point that "he" does not mean "you" may be correct. That's not
hate.

HOWEVER, referring to someone as "white man" is inappropriate,
unnecessary, and without a smiley, especially from one as experienced
as you, indicates that you are just as gender AND race insensitive as
any homophobe or Patrick Humphrey out there who blurts "fat black ass"
to an African American. 

So we'll call you racially and gender insensitive. In other words,
ignorant.


=============================================================================
>Who's "we", white man?
	- Adrienne Regard
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: katy@clipper.ingr.com (Katy Yanda)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Summary: Gate-crashing, not invitation.....
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:03:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <9507@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
{stuff deleted for even briefer brevity}
> 
> 
> You still have to get past the fact that except in cases of rape or
> incest, you are dealing with an invited guest.
> 
> -- 
> Mark
> My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
> Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

" I don't think so, MARK!!!!"

Katy

Note: This is posted during a very short period of time while I am
in between "hot" projects. I don't know when I will be able to post,
or even read...though I will try to keep up.

Note #2: I get cranky when I don't get my daily ration of Drieuxisms!
-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 3
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:08:29 GMT

note followup

jason@hal.eel.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes ...
>>>  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
>>   What a convenient definition - but one that you pulled out of
>>   your butt.
>
>In some states, CA (I think), it is considered murder if an assailant (sp?)
>hurts a pregnant mother and consequently kills the unborn child.  Does not
>that seem like a double standard when you consider abortion is not a crime?

Although I have heard of a few people charged (briefly) with this
crime, I don't believe anyone has ever been convicted or tried.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:31:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.123753.24018@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.191811.17688@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>The election isn't between Bush and someone better, it is between Bush
>>and Clinton, who may, or may not, be better.  (Of course, there is the
>>rich dwarf and the ignored candidates, but they don't stand a chance
>>in the House and won't win outright.  Clinton can win outright or in
>>the House and Bush can win outright.)
>
>Ah, but if it goes to the House, then the winner (BC most probably)
>can not say he has a "mandate from the people" to pursue his
>agenda.

So?  The "president's mandate" is relevant only when he disagrees with
Congress.  Clinton has promised that he will agree with Congress more
than Bush has, so a lack of presidential mandate won't matter at all
if he's elected.  The Democrats in Congress will have their mandate by
virtue of their majority.

>This may well make some Congresscritters a bit nervous
>about backing any radical new changes.

Not at all.  They've got their mandate and they'll feel quite
comfortable acting on it.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:47:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.044307.28561@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.145154.4804@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.064548.23641@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>Ok folks, read this carefully: I am not promoting some sort of Orwellian
>>>"sex police", I am merely asking what's wrong with a little responsibility??
>>This begs the question that protected sex followed by abortion as a backup
>>procedure is irresponsible behavior. I do not believe this to be the case.
>>If you are going to assert that it is, you should argue for it it.
>>
>>-Ekr
>
>What I was saying is that abstinence would obviously prevent unwanted
>pregnancy, while protected sex would greatly reduce the risk.
>Theorectically, responsible behavior would greatly reduce the need for
>an abortion.
>
>Simon

Hey, Simon....
Are you insinuating that the great majority of abortions occur when the
couple have not used contraception at all?

Just asking...

Jennifer>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:33:17 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
after agreeing that cj's false accusation about me had
not been supported, eric writes:
->>->Similarly, you have failed to show
->>->that she was lying. You should retract that claim.
->>
->>nonsense. cj admitted she lied about suzanne lucia.
->>the only issue remaining is her long-awaited retraction
->>which cj offered to post but did not.
->I don't remember CJ admitting that she lied about Suzanne Lucia.
->Please post where she did this.

no. you responded to it earlier today. for me to repost
it again with a 24-hour span would further damage your
credibility, if you have any left. i see no need to
further damage a corpse.

->>->You sent a piece of mail to the list with the header "please post
->>->your comments." CJ, rightly or wrongly, interpreted that as
->>->an appeal for help. The fact that you AGREED with her in email
->>->shows quite clearly that it WAS reasonable for her to interpret
->>->your mail to the list in that fashion. It is insane to maintain
->>->otherwise.
->>
->>i realize how difficult this must be for you. you have
->>done yeoman's work trying to defend cj.
->Are you a mindreader, Jim?
->How would you know how difficult this is for me?

i don't. so i'll retract that. i mistakenly assumed
that you's have some interest in patching up your fake
persona of an intellectually (or otherwise) honest
person. sorry.

->Your assertion that CJ lied when she accused you of asking
->for support from the list, is, simply ludicrous.

no. it is not. cj made an assertion which you have
already admitted she did not support. nor has she
withdrawn it. it is quite reasonable for me to call her
a liar for lying.

->Jim, you admitted that you had asked for support from the list.

and i had also stated that my admission was an error,
but you knew that before you desperately clutched at
it.

->For you to call CJ a liar for saying something that you said
->yourself is nothing short of inane.

for you to post this at this stage of the game is, imo,
more destructive of your credibility than anything i
might respond.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:50:23 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct15.025743.16871@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> But a fetus isn't part of a woman's body.  There are two
> bodies involved.  

Hey, Doug!  Can you take your finger and point at the fetus' body?  No? 
Why not?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:07:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.205628.14654@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#                  ... just as a person who believes that
# there should be no restrictions on contraceptives (which I
# believe) is pro-contraception.  

You oppose restrictions on contraception?

You must be as annoyed as I am that RU-486, which was just recently
discovered to be an excellent contraceptive, is still banned in the
United States.

Now's your chance to stand up and be counted, Mr. Holtsinger.  Are you
against lifting the ban on RU-486?

Yes or no.


(Considering the luck this net has had with him answering yes or no
questions put to him, I'll be shocked if Mr. Holtsinger gives up a
clear answer.)

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 07:23:03 GMT

In article <92282.192645ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>
>in article <1b265mINNlka@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj silverio writes:
>>In article <mpsz7r=@rpi.edu>, keegan@acm.rpi.edu writes:
>
>>> you disgust me.
>>
>>Let the galled jade wince.
>
>As you should my dear.
>
>>I refuted Keegan's allegations at Eric Rescorla's request.
>
>My, my, is Ms. Silverio now doing Rescorla's "dirty work".
>
>You refuted nothing.
>
>You have shown that you knew your allegation against
>Suzanne Lucia was false. 

Correction: at worst, CJ has failed to demonstrate that her statement was
true. That's not the same thing as demonstrating that it was in fact false, 
nor is it NEARLY the same thing as demonstrating that CJ knew it was false 
when she made it.

>It was Keegan who showed your allegation against
>him was false.  

Keegan has done nothing except whine "prove it!". He hasn't "shown"
jack-shit except his inability to deal with people on an adult level.

>>"She knew not how to reconcile two such very different accounts of the
>>same thing; for she had not been brought up [...] to know to how many
>>idle assertions and impudent falsehoods the excess of vanity will
>>lead." --Jane Austen
>
>Jane Austen  was a woman of honesty and integrity.
>She would have admitted to an honest mistake.  She
>would never have continued to perpetuate a falsehood.
>Ms. Silverio does this honourable woman a disservice.

If there's one thing that REALLY gets under my skin, it's idolatry...

Let me inform you of something, Ms. Birmingham -- Jane Austen was a HUMAN 
BEING. Like ordinary living human beings, she sweated, flatulated, excreted; 
hell, she may have even masturbated once in a while. If you think that invoking
her name imbues your position with some sort of TruthHonestyandNobility, think 
again. Jane Austen is not a goddess, she was just an author, and until the 
lady herself appears to me in a vision, and declares unequivocally that she 
supports your version of the facts in this "mailing list" flap, I'll consider 
her neutral on the point. About the only thing your invocation does is 
underscore how much you're desperately scratching and scrambling to try and 
muster up some badly-needed credibility. Please abandon your attempts to 
embroil dead literati in your squalid little spats.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:15:09 GMT

Bruce Varney (varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
: 
: 	But not there. Please take out your Webster's unabridged
: dictionary. Good. Now write out the full definition of child there
: for me. Here - in case you don't have one:
: 
: child or childe \'chi-(*)ld\ \'chil-dr*n, -d*rn also 'chu.l-\ \'chi-(*)ld\ 
:    \'chi-(*)l-(d)l*s\ n or chil.dren [ME, fr. OE cild; akin to Goth kilthei 
:    womb, Skt jathara belly] pl  1a: an unborn or recently born person dial  
:    1b: a female infant 2a: a young person of either sex esp. between infancy 
:    and youth 2b: a childlike or childish person 2c: a person not yet of age 
:    usu  archaic  3: a youth of noble birth 4a: a son or daughter of human 
:    parents 4b: DESCENDANT 5: one strongly influenced by another or by a place 
:    or state of affairs 6: PRODUCT, RESULT : PREGNANT - child.less aj
: 
: Now, look closely at definition 1a. See the second word? u-n-b-o-r-n. 
: Good. Try to think before you post next time. This is about the 10th time
: I have had to post this definition for IDIOTIC FUCKHEADS WHO LIKE TO 
: LIE ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD CHILD.
: 
: >There.  Now repeat this 100 times.  Every statement there is absolutely TRUE.
: 
: 	Every statement was not true (as I pointed out).
: 
: 		Bruce


Just one question:

Who appointed the editors of the Webster's unabridged dictionary the
final authority on the meaning of any english word?  

My Answer:
I would be willing to bet that they are just people like you and I,
trying to muddle through their jobs doing the best they can.  

I think that like most words "child" has almost as many shades of meaning 
as there are people who recognize the word.  The meaning of any word
depends on the personality and prejudices of the person using it and
understanding it.  

For you the above definition might be correct, for me it is not.

Dave S.
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis
Date:         Tue, 06 Oct 92 16:53:26 CST
From:         dan <DANW@WUVMD>
To:           NETNEWS@WUVMD
Subject:      Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Newsgroups:   talk.abortion

>
>In article <6803@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael
>Stroucken) says:
>>
I normally avoid strings like this.  I normally avoid the abortion
issue entirely.  But...

>Let's see if I can get this into your little head.
>        ABORTION IS MURDER
>        FETUSES ARE HUMAN CHILDREN
>
both of these statements are only true so far as the "pro-lifers"
want them to be.   Legally neither statement is true, AT THIS TIME.
(note that fetuses _will_ be human children).  If you think either
of these statements is true, tell me when the ruling was.

>I suggest you go to your nearest fucking abortion clinic, and take a look at
>what goes on behind the illusionary scenery of safe abortion. Take a look
>at the bloody pulp that was a child go through the suction hose. Take a look
>at the buckets of baby parts, skin eaten off, limbs ripped off. LOOK INTO

I've been to the clinics before.   Its not a pretty site I agree.
I have also been to the slums to see children (those not aborted)
with bloody pulp (from violence of several types), children with
malnutrition illnesses,  and even children with congenital deformities.


ONe thing that I have always held to is that I don't have _any_ right
to be pro-choice or pr-abortion.   Since I will never get pregnent
I will never be put into the position of having to decide one way or
the other.   My only thought is that abortions shouldn't be outlawed
entirely or they will become truely gruesome (because abortions will
still take place).

dan white
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:13:51 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <2801485892@psl.nrl.navy.mil> usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil (usenet) writes:
#In article <7161@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) 
#writes:
[Whoever this is that replied deleted part of my text - the
included text followed a discussion of the last FFLA
apologist's tactics]

## Of course, we're up to five FFLA spokespeople on the net,
## now.  They all seem to be male.  I wonder why.
#
#Susan - I'd like to hear your "wondering" out loud.  What's you innuendo 
#here?

I just wonder why there are no female FFLA members on the net,
or even any women who are willing to support the FFLA stand.
I have read posts from five different men supporting the group.
I'll admit that I haven't read everything that you've written,
or even much of it, but none of the other four can be considered
feminists by any stretch of the imagination.  Why are there
so many men who don't think of women as equals, but are
quite willing to tout this so-called feminist group?

Susan

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41356 alt.non.sequitur:336
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:47:44 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <9552@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>Are you saying that you believe that laws you agree with are alright, but
>that laws you disagree with are not alright.

Well, isn't that the case?  I don't believe in a law saying we should all chop our toes off at the third knuckle.  Were it to be enacted, would it be alright?

Big Al.  A law saying everyone should send me large sums of money, on the other
hand...