HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: This is pretty damned funny (Re: Biblical support for abortion...?)
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.meta,alt.horror,rec.sport.launching,alt.rush-limbaugh
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:39:54 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
# egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
# >Ok, since you won't accept that, how about this.
# >If I am within 1 cm of ground-zero of a h-bomb explosion and have absolutly
# >nothing to protect me, I will die.
#
# Not only is this not KNOWN to be true, it's not even true at all.
# There is a nonzero though vanishingly small probability that every
# single particle of matter will tunnel through your body and that not
# a single photon will be absorbed by your body. I.e. that you will
# be completely unaffected by the blast. This is not a likely occurrence,
# but it is also explicitly permitted by Quantum Mechanics. Care to
# try again?

Not that I'm disagreeing with Mr. Rescorla or anything, but quantum
mechanics also explicitly permits live bullfrogs to shoot out
spontaneously from my nostrils -- and I'll bet it's more likely to
happen.

Followups set appropriately.


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

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Useful Delimiters of the Debate
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:45:44 GMT

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
] In article <Oct05.212132.72636@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
] >
] >	THAT ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.  YOU MUST SET SOME UNIVERSAL POINT FOR
] >PERSONHOOD SOMEWHERE OR I CAN CHOOSE TO DEFINE YOU AS A NON-PERSON AND KILL YOU.
] >	Understand?
] 
] Certainly.  Birth works wonderfully here.  It's obvious, it's usually messy,
] tends to be very noisy, and a lot of people generally know it's happened.


I would also like to recommend that 'death' be
considered a point of 'closure' on the set as well.

Thus the range from birth to death be the considered
the delimiters of the set....

Granted, of course, this happens also to be the
Christian Doctrine, and hence will most likely
be upsetting to the FetalIdolators.....


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40820 talk.religion.misc:17739 alt.atheism:18437
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:45:07 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <nyikos.718390470@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Oct2.080742.24002@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>><1992Oct2.002302.325@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>><1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com>, by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>>> Gordon, Professional Atheist
>>>
>>>So what are they paying you?

>>Sorry, but I'm unable to publically discuss the terms of my contract.  If
>>I told you, I'd have to kill you.  And that would be unfortunate for both
>>of us.

>>Gordon, with tongue firmly in cheek.

>I figured that out even before I saw the last line, just as I saw through
>M. Price's deception immediately.  Alas for you, you have done many other
>things without tongue in cheek, and for those I will hold you accountable.

    Has anyone else noticed that Petie's getting a littlebit hysterical
about this whole thing?

>>-- 
>>The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
>>of whatever company you think I work for. 

>Nor those of an honest man.

    Careful, Petie, or Gordon and I will "castigate" you!

>Peter Nyikos

                                                     MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:22:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.004419.29767@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
> 
>Anyway I read his chapter on abortion.  It seemed like we were 
>just going through our September new mindless college dweebs 
>but this year it may be more than that.  It's amazing how many
>silly little arguments put forth here by our latest batch of
>fetus fanatics came right out of Rush's book.  It really isn't 
>surprising the someone like Martin would argue person hood starts
>when he says it because he says it does, 

I haven't argued for personhood or against it.

>or Simon would argue
>hey lets just give life a chance, when that is what they read from
>their leader.  

I have never read Rush's Book nor have used his arguments concerning
abortion.
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:52:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NRL

In article <1asb31INNcmg@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark
Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>   I have assembled a list or organizations whose names remind me
>of Feminists for Life.
>
> 1.  Vegetarians for Veal
..
.
.
> 9.  Atheists for Islam
>
>   There is absolutely no validity to this self-labeling of these
>women as feminists.  The name is a joke.  It makes no sense.  The
>name is a contradiction.  This organization exists to take away a
>freedom that is important to every woman of childbearing age.  It
>is more accurate to call them FAUXminists against Choice!
>-- 
Ira - 

     Its unfortunate that to make sense of the world, you have to first DEFINE
it under you own limited terms, and then throw a tantrum when reality doesn't
quite fit.

Paul
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:57:28 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <s0kz+!d@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>oh i don't think eric wanted the details. i offered them to him
>via email twice (he deleted that offer). i remember when i thought
>he was fairly intelectually honest too, but that was some time ago.
I didn't see any point in keeping it. I freely admit that you offered
to email me the details, but as I said several times, since you accused
CJ in public, I believe that you should support the claim in public
or retract it.

And Jim...Your opinion of my intellectual honesty is no more important
to me than your opinion of my writing ability. However, it would be
interesting to see you support a claim that I am not intellectually
honest. Can you do so?

-Ekr





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39962 alt.flame:13177
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Wow, isn't MissBitch just *SO* caring???
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:30:35 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <lefty-280992165521@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>
>It wasn't a joke.  It was a quote taken out of context, and it should be
>treated with contempt.

Oh, right, like no-one in TSAKC ever takes quotes out of context, uh-huh...

Your last sentence up there gets my vote for Most Hypocritical, 1992.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 19:54:02 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  <f6pzgvc@rpi.edu>  keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
> ->If you claim that a letter was *not* sent
>
> i don't have to claim anything, mr margolis.

True, and I already explained in what circumstance I would expect
something from you rather than cj.  Since you apparently choose not
to clarify, I'm not sufficiently interested to pursue this any further.

Cheers.
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Ms. Adolf on NFP and masturbation. [Was:...fundamental...]
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:52:08 GMT

In <1992Sep24.020456.3329@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>In article <1992Sep22.232744.31734@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>In  <nyikos.717186973@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> In <1992Sep20.183313.26829@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>>> >In  <nyikos.716939622@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete

>>[Note that the part that Peter deleted pointed out that it might be
>>impossible for a non-practitioner of NFP to know that she was pregnant
>>witin his time limit.  I'll refrain from making the accusations that
>>he's been making...]

Never impossible.  The blood test is reliable already at the end of
the second week, or soon thereafter.  And what's a pinprick compared
to a curettage going deep into the womb?

>I really can't resist coming back to this one. If you REALLY wanted
>women to 'learn about their bodies' and not simply be servants of
>their cycles, then you would encourage that the sex educators
>teach masturbation to young girls.

Don't some of them already do that?

Anyway, you are proposing to insert yet another "cake course" into
an already watered down curriculum.  Masturbation is best handled
as an extracurricular activity, like glee club.  [If this term is
no longer used for group singing, it would make a perfect moniker
for your activity!]  A class of normal, up-to-date adolescents
can probably teach each other a lot better than a lecturer, anyway.

NFP on the other hand, is a tricky thing to master.  Telling the
various kinds of mucus apart, telling the various levels of the
cervix apart, telling fever from "basal" temperature rise, all
call for a lot of training, and the presence of a trained advisor
is indispensible.

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38858 talk.politics.misc:48208 alt.rush-limbaugh:6013 alt.politics.bush:6917 alt.politics.clinton:7483 alt.sex:31031 alt.politics.elections:14427
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:16:48 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.26.79.24

---
"Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|You may think it's a responsible solution. But I disagree. Why don't
|you write 1000 times over:
|What's good for me is not good for everyone.

Sounds like a good reason to be pro-choice to me.
In fact, it is why I'm pro-choice.  What's good for
me might not be good for another woman-- who am I to
make decisions for her?

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:27:52 GMT

In article <k4_pjhr.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Sep28.222512.22658@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>>>>Now cut off the an unborn baby a few weeks before birth.  Would you consider
>>>>that the unborn baby is a human life?  You might say yes (I have to say
>>>>might because of the amazing rationalizations some people have).  ...
>>>
>>>If it's alive, yes.  Now try it 7 months before birth.  Is THAT a person?
>>
>>It is a member of homo sapiens, and is definitely human.
>
>That wasn't the question.  It's empirically verifiable that it's
>human, because it has human DNA.  But is it a PERSON?  If not, why not?
>

The pro-life movement (I can't speak for it though) and I are concerned
about HUMAN life BORN and UNBORN.  Human life begins at conception.  A 
discussion on "PERSON" (a fight over semantics) may not even be that
relevant.  It's a human life.  Doesn't that count for anything to people?


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38918 talk.religion.misc:17297 talk.philosophy.misc:1836
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:24:50 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.717625590@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> Analogy: stealing a million dollars is far more heavily punished than
> stealing a hundred dollars, even though chances are that whoever the million 
> was stolen from is better able to afford it than the one from whom 
> the hundred was stolen, otherwise the million would not have been there in
> the first place.

Hmm.  Tell this to Michael Milken, why don't you, you foolish person?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 14:50:24 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <2y!ps!q.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes ...
>>In article <kekni5m00WB4F_RkVh@andrew.cmu.edu> ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
>>>If it were just a matter of people could get abortions, then I wouldn't
>>>care so much. But presently, my money is used to fund people killing
>>>children.
>>
>>I'm pro-choice, but also share a distaste for public funding of abortions.
>
>But not funding terrosit activities in other countries?  Or artificial
>trade barriers?  Or bombing other countries?  Or research on nuclear 
>weapons?
>
>OK then.  You can pay for those and _I'll_ pay for the abortions.

Huh?  When did this become talk.abortion.and.terrorist.activities.and.
artifical.trade.barriers.and.bombing.and.nuclear.weapons?

Who said I supported those things, besides you?  Does everyone who disagrees
with you on one point automatically disagree with everything you stand for?
Sheesh.

Look, I made a comment about my position.  Did I say that we, as a country,
must not publicly fund abortions?  I don't believe I did.  There are lots
of publicly funded things going on in this country for which I have a 
distaste, but then, they don't have much to do with this group, either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I'll do the thinnin' around here!"
                   ---Quick Draw McGraw
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Adrienne's use of "asshole" is unwarranted
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:08:40 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:

He asked for it, he got it. I read it. I responded. No more points for
Peter. :>

>#Adrienne
># Giving the fetus the right to inhabit a woman's body against her will is
...
>HUMAN BEING" post; I suspected Adrienne of using a nonstandard definition
>of "inhabit" but did not bother verifying it.

What is non-standard about it? Inhabit is "To reside in" or "To be present
in" or (archaic) "To dwell". Do these fit the usage Adrienne intended
or not? (You really are blowing hot air, Peter, except that it is merely
luke-warm.)

>From a 1881 New Jersey State Supreme Court decision, ignored in bad
>faith by either Cyril Means or Justice Blackmun, who cites the decision
>in Roe v. Wade:

>"This law was further extended March 26, 1872...to protect the life
>of the child also, and inflict the same punishment, in case of its
>death, as if the mother should die." --State v. Gedicke, 43 N.J.L. 86, 90.

WRT what action that you deleted? (You're becoming more like DOD every
day I read you.) If this was for murder of the woman, or assualt and
battery, where in the woman did not want to lose the child, it makes
perfect sense. Nothing was "ignored in bad faith" except maybe the context
of the quote. (And besides, this is a *state* law, and states have been
known to write laws that were illegal according to federal law. Do
you need specific cites?

>From Dougherty v. People, 1 Colo. 514, 522 (1872) also concerning a statute:
>"intended specifically to protect the mother and her unborn child from
>operations calculated and directed to the destruction of the one and the
>inevitable injury of the other."

Well, you can throw this one right out the window. Careful reading will
indicate that the "operations" alluded to for "the destruction of one"
relate to the mother while "the inevitable injury of the other" relates
to "her unborn child". This is probably to keep someone from cutting
open a woman, in effect killing her, to save a child. That your reading
comprehension is so abysmally bad is no surprise.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 6 Oct 1992 15:17:52 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct5.163708.18721@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <lcml1oINNmu6@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM 
>   (Eric Marsh) writes: >

>>> Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?

>>> Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
>>> 1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
>>> judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
>>> the deaths of millions?!

>> Yea, right. Judgement day. Yea, right.

>> I don't know why people even bother to post this superstitious crap.

>One also wonders about the intentions of those who maliciously 
>derogate the religious convictions of others.  If only we were
>all Wiccans...

Hey, if you were to talk to me about my convictions you just might
find that they are more rational than you might think. As the Dali
Lama said, when science contridicts religion, it is religion that
must change.

>> All it does is make them look like know-nothings.

>Based on your comments, I suspect that there are those who've reached 
>similar conclusions about the proponents of Wicca.  

I guess your entitled to your opinions, aren't you?

>Bill

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Sex->pregnancy->must carry to term??
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 3 Oct 92 13:03:16 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

I see a number of pro-lifers saying that consent to sex equals
consent to the possibility of impregnation, therefore the woman
is irresponsible if she doesn't carry every conceived zygote to
term.  Can't you people see that being abortion is legal and/or 
available then they don't have to carry the zygote to term?  
Doesn't your arguement seem a bit moot?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:28:11 GMT

rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:

>There were 2nd trimester babies in that NCU at the hospital.  

Please provide some evidence for this statement.

>Ron Goers 

                    -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: About Chaney's prank  (was Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:42:30 GMT

In article <BvEHqt.zB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.161538.18424@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> >Well, yeah, it is unprofitable to play the "Joe is actually Jack" game. But
> >hey, at least *you* drop it when it isn't funny anymore - these Dennis Hall
> >pranksters are continuing on with their prank on me (and it's gotta be one
> >of their pranks if it's going on THIS long).
> 
> Au contraire!  Truth lasts much longer than humor.
> 
> I and one other person have independently verified that Steve Chaney owned 
> two accounts last year and was posting under one of them as the fictitious 
> pro-choicer "Dennis Hall".  

Uh, that would be me.  The sys admin for the system Chaney was using
actually called me when I sent him email asking him just what the
truth of the matter was.  I wanted to know whether Chaney's
vehement denials were credible, or Scott Roby was making it up
based on the suspicious similarities in spelling errors and
word usage (calling Usenet "Unix").  The system administrator
in question confirmed Scott's version of the facts.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:08:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Sep24.233104.19883@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Sep24.143921.52374@gmuvax.gmu.edu> sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu writes:
> >
> >Since when did any suddenly get the right to tell anyone else
> >what to do with their bodies?? 
> 
> If it were merely a medical operation intended to help the mother
> directly, sure.  I see no problem in that.

So, you "see no problem" in forcing a medical procedure on someone against
their will?

> Why do our children always have to be the ones to suffer.

They're not _your_ children.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:02:32 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Oct2.080742.24002@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes

>>The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
>>of whatever company you think I work for.

>Nor those of an honest man.

Oooo, Peter is into libel now. Way to go, and hypocritical at that.
I recall you being challenged on several fronts and skipping out when
the results became obvious to you. (ie not in your favor, you lose)

Don't bother denying it as there are several posters who can and will
throw any denial right back at you with the unanswered posts in question.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.