HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:11:08 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In article <1992Nov22.185341.10487@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>
>I DID THINK!!  And I THINK that a male having sex with a male is homo-
>sexuality, just by definiton!  Think before you ANSWER!

    You didn't think hard enough.  Try again, and *really concentrate*.
 
    Bzzzzt.  Time's up.  Male-male sex is not necessarily homosexuality.
As Tim P. points out, the former is action; the latter is orientation or
desire.

    Still not sure?  Then, by your incredibly simplistic definition,
everyone who commits male-male rape in prison is gay.  I doubt many of the
inmates would agree with that assertion. 
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:42:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.015024.17310@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <By0uut.F7@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov20.011111.3228@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>In article <BxzGIs.KtH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>In article <1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>Yah know, Will, you may believe this, but I don't.  We've just seen Steve
>>>>>Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on this issue:  they don't
>>>>>want women to have the right to abort.  THAT's what they are after, and too
>>>>>hell with the reason you mention, above.
>>>>
>>>>Short and sweet:  Adrienne, you are a liar.
>>>>No flame intended.  Just fact.
>>>In what way is Adrienne a liar, Don? Can you support this?
>>
>>I posted Adrienne's paragraph (above) for that reason.
>>Adrienne made an explicit claim about me that is untrue.
>>That's something I call a lie.
>
>It's not what I call a lie. I'm prepared to grant that it is not descriptive
>of you, but you need to show that she knew it to be untrue for it
>to be a lie.

Are you saying that all lies must be deliberate, Eric? You have a narrower
definition than I do -- I'd count something as a non-deliberate lie if it
evidenced a reckless disregard for the truth. And the above is pretty damned
reckless, if you ask me. Even if we disregard Don's views for a moment here,
it's a well-known fact that Kellmeyer doesn't support any child support 
reforms. Surely Adrienne remembers all of his alarmist crap about people
wanting to "weaken" child support? Does that sound progressive? Does he sound 
like a reformer to you?

								- Kevin 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49339 alt.abortion.inequity:5292 soc.men:19856
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: What happens when Mom dies?
Date: 24 Nov 1992 00:55:58 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1eoo4uINN4go@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>
>>I don't see how murdering the mother lessens the burden on the man.
>>Hypothesizing that he's not caught, wouldn't it just further burden
>>him with all the parenting responsibilities, both financial and 
>>care-giving?

>Only if he _asks_ for custody.

Are you sure?  I guess I just don't know what happens to children in the 
case where the mother had custody and then she died.  Does custody pass
to the father?  To the mother's next-of-kin?  Does it matter if the father
requests custody?  If he requests *not* to get custody?

Does anybody out there know?

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:39:23 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Nov23.065624.29065@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.210653.15302@rotag.mi.org>
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> Wrong. The sources you provided prove only that post-viability abortions
>> done for the woman's >>HEALTH<< are constitutionally protected, Doug.
>
>Right, and in Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court has defined the term
>"health" to include emotional and psychological health.
>
>> "Health reasons" != "virtually any reason"
>
>It should be painfully obvious that if a woman is denied
>an abortion, she will quite likely suffer emotional distress.
>She can say "I need an abortion because my emotional health
>will suffer if I don't get one".

And if her mental health was so impaired as to require that she be
placed in a mental institution, as was "Jane Doe" of Doe v. Bolton,
then you might have a point.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:23:05 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>OK, let's use an example.  Many late second-trimester abortions
>are performed because the child is mentally retarded or physically
>handicapped.  The purpose of the abortion is to kill the child,
>not to "terminate the pregnancy".  Would you oppose restrictions
>which would prevent a handicapped child from being purposely killed 
>during an abortion?

Yes.  I oppose all legal restrictions on abortion.

It's all well and good here to say that a fetus shouldn't be killed if
there's no better reason than just because it's handicapped, but how
will you enforce this?

How will you be able to tell when a woman just wants to abort a fetus
because it's handicapped?  If she tells you she has another reason --
such as not being able to afford the hospital expenses, say -- will
you tell her she's lying?

And if a woman doesn't want to raise a handicapped baby, then most
likely if you force her to give birth to it, she'lll put it up for
adoption -- a far worse fate, in my opinion, and a greater burden on
government to pay for caring for it.

It may offend your sensibilities to see a woman terminating the life
of a fetus with physical or mental defects, but the alternative,
forcing her to give birth to it, seems far worse to me.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Medical Enforcers? (Was: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:43:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.044254.794@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##-#I think that your scheme would deny abortions to women who
##-#aren't wealthy and/or well-connected.
#
#Yes ... the doctors' legal risk would translate into very high costs; in
#practice only those women who could pledge to pay for good lawyers in the
#event of a judicial review would be able to have third-tri abortions.  
#
#Indigent women have enough trouble getting decent attention from one
#doctor, never mind two; and who would ever take that expensive legal 
#risk for them?

I've seen no indication that Ms. Bartley particularly gives a damn
about poor women in any of her posts.  I didn't expect to her
to suddenly show compassion, and she didn't surprise me.

#Fortunately our legal system is designed not to allow abuses like
#Elizabeth's proposal.

Of course not.  I just wanted to try to impress upon her the problems
with her scheme even if she were declared dictator and allowed
to trash our legal system.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:12:53 GMT

In article <lefty-161192125641@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.190651.26177@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
>(Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <1992Nov9.174836.9036@netcom.com> 
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>> >>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) asks rocker:
>> 
>> >>> How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
>> >>> before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term 
>> >>> abortions?
>> 
>> >> I've seen very few pro-choicers answer this question. 
>
>I've seen no definition of "good cause", nor any statement of who would be
>making the determination of whether a particular "cause" is "good", or how
>that determination might be made.

Use whatever yardstick you want, unless you claim that there is no such 
thing as a "bad" reason to abortion a late-term fetus.

>Until I see a better set of definitions here, I would support no
>restrictions on a woman's right to decide to end her own pregnancy.

Same here. But, the next question on the survey is: would you oppose ALL such 
legal restrictions?

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48234 alt.flame:14850 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:585 misc.legal:20058
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin on Forgery
Date: 17 Nov 1992 07:56:36 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

>  Peter and me:
>>.Sounds about right.  A lot of "bizarre" laws get to look just a tad less
>>.bizarre when you read the fine print.  South Carolina has laws against
>>."adultery" and "fornication", but to be illegal these must involve either
>>.cohabitation or habitual actions.
>
>>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>How does cohabitation and habit make the illegalization of adultery or
>>fornication 'less bizarre'?
>
>Do I need to explain the term "a tad" to you, Adrienne?


No, Peter.  You need to explain what you mean in order for us to be able
to understand you.

I notice that you fail to answer the question, in order to make a snide
remark instead.

How does cohabitation and habit make the illegalization of adultery or
fornication 'less bizarre'?  Even a 'tad'?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: clport@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER L PORT)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Originator: clport@c00502-119rd.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: clport@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER L PORT)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:39:55 GMT


In article <7220354258103@c00507-119rd.eos.ncsu.edu>, cddukes@c00507-119rd.eos.ncsu.edu (PakRat's Anonymous) writes:

(intro deleted)

|>IE abortion may be completely against your beliefs.  But will you be
|>like the folks that think the idea of a meatless meal is horrible, and
|>ban someone from their only food?  Or will you be unable to eat pork,
|>and trying your damndest to keep the pork eaters from eating what 
|>they desire?  Or will you go for a compromise where you don't do what
|>you don't want, but you also don't keep someone from doing something
|>they desire to do.
|>

This idea will never fly with those who make no distinction (sp?) between
abortion and murder, unless you also let people who see nothing wrong with
offing the guy across the street to go ahead and do it.

On another point, and while many doubtless realize this, I'll point out that
people, regardless of their beliefs, are being forced to pay for abortions
(through our wonderful government).

|>Chris "the PakRat" Dukes______________________________cddukes@eos.ncsu.edu
|>Gooey Dough Crepe Axe GDC-23A, the newest weapon in
|>handheld tactical sustenance warfare.
|>PGP key available upon request
|>

Chris Port
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:45:41 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <sen9tso@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

>In article <1992Nov14.151657.8820@panix.com>, jk@panix.com writes:
>|In <satdn4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>|>When nobody else is involved, nobody else has the right to
>|>interfere.

>|If my greatest joy in life is torturing cats to death, does anyone
>|else have the right to interfere?

>Are you destroying someone else's property?

No, I raise my own cats for the purpose.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 17:51:29 GMT


eb>In article <1992Nov17.215532.7928@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
dk>In article <1992Nov17.162948.18306@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
rf>In article <1992Nov17.055146.5262@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
 
rf>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
rf>right of a woman to end the pregnancy? 
 
dk>No there is not.  At least not legislative. 
 
eb>Truth by Blatant Assertion.

eb>Dammit, Dan, you know better than that....
 
Apparently I do not know any better.  I would think that those of 
you all wishing to restrict abortion rights to protect viable fetus
would come up with legislation that would accomplish your goals.  
I have not seen any of this that would protect the right of the 
woman.  Therefore, I think it is safe for me to assume that it is
not possible.  If you disagree, then post this magical legislation.
 
I realize you have posted your legislative agenda.  I am under
the assumption we are agreement that it is not guaranteed to
ensure the right of the woman to end the pregnancy.  Did you
by chance miss my last post under "Medical Enforcers?" that 
asked how you feel about your legislation being such a valuable
tool for groups such as Operation Rescue?
 
However, I do have an idea that does involve legislation that 
would accomplish your stated goals.  First you pick a point were
you want fetus at that point protected.  I assume your point is
the end of the second tri-mester.  Now you pass legislation that
any abortions prior to that point will be payed for by the 
government.  Any after that point, the government will not pay
for.  This will give women yet another incentive to make their
decision early in the pregnancy.  I would much prefer giving
incentives rather than threats to act in a manner you want.  
This is a policy I have tried to stick with in raising my 
children and so far it has worked marvelously.
 
eb>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
 
Dan King
  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: J Price answers questions
Originator: jjprice@c00068-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:01:36 GMT


ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes ...
|>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
|>>|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes to Lynn Alford:
|>>|>> She knew there was a chance and she took and messed up PAY THE PRICE !!!
|>>|>
|>>|>You seem to express a willingness to PUNISH a married woman for having sex
|>>|>with her husband.  Is that the case?  Yes?  No?
|>>|>
|>>I'm not going to punish her she punished herself by getting pregnant.
|>
|>Coward.  You want to set the rules but refuse to own up to the
|>consequences.
|>
Name calling is so easy whta do you mean I refuse to own up to the 
consequences? Or maybe you mean since I am a man I can't get pregnant? I
don't plan on engaging in any activity that could get a female pregnant until
I am married or until I am ready to accept the resposibility if she gets 
pregnant and to raise the child together.
|>-- 
|>Ray Fischer    
-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:46:03 GMT

> = (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>> = Steve Novak:
>>> = Scott @Brandeis:

>>>Let's see, in the OT God is portrayed as capable of unimaginable wrath 
>>>and unimaginable love. 

>>...and an unimaginable vengeful asshole who murdered whole cities because 
>>of the sins of a few (including, for you crocodile tear-droppers, many
>>"innocent babes" and other exalted types of human life).

>Absolutely.  Who does He think He is, anyway?  

An arrogant, murderous asshole, judging from the O.T.

>God?  He has no *right* to destroy what he created.
>Doesn't He know about our Rights?

I see.  You have no counter-argument, you actually agree with my point,
you just think your idol is right to fuck over humans however he/she/it
pleases.  Sad.

>>>In the NT, God is portrayed as capable of unimaginable
>>>wrath and unimaginable love.  Yep, they are different.

>>How would you know, since obviously you haven't READ it?  Just picked a
>>few smarmy quotes so you could create an arrogant .sig.

>Your presumptuous criticism seems far more arrogant than his two quotes.  

Your lack of reading comprehension shows.  Scott's "la-la-la"
description of his superstition is countered many times in the same
bible you both worship.

>>>	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
>>>	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
>>>	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
>>>	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
>>>					 who need no repentance." 
>>>		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]

>>This is pathetically preachy; pull your head out of your Christian ass and
>>try living with the rest of humanity.

>My experience with the "rest of humanity" suggests that they're not
>nearly as hateful as you seem to be.  Perhaps you should take your 
>own advice.

My experience with preachy christian fanatics suggests that they
consider "love" and "hate" synonymous.  Perhaps you could work on that.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:47:13 GMT

In article <1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Yah know, Will, you may believe this, but I don't.  We've just seen Steve
>Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on this issue:  they don't
>want women to have the right to abort.  THAT's what they are after, and too
>hell with the reason you mention, above.

>Adrienne Regard

Short and sweet:  Adrienne, you are a liar.

No flame intended.  Just fact.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: To Lost Boy...Re  The thoughts of a fetus
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 11:38:19 GMT

> K.E. Hauk

>Did you know that the human fetus can dream?  Recent studies have found that
>the human fetus can actually dream!  

Quote your source, pinhead.  We sure as hell aren't going to take your word
for it.

I also noticed you conveniently neglected to mention WHEN the fetus gains
this supposed capability of dreaming.  I would strongly suspect that this
is gained many weeks after the time when abortions on demand are legal.

>"Think" about it.

Take your own advice, but try not to break your one fragile neuron.

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:08:59 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>  It's time to come clean and admit that states do indeed force morality
>on people - the important point is that the morality a state uses must be
>very general, and be as broadly acceptable to as many people as possible, and
>be no more than the state needs to function.  That is, one seeks to diminish
>the force, not the morality.

States impose _rules_ on people, not morality.

Of course, every state wants its people to _beleive_ that it is
imposing morality -- it makes it much easier to enforce some 
arbitrary rule if you can persuade the enforcees that the rule 
is really for their own good.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:15:07 GMT

In article <By37y6.5rI@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.015024.17310@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <By0uut.F7@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov20.011111.3228@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>In article <BxzGIs.KtH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>>No flame intended.  Just fact.
>>>>In what way is Adrienne a liar, Don? Can you support this?
>>>I posted Adrienne's paragraph (above) for that reason.
>>>Adrienne made an explicit claim about me that is untrue.
>>>That's something I call a lie.
>>It's not what I call a lie. I'm prepared to grant that it is not descriptive
>>of you, but you need to show that she knew it to be untrue for it
>>to be a lie.
>So, one is allowed to make unequivocal and unsupported statements 
>about people as long as one doesn't know that they are untrue?
>And that's not called lying?
>That sounds pretty equivocal to me.
I wouldn't call it lying. I was actually suggesting that perhaps Adrienne
believes what she wrote to be true(I'm guessing she does.) If that's
true, however false her statement, I fail to see how she can be lying.
I fail to see how my statement is equivocal.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."