HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:07:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.062059.9440@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

> Dictionary definitions abound for all sides. I tend to go by the ones
> I get out of embryology, obstetric, and neonatology texts. Since we're
> dealing with a medical and personal issue, the medical definitions do
> seem to be in order.

Then why don't you use the term 'gravida' to describe
the pregnant woman? 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:50:56 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.725150678@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Meanwhile, 1,600,000 unborn children, most of them already in the
>fetus stage, are aborted each year in the USA alone.

This would be interesting to see you document this, since the dictionary says:
fetus (n)
DEFINITIONS:
    an unborn or unhatched vertebrate esp.
    after attaining the basic structural plan
    of its kind; specif : a developing human
    from usu. three months after conception
    to birth
(c) G. & C. Merriam

and the statistics I have show that more than 90% of all abortions in the USA
are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

I know you like neither dictionaries nor statistics; I'm taking bets on which
you'll attack first.  (The odds-on favorite is that you'll run away again.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:08:25 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 <1992Dec30.050611.25734@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Would "limited pro-concensus" be sufficiently descriptive, you think?

"Sufficiently vague" is more like it.

I think "arguing for legislation while claiming he doesn't want it"
is the most descriptive I've seen yet.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:59:53 GMT

> = (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.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for FAQ (Was: Reconciling OT/NT)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:19:42 GMT

In article <nyikos.725744605@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Dec29.033620.8746@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> 
> >In article <nyikos.725582371@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >>In <1188@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >>
> >>>In article <1992Dec28.011822.12450@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> >>>#In article <nyikos.725128086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >>>##In <1992Dec22.063007.50924@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> >>>##
> >>>#
> >>>#[Riiiip]
> >>>#
> >>>##Susan Garvin is at least a candidate for the title "pro-abortionist," 
> >>>##along with everyone else who sneers at every report of wrongdoing
> >>>##by LEGAL abortionists while choosing to blind themselves to evidence
> >>>##that certain illegal abortions never took place.
> 
> Mark, get your attributions right.  Larry Margolis did not say the above.
> I did.

Peter, why do you love so much to show us that you don't understand
how attributions work?  Could it be, maybe, stupidity?  Yes, I
rather think it is.

If you look at the reference lines you will notice that the material
in question has one more character at the beginning of the line
than the appropriate reference to you.  As those of us who have
actual functioning brains understand, the quoted material always
has one more character indicating it is quoted than the matching
reference.  Here.  Look at the top reference line.  You will
notice that your reference does not have any character appended
to the line, but if you look at the material quoted immediately
above you will see it has one appended character.  Is it getting
clearer, you stupid, stupid man?

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Victoria
Date: 29 Dec 92 06:41:22 GMT

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>2. the child's entire existence is in the balance.

>The woman's existance is in the balance too.

Precisely.  Therefore an arbitrator is required.

>>>}                        The physician only receives a fee
>>>}by performing the abortion and is, therefore, in no position
>>>}to be impartial.
>> 
>>Do you presume that all physicians always act in the
>>best interest of the woman or child and never in their
>>own self-interests?

>A physician who is interested only in fees would be much better off 
>encouraging childbirth.  They make much more money delivering babies than
>they do aborting fetuses.

I don't know how abortions are supervised in your
area (Virginia?), but here in B.C. there are people
who demand community clinics independent of hospitals
to provide for "women's health."
They would not supervise births or any form of natal
care other than abortions.
What are these clinics likely to recommend to 
a pregnant woman appearing at their door?

>Do you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away rights 
>from the pregnant woman?

The mother, father, and child each have *rights* and 
*responsibilities*.
Someone needs to independently judge that all parties
are fulfilling their obligations to the best of their 
abilities.

A IDLER
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: doin' the dodie dance
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 02:02:20 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) mistakenly
writes to stephen mezias:

->Allow me to explain something to you.  When people on talk.abortion
->discuss ``legislation'', they are usually talking about legislation
->to restrict abortion.  

this statement is not corect,

when most people on talk.abortion discuss
"legislation," they are usually talking about
legislation regarding abortion. most people understand
that. i suspect that even dodie understands that.

which raises the question: why would he state
otherwise? but then, the answer is clear, isn't it?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:47:54 GMT

skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
# I ended my last post with the observation:
# 
#      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.  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.
# 
# I expected some folks would post their clear explanations.
# Unfortunately, only one reply that has appeared so far has done so.
# 
  [ Criticisms of other responses deleted for brevity. ]
# 
# J H Woodyatt notes that almost all slave holders considered their
# slaves property, while many women do not consider fetuses property.
# Again, this does not counter the above observation.

It attacked the analogy of slavery with abortion, as I clearly said
was my intention.

Furthermore, it seems you are being somewhat equivocal about your use
of the word `some.'

# He also would have us believe most abortion abolitionists do not
# consider the fetus a person.  I am skeptical, but open to statistical
# evidence to the contrary.  The evidence provided is quite poor:
# 
# >Evidence of this is that only a small minority wish to
# >abolish abortion even in cases of rape and grave threat to the
# >mother's health.
# 
# Someone who would allow abortion in the case of rape or grave threat
# to the mother's health may still consider the fetus a person.

And there are people who think that there is a worldwide conspiracy
that secretly controls world currency markets to exert political
control over the citizens of the world.

Look.  I want to speak with this legion of abortion abolitionists who
think fetuses are persons but still think it's okay to abort them if
their conception was a result of rape.  Where the hell are they?
They're my favorite kind of screwheads to play with and there's such a
small number of them that when you get one it's a real red-letter day.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: NyikosBusters of 77036-2409, Too.
	<nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <1217@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
	<nyikos.725754223@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:43:15 GMT

In article <nyikos.725754223@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

   In <1217@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

   >In article <nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
   >[everything but the following sentence deleted]
   >>That was an attempt by Holtsinger to quote Humphrey, to illustrate what 
   >>racist tendencies this redneck has.  

   >For ten points, spot the racial slur in the above quote.  For
   >10,000 points, guess what basis PHoney is using to assign a
   >race to Patrick.

   There is no racial slur.  Patrick publicly admitted to being a redneck,
   to me, no less.  "Give that man a cookie--he's figured out that much"
   --I hope I got every word right.  

Oh, really?  I seem to remember I made *that* statement to you about
something else completely -- but then, your taking a quote of mine
completely out of context is nothing new.  Before you start whining again,
though -- I may or may not have the article in question archived somewhere.
I don't particularly have the time to go searching for it right now, either,
so it comes down to your word against mine -- and who's made a net career
out of being deceptive just as often as he opens his mouth?  Hint -- it
ain't me.
  
   "Redneck" is not necessarily a derogatory term, and I think Patrick 
   and I understand each other pretty well on this.  To anyone who was
   misled by my use of the word, my apologies.

Then you owe one to Susan and *definitely* one to me, pink boy.  (One for
yourself as well, since I don't think you knew what you were trying to do,
either.)

   I don't think Susan was misled, so no apologies to her are in order.

What do you know -- you have an idea of why I'm not going to apologize to
your hero Steve Chaney.  Will wonders never cease?

--PLH, glad he's a *long* way away from any school that would let clowns
like Nyikos teach anything...


--
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52953 alt.abortion.inequity:6178
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Birth Positions, brief Christmas message
Date: 24 Dec 1992 07:53:16 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.725156659@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Take it easy, Will, these questions usually have logical answers if 
>you'll just wait for them.  One ? is ample.

As you've noted above, take it to heart below:

>About Adrienne, it appears from what she wrote in a recent post that this 
>helpmate is no longer with her, or else it was not the man who fathered
>her second child.

Wrong again.  Since you so often get it wrong, please refrain entirely
from speculating about my life.  If you want to know something, you may
ask and I may answer.  Until such an exchange has occurred, I consider 
you a very poor candidate as my biographer, so you can stop now.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 04:44:19 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 <1993Jan1.020450.218@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.202557.22636@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1992Dec30.095751.1789@cs.ucla.edu> gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.050758.1772@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>Again, there's a difference between a right and a reason for exercising that
>>>>right.  Her *right* is to control how her body is used.
>>>
>>>I am not disputing that right.  I am pointing out that men do not have
>>>any rights in this situation,
>>
>>Men have the same rights as do women regarding bodily autonomy.  Since the
>>fetus isn't growing in the man's body, though, this doesn't help him much.
>
>The woman who aborts, or chooses not to, also exercises an ECONOMIC right,
>Larry. No male-choicer is asking for men to have the same BIOLOGICAL rights
>as women; we're just asking for the same ECONOMIC rights that women currently
>have thrown in as a bonus with their biological rights.

What economic right is that?  Are you saying that a woman has a *right* to
not support her child?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 02:16:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.010805.20244@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>It seems that Gregg Skinner, Paul Lebow, and Michael P Noonan among others
>think that slavery is a good analogy to abortion.  I maintain that there is
>no good analogy to abortion nor is there any good analogy to pregnancy.

If you lack the ability to abstract from actual, mundane EXPERIENCES of 
pregnancy and/or abortion, Galen, how do you expect to ever discuss these
issues intelligently?

Perhaps you should consider just leaving the discussion to those of us who 
CAN abstract... 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Organization: The Sharpstown Liberation Army
	<34529@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> <1089@blue.cis.pitt.edu> <wgt2czc@rpi.edu>
	<nyikos.725152068@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:43:44 GMT

In article <nyikos.725152068@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

   In <wgt2czc@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

   >sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
   >->I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
   >->Dr. Tiller?  

   >i don't.

   >i can't remember when phoney posted anything i
   >believed.

   Glad to see you don't believe Tiller's statement of purpose:

		   PURPOSE

		   Our purpose at Women's Health Care Services is to guide
	   and support women through an experience which will allow them
	   the opportunity to change the rest of their lives.  We are here
	   to help our patients make their DREAMS COME TRUE by maximizing
	   their assets and minimizing their shortcomings.  We are dedicated
	   providing the chance for women to live joyous, productive and
	   free lives.  The cornerstones of our organization are Attitude,
	   Team Care, Safety & Comfort.  We are a Recovery based institution.

So, where's some proof that you didn't cook this up all by yourself?  I
could type that myself.  Show a few citations.

   >had you replaced the words "Dr. Tiller" with the word
   >"anything," i think your response would be about the
   >same.

   Good, I'll be posting more statements by abortionists from time to time.

Assuming your news machine doesn't decide to "go down" again, you mean.  :-)
(If you want to waste your time, be my guest -- it ain't MY time you're
wasting.) 






--
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.
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:38:59 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
# kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
# >
# >"Interference" refers to detrimental effects. It is not a violation
# >of BA to have one's biological functions affected in beneficial ways.
# 
# Someone whose religious beliefs forbid medical intervention might
# not agree...

Hell, I'm an agnostic and I definitely do not agree.  The last thing I
want is some agent of the State coming at me with a scalpel telling me
my right to decide what surgical procedures are to be performed on me
are nullified by the fact that it's for my own good.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Organization: Clues for the Clueless
	<1992Dec31.044025.16556@watson.ibm.com>
	<1992Dec31.054021.17306@ncsu.edu>
	<1992Dec31.173209.20103@watson.ibm.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:21:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.173209.20103@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

 In <1992Dec31.054021.17306@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 >In article <1992Dec31.044025.16556@watson.ibm.com>
 >margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
 >
 >> My flame was justified -
 >> the reason that Siren no longer posts is *not* because she was flamed off
 >> the newsgroup.  Petey was wrong (as usual), and a fool (as usual) for
 >> believing Chaney.
 >
 >That's irrelevant, you did mention that Siren is dead,

 Which is true.

 >and you flamed Mr. Nyikos for asking why she could not be contacted.

 It was intended to give him pause, and to make him realize that we're
 not just computer userids; there's real people out here that he's maligning.

 >Keegan's accusation
 >that I had unjustly flamed him could also be applied to your flame
 >of Mr. Nyikos.

 Nope, because I also included the Siren post showing that Chaney was wrong.
 The death of one member was an aside.  I'm trying to clue in Dr. Giggles that
 he should try to find out the truth before taking Chaney's word for *anything*,
 if he wants to stop making a fool of himself.
 
Boy, are *you* picking the wrong one to explain that to -- especially since
the Rev takes everything Chaney said about me as the gospel truth...:-)

--PLH, I don't blame you for trying, though.  Someone's gotta do it.

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:23:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.195747.16898@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec30.183353.16725@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu 
|> writes that we can draw valid conclusions about the legality of 
|> abortion from looking at slavery:
|> 
|> }If one wants one's argument to be compelling, the connection is best
|> }not left to the reader.  If it is, however, and the reader doesn't
|> }make the connection, the proper response is to make the connection
|> }explicit.  An improper response would be to flame the reader for not
|> }making the connnection.
|> 
|> Oh, in other words, we should first allow states to ban abortion only
|> in those territories in rebellion.

No.  If, as you indicate, we should be consistent with the analogy, we
should alow the states that are not in rebellion to ban abortion
themselves, and then allow the federal government to ban abortion in
those territories in rebellion.

|> Is that a proper response?  If I (the reader) did not make a proper
|> connection, would you please show the connection, not just simply assert
|> it?
|> 
|> --
|>        hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
|>      Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
|>                   Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...

Just setting history straight.

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:24:41 GMT

firebombin is a form of free speech
if and only if flag burning is truely a form of speech.

chus
pyotr

-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Months Panel Topic: Graft - boon or blessing?
EOF
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Months Panel Topic: Graft - boon or blessing?
EOF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:35:34 GMT

In article <hb32rxl@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> You're one ugly bastard, Keegan.  I never thought anyone
>> could stoop so low as to flame someone who's passed away. 

> but someone has tried to use a
> person's death to unjustly flame someone else. do you
> know who that person is

Sure, Larry Margolis:

---

   nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
   >Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?

   Because she's dead, you ignoramus.

   "Remember me at my best."     Rest in peace, Siren.
---

No doubt we won't see pro-choicers flame Larry Margolis for
his mistake.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion