HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 16:46:55 GMT

In <1992Oct29.084242.24379@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><nyikos.720058807@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>><1992Oct23.080700.1318@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

[some playful banter between us omitted.  Gordon wanted a reply to the
post below, and as you can see he got it.]

>>><1992Oct15.072210.13954@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>><nyikos.718388155@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>><1992Oct1.220046.8952@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>>...
>>>>>>    I'm afraid your own caveat excludes you.
>>>>>		^^^^			 ^^^
>>>>>I stand by what I have said, except for that lapse of memory.  If you
>>>>>were to read the New Testament at all carefully, you would realize
>>>>>that "your" and "you" could best be applied to Jesus and his followers,
>>>>>by Storga's atheistic standards, and quite possibly your own carefully
>>>>>concealed ones.
>>>>>
>>>>...
>>>>>PS Anybody who deletes "by Storga's atheistic standards..." and smears
>>>>>me with smearing Jesus and his followers, can expect the same 
>>>>>"castigation" I am now directing at Storga and M. Price.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps, oh wondrous mind-reading one, you could explain how it is you
>>>>claim to know my "atheistic standards".  I don't recall posting anything
>>>>describing them.  Please, tell us how you came by this information.
>>
>>They are atheistic.  That's all I needed to know.

>Hmmm.  Let's see if I get this right.  All you have to know is that I
>spoke of being an Atheist.  That's good enough for you to ascribe to me
>all sorts of stuff. 

Yes, lots of things follow purely and simply from an atheistic viewpoint.
If you do us all the favor of restoring my caveat above, which you 
deleted, I'll gladly explain all this in depth.

> However, when I take someone at face value as being a
>Christian (M.Price) I have to provide evidence, and/or prove that I didn't
>know they were really NOT a Christian.  

M. Price never claimed to be a Christian.  You were indulging in
[eat your heart out, Larry Margolis!] baseless speculation when you
called M. Price a Christian.

>Again, since you state "by Storga's atheistic standards..." I assume that
>you believe I have some special Atheistic standards that deviate from the
>norm significantly.  Please explain what they are, or just confirm that
>you did not mean that I had any special standards.

You have atheistic standards.  Nothing special to distinguish you
from the "normative" atheistic standards is implied thereby.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:21:31 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
->>This from a man who accused me of forgery to the net, because *he* 
->>can't read the attributions correctly, and hasn't had the balls to
->>apologize.

->My netserver was not receiving messages.  If you explained why I am wrong
->and you are right about the attributions, I missed it.  So don't be
->talking about balls.

you already know why you were wrong. you have email
from larry margolis, if not others.

you accused adrienne of forgery. your accusation was
false. you know it was false, as do most reasonable
people who have followed the discussion.

your failure to apologize openly in the same forum
where you falsly accused adrienne confirms my judgement
of your character.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject:  It could Happen
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:55:58 GMT

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

] In article <1992Oct29.135646.5840@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
] sdemitri@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Lucia Demitrio) writes:
] 
] >But I've never called you pro-life; I've argued for a *third* category,
] >and I've called your position a very, very bad idea with troubling im-
] >plications.
] 
] I think you need something a bit shorter if you want it to catch on as a label.
] :-)


NotTheVeryVeryBadIdeaWithTroublingImplications.

Maybe a little shorter than say:

NeoFascistJackBootedJerksForJesusAntiAbortionistFetalIdoltorLunaticFringe....

But it could work as a ThridPartyPlatformSlogan.


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: DODie: on harassment
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:58:06 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->In article <kph1n_l@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
->> So now that you've made up some criteria and assigned them to
->> keegan, why don't you tell us what causes _you_ to attack people?
->> Do share.

->I can't help pointing out Keegan's harassment of women. 

were you frightened of rocker's question, dodie?

->>> Yet I've seen Keegan harass and verbally abuse
->>> women for no reason other than their moderate positions on
->>> abortion, in threads where he and his buddies weren't involved.  

->> Then you'll be happy to post examples of this, won't you?  Surely
->> you wouldn't, like Darcy, make an assertion you can't support.

->Look at any thread where he attacks Ms. Bartley for using
->the prochoice label.  

i'd like to see that DODie. do post an example (psst.
you can use that new quote you've posted a few times
today which proves you lied, unless someone told you
what it said).

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:34:43 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# That's typical of the pro-aborts -- they're only interested
# in providing the choice to abort, nevermind about any other 
# choices.  

Go ahead, Mr. Holtsinger -- test our resolve.  Start trying to take
away any *other* reproductive options, and SEE how fast you run into
opposition from the very same people you see fighting for legal
abortion now.

Ooops.  I guess I should apologize.  You personally haven't advocated
legislation that would do away with any reproductive choice -- in
fact, you claim to be pro-choice -- so I guess that ought to be a
generalized `you' in the above paragraph.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``But I think that until MAGOG can get
| J H Woodyatt              |  some solid Financing, and an exchangeable
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  currency, we can postpone the second
+---------------------------+  coming for a while.''
                                                  -- drieux, just drieux  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:55:37 GMT

In article <1daphqINN531@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> 
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes>

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes>

>> There are several thousand abortions performed after the 21st week
>> of pregnancy; many of these children are killed because they are
>> simply retarded or handicapped.  It makes no sense to allow these
>> children to be killed before birth, but not after birth. 

> Evidence?

I don't have the stats in front of me, but the CDC reports
that several thousand abortions occur annually after the 
21st week of pregnancy, which is not far away from viability. 
I don't have exact numbers on the number of retarded
or handicapped children that are killed, but does it
really make a difference to you?  

>> And, while a non-viable child will die if the child is simply
>> removed from the womnb, it does not follow that a person should
>> have the right to kill them.  The right to kill does not logically
>> follow from the right to refuse bodily support.  I don't have 
>> the right to kill a dying person.

> Yes you do.  Have you given blood today?

How is refusing to give blood 'killing'?   


>Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: FACTS wanted
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:20:32 GMT

In article <Bx9Mux.M56.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> The following books can provide some historical perspective.
> The book on Great Britain has better data on deaths from
> illegal abortion than are available for the U.S.  "Abortion
> in Nineteenth America" provides some contemporaneous
> estimates of the numbers of abortions then.

I wonder if any of these books mention that the CDC reported
39 deaths from illegal abortion in 1972. 

> TITLE: Abortion, medicine, and the law 
> PUBLISHED:  New York : Facts on File, c1992

Does that edition have Mark Tushnet's survey article
on abortion -- you know, the one that shows that  
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
throughout pregnancy? 


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47411 news.admin.misc:300
From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: posting path....
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:29:43 GMT
Followup-To: talk.bizarre
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: b62a76267f0c95673ab49ef1f1bf3539

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>>Path: wetware!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!
		concert!rock!taco!jjprice
>>>From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
>>>(SAME) Subject: Re: Right to Choose
>>>Message-ID: <1992Nov6.195649.11104@ncsu.edu>
>>>Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
>>>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:56:49 GMT
>
>Can anyone explain to me why, if this is suppose to be
>coming out of 'ncsu.edu' that there is NO reference to that
>domain in the 'Path:' line above?
>
>has ncsu.edu sorta fallen off the planet?

No Drieux, it is just your brain being furry.

"taco" is the uucp and netnews name of the system taco.<something>.ncsu.edu
which is one of the main news servers on the NCSU campus.  Netnews has
never required a domain name for a machine in the path header, simply a
unique name for the system that the news transits.

If you take a look, you'll notice that wetware.com simply puts wetware
as its site name in the path, did wetware.com fall off the planet?

I'm just as glad NCSU doesn't plaster its domain name in the path
headers (its bad enough appearing in the mail addresses) for all the
current crop of idiots appearing over there.  (Could it be that all the
bricks have occupied the brains of the folk there?  NOTE: The main quad
in front of the Library is called the "Brickyard" and is totally laid
with brick.)
-- 
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den  (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news@wolves.durham.nc.us  news%wolves@cs.duke.edu  ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
[This site is not affiliated with Duke University. (Idiots!) ]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Eat Hot Flaming Laser Death Monkey Boy!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:14:02 GMT

<1992Nov4.190355.15617@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) :
>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>] <1992Oct30.001730.859@wetware.com> diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
>] >gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>] >] nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>] >] >
>] >] >Whatsamatter, Gordon? cat got your tongue? catwoman got your tongue?
>
>Can someone PLEASE teach Peter How to play this Game?

I don't have *that* much time.

>] >] I haven't had time to go over them yet.  I respond to the short messages
>] >] first.  As far as the "catwoman"...  I'd have to get Drieux's permission
>] >] (and, of course, Diana's) ;-).
>] >
>] >You have my permission to unleash your tongue...
>] 
>] Ooh, Baby!  What an offer!!  8-P  Now all I need is Drieux's permission.:-)
>
>Ok, all you have to do is write a multithreaded kernel
>using object oriented cobol for the 8088 family of chips
>to be used as a Multitasking Multiuser 
>DOS Machine.....

A simple 'NO' would have sufficed.  BTW, does Catwoman (note the capital
'C' there, Peter) know that you consider her some sort of chattel or
possesion, to only be allowed a personal life when *YOU* deem it
acceptable?  Do you think her a mindless automaton that must comply with
your wishes?  Do you feel it is your place to decide her lifestyle FOR
HER?!!

Just asking.

>ciao
>drieux

Durn ferriners...

>ps: For the Slow Readers, the Above is a Technical Specification
>for the Athiests alternative to "When HELL FREEZES OVER!"

You could have at least posed a task that was *possible* but highly
improbable. ;-)


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
                                                         ^^^^^^
Don't make me regret this, son.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Date: 11 Nov 92 04:57:46 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a 
violation of the right to live which God has bestowed
upon this nascent life.  To raise the question whether
we are concerned already with a human being or not is
merely to confuse the issue.  The simple fact is that
God certainly intended to create a human being and that
this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of 
his life.  And that is nothing but murder."

                     Bonhoeffer, "Ethics"   Hanged by
		     the Nazis in 1945.

		      
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<nyikos.721347704@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
	<1992Nov10.130857.20343@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:26:04 GMT

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>I am curious as to whether the referendum was a result of
>Maryland having Initiative and Referendum (I don't know if
>they have it or not) or whether it was an idea of the
>legislature's.  I am also curious, if they have I&R, whether
>the initiative was undertaken originally by pro-choice or
>pro-life supporters.  It would be extremely ironic, and I
>admit I doubt it happened this way, if it were an initiative
>undertaken by pro-life supporters in an attempt to get the
>public on record against abortion.

The referendum was on a law the State legislature had passed for the
purpose of preserving (most of) Roe v. Wade in Maryland in case the
Supreme Court overturned Roe.  The pro-life people petitioned to have
the law placed on the ballot.  A "yes" vote on the ballot question was
a vote in favor of the law the legislature had recently passed.

My understanding of the Maryland constitution is that any bill can be
referred to the voters by petition *except* a revenue bill.


Keith
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: usa says the unborn are not alive.
Keywords: abortion, immigration laws
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:51:32 GMT


 i think i have seen enough scriptures pulled
 out of context to support the anti-choice
 movement.

 now i will turn the tables and pull a law out
 of context to prove the us government does not
 recognize a fetus as living.

 our laws do not see those born in other countries
 (outside us property) as americans without 
 substantial paperwork and proof. it is where you are
 born that matters. not where you were conceived.
 the point where life begins is where your
 citizenship begins.

 that concludes this week's invention exchange.
 what do you think sirs?

 mark.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47706 news.admin.misc:311
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Clearly NOT a FORGERY
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:09:02 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov11.161634.7564@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.003355.29646@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>>Don't cast aspersions on drieux. He's not the one who doesn't see the 
>>point in putting uucp connections on the map if they also run internet. 
>>Current uucp rules still state that if it does uucp, it better be on the
>>map. 

>UUCP rules? Is that like "Usenet authorities"? Who's gonna enforce these
>"UUCP rules"?

>The purpose of having a machine in the UUCP maps is so that folks can get
>mail to you via a short name as well as a long one, e.g. "rotag", as well 
>as "rotag.mi.org". If one doesn't give a damn about being reachable via a
>short name, then what incentive is there to be in the maps?

Ha! If you aren't in the maps, you may not be reachable at all. Some
smart mailers cut off uucp paths. If this happens, and you aren't on
the map, you may well have your mail bounce from an intervening site that
has never heard of you. And the address you are describing (rotag.mi.org)
is NOT a UUCP address. UUCP addresses are of the form node.uucp, or
wolves.uucp. UUCP addresses are NOT the same as Internet, or ARPANET,
or any other net - it's plain old-fashioned UNIX to UNIX Copy Protocol.
A message to a UUCP machine will frequently travel by Internet to the
nearest UUCP gateway - and if you are on the UUCP maps, you can always
send it via uunet.uu.net. And if you aren't, it may hop around, right
back to the sender.

There are some books on UUCP protocols. I suggest you read them.
 

>								- Kevin


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are the enemies to women?
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:21:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <BxIt6t.Fyv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert Scott Parker) writes:
>Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) says:
>>>In article <92299.121706ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>>>> Mr. Overpeck lobbies for the removal of a woman's right to
>>>>>> make decisions over her body.  I personally don't care if he
>>>>>> is given sainthood tomorrow or takes in stray kittens.  To
>>>>>> me he is an enemy to women, as are all like him who attempt
>>>>>> to make women pawns in their own morality play.

>>>>> What about the vast majority of women who support restrictions
>>>>> on abortion?  Are they "enemies to women"?

>>>> I take it Mr. Holtsinger you missed the word "all".
>>>> I do not see that word as gender specific.

> Her answer is clearly, "yes".  Happy now?

Well, no, because Ms. Birmingham didn't answer the question.
If her answer is clearly "yes", then does it follow that
the women who support restrictions on abortion are enemies
to themselves?  She made no exceptions when she said that
every opponent of abortion is "an enemy to women". I'd like
to hear Ms. Birmingham explain that one, if you don't mind. 

>-Rob


Doug Holtsinger
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Petie Nyikos' attribution problem.
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:07:51 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov9.151440.2750@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>Just so everybody knows, I am quite fond of the term "butthead"
>(asinine or not), and I was the one who originated it, calling
>Tommy's ideas "butthead ideas".  Now let's all try to practice
>a little restraint in using the term "butthead" so we don't wear
>out one of my favourite terms.

Petie continues to have his attribution problems with me and others.
As you can see above, Petie, it was not I who introduced butthead into
our dialog.  It was you, misattributing some of Brian's comments to
me.  Maybe you should try to be more careful in your attributions.
Just a pipedream, I guess ...

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:01:05 GMT

[lotsa deletions]

Go in peace, Eric, and thanks from this old galoot. As for me,
well I might stick around and see what happens to the newbies.
I've already raised one child, a few more probably wouldn't
take too much of my time.

:-)

REB


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: DOD and RvW yet again
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:43:15 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes ...
>In <1992Nov6.211309.2531@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com 
>   (Ray Fischer) writes: >
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
>   (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >> 
>>Are you proposing that women should be denied abortions regardless 
>>of medical necessity?  
>
>Is the possibility of "psychological harm" included under the
>rubric of "medical necessity"?  

Of course.  Are you one of those who considers mental illness to be
not truly an illness, but merely the equivalent of excessive whining?
Is psychological harm irrelevent?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47113 soc.women:19048 soc.singles:30033 alt.sex:35212
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.women,soc.singles,alt.sex
Subject: Youth, isn't it so precious...
Date: 8 Nov 92 00:23:48 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
] 
] _The True Believer_ was published in 1951, which probably comes as no
] surprise to most folks who read this, since I don't think that unmarried
] women have been referred to as "spinsters" in a while, or that it is
] very common -- at least I would be surprised if they still were.
] "Spinster" seems like a very old-fashioned word. But also, does what I
] have just reprinted seem "anti-women" to anybody?
] 
] Alison Colman   

I know that sometimes being in AkadamiaLand can limit your
access to the Big world out there....

But if you happen to file for a marriage certificate
in the UK, and you have not previously been married,

GUESS WHAT THEY PUT ON YOUR FORM....

'spinster'

This Does NOT mean that you have been working as a
Spin Doctor... merely that you have NOT previously
been married.

Can we now Safely use the term again, as it is
no longer the clear indication that you have
totally failed as a woman, not having yet
been able to catch and keep a man?

Or is that still a problem?

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.