HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Great American Novel.......Part One
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:47:17 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <16109@umd5.umd.edu> spinoza@next01wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:
>
>				Chapter One
>" Does Simon realize that his rechristening as 'LeBooth' was a reference
>either to Simon Legree or else to Jean Marie LePen, both of whom he
>resembles quite a bit?," the Bonnie Laird wondered to himself as he
>fingered the bit of pottery he'd scavenged from the Forum Romanum. "Does a
>slug understand the nature of the Usenet system? Does a Borg understand
>the meaning of a logical argument, as opposed to a specious one?".
>Determined to divine the answers to these questions, he rose from his
>throne and began to ponder the karma which made some, like the creature
>called drieux, all knowing and witty to boot, and some like the Borgoid,
>eternally lost in its own ravings, or like the simonbooth, adrift in a sea
>of stupidity. Lost in thought, he wandered aimlessly as he pondered the
>great mysteries of life. Suddenly, his reverie was interrupted. The Rabbit
>called to him,  reminding him to actually do that architecture project
>he'd been putting off for nearly two weeks. He cursed softly, his toes
>curling as he contemplated the long hours he would spend that night,
>wrestling with the plain white paper that would be transformed into a
>thing of beauty.
>
How many times must I explain to you all what I was talking about.
I am none of the things you accuse me of.  Read my last posts, ok???
Simon
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade (was Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:18:25 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  <1992Oct12.211232.6772@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> Yes, physicians have the final word on the fate of a third-trimester
> fetus when a woman comes to them for an abortion. But that's not much
> different from unrestricted abortion-on-demand.

Well, Doug, considering that there are only three doctors in the US
who perform third-trimester abortions, and that only about 100 of them
are performed *per year*, and that those are only performed for serious
health reasons, I don't see that there's any problem.  (And remember,
Doug, you acknowledged seeing support for this.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:32:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <2801497960@psl.nrl.navy.mil> usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil (usenet) writes:
#In article <7173@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) 
#writes:
#
## I just wonder why there are no female FFLA members on the net,
## or even any women who are willing to support the FFLA stand.
#
#I think thats obvious - the group is relatively new and small (should be 
#comforting to  you).  

Please.  FFL published a book in 1985, so that makes them at least
seven years old.  As I recall, it was formed even earlier than
that.  

#You may take that as a further indication of FFLA's 
#illegitimacy.  I do not.  Can millions of pro-choice women be wrong? You 
#bet.

If a man says they are wrong, they are, is that it?

## I have read posts from five different men supporting the group.
##.... but none can be considered
## feminists by any stretch of the imagination.  Why are there
## so many men who don't think of women as equals, but are
## quite willing to tout this so-called feminist group?
#
# I am not familiar with these men's postings.  Maybe they are using FFLA 
#to assuage their consciences if they are as you say.  On the other hand, 
#if you are defining "as equals" to mean "pro-choice" then we have a 
#tautalogy.

No, although I do believe that people who think that men and
women are equal are pro-choice, that was not the criteria that
I was using in this example.  I was referring to men who oppose
allowing women in combat, who state that they do not think
that women make rational decisions, and who don't believe that
women are capable of doing traditionally-male jobs.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Using the Bible with non-Christians?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:59:05 GMT

In article <warren.718548104@beloved> warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:
>Does anyone else other than me feel it is foolish to be talking about abortion
>from a Biblical perspective with non-Christians?
No. Perhaps you should learn thatthe ability to detect a logically invalid
argument has nothing to do with whether or not one believes the premises.

>They don't believe in Jesus Christ.  They don't believe the Bible.  They will
>argue using the Bible because we believe it and they think it gives them power
>over us. However without being a Christian, they can NOT understand the Bible.
>The Bible is a spiritual book that you can only understand fully when you
>have the Holy Spirit.
Well, the problem, Warren is that Christians who, you would have us believe,
have the Holy Spirit, and thus understand the Bible more fully than
non-Christians, seem to have quite the same range of disagreement that
non-Christians do. How do you explain that if your thesis is correct?

-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."
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Well, now, isn't that *SPECIAL*???
Date: 7 Oct 1992 18:04:10 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In article <1992Oct7.225743.8353@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>You know, I just wish that every man who has ever said this could be
>pregnant and give birth just once.  One time.

Can I amend your statement just slightly, Keith?  How bout "I just wish that 
every man who has ever said this could be pregnant and forced to give 
birth just once."

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:05:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.050456.153530@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct7.031733.9036@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct07.001512.128290@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com write
>> >In  <1992Oct6.191835.22191@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Mart
>> >>
>> >> Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
>> >> Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?
>> >
>> >If you're talking about a person, no.  If you're talking about a zygote,
>> >yes.
>>
>> Translate zygote -> human life (no more egg/sperm debate please).
>
>Translate sperm -> human life
Translate sperm -> specialized human cell but not a human life.
>Translate egg -> human life
Translate egg -> specialized human cell but not a human life (member of homo
		  sapiens)
>Translate sperm -> member human species
Translate sperm -> member of no species
>Translate egg -> member human species
Translate egg -> member of no species.
>
>> If you're talking about a human life, then yes, social reasons take
>> precedence over destroying that human life.
>
>You really should distinguish between forms of human life.  I do agree
>with you in regards to human life before personhood, but I don't agree
>that social reasons take precedence over destroying people.  (Actually,
>I think you're confused (as usual) and you don't agree that social reasons
>take precedence over *any* form of human life, significant or not.)
>
To say any form of human life is insignificant is something I do not agree 
with.  I don't see how a human life can become insignificant when it exists
as a human life.

----------

Larry, do you mean what you say?  You don't agree that social reasons take
precedence over destroying human lives?  You are starting to sound like
a good pro-life individual. :)

>> >> The being that exists at conception is exactly the same being that turns
>> >> out to be a forty year old musician, a seven year old child prodigee or
>> >> whatever.
>> >
>> >Then how come I can see the forty year old musician without a microscope?
>> >Maybe there's at least a little bit of difference?
>> >
>> The stage of being in a human's life doesn't change the fact that that
>> being began his/her existence as a human from conception.
>
>Of course not, but that's not what you said.  You said they're exactly the
>same, which is patently ridiculous.  Are you going to try to redefine some
>terms again, or will you agree that they're *not* "exactly the same"?

Literally speaking, or looking at it from a certain perspective, you 
unify with the five month old you.  When I mean the same I mean you cannot
separate yourself from what you were when you were first one (unified).
You cannot change bodies in the middle of your life.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos 
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:24:15 GMT

In <1992Oct6.150454.27077@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
In article <1992Oct5.190140.19923@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <6693@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>

>>>>> What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
>>>>> about a dead young woman?  
> 
>>>> Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
>>>> crusade.  
> 
>>> I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  
> 
>> I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...
>
> Probably because of the evidence, old darling.  It tends to lead
> one to conclusions.

In true Kaflowitz tradition...

All lies and jests
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
and disregards the rest

> Now don't get above yourself, Billy dear, and accuse anyone
> of paranoia.

Paranoia, sweet pea, is irrelevant when someone is out to get
you... 

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.war.vietnam,alt.conspiracy
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Is George IN the Loop
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:12:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.065101.26830@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>>We KNOW that it is "immoral to demonstrate against one's country
>>>when it is at war...." {Read His Lips, Would HE Lie to US?}

>>Are you saying he isn't entitled to that opinion?

>Yes.  Exercising your first amendment rights is immoral????

Let me make sure I understand this:
1. Clinton can do what he wants under the first amendment.
2. George Bush is not allowed to express opinions about it.

Therefore the First Amendment applies to Clinton but not Bush?

How about other people? Does the First Amendment apply to people who
hold the view that abortion is wrong or is it only Bush who isn't covered?

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------193 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:53:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.224810.24975@netcom.com> 
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

> Unless you donate some of your body's resources, a man will die.
>
> Unless a woman donates some of her body's resources, a fetus will die.

This analogy fails since the "donation" of resources by the woman
has already commenced in the case of pregnancy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:50:22 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

>In article <1992Oct10.013251.9252@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
>Forgach) wrote:
>> 
>> Rush is on all over the country.
>
>Heh.  Enjoy him while he lasts.  The way things are looking right now, I
>give him about five weeks.

Nah, with Clinton in the White House and a Democratic Congress, he'll be
able to demagogue for four years, at least...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:13:32 GMT

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:

>Medically, a member of a given species
>will eventually develop into an adult of that species if not killed and if given
>nutrition.  

Tautology.  Species members need far more than "nutrition" to develop
into adulthood.  Of course, lack of any of the myriad other necessary
things will, in fact, kill them.

>Steve

                          -rocker

>gore Clinton in '92

Is this a pro-"life" sentiment?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis bites the dust
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:21:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.155609.11200@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

>Well, Larry, you have invited upon yourself a gunfight over the poll data.

>        And so I hereby fire bullets into your credibility's face:




Hmmm...  Gunfight metaphors.  Hardly sounds pro-life to me.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41607 talk.politics.misc:50550 alt.rush-limbaugh:6961
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:55:18 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct7.215512.12468@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

GS:I was referring to the terminology used in the Constitution to refer to
GS:"born persons".  For example, US citizens (those people who have rights in
GS:this country) are people who are *BORN* here, or who have naturalized.  To
GS:naturalize you must provide BIRTH records.  Non-citizens (people not born
GS:here or not yet naturalized) are accorded a subset of these rights and
GS:protections.

GS:So you see, the Constitution (the highest document in this land) doesn't 
GS:recognize a fetus as a person.

Actually the Constitution does not recognize a fetus as a citizen, it doesn't
say anything about them not being a person.  
-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Responsible sex
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:46:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.183907.21993@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>>>>What I was saying is that abstinence would obviously prevent unwanted
>>>>pregnancy, while protected sex would greatly reduce the risk.
>>>>Theorectically, responsible behavior would greatly reduce the need for
>>>>an abortion.
>>>
>>>It does without a doubt.  Are you proposing responsibility police?
>>>"Police!  Open up!  OK fella, pull out reealll slow and show us the
>>>condom."
>>>
>>You make it sound like it responsible sex is a bad thing.  And no, I'm
>>not talking about "police" of any kind.
>
>Quite the contrary.  I think responsible sex is a _very_ good idea.
>I just don't see it being a very useful _legal_ concept since
>enforcement would be difficult.  And the first rule of good
>government is don't make any laws you can't/won't enforce.
>
Thank you!! Someone here finally understands what I'm talking about.
I'm not promoting "legislation" of responsibility, I merely suggested it
as something worth trying, but that is not an attack on all sex.  Like I
said, deciding to wait is NOT a denunciation of it.
Simon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:23:06 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>> 
>> And the DOI <Declaration of Independence> has no legal bearing, thank Dean.
>
>
>Tell it to Mother England, Keithy.

What are you talking about?  The D of I has absolutely no legal bearing.
It is a statement of intent.  I suspect the King and his cohort had a good
laugh, figuring that the Red Coats and their Hessian mercenaries would kick
the crap out of Washington and his little band of Contras.

Simply writing a nice, flowing document declaring independence does not
make it so.  There was a wee bit o' fighting to see if the Colonials had
the cujones to stand behind it.  They did.

  -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 22:23:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.125912.20570@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

{other people's credits somehow were lost before this reached me.} 

>Typical.
>

>You *didn't* read the post, did you?  The risks of abortion are over twice
>as high as the risks of childbirth.  Second, with the risks they way they are,
>this should NOT be the primary factor.  The unborn baby's LIFE is much more
>important.

You didn't read any current US statistical data, did you? Childbirth is
an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE more dangerous than abortion.

>>No, babies have been born.  Killing a baby is illegal, abortion is
>>not.

>I don't care what's legal and what's illegal, and what your definition of
>baby is...I'm talking about what *should* be.

I get it. You don't give a damn about reality, only your fantasy world.
Did you play to many rounds of Dungeons and Dragons or what?

>>>of her child, and she will eventually regret that choice.

>>Unsupported and incorrect.  A lie.

>Your opinion.

Ditto, in your case. Show us a source for this statistic. Compare it
to statistics for regretting childbirth. Then there might be something
worth evaluating. Your current argument is about as valid as noting
that everyone who ate tomatoes in 1600 is now dead.

>>BFD.  Just because she's quoted doesn't mean Ms/ McMillan is in
>>slightest bit correct in her assertion.

>Did I say she was?

Why did you quote her? The quote was sort of a non sequitir taped to an
oxymoron.
 
>>Quoting select verses from the Bible can be used to establish _any_
>>point.  People have posted biblical _support_ for abortion _and_
>>murder.

>Those people are either ignorant or stupid, for if you take the Bible as a
>whole, it is VERY CLEAR WHAT THE BIBLICAL OPINION ON MURDER IS.  As for
>abortion, THERE IS *NO* CLEAR VERSE FOR IT.  Though it is very clear that Jesus
>has a very definite love for children.

Jesus, the pedophile? :-) If the meaning of the bible is so clear, why are
there so many different sects that each claim to have the final truth?
 
>>The rest of post is no more credible than this bit.  Filled with
>>meaningless pseudo-statistics, unattributed quotations, appeal to
>>emotion, and outright lies, it is not a collection of arguments 
>>against abortion but is rather nothing more than propaganda designed 
>>sucker the gullible and assuage the consciences of the fanatics.

>These are all blind assertions made at a post you didn't even give a decent
>refute to.  I'll return in kind, and not give your post any more consideration
>than this.

Airhead.

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:59:24 GMT

> = (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>> = (Bruce Varney) writes:
>>> = (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>>	I don't really give a shit what you care about you heartless
>>bitch. I am sick and fucking tired of hearing all this women's rights shit.
>>Get this fucking straight once and for all - ABORTION IS NO MORE A WOMEN'S
>>RIGHTS ISSUE THAN ABOLITION WAS A SLAVE OWNER'S RIGHTS ISSUE.
>>
>>	Just because you do not see fit to respect the rights of others
>>to live does not mean that I have to agree with you. Don't like my
>>choice of words? Don't like me calling a fetus a child, and calling
>>abortion murder? Tough shit. Truth hurts, doesn't it??

>No guts to post this on soc.women, soc.feminism and alt.feminism eh?

No guts, period.  No logic either.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Followup-To: talk.bizarre
Organization: Draft Dodgers for Quayle and Clinton  
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:26:16 GMT

In article <1b1mngINNdh1@overload.lbl.gov> inspecti@ux7.lbl.gov () writes:
- >	I have to say that I agree with Kurt here.  I gave up reading anything
- >from "drieux" quite a while ago, in spite of the fact that we seem to agree 
- >some issues, because of the headaches that it was causing.  Perhaps a lesso 
- 
- In this "Newsgroups:" line is a phrase.  This phrase is "talk.bizarre."
- I won't attempt to explain the phenomenon which is called "talk.bizarre,"

	That's all well and good, but notice that "talk.bizarre" is not 
   the only newsgroup listed.  Claiming that DrieuxCreativeGrammar is 
   not only tolerated, but DoublePlusGoodToBoot, simply because he chose 
   to EvilAssaultCrossPost the article to tALK.bIZARRE in addition to 
   all the other groups is on par with claiming that the abortion topic 
   is fair game for news.announce.newusers, rec.humor.funny, and any 
   other newsgroup, as long as the article is also crossposted to the 
   group talk.abortion - in other words, Homey Don't Play That!  
   
	Tell the truth Matthew ... is drieux an AI at LBL ???  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "From each according to his naivete, 
  kossack@qvi.com  |   to each according to his greed"  
  +1 713 240 2073  |                         -- Jeff Orrok