HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tcbowden@clovis.felton.ca.us (Timothy Bowden)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: We can kill that thread for you, wholesale
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 09:27:36 PST
Organization: Yucca Flats II in Felton, CA

DeadHead@cup.portal.com (Bruce M Ong) writes:

> >In ba.singles, tcbowden@clovis.felton.ca.us (Timothy Bowden) writes:
> >
> >    Ever wonder why you're all single?
> >
> >A great line.  However, shouldn't we separate the never marrieds from the
> >widows from the quadruple divorces, etc. ? 
> 
> 	If I am misinterpreting the question then I apologize before hand,
> but that question sounds a bit accusatorial.

Isn't it interesting how a thread will invariably ravel context?

For example, who can place that line in its indigenous habitat?

This is what happened to the Mayans and their gloomy codices...



=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
tcbowden@clovis.felton.ca.us - 
uunet!scruz.ucsc.EDE!clovis.felton.ca.us!tcbowden
-Join NERDNOSH, a happy gathering of storytellers
nerdnosh-request@scruz.ucsc.edu
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: Really: responsibility vs role expectations
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:08:38 GMT

In article 18014@netcom.com, aldridge@netcom.com (Jacquelyn Aldridge) writes:
>
>	Why is birth control so sided towards women for the short term but
>men for the long term? 
>
>	Well, not to be chauvanistic but women developed
>most of the methods. Abortion, sponges, cervical cups, IUDs, ingested
>toxins, and spermacides were  all used by women all over the world for a
>long time. 
>
>	Women are fertile for as long as 40 years. But when a woman will
>want to bear children will depend on her circumstances. She might want to
>delay child bearing, she might want to space her children, she may want not
>to have any more children (having had enough) but preserve the ability in
>case circumstances change. So there's a mass demand for temporary methods.
>
>	I think if there were a demand for temporary methods for men then
>they would be developed. Is there a demand?

There is a demand, but the different physiology appears to make it more
difficult to find a male contraceptive.

With a woman, eggs are produced one (or occasionally, two) at a time on a 
very fixed schedule determined by hormone levels.  It is very easy to disturb
these hormone levels to prevent the egg production.  Once an egg is produced
and fertilized, it is similarly easy to prevent its implantation (a little 
squiggle of copper will do it).

With a man, sperm are produced all the time, with almost no regard to hormone
level.  Instead of one, there are thousands or millions.  A satisfactory male
contraceptive has to kill all of the sperm.  A single one out of the thousands
is enough to impregnate, and killing most and mangling the rest could result
in defective babies.  

In this area at least, women are much more delicately balanced and it is easy
to upset the process, with either few or acceptable side effects.  Men are more
robust and all of the ways which kill sperm seem to have significant side effects. 

I haven't heard about any new research, but doctors (and everyone else) tend to
work where it's easisest to make progress, which hasn't been male contraceptives.

(Yes, I know I'm inviting flames about side effects, but there are several 
different contraceptives for women to use, and even if one has unpleasant side
effect, another may not.  And not every woman can use every contraceptive.)

---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141
From: tcbowden@clovis.felton.ca.us (Timothy Bowden)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: We can kill that thread for you, wholesale
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 11:05:58 PST
Organization: Yucca Flats II in Felton, CA

sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:

> In ba.singles, tcbowden@clovis.felton.ca.us (Timothy Bowden) writes:
>
>     Ever wonder why you're all single?
>
> A great line.  However, shouldn't we separate the never marrieds from the
> widows from the quadruple divorces, etc. ?  The range of reasons is endless.
> My latest reason (widow) may be the most socially acceptable but some others
> are far more interesting.

None of it really matters to the hostess.  She'll seat you with great disdain
in the kitchen if you show up alone.

And the Lucretia Borgia Black Widow stories can be interesting enough.

Wasn't there a great old-time ballad that went something like

   She removed her hubbie's prize derby today
   without taking it off of his head
    "I stroked those triggers so gently for Ray;
   I was fond of the boy!" she said...

        (words and music ASCAP)

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
tcbowden@clovis.felton.ca.us - 
uunet!scruz.ucsc.EDE!clovis.felton.ca.us!tcbowden
-Join NERDNOSH, a happy gathering of storytellers
nerdnosh-request@scruz.ucsc.edu
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:00:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Geeze, if it were only that simple...(was: Pre-Sex Contract)
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: ba.singles

In ba.singles, rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:

    >    A short proposal:

    >         1)  If the woman wants the child and the man does not, then
    >             the man shall not pay child support and not have visitation
    >             rights.  He shall pay half the cost of medical care during
    >             the pregnancy.  

   You might also want to include a statement about the costs involved in any
   unpaid maternity leave.

    >         2)  If the man wants the child and the woman does not, then
    >             the woman shall not pay child support and not have visitation
    >             rights.  He shall pay half the cost of medical care during
    >             the pregnancy.  

   Here, I would recommend also a fee similar to any fee allowed for a
   surrogate mother.  She has clothing costs, pain, etc. invloved, not just
   medical costs.

    >         3)  If both the man and woman wants the child, then the woman and
    >             man shall pay 50%/50% child support and have the child 50%/50%
    >             of the time assuming that the man and woman do not live
    >             together.

   I disagree with the 50/50 split.  The costs should be split closer to the
   ratio of earnings. 

    >         4)  If both the man and woman do not want the child, then the
    >             woman shall get an abortion or shall give up the child
    >             for adoption.  He shall pay half the cost.

   Since she has all the pain, I would give him all the bills.

Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: obrien@netcom.com (Robert O'Brien)
Subject: Re: Beer . . . hic!
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 10:09:12 GMT

[a combination o' folks wrote:]
>]  
>] |>Send me email before the end of the day Friday if you plan to be 
>] |>there or just show up Saturday 6:00 p.m. onwards.  I'll be the one 
>] |>holding up the bar or kicking John Fereira's butt at (with?) darts.
>] |
>] |I'm tempted to make it down to this one -- who else is coming??


I'll be at another party in Sunnyvale. Having joined the ranks of
the underemployed this Tuesday, I need to see some of the people
who will be there and activate the ol' network, but...

In case it's not a *great* party, there'll be a post-it on my dash reminding
me how to get to Fogg's.  Since I'm not that much of a beer-drinker, now,
let's see, where *are* those 19g tungsten/brass darts????

	Bob "finally got laid... -OFF" O'Bob
--
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Subject: Re: A cup of wisdom
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:13:42 GMT

In article <1gaho1INN21j@morrow.stanford.edu> HF.HLA@forsythe.stanford.edu (Lisa A. Haupt) writes:
(Actually, it's Drieux; Lisa doesn't know how to reply properly)
>> Lisa Haupt
>Just Because you are still in the Denial Phase of
>all of this, does NOT mean that you need to broadcast
>it to the net.....
>>>Geez, it's no wonder you are single!

I'm sure the OriginalProblemOlderWoman would be amused to hear that she
and Drieux are no long together.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"Would you like some toast?!"
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 08:24:16 GMT

In article 53591@watson.ibm.com, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>In <1992Dec8.082329.704@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes:
>>The "I'll have my lawyer contact
>>your lawyer" mentality just isn't very *stimulating* for me.
>
>Hey - I think that's a *great* idea.  Let the professionals do all the screwing.
>:-)

When the professionals do the screwing, guess who gets fucked?  :-(


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141
From: DeadHead@cup.portal.com (Bruce M Ong)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Oh, I forgot... (was: Re:  we can kill...)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:20:14 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: ba
  <71837@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec17.030056.7519@netcom.com>

>In article <71837@cup.portal.com> DeadHead@cup.portal.com (Bruce M Ong) writes
:
>>	Gawd. Being a canonist snob just doesnt pay.  :-)
>
>	It does if your canon is big enough.
>
	Sheeeet... and I have no comeback to that! Argh! I hate that when
that happens!

	Okay. you win. I will add it to my guilt list; but there are ton o  
books in front of it screaming at me waiting to be read.  (Maybe by the
time I get to the book, it will have become a true classic, thus deservingly
canonized by the Politically Correct Reading Police, who publishes the canon
to utne-reader-list@netcom.com once every year.) ;-)

>						Kayembee :-)
----
/bruce
Currently on base: James Joyce Biography (Ellmann), Women on the edge of time 
(Piercy), A revolution from within (Steinem) [Some chick (sic) made me read
this]. At bat: Henri Matisse, a retrospective (John Elridge, NY MOMA), on 
deck: The Master Builder (ibsen).  Pinch Hitter: Ulysses (joyce).
Xref: sparky ba.singles:2686 alt.romance.chat:22077
From: dch@rodan.UU.NET (Dan C. Horner)
Newsgroups: ba.singles,alt.romance.chat
Subject: Re: The TygerBoink Committee would like to thank you
Date: 17 Dec 1992 18:32:24 -0500
Organization: UUNET Technologies Inc, Falls Church, VA
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net

In article <75588@apple.apple.COM> erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp) writes:
>I guess I'm the only one who didn't catch a cold at the TygerBoink ... even
>though someone whose name shall go unmentioned gave me a *great* opportunity
>to catch one (but thank you for the opportunity!)... :)
>
>I guess I have a strong immune system, so don't be afraid to kiss me at the
>next Boink... :) :)
>-- 
>Ed Carp, N7EKG                    erc@apple.com                   801/538-0177
>"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
>happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
>and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"


Hate to break it to you, but I didn't get one either...

Admittedly... I had the power of Vodka in my veins...

So, everyone out there... Ya got TWO kissees at the next one...

Ever the irrepressible...

			Blade
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: your lousy pre-sex contract
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:44:14 GMT

In article wJ@rahul.net, gordon@rahul.net (Gordon Vickers) writes:
>    I tried getting child support (didn't need it, just thought some degree
>  of responsibility should remain) and was treated like a jiggalow. I did
>  not get the impression that either attorney, or even the judgette really
>  gave a thought to what the kids may be entitled to.


The judge may have been very aware of what the kids were entitled to.  They 
are entitled to a reasonable level of support.  If you have custody and are
able to support them (as you seem to indicate), the court sees no need to 
impose your concept of responsibility on your ex-spouse.   If your ex-wife
had significantly less income than you, then the court will look at your 
trying to get child support as vindictive and trying to line your own pockets.

Maybe that is why everybody treated you as a gigolo. 


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141
From: charleen@net.bio.net (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Self Refuting Posts
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:13:32 GMT
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Biology

In article <15854@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>
>I seem to be having trouble with my mailtool lately.

Perhaps you should have a chat with Dr. Root.

Charleen

-- 
To join the Vintage Clothing and Costume Jewelry Mailing List:
   send mail to vintage-request@presto.ig.com
From: ldow@biosys.apldbio.COM (Leslie Johnston-Dow)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Why there might be a need for a (Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:26:45 GMT
Reply-To: ldow@biosys.UUCP (Leslie Johnston-Dow)
Organization: Applied Biosystems Inc, Foster City, CA

>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>(Originally appearing in the Orange County Register)
>
>TALE OF THE RICH: DAUGHTER NEEDS $6,000 A MONTH IN SUPPORT
>
Let me speak here as someone who pays childsupport. (I
say this to head off any flames concerning my awareness of the pain
of paying childsupport only)

The children have a right to enjoy the same standard of life as that of
the parents. If the non-custodial parent lives in the lap  of luxury then
so should the child. If that means that the guardian or custodial parent
*also* lives in the lap of luxury that is (or should be) irrelevant.

I know people who pay greater than 30% of their income in child support.
That is considered fair because the child has a right to the same measure
of comfort as the parent. I doubt that $6K/month is 30% of this fathers
monthly income. 8-> 

The take home comment here is that if you consider child support only
in the context of support for the child, I doubt that $6K/month
is exorbitant in this case.

-- 
Leslie Johnston-Dow            ldow@apldbio.com
Applied Biosystems Inc
-- 
Leslie Johnston-Dow            ldow@apldbio.com
Applied Biosystems Inc
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Oh, I forgot... (was: Re:  we can kill...)
Organization: QQQCLC
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:00:56 GMT

In article <71837@cup.portal.com> DeadHead@cup.portal.com (Bruce M Ong) writes:
>	Gawd. Being a canonist snob just doesnt pay.  :-)

	It does if your canon is big enough.

						Kayembee :-)
Newsgroups: ba.singles,alt.feminism,soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women
From: whedon@netcom.com (Bill Whedon)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Okay, what *is* that view? (was: Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:47:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <1992Dec17.035607.11245@netcom.com> desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:
>In article <2450048@hpsad.sad.hp.com> sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
> writes:
>
(stuff deleted)
>>women are supposed to wear black lace undies and men feel free to wear
>>the same jockey shorts they've been wearing since age 3?  Wouldn't it
>>make more sense for them to dress up for the women?
>
>	Not really.  They don't get the thrill out of seeing themselves
>in the little skimpy frocks that they get out of seeing us in the little
>skimpy frocks.
>
(more stuff deleted)
>..... for bed, I quietly handed him his boots, hat and a skimpy g-string
>and told him that "fair was fair" after all.  He learned and thereafter
>took some care to make sure that if I was dressing up to please him,
>he should take some care to do the same for me -- at least he threw
>out the jockeys with holes...
>
And I, after 14 years of marriage, lost 30 pounds so's I'd look better in
the silky, butt-showing skivvies my wife bought for me some years back, and
wore 'em to bed a couple weeks ago (and ever since!)... What a NICE surprise!

Fatboys with computer pallor and no muscles, take note:  Get off your fat
asses and get down to the gym.  Work out until you sweat that lard off.  You
will have no need for contracts.  Assuming you haven't already shot any chance
of a relationship in the head by presenting one, your lady will _really_ like
the fact that you actually are trying to look good _for_her_.  WEAR those red
satin briefs on your newly-muscled glutes.   Show some shoulders and biceps.
You owe it to the women you would clothe in see-thru teddies for your own
enjoyment.  Listen to Sheena Easton "Strut", and heed it well.
bw


-- 
-- If I ain't programmin' I ain't awake! --
From: erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Beer . . . hic!
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:44:12 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Bleeding Edge Technologies - 'Sliding Down The Razor Blade Of Life...'

In article <1992Dec19.003609.1026@wetware.com> diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:

>Barring other unforseen problems (I REFUSE to
>be sick again), the PYM and I are talking about
>being there also.

What???  You mean, I will *finally* get a chance to met the infamous CatWoman???
Oh, my!  I suppose I'll have to wear my best jeans (the ones without the holes)
and my very best T-shirt, huh? :)
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG                    erc@apple.com                   801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: The TygerBoink Committee would like to thank you
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:50:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.135247.2697@wetware.com> diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
>
>All it means is that we HAVE to have another
>boink REAL soon - to test the theory of whether
>there's a correlation between boinks and rain/flu,
>and to give those of us who were sick this time
>a chance to meet everyone!
>

...and when a trip by me to Monterey won't skew your statistics.  ;-)


-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: jmw@angelo.amd.com (John Wincn)
Subject: *whimper* *sniffle* *sniff* (was: Re: your lousy pre-sex contract)  
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:02:24 GMT

In article <Bz6G9G.G9K@rahul.net> gordon@rahul.net (Gordon Vickers) whines:
>
>     I wasn't trying to be vindictive.  Just asking for some fairness.
[...]
>   becomes unemployed, she can get him later for back payments. On the
[...]
>     How many fathers can just walk away ?  We don't get that option, only
>   the mother does.
>     Do you know any mothers who pay child support ?  Why must it be just
>   the fathers ?
[...]
>     The system is sexist.  The woman holds all the advantages.
>
>     Now that I am again employed, good ol' Santa Clara County would make
>  ME pay HER child support IF, she were to have the kids every other 
>  week end .  Now that is SCREWY!   (No one is going to mention this to
>  her right?)

Awwwww, poor baby!   Life has been very tough on you, hasn't it?
Perhaps if you had thought about this a little, howevermanyyearsago,
the county wouldn't have to force you to live up to your responsibility
and you could continue to behave as if the world owes you a living.

The trouble with your philosophy is that life and reality seldom work 
out that way.  
--
J. M. Wincn                           jmw@angelo.amd.com (408) YUP-BEER 
               Standard DISCLAIMER available on request.
From: jmw@angelo.amd.com (John Wincn)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Close, but no cigar.. (was: Re: Really: responsibility vs role expectation)
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:43:09 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Dec11.230838.16912@eagercon.com> eager@eagercon.com writes:
>Instead of one, there are thousands or millions.  A satisfactory male
>contraceptive has to kill all of the sperm.  A single one out of the thousands

That's close, but in fact: thousands are required to ensure pregnancy, one 
usually wins out.  It is not necessary to kill *all* the sperm to prevent 
pregnancy, it is merely necessary to kill *most* of them.  Don't believe me?
Consider this: a man is considered 'infertile' when his viable sperm count 
drops below some magic number.  This *may* but does not *necessarily* imply 
that he does not produce sperm. 

sic friatur crustulum (c)
--
J. M. Wincn                           jmw@angelo.amd.com (408) YUP-BEER 
               Standard DISCLAIMER available on request.
From: DeadHead@cup.portal.com (Bruce M Ong)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Beware of Smoke and Mirrors
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 12:16:47 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: ba
  <1992Dec11.175410.1559@fico.uucp> <1992Dec11.213255.15457@netcom.com>

>In article <1992Dec11.175410.1559@fico.uucp> ala@fico.UUCP (Adryenn Ashley)
>remarks:
>>In article <1992Dec8.204001.12150@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux,
> just drieux) writes:
>
>>>I hate to tell you this, but RealWomen[tm] do NOT go to bars.
>>>Only Cheap Sleazy Hussys will be found any place that
>>>Demon Alcohol will be found!
>>
>>Not true.  Lots of real women go to bars, as long as there is 
>>something else going on beside drinking, like a band, dancing, 
>>or comedy.  So don't generalize.
>
>	Oh do get with it...  Learn how to interpret a post.
>
>	I'm a Woman and I go to bars just to imbibe in cheap, disgustingly
>sweet frothy drinks and pick up men.  Why else does one go in the first
>place?  

10) I have never been there before
 9) Their orange juice is cheap (I cant drink much beer)
 8) They have a pool table that's not always occupied! (Cal's on union)
 7) Their CD Juke Box has great classical music or cool grateful dead tunes
     (the OrbitRoom on Market & Laguna, and Pierce street manor in Marina)
 6) I get to say hi and catch up with the sound engineer (Johnny Love's)
 5) I can do my laundry there (brain wash, folsom & 7th)
 4) I know the people who hang out there (orbit room , on friday nights)
 3) The "kids" are not allowed to slam dance on the dance floor!
 2) The women there are beautiful (Cafe du Nord on market)
 1) The walls look like they are painted by Gustav Klimt, the furnitures 
    designed by Salvador Dali, and the whole bar directed by Peter Greenaway...
    (noc noc, haight & filmore)

	Well. you asked ;-)

>Any other "reason" is just a beard.
>
	that's very true, but that doesnt mean there is no other reason...

>Desiree
----
/bruce "Looking for other 'art' bars in the City"
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Subject: Re: Oh, I forgot... (was: Re:  we can kill...)
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:44:01 GMT

In article <75589@apple.apple.COM> erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp) writes:
>
>It's *amazing* how many people *haven't* seen "The Princess Bride".  I asked
>around at the Boink, and I was mightily disappointed...

<sneer>  Another illiterate.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"Would you like some toast?!"
Newsgroups: ba.singles