HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject:  It was the little green men from mars! (Was: question for male p-l's)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 17:39:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.173256.3307@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>smccabe@franklin.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr07.072202.8316@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>
>>>>to answer:
>>>
>>>>What equivalent responsibility (if any) do you propose for the
>>>>MALE who got the potentially aborting woman pregnant?
>>>
>>>>And people wonder why I have little respect for pro-"life" males.
>>>
>>>>                           -rocker
>>>
>>>
>>>The reason for so little response would be self-evident to the rational
>>>person.  In preparing for this "debate" you force the respondent to 
>>>automatically take up the defensive position.  Hardly an intelligent way
>>>to start any argument or debate.  So if you are so proud (haughtily) of
>
>>This from a man who consistently refers to people who disagree with
>>him on the question of the legality of abortion as "pro-death".  Gee, 
>>that sure doesn't start out by putting anyone on the defensive or
>>anything.  
>
>Geeee...I wouldn't take much thinking to realize that the "pro-death" is a
>simple response to those who insist on using "anti-abortion" and the   
>white-wash nature of the term "pro-choice".  When I see universal respect
>for Pro-Life I will return the favor. 

Yet another "When everybody believes like I do, then we'll have peace" jerk.

Note how Kevin doesn't complain about those who use the "white-wash nature of
the term" pro-life?

Clue time, Mr. Anti-Women's-Rights:

Nah, you wouldn't know a clue if it came up and kicked you in the nuts...
>

(Although I will give you another hint:  Nora is respected in t.a because she
is capable of posting intelligent, thought-provoking, insightful posts.  The
fact that she's so cute certainly doesn't hurt either.  You, so far, have yet
to post anything intelligent, thought-provoking, or insightful.  You, so far,
have yet to even show that you have HAD a thought in your life.  If you detect
any "Nora Worship", it's because Nora deserves it).
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson)
Subject: NEWS: That NYC Doctor
Organization: New York University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 13:40:21 GMT

Regular readers may recall the case of the NYC doctor who severed
the right arm of a fetus who was later born alive.  The woman thought
she was only a few months pregnant, and Dr. Abu Hayat did not follow
standard procedure (he failed to perform a sonogram, among other things).

A number of people asked to me to post further news, when available,
so here is some more (info from NY Times, 17.April.92, B2).

His license was suspended prior to a hearing (very unusual--required the
claim that he posed an imminent danger to society).  A Manhattan Grand Jury
indicte him yesterday of breaking New York's abortion law and the NYS
health department said it would revoke his license by today.  He was
charged with assaulting the mother and baby, and "showed depraved 
indifference to human life by recklessly engaging in conduct which
created a grave risk of death."  That's lawyer-speak, but ya'll get
the drift.  In a some other cases, he was charged with sexually abusing
woman and of assualting yet another woman by performing an incomplete
abortion (one of his business tactics was allegedly to demand payment 
in advance ~$500 and then stop halfway and demand another ~$500).

I also realized that I have left out one of the exceptions to NY's
abortion law, which prohibits abortions after 24 weeks.  The exception
I have mentioned is if the life of the woman is at risk, but abortions
are also legal if the "fetus is given no chance of surviving a full
term pregnancy." 



david
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: Some Park Service Estimates (formerly: The March in D.C.)
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 23:55:41 GMT


In a previous article, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) says:

>
>When a man and woman love each other, they don't kill the child they've
>made together.
>


again.....how many happily married couples have abortions?????

Funny..... abortion seems to be used by a certain type of person



-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:08:53 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  <1992Apr9.204909.3490@coopsol.com>  gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
> Be proud of it.  Just don't come in here and tell us what sex is all about
> when you've never experienced it first hand.
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
Perhaps you should phrase that a little differently, in order to avoid
tempting those of us who are weak in spirit:
  when you've never experienced it in person.
                                   ^^^^^^^^^

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 22:54:56 GMT


In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) says:

>Adopted any kids lately, MaThiEu???

sorry you fils du pute......I'm only 18. Adopting kids doesn't look
like a viable option. But I will tell you this. I am planning upon
adopting one and having one naturally. I realize that some mothers
cannot support a child. So I would like to help them out.

Later

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: RE: Dear Stupid, Pro-Life, Ass-Hole... :] (Sorry, I couldn't resist..)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 APR 92 00:27:06 GMT

In a previous article, jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") wrote:
>In article <14APR92.03353958@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu  
>writes:
>> But we are not talking about the same right.  We are not talking about 
>> one persons right to live over another persons right to live.
> 
>Of course we're not talking about the same right. The fetus cannot  
>possibly have a right to live, because rights can be voluntarily waived.
>A fetus, since it is not yet capable of thought, cannot volunteer  
>anything.

A right is defined as something that can voluntarily be waived?  This is news 
to me.  Are you saying that a newborn baby that can't communicate yet has no 
rights?  

> 
>> All rights are not equal. 
> 
>I totally agree there. The right to live is obviously pretty high on
>the hierarchy of rights, but the supreme right is that to waive any 
>other right. Without it, our rights would merely be duties.

I don't think the right to waive your rights is "the supreme right".  If I 
want to gove up my right one of my rights it takes precedence over your rights 
to live?

> 
>> Does one persons right to free speech supercede another persons right
>> to live?  No, if it did then solicitation to commit a crime 
>> (specifically, a murder) would not me illegal. I believe that the 
>> right to live must have priority of over the right to free speech, and 
>> the right to bear arms. 
> 
>Yes, but if we give the fetus a right to life, that means it must be
>able to choose to _not_ live. It obviously can't do that, so the only
>way to make abortion illegal (if that's what you're seeking) is to
>force upon all fetuses the duty to be born, and upon all women the
>duty to give birth. Would that really be what you want? 

Like I said before.  A newborn baby can't make that choice any better then a 
not-yet born baby.  Does that mean that newborn babys don't have any rights?

> 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
>"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
> Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....


Loren Finkelstein
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Subject: Touchy Vincent (WAS Re: SNOOPER IN THE NET)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:57:32 GMT

> = (Conrad "C.C. Rider" Vincent) writes:
>> = (Scott W Roby) writes:

>>         Careful investigation has shown that the Dennis Hall
>> posts are indeed a fraud.

>If you spend more time arguing sense in t.a instead of snooping around 
> things that dont concern you and taking part in mud slinging feativals ,
>perhaps we can make something out of you afterall-though I strongly doubt it

This makes *perfect* sense, which is why you don't like it: obviously,
someone (gee, Welch, I wonder who?) forged a fake pro-choice posting to cover
up Kevin Welch's misogynic e-mail to Susan Gavin.

Thank you, Scott, for this illuminating detective work.  It was a hell of 
a lot more interesting then Rosary Beads Vincent trying to justify the
Catholic Church's efforts to rule the goddamned world.

Uh, Conrad, ol' chap: you wouldn't know anything about the bogus poster,
wouldja?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@jaynes.USWest.Com
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:41:13 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price) writes:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>> Yes, it is difficult to argue with people who, when asked to back up their
>> claims, say "because I said so", or "because [favorite deity] said so".
>> Ever argue with a child?  That's it exactly.

>> The "unborn" don't have any rights.  How can you defend what doesn't
>> exist, Mr Quixote?

>Gordon,
>        For once, I agree with you. In the USA, the unborn _don't_ have
>any civil rights, just as in the past slaves had none, and free people
>of color had few.

Ok, let's continue the trend, no stopping us now. Chimps will have to
be the next ones with full rights, then spider monkeys, orangutangs,
gorillas,....,cows,...., amoebaes, plankton,...., smallpox virus,...

You see where it leads????? Your logic, that is. A fetus is not a person,
and I invite you to dispute that however you wish, as long as you can
prove it logically.

What was in the past is not relevant to this discussion. we're moving
the other way, wrt rights, and we're saying this is a good place to
stop. Otherwise the absurd statement above would become a logical conclusion
of what you propose.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:37:28 CDT

In article <92096.024434KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.214523.25335@cs.dal.ca>
>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>
>>>in society. The "cheapened" concept of sex that we encounter as of
>>>present has resulted in many cop-outs such as abortion. With
>
>
>When did this cheapening of sex begin?  Since it resulted in abortion, it has
>to have been before the beginning of abortion. So, how long has this been
>going on?
>
If we want to discuss the 'cheapening' of sex, I think we need some
documentation. Even anecdotal evidence from someone who's been paying
for it!

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: stark@saturn.sdsu.edu (Brian D. Stark)
Subject: Re: Loser, Loser, who's the loser (was: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Organization: San Diego State University, Math Dept.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:55:15 GMT

In article <12489@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>In article <122664@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa  
>Corsetti) writes:
>$ A girlfriend of mine is a single mom, and she gets no child
>$ support payments from the father who is a loser.  She used to tell  
>me about
>$ wanting to get a lawyer to go after him, but she's just too busy to
>$ hassle with it.  Plus, the father is not living a "stable life"  
>himself.
>$ It's a very tough situation.
>
>
>Sounds like your girlfriend is the loser. After all she
>1) decided to involve herself with a loser
>2) hopped into bed (or was it the backseat of a car) with the loser
>3) didn't take responsibility for birth control
>4) got pregnant by the loser
>5) and carried the loser's child to full term
>
>Now she's paying for her poor judgement.
>
>Don't ask me to feel sorry for her, when she's the one who's the  
>loser.

Sounds to me like you are displaying a tremendous amount of ignorance
by using steriotypical information to make an assertation of someone
you know absolutely nothing about.

What do you know about raising a child by yourself, with all the 
responsibilities including financial and emotional.  When you prove
that you have one iota of knowlege about the situation, I will
credit your judgement as being something more then lousy.

brian
-- 
What do UCLA and USC have in common?

They're both going to be slaughtered by the SDSU Aztecs
in football!!!!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 13:20:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.005157.18189@ncsu.edu>, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

|> 
|> The existence of the fetus is not sufficient to deny the mother's 
|> right to determine her own set of morals. The mother could remove
|> the fetus from her womb without killing the fetus and still 
|> satisfy the two principles in the stated premise. 

If this does not require the mother to be responsible for what
action the fetus takes after being removed from the uterus, is
this not the same as allowing for abortion. Both remove the
fetus from the uterus, one simply recognizes that once that
action is taken, the fetus typically responds by dieing.

-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:12:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr6.201203.28022
Distribution: na
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Apr6.194536.26089@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>I was trying to help you, Eric.  But if you include DJR, then not only
>can you form a club for guys without girlfriends, but if any potential
>girlfriends find out about the association, you'll never get out of
>the club.
>
>I thought the point was that you guys want girlfriends?
Yeah, but I figured that if there ever was a guy who needed help finding
a girlfriend, DJR was it...
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 19:14:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.164431.17308@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) says:
>
>>The day I see a prominent, politically powerful, prolifer
>>stand up and say they are constructively working to end poverty,
>>hunger, homelessness, improve education, provide access to birth
>>control, day care, etc. etc. etc., I'll believe you Mr. Franklin,
>>but somehow I think that day is a long way away.
>>
>>
>>Linda
>
>well Linda.....if you spent all the time you use debating whether a fetus  
>is or isn't a child and tried to rectify these problems, the
>world would be a better place. Damn, I love the ME generation. NOT

Adopted any kids lately, MaThiEu???
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 12:24:04 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: VOLUME ON TALK.ABORTION

My apologies, but I just can't stand this type of post
any more....

In article <1992Apr15.131142.21462@cs.dal.ca> Steve Franklin says:
>
>Plain and simple... Am I wrong or has the volume of talk.abortion surged
>recently? I think I owe people an apology for this, as I am partly to blame.

Oh for Christ's sake.  The humility shown by some people
is extrodinary.  Mr. Franklin, the volume of t.a fluctuates
and has been no greater in the last few weeks than it was
back in early September when the Fetus appeared and no where
near the level that occurred when DJR had his last and greatest
temper tantrum in August - note this was when most students were
away wherever students go in the summer and generally a slack
time.

Will people who have no idea about the history of t.a
kindly refrain from making blanket statements about
things they know nothing about.

>   Sorry. I'll tone down.

Well don't let me stop you there, just don't do it
because of some self inflated opinion of yourself.


Linda
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:17:34 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) wrote:
>>In article <14APR92.03201184@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu write
>s:
>"bun in the oven" is a metaphore.

>"with child" is not.

You are right. As Doug Holtsinger pointed out, and my dictionary confirmed,
one definition of child is fetus. So, you are saying "with fetus". Just
to put everything in context.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Some Park Service Estimates (formerly: The March in D.C.)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:14:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.200014.9275@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- saying hi to Betty):
>>
>> When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
>When a man and woman love each other, they don't kill the child they've
>made together.
Of course not. What does this have to do with abortion?
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Steve Franklin's "good trade" (Was Re: You want to win.)
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:54:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: galileo.1992Apr15.195452.5933
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr15.115058.18267@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
(stuff deleted)
>   I do pity this woman for being "forced" to coathang her unborn child. 
>But, I feel more sorry for the fetus. I don't think she mentioned hwo
>late her fetus had progressed, but anything after 16 weeks, and the
>death it would have experienced would be REAL and TERRIBLE.
>   

     So, before 16 weeks a fetus does not experience REAL or TERRIBLE
death. Why are you trying so hard to stop abortion if all early abortion
means is FAKE and PLEASANT death?

steve
>-- 
>aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
>sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
>qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
>zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA

                                                             MP
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:43:34 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.185951.9661@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>In <1992Apr13.170223.10279@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>     Now hold on a minute. An unborn baby represents 50% of one's lover?
>I don't know about you, Steve, but the majority of us sexually active
>folk have lovers who are multi-cellular, and we reproduce by sexual
>means, not by
>neatly dividing in two. Did you ever get past the section
>of your biology text that dealt with amoebas?> 
   Oh... sorry - I guess I should have remembered what audience I was 
dealing with. Go read pages 25-88 of your biology text to learn about
meiosis. 50 % of the genetic material comes from the father. I didn't think
I'd have to go into details but apparently you don't get biology class
until grade 10.
   steve

>     "My head is in my butt"         Steve Franklin
>                             MP
oooh... nice... how abou this one anus

"But the majority of us sexually active folk...are...amoebas..."   M. Price

 go away little kid
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA