HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:24:18 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>The only people with political agendas are those
>who are inconsistent in their terminology.  You
>should either stick to 'medically correct' terms,
>or use the terms 'woman' and 'child'. 

The set of all things which can be called "pregnant women" is
identical to the set of all things which can be called "gravida", so
"pregnant woman" can be used interchangeably with "gravida" with no
ambiguity.

The set of all things which can be called "embryo", "zygote", or
"fetus" is a subset of the larger set of all things which can be
called "children", so when you say "children" in reference to
abortions where you were really referring to a z/e/f, you're being
ambiguous.  I'd say you're also being intellectially dishonest,
because most people who talk about "children being aborted" do so
intending to prey on peoples' emotions towards kids.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: an example of dodie's "honesty"
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:02:06 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes
->>to susan garvin:

->>> Given your past statements on the FOCA, would it be 
->>> a fair statement to say that 'Susan Garvin supports 
->>> abortion legislation which Doug Holtsinger does not'?

->> it would be as fair, and as dishonest, as most of
->> the material you post.

->Glad we can agree.

it was self-evident. i don't think anyone would argue
that your posts are honest.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:20:34 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Dec24.175906.2580@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <PATRICK.92Dec23122944@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> >In article <nyikos.725127273@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >
> > > Me, I'm hoping it'll cause Keegan's BBS to crash.
> >
> >The last time I looked, crd.ge.com wasn't a BBS.  
> 
> Okay, "overgrown BBS with pretensions of positive corporate value" then...

Hmm, much like the site you run over at CFC, eh, Junior System
Administrator Man?

> These days, most of Keegan's drivel comes from rpi.edu anyway, schmuck.

Hey!  There goes another one of those counter-productive ad hominem attacks
again!  Pesky little fuckers, aren't they?  Boy, if Darcy gets wind of...

Oh.  Never mind.

> I guess the management at crd.ge.com finally started noticing a drop in 
> productivity (?) (Although, as always, I have to wonder whether such a
> thing might ever have been in a measurable range in the first place...) 

I can't help but notice that _your_ drivel seems to emanate almost
exclusively from rotag these days, rather than from ChloroFluoroCarbons.  I
suppose we can assume that management at Chrysler (or what passes for
management) noticed the same of you, eh?

Did you get an irate call from Lee Iacocca, Kevin?  Did he threaten to take
you for a ride in a K-Car?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Hackers Union, Local 01101010
	<PATRICK.92Dec30194315@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1992Dec31.023605.21340@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:51:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.023605.21340@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

   In article <PATRICK.92Dec30194315@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> 
   patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

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

   Wait a minute.  Dr. Phoney Giggles calls me a clown.  Don't call him
   a clown.  We have a union.  Besides, I'm a hitman...

<sigh> I knew I'd screw something up in that .sig...let's see, he's not in
the union, but he's trying to act like a clown, thus taking jobs away from
those of you who are in the union, thus...maybe you should teach him the
fine art of hang gliding over major urban areas?  :-)

--PLH, it's too early in the morning to think...

--
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 2 [Was: Meet Pete...]
Keywords: PHoney does spelling flames
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:00:49 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

In article <nyikos.725569327@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
|>In <1141@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
|>
|>>No, PHoney, Mark is rejecting your testimony.  You're a known liar -
|>>why should he believe you?			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>
|>Susan, I would like to know on what you base this libelous accusation.

i don't know exactly which of your lies susan was referring 
to here. it could have been any of them. i suspect she might
have been referring to your lie about adrienne.

does it make a difference which lie?


                                                                        
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:35:35 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec30.045412.9278@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.210053.27185@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>can anyone explain why Dr. Nyikos chose to separate the
>>supposed `boys' from the supposed `girls?'  Do I want to know?
>>
>He's afraid we might get them net.pregnant and they might choose to
>have a net.abortion?

I see that, not content with having won "most likely explanation", you're
going after "most creative".  This is definitely a contender...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:13:34 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec30.005736.24210@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>"Interference" refers to detrimental effects. It is not a violation
>of BA to have one's biological functions affected in beneficial ways.

Someone whose religious beliefs forbid medical intervention might not agree...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:21:45 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <C01Mxq.1I5@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>
>This is silly, of course.  Pro-abortion means obviously you favor its
>availability.

No, "pro-choice" means you favor the availability of that choice;
"pro-abortion" means you favor the choice itself.

>I know why the the term "pro-choice" was invented.  Do you?  "Choice" is
>to "Pro-abortion" as "tinkle"  is to "urinate".  We just tend not to use
>certain words in certain situations.

Well, say "pro-choice-for-abortion" if it makes you happy.  But saying
"pro-abortion" in place of "pro-choice" is simply wrong.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 2 [Was: Meet Pete...]
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.
Keywords: right-to-lie about Nyikos, Holtsinger, Chaney,...
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 05:39:37 GMT

In article <nyikos.725752885@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1208@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>I wonder whether she was a patient at all.  You posted over a 
>hundred lines about her in another place, but we are supposed
>to figure out whether she actually went thru with the abortion,
>or returned to Chicago after changing her mind.
>
There's that reading comprehension thing again Petey...

>Note to Mark Cochran: this woman was at least 26 1/2 weeks 
>pregnant, by her own estimate.
>
And carrying a dead fetus. What's your point?

>So, Susan, did the woman have an abortion, or not?
>
>I'm waiting for your answer.
>
>>  He's in a tight spot.
>
>Mark is, yes.
>
I am? What *are* you babbling about *this* time PHoney?

[Rest of PHoneys shit deleted]

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: t.a. FAQ (part 3 of 3)
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:01:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.dodie.lie.lie.lie
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec31.203102.9788@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1282@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##No, DODie, people are saying that your habit of quoting only part
##of what Tushnet said is dishonest, and that your claim that Roe
##provided abortion on demand throughout pregnancy is a lie.  You've
##only been told this a few hundred times.  Do you enjoy looking
##stupid by repeating your lie at random intervals?
#
#Please tell me what parts I should include with the
#quote, and explain why they're relevant to the main
#point.  I know you have access to the book, so it
#shouldn't be too hard to point out the relevant
#sections.

I guess you do enjoy looking stupid, Reverend, since you're
pretending to have forgotten what I wrote the first time that
you quoted Tushnet out of context.  At that time, I typed
in the complete section that you have repeatedly edited to
suit your agenda.  I am not going to repeat it for you - I don't
think that anyone is doing you any favors by catering to
your pretended ignorance.  


## Why do you keep harping about Roe, anyway?  Haven't you had
##time to forge any quotes about Webster or Casey?  
#
#I believe the public has been grossly misinformed
#about Roe v. Wade by the media, and I wish to counter
#that misinformation with correct information. 

You have yet to provide any correct information, DOD, you
have simply continued to claim something that is contradicted
by the decision itself.  If you wish to continue to look
like both a liar and a fool, you'll continue to tell
your transparent falsehood.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:41:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec29.192416.5661@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
#In article <1217@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##In article <nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
##[everything but the following sentence deleted]
###That was an attempt by Holtsinger to quote Humphrey, to illustrate what 
###racist tendencies this redneck has.  
##
##For ten points, spot the racial slur in the above quote.  For
##10,000 points, guess what basis PHoney is using to assign a
##race to Patrick.
##
#Let me guess... "Redneck" would be the racial slur, would it not? And,
#like so much else, PHoney is assigning a race to Patrick based on....
#his own fantasies.
#Who'sz the scorekeeper?

Now, there's a problem.  It's easy to give you the 10 points, but
how do we decide who gets the big bonus?  Most creative or most
likely to be correct?

If we use the latter criterion, I'd say you've won already.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53230 talk.religion.misc:24673 alt.atheism:24406
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:53:50 GMT
	<adams.725553012@spssig> <1992Dec28.181720.27176@prime.mdata.fi>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <1992Dec28.181720.27176@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi' (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:

  >From the post I got the impression that 'donations' to the church are
  >completely voluntary in the US. Is this true? Here in Finland, when you join
  >the church (as most people do when they are born), you have a set tax you
  >have to pay to the church of 2% of income. This comes into play only after
  >you are 18, of course.

  But surely in Finland as in other Nordic countries you are free to leave
the Church at any time and thus escape the tax?
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Lying DODIE manipulates newsgroups, insults, and lies more!
Date: 27 Dec 92 14:21:57 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec26.191257.5575@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger), king of net liars,
starts a new thread: `Was Mezias dropped on his head during his
childhood?' and sets all follow-ups to misc.test.  How dishonest!
So in response to having his lies exposed, he insults (note the
header), he manipulates newsgroups, and then posts a new lie:

>Allow me to explain something to you.  When people on talk.abortion
>discuss ``legislation'', they are usually talking about legislation
>to restrict abortion.  Most people understand that.  Obviously you
>don't.  

You are a liar, DODIE.  Most people on talk.abortion would include
FOCA in the set of legislation relevant to abortion.  You are the
first person I have seen make the claim that it is not.  Not satisfied
with that, you add the lie that most people share your bizarre
perception of how set theory applies to the intersection of
legislation and abortion.  I also retract my observation that you had
stopped manipulating newsgroups.  I now see it was only temporary.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 05:22:15 GMT

In article <1235@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.045125.9144@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>#In article <1223@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>##It's very nice of you to want to share your bonus points.  As a reward,
>##I'll let you judge the other category.
>##
>##(Whew.  I got out of that one...)
>##
>#Um... I don't think I can be considered an unbiased judge for this
>#Susan... 
>#I guess you'll have to do it after all. :)
>
>I think I can still squirm out of it.  
>
>I'd say someone like, oh, Larry Margolis would make a great
>creativity judge.  (And if he doesn't want to do it, he can
>pass it on to someone else.)
>
>I'm only really good at judging colored semen contests, anyway.
>
I'm afraid to ask what your experiences in this realm of judging
are...
But you better be careful. PHoney and DODie are liable to latch onto
the word "colored" in that line and use it to claim you have been
making racist remarks...

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Okay, who sent the anonymous e-mail?
Summary: DODie looks like the anonymous-mail type, all right...
Date: 27 Dec 92 15:16:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The CMS 8 Installers.

In article <1992Dec26.185458.4960@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

 In article <1161@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
 sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
 >
 >[There's a discussion in alt.rush-limbaugh about people being
 >"kicked out" of unmoderated newsgroups.]
 >
 >In article <1992Dec24.231507.26670@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) said:
 > [.. deletions ..]
 >>almost exclusively.  Most of my articles had responses telling me how
 >>stupid I was or thatI should leave the net until I 'learn proper procedures',
 >>similar to what happened to Chaney and others, no matter how logical or
 >>polite my postings
 >>
 >>   No one kicked me out either, I left voluntarily as well.  I had gotten
 >>tired of the pointless flaming and the occasional nasty e-mail, sent
 >>anonymously of course.
 >>
 >>Simon

   I remember Dean Kaflowitz admitting in talk.abortion that 
   he had sent e-mail to Simon Booth suggesting that he leave
   the net, or words to that effect.  Perhaps Mr. Booth and
   Kaflowitz would care to elaborate. 

...and maybe they wouldn't.  Who died and left you in charge?
(Gee, Rev -- just out of idle curiosity, how much anonymous mail have you
clogged the net with?  :-)

--PLH, I don't do anonymous mail.  If I send it, it gets my name on it
somewhere. 
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 02:24:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.230808.9704@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.060029.1868@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>
>>>> To those people, I ask:  who is qualified to decide
>>>> when the health reasons are sufficient to justify an abortion?  
>
>>> I believe that most physicians are qualified to determine whether
>>> an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.  Why do
>>> you believe otherwise? 
>
>> DODie, he didn't say he believed otherwise.
>
>Rheal Nadeau did imply that.  I'm not interested in 
>arguing semantics with you. 
>
No he didn't DODie. Your reading comprehension problem seems to be
acting up again...

>> And physicians do *not* determine that an abortion is necessary.
>
>Please learn to read, I said that physicians are qualified 
>to determine whether an abortion is necessary to save the 
>mother's life.  Whether they feel that the abortion is
>necessary, period, is an entirely different matter. 
>
No DODie, try again. A physician is qualified to determine that an
abortion may or may not increase the odds of a womans survival. The
determination that it is necessary can only be made by the patient.
It's her body, her life, and her risk. If she feels the risks are
acceptable, fine. Phsycians, at most, mayu *recommend* that an
abortion (or any other medical treatment) be performed to increase the
odds of an outcome favorable to the patient. The *patient* makes the
determination of necessity.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:13:33 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <C01MFA.1D5@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>
>To borrow from a pro-abort in this group who seems to love the
>heart-surgery analogy: a pregnant woman being pro-abortion is no different
>than a heart patient being pro-heart surgery.  What's the problem?

The problem is that you're wrong.  I don't know of *any* heart patients
that are pro-heart surgery - they'd all rather take a pill and get better
than have someone cut open their chest.  They *do* want to have that
option available, however, if it's the only way to cure their problem.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Summary: I'd say Nyikos has lost it, but he never had it
Date: 24 Dec 92 13:36:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <nyikos.725133079@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Dec22.153207.4729@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
> 
> >> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
> Right. You wouldn't want to be caught calling abortionists fascists.  The
> pro-abortionist-leaning faction of Garvin and her admirers would disown 
> you.  Calling an abortionist a fascist is even worse than calling a
> Planned Parenthood member who lies to a rape victim a fascist.

I left in all the extra attributions to show that Susan Garvin
was not, at least for the three postings preceding the one I
quote, a part of this thread.  Yet Nyikos cannot resist telling
lies and attempting flames of her here.  In fact, He went
after her in other postings this morning where she wasn't involved
in the discussion.  I conclude that Susan and others have done
such a fine job of making Nyikos look a silly ass that he has
an almost pathological obsession with revenge now.

Good work Susan, Adrienne, Bob Blackshaw, et al. (the other
names I mention were in another posting this morning in
which Dr Giggles brought them up with his usual ipse dixit
slanders against them).

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights