HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Is Mark Cochran a solipsist? Part 1. (was:...Cuomo)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:59:55 GMT

In <1993Jan20.071011.953@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <nyikos.727475676@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1993Jan19.062300.12195@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>>>I don't think I've ever seen anybody 'cozy up' to Steve. However, in
>>>the event they did, I suppose it might be because Steve has a very
>>>rational attitude, in that he divorces his religious values from the
>>>secular issue of abortion.
>>
>>So do I.  Looks like you missed "Abortion and Religion I: The Great
>>Paradox," copyright by a certain Peter J. Nyikos.

>How lucky we are to have missed it!

See thread title.

>>>In other words
>>
>>This shows how ignorant you are about the role of religion in the
>>abortion debate. 

Marcus, indulging in baseless speculation about my religious views:

>Why? because I don't choose to let you ram your religious views down
>my throat (or anybody elses)?

Because you equate divorcing one's religious values from one's stand
on abortion with being pro-choice, or, as you so endearingly put it:

>>> he doesn't insist on trying to control the
>>>lives of others.

I guess you'd do away with prisons, if you are opposed to laws that
control the lives of others.  Of cours, if you are a solipsist, you
cannot be hurt by this silly little dream, a.k.a. real life, that 
you are having, so why bother with prisons?  [Further cheap shots
omitted.]

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:16:11 GMT

In <v31kmic@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:


>In article <nyikos.727394039@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
>|Oh, I have been assured that Darcy has made a bad joke about someone
>|being a child molester, and that he later made a feeble apology for it,
>|but having seen neither the joke nor the apology, I continue to withhold
>|judgment.  [...]

>I saw both.  You can feel free to judge Darcy as a squirming
>slug who would rather lie & compound an error than admit he was
>wrong.  Perhaps, though, knowing this will help you identify
>with Darcy.  After all, I've seen the same behavior from you
>here, though not on any issues as personally painful to others
>as Darcy's.  Darcy, after all, accused a victim of sexual abuse
>of being a child molester, and then refused to apologize.  You
>just play games with your news server and blame other people
>for your flaming habits.

Seeing how you have just judged me, I feel safe in *not* believing
what you say about Darcy until you show me what he said.

I do not play games with my news server.  I don't know how to.

I expected better from you, CJ, from what Beth told me about you
sticking up for her.  Please do not judge me without proper evidence.

Peter Nyikos
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:25:28 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <JBATES.93Jan21025010@pinocchio.encore.com>,
by jbates@encore.com (John W. Bates):

[Deleted discussion in which John and I finally agree that demyelination
leads to conduction block and renders comparison with unmyelinated
fetal fibers nearly useless.]

> Here's another question: do the internodal regions develop before or
> after myelination occurs? If before, then one *can* compare demyelinated
> humans to unmyelinated fetuses, at least on an axon to axon level.

If I understand your first question, the answer is yes, I believe
that most fibers are excitable *before* myelination due to the
presence of sodium channels in the internodal membrane.  After
myelination, the sodium channels become concentrated at the
nodes and may be completely absent in between.  Since the sodium
channels redistribute themselves after chronic demyelination
(I don't know the time course), then you're right: one could
compare chronically demyelinated fibers to unmyelinated ones, on
an axon by axon basis.  Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to
study vertebrate behavior (much less human cognition) on an
axon by axon basis.

[Deletia.  Multiple sclerosis is a mystery to all of us.]

>>> If my hypothesis is correct (that the cognitive abilities of adult
>>> humans are dependent upon synchronized activities within the
>>> brain), then cognition (in the commonly accepted fashion) is
>>> dependent upon myelin. Testable hypothesis, and I'll try to find
>>> evidence to back it up. Now, this implies that an unmyelinated
>>> fetus is either not cognitive, or is cognitive in some radically
>>> different fashion.

>> Your hypothesis also requires the assumption that myelin is
>> necessary for synchronized activity.

> That's a very reasonable assumption, if and only if a synchronized
> activity occurs involving both myelinated and unmyelinated portions.
> I've been trying to find references to such processes, but I've been
> unsuccessful thus far. Mostly 'cause I can't get to the library until
> next week. My own references tend to gloss over descriptions of the
> physical aspects of any one section of the brain, and describe the
> serial aspects instead.

Take your time, John.  I have a few experiments to do myself, and
I need a breather. :-)

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:33:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.023751.29274@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <C0K78n.M78@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>
>[I have deleted a lot of this because you have probably read it before]
>
>}The fact that felons are concerned about enforcement seems a strong argument in
>}favor of legislation.
>
>No, that's enforcement.  Notice that "enforcement" and "legislation"
>aren't even spelled the same way.  There's a reason.

Without a law, there is nothing to enforce. In order to get (would-be) 
criminals concerned about enforcement, you first have to pass laws; those same 
laws you keep insisting are useless.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: CFB: Hamilton
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:04:24 GMT

hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton) writes:

>Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:

>> I support the right to choose to have the _fetus_ _aborted_ (please
>> lose the emotionalist buzzwords).  If she wants to abort a fetus for
>> some reason that I don't like, then that's just too bad for me, but I
>> have no right deciding when abortion is 'okay' or not, and I have no
>> right putting the woman on trial to decide whether or not she's
>> telling the truth when she gives her reasons for wanting an abortion.

>  Do you also support the right for the new mother of a two week old
>  baby to terminate it's life?  If not, why not? 

Provider 12 bids 200 quatloos.

>  Steve Hamilton

                      -rocker
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's the SAT deal?
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:43:01 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

It's a rare day when I get to respond directly to Frau Forgach; she so
rarely posts because of her newsserver problems.  In article
<1993Jan22.185619.14830@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach),
our own FF, is back.  Indubitably to celebrate the anniversary of RvW,
she writes in response to ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer >>):

>> All which is aside the point:  credentials do not assure correctness.
>> Just because I happen to know a lot about computers and have decent
>> credentials doesn't mean I never make mistakes.  Posting one's
>> credentials (and SAT scores) as if that was going to prove anything 
>> for me is a sign of someone who has gotten arrogant and lazy.
>
>As I recall it, someone SPECIFICALLY ASKED him for his SAT's.
>So no one can get off ridiculing him for consenting to answer such
>a direct question.

Isn't it odd that PHoney will decline to answer questions left and
right, usually by blaming his newsserver, but found the time to answer
the one that also allowed for (what he thought was) braggadocio.
Perhaps he hadn't realized that SATs went as high as 800?

SJM



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.test
From: kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly)
Subject: Re: CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
Keywords: Clinton has endorsed genocide, he is the Anti-Christ
Organization: Ryerson
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:02:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.171758.17571@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
>Subject:  CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
>Keywords: Clinton has endorsed genocide, he is the Anti-Christ
>Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:17:58 GMT
>Copied without permission from:
>The Los Angeles Times, January 22, 1993
>
>CLINTON DISMANTLES BUSH AND REAGAN RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION
>
>By Karen Tumulty and Marlene Cimons

It's crap like this that makes me wonder how strong the anti-abortionists 
grip (this person in particular) on reality really is. How about sticking to 
the issues and leave the anti-christ crap out. 

Rest of garbage deleted 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Kebbie's weakest flame yet
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:49:26 GMT

In article <C153u3.2s1@world.std.com> rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama) writes:
>In article <vkg396@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>Gosh.  You'd think someone who posts to talk.abortion would have at
>>least some glimmer of understanding of the difference between having
>>a _personal_ agenda, and having a _legislative_ agenda.
>
>Sounds like transference.  It's obvious that Kebbin himself has 
>a legislative agenda, 

"i haven't seen kebbie argue for legislation."
					James G Keegan Jr, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com
					2 Jan 93 00:32:23 GMT
					<1993Jan2.003223.3588@crd.ge.com>

>You really outdid yourself with your latest effort, Kebbin.
>Nothing like invading the reproductive/sexual privacy of mil-
>lions of Americans ...

What "invasions of privacy" are you blabbering about? Are you delusional
again?

								- Kevin 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57418 talk.politics.misc:69299 talk.religion.misc:27300 misc.legal:23130
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:00:34 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1724@tecsun1.tec.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>In article <1993Jan16.060120.1218@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>
>>As long as we're into generalizations, most fascists (Oops, I mean
>>pro-lifers) don't really care about babies at all, they just want to
>>punish women for having sex.  This is a most glaring sign of immaturity,
>>as they can't tell the difference between the real world and a silly
>>book that was written 2000 years ago.
>>-- 
>>David M. Nieporent

>	And let's add insensitivity and narrow-mindedness to the list of
>David M. Nieporents vices.
>
>	I suppose that one could make the "silly" assertion that the Bible
>was an accurate reflection of the world 2000 years ago. What would be the
>difference between that and the statement that the Bible is irrelevant to
>today's "enlightened" social thinkers.
>
>	You know, like Dave.
>
>Bill R.

I agree with the point that David makes about the focus on punishing
women for having sex.  Often, the prolifers will make an exception for
women who had sex against their will.  Such as for rape and incest.

So much for being for the baby's life being important.

While I call myself a Christian, I'm sure some people would debate the
point.  Afterall, I don't take someone's word for what the bible says, I
read it for myself.  My version of the bible has very little to say
about certain things we consider to be moral absolutes.  Like sex.  I
just don't find a whole lot to cause the big fuss we give it.  I mean,
it's like THE MAJOR SIN in the Roman Catholic church (as far as I have
heard).  Afterall, you can't do it and effectively serve God.  

Which commandment is that?  Where did Jesus say this?  If you ask me,
there's more in the bible about what to (or not to) eat and drink than
pertains to sex.  And no one pays attention to those.  

Occasionally, I get this picture of God laughing about how we make so
much of a big deal about Paul's being upset with some people he thought
were promiscuous.

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.correct
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: The pro-choice thought police in action
Followup-To: talk.abortion 
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:28:21 GMT

  "Lawyers have no First Amendment right to use whatever
   language they want in a courtroom, the U.S. Court of
   Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made clear July 1.  Thus,
   a lawyer who was representing abortion protesters at
   a criminal trial, and who contravened a court order
   not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''
   that went to defenses the trial court had excluded,
   was properly held in contempt on 20 occasions.  
   Zal v. Steppe, CA 9, No. 91-55579, 7/1/92."

   The United States Law Week, 8/4/92, pg. 2062

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: johnsd2@vccsouth07.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speec
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccsouth07.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:10:31 GMT

In article 27037@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <22JAN199316125435@oregon.uoregon.edu> dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis:
>
>>> The Presidential candidate in question happens to be Michael Dukakis,
>>> and I'm proud to say that I helped shout him down -- because he
>>> happened to be saying lies at the time, and I happen to disagree with
>>> lies. . . .
>
>> Lies?  What lies?
>
>He claimed that he was qualified to be President of the U.S., for one.

This strikes me as rather odd.

Let us accept for the moment that Dukakis was not, by any strech of
the imagination, so qualified.

How can you show he did not BELIEVE that he was qualified?

Or is saying untrue things that you believe a lie in your book?

>> Fortunately for Mr. Kaldis, if he cannot come up with substantiation,
>> Michael Dukakis is a public figure.
>
>The above is the result of a lawyer's mindset: that the answer to
>every disagreement lies in a lawsuit.  From _The_Doctor_:
>
>Q:  What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?
>
>A:  One is a slimy, scum-sucking bottom dweller, and other is ... a
>    fish.

It's unclear to me that the previous poster meant that
"if Dukakis was not a public figure, he would sue". Then
again, its unclear just WHAT he meant. It seems... dubious...
to say THAT anyway, as many people are slandered on the net, but
there are not many lawsuits going on. (or else I never hear about
them, somehow)

>-- 
>The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
>my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>as this would hold such views??? ||



---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:17:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <81867@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>Or is drawing the line "somewhere" like a hunter going hunting and
>shooting at anything that moves in the trees, even though he can't
>make out what it is?

Uh, not really.

>As far as a societal consensus goes, I think most people believe that
>the unborn is a person.  However, they are willing to let SOMEONE ELSE (not
>themselves) decide to terminate a pregancy for some supposed goal
>or achievment that is "needed" or required as seen by the other person.

Yeah, because the "other" person *IS* a person.  No doubt about it.

The incredible misogyny of deciding a person vs. a perhaps-we-aren't-sure-
and-anyway-it's-harming-it's-host not-person in favor of the latter 
boggles the mind.

The incredible mysogyny of reducing a woman to a breeding animal because of
*your* *personal* values also boggles the mind.

It isn't a simple either/or scenario.  What abortion restriction entails is
returning women to the status of chattel, and nothing less.

Not too surprising that there's a level of outcry, is it?

Adrienne Regard
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57665 alt.drugs:21345 alt.magick:6925 alt.pagan:15781
From: bwhite@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (William E. White )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.drugs,alt.magick,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Smart drugs (depression warning)
Date: 24 Jan 93 04:44:09 GMT
Organization: Ohio University, Computer Science Department

In article <1993Jan22.180244.6329@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu (Anthony Ankrom) writes:

>About L-Dopa. I don't think you want to take this for a "smart" drug at
>all. Quite the contrary. In fact L-Dopa has quite a bit of anticholinergic
>effects. Certainly _not_ the action you'd want for a smart drug. In fact,
>several purported "smart" drugs are cholinergics. 

Two things here ... first off, I imagine that excessive doses of L-DOPA
would have rather, um, interesting effects; I'm not sure that cognitive
enhancement would be a part of them, but temporary insanity might. :-)
Remember, in general, if you dork with noradrenaline you'll also dork
with dopamine.

Second, many cholinergics (especially choline and other ACh precursors)
can aggravate cases of endogenous depression.  Since l-tryptophan is
*still* not legal, you're SOL on this one if you've got problems.  Or
you could just eat turkey all day ...

>St. Anthony


-- 
|  Bill White   +1-614-594-3434     | bwhite@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu             |
|  31 Curran Dr., Athens OH  45701  | bwhite@bigbird.cs.ohiou.edu (alternate) |
|  SCA: Erasmus Marwick, Dernehealde Pursuivant, Dernehealde, Middle Kingdom  |
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
Date: 23 Jan 93 13:18:50 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
-> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >In article <root.727512141@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
-> >>>people like james g. keegan jr. who can't find the SHIFT,
-> >>>CAPS or CAPSLOCK keys
-> >>
-> >>I vote this the greatest stretch to try a flame yet this year.  I suppose
-> >>Stephen's never heard of ee cummings?
-> >
-> >You mean the poet who actually had something _meaningful_ to say in all-
-> >lowercase? As opposed to the Usenetter whose dearth of capitalization
-> >accompanies an even greater dearth of content? Well, I've heard of both
-> >of them. What, pray tell, do they have to do with each other?
-> 
-> The point being, not defending either cummings or keegan, is that flaming
-> for lack of capitalization is, well, inane.

that then is coinsistent will all of kebbie's other
posts, isn't it?

			defending kebbie's right
			to be
			consistently inane
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:48:25 GMT

We pay to kill the fetus, so why not pay to help the fetus live?  It's our tax
dollars, supposedly, and supposedly we have a "choice" in the matter, (until 
the idea of removing funding is mentioned and then suddenly we all have no 
choice in the matter and have to pay for one position).

mac
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:26:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.135430.14570@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>Kevin Darcy (kevin@rotag.mi.org) wrote:
>: 
>: It would only be necessary to do testing in the cases where the putative
>: father was trying to avoid the Tax. Once he's "fingered" by the mother
>: (as the law would require), then let HIM pay for the tests if he fights it
>: and loses.
>
>So if the mother refuses to cooperate (or simply does not know) then you
>toss her in jail?

No, we make her pay his portion of the taxes.

>And if you have more that one suspect? 

How do we deal with the situation now?

>: As for the expense of DNA testing, I'm no medical expert, but can't paternity
>: be established in most cases by relatively simple blood tests (blood type,
>: enzymes, etc.)? Seems to me the need to do full-blown DNA testing would be
>: rather rare...
>
>If both parents had a common blood type (e.g. O rh-) then a simple blood test
>is not going to get you very far. Only in some cases would such a test be
>beyond reasonable doubt.

My point is that we wouldn't necessarily need to do full-blown DNA testing
on everyone. Only on the tiny, rare, non-co-operative-and-hard-to-determine-
just-from-traditional-paternity-tests subset of cases.

								- Kevin
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Keegan, "forgery," and attributions
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:48:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <nyikos.727996535@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1993Jan22.125008.15013@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >In article <nyikos.727658850@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >> 
> >> Like Kaflowitz, you are an expert in deleting evidence in your favor.
> 
> >And you are a liar, like, well, like you actually.
> 
> >Let me see, is this accusation the one where you say I deleted
> >material from a posting when the deletions had been done by
> >the previous poster.
> 
> The previous poster was me, following up to Susan Garvin, following
> up to Don Beaver.  I did not delete Garvin's garbage.  You did.

No, liar, your accusation was in regard to a posting in which I
followed Adrienne Regard.  If you can show otherwise, and haven't
altered the text, I'd like to see it.  Maybe you made another
accusation.  You make so many it's hard to keep up.  I do recall
the incident in which you claimed I had deleted material from
a posting by Adrienne that I followed, and the material had been
deleted before I got there.

> I told you before, you are confusing this October incident with something
> that happened much later.  I told you this in the post "Feigned indignation
> by Dean Kaflowitz."  When you replied, you deleted this, and made some
> cute remarks about mosquito bites.

I deleted it because I didn't bother to read it.  I don't generally
read much of what you write anymore because it's very boring stuff and
liars don't particularly interest me.

Put up or shut up, liar.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion