HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Roger Williams confused about what constitutes a lie!
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 01:47:15 GMT


In article <32778@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>, smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU writes:
|Your confusion about what constitutes a lie is further demonstrated by
|your ridiculous attempts to draw an analogy between my error and
|Chaney's use of a false account to make incendiary posts.

Not surprising from Roger Williams, though.  Ignore him-- nobody
takes him seriously.  He hasn't contributed anything worthwhile
to the abortion debate here that I've seen.  He only shows up to
throw rocks at prominent pro-choicers.  Russell Lawrence &
Adrienne were favorite targets of his, I recall.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I am going tomorrow where I shall find a man who has not one agreeable
quality, who has neither manner nor sense to recommend him.  Stupid men
are the only ones worth knowing, after all."   Jane Austen
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:25:48 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Nov18.193320.20408@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
}I have a simple question for pro-choicers:
}
}   You say you have the "Right to Choose".  Who is the
}   authority that grants you this right?


Who?  Who?  I guess a spotted owl...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 4
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:20:14 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business


>I suppose another distinction is that only one person can be pregnant
>with a particular z/e/f so the choice of the mother as the person who
>has to carry it has no element of arbitrariness.  The same is not true
>of organ transplants.

Sometimes organ and tissue transplants, as well as blood transfusions
are quite specific.  Once again, you are incorrect.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jmayson@nyx.cs.du.edu (John Mayson)
Subject: Re: Look what the NetMail brought this morning...
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 04:17:59 GMT

In article <Bx9GG7.58o@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>In article <Bx5976.746@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>Well, folks, it looks like Steve "Dennis Hall" Chaney is about to do a
>>3.5-forward gainer off the cliff.  I got *two* nice little threats from him
>>this morning when I checked in at the InterMix Chamber BBS, so here is the
>>complete collection of the three letters he's sent me over the weekend.
>
>Sorry to rain on your parade, Patrick, but I think I hold the record, here.
>When I emailed Steve about my discovery last April, I received *five* 
>nasty and threatening notes spaced about 5-20 minutes apart each (and from 
>two different accounts!!)  :-0
>
>Good Luck, but don't expect much.  It doesn't seem to be a net.sin to 
>be nasty, deceptive,  or stupid.

Oh boy, now that I'm back on t.a. after a nine month (how appropriate)
absence, maybe I can get threatening e-mails from Steve too!!!

John Mayson
jmayson@x102a.ess.harris.com
Melbourne, Florida
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: On Completion
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:56:14 GMT

bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
] 
]    The New Tesament CANNOT be reconciled with what yourefer to as
] the 'Old' Testament, and I refer to as the Bible.  The whole idea
] of the New Testament was that the OT was replaced, not augmented.


EXCUSE ME! Oh ZionistToadyOfTheEuroDisneyKonspirakii!!!!


Its NOT a matter of 'supplanting' but of offering 'completion'
of the text.

Just as the Koran offers Completeness,
as does the 'book of mormans' or 'Dianetics'
or 'Das Kapital'.....

The JudeaoChristianIslamicSeXularHumanistMarxistMaoistScientology Continuum
is a means of understanding the forward 
progression of the ManDate of Heaven!!!


You sound like one of those BibleThumpingReligiousWheenies
who does NOT understand that the Mandate of Heaven has
moved on, and your version of what offered 'completeness'
has likewise moved with it. Not that I would wish to compare
you with those offering the RearGuard Defense that the
Pythagorean Theorum does not work, as the diagonal of
the Unit Square can not be represented as the ratio of
whole numbers.....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hi Diddle, Diddle, the Cat and the Fiddle,
The Cow Blew Up on the Launching Pad
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48196 talk.religion.misc:21257 alt.atheism:21404
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 17 Nov 1992 09:16:28 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov16.032613.11967@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.214406.23543@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>>How to reconcile the Old Testament God with the New Testament God, (they
>>do appear to be quite different):
>>
>
>     One can not reconcile the OT God with the NT God without throwing out
>all logic and rationality.  That is one of the reasons that I rejected 
>Christianity.

Did you all have the same problem with wave-particle duality?

Lemme see.  Light is particle and light is wave.  I cannot reconcile these
ideas without throwing out all preconceived notions.  You say wave and
I say particle, let's call the whole thing off.

> /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga       UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 19 Nov 1992 08:07:08 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov17.173850.14175@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1ead9cINN8a5@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>>     One can not reconcile the OT God with the NT God without throwing out
>>>all logic and rationality.  That is one of the reasons that I rejected 
>>>Christianity.
>>Did you all have the same problem with wave-particle duality?
>>Lemme see.  Light is particle and light is wave.  I cannot reconcile these
>>ideas without throwing out all preconceived notions.  You say wave and
>>I say particle, let's call the whole thing off.
>
>Sigh.  More quantum pseudoscience.

>Light acts like a particle sometimes and like a wave sometimes.  

You accuse _me_ of pseuodscience, and then you say this?

>The problem
>with reconciling the OT and NT gods is that God tends to be described as
>being a certain way without qualifications as to "sometimes".

And the problem with all of science is that there are vast numbers of
completely unreconciled departments all saying apparently contradictory
things about the universe.  Religion is one of those departments.  

I have absolutely no problem reconciling the OT and NT, and I'm not even a
Christian.  How does a parent act towards a spoilt child?

>If someone points out that OT actions seems to show God not acting good, and
>you reconcile the OT and NT gods like you do light as particles/waves, you
>would be saying "God acts good sometimes and acts non-good sometimes".  I have
>not yet seen a theist claim this.

Who said anything about good and bad?  People said in essence that they found 
God's behaviour contradictory, like the doings of a split personality.  I 
merely pointed out that the Universe isn't any different (nor are people for
that matter), so what's the problem?

>Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:26:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.222434.4570@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:

>kc2@doc.ic.ac.uk (K Campbell) writes:
>
>>After a recent spate of particularly vicious and violent male rapes
>>in London ...
>>comment from leading
>>criminal psychologists about how it is unlikely that the incidents had
>>been carried out by gay men.  
>
>Doesn't that sort of show homosexual tendancies??  Male penetrating
>a male??  Sounds gay to me.

No.  Please acquire a brain before attempting conversation.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:07:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.004551.10523@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <7224@news.duke.edu>, by eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK):
:  dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
:  
: >There are other more reliable methods of contraception.  Mutilating
: >your sex organs is guaranteed to be 100% reliable.  

>Oh, you mean like vasectomies and tubal ligations?

	EXACTLY. And let us not forget about castration :-)

	Read Matthew 5:29-30 or Matthew 19:12 for details ;-)

>Emil, realize that people literally _do_ mutilate their sex organs in
>order to avoid pregnancy!   It's called sterilization!  And it's such a waste
>when abstinence is 100% effective, and periodic abstinence, learned in a one
>hour class, is safer and as effective as rearranging your hormones every day
>via the pill.

	Wrongo. A lot of mental effort is needed for these methods.
Much less is needed for the Pill, and none at all for surgical
sterilization, let alone neutering.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:43:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.215532.7928@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
}In article <1992Nov17.162948.18306@nas.nasa.gov>
}dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
}>In article <1992Nov17.055146.5262@netcom.com>
}>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
}  
}>>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
}>>right of a woman to end the pregnancy? 
}
}>No there is not.  At least not legislative. 
}
}Truth by Blatant Assertion.

I take it you have some figures or facts or examples or something, or
are you proposing Untruth by Wishful Thinking?


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: To the discussionaries!
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:27:24 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:

>In article <1992Nov18.010639.8793@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>>What about the freedom to be a christian?  In acts Jesus told us to sread the
>>news to all the world.  Being a christian means at least giving the others the
>>option to know the truth.
>
>And being an American means reacting with respect if they reject your version
>of the truth.  I can see that you are good Christian.  Are you a good
>American?

He cannot be a good Christian if he is not also a good American.  Romans 13.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Subject: Re: Why Pro-Lifers must support forced organ donation
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:10:40 GMT

In article <1eb8u7INN346@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <lefty-161192123613@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>#In article <BxKA1t.BM6@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
>#(Bernard A Schnaufer) wrote:
>#> 
>#> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>#> 
>#> >In article <Bx3I9x.G8y@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
>#> >(Bernard A Schnaufer) wrote:
>#> >> 
>#> >> In the case of a pregnancy it is perfectly natural for the baby to be 
>#> >> inside the mother to grow.  Human beings cannot grow normally in any 
>#> >> other enviroment at this stage in their lives.  The mothers body 
>#> >> accomodates the new life inside by adjusting accordingly.  Women are 
>#> >> designed to be able to be pregnant.
>#> 
>#> >Hmm.  Let's see what we can do with this, through the magic of "search and
>#> >replace"...
>#> 
>#> >> In the case of cancer it is perfectly natural for the tumor to be inside 
>#> >> the host to grow.  Tumors cannot grow normally in any other 
>#> >> enviroment at this stage in their lives.  The host's body accomodates
>#> >> the new life inside by adjusting accordingly.  People are designed to be 
>#> >> able to develop cancer.
>#> 
>[...]
>#In point of fact, my observation is of equal substance to your original
>#one.  The cases, as far as I can see are 100 per cent parallel.  If you
>#disagree, please feel free to explain why.
>
>I disagree.  Cancer cells never result in autonomous human beings.  Cancer
>is a disease, and always unwelcome, pregnancy isn't.  

Could someone who has it archived please repost the article about interchaging
mouse tumors and embryos?  The gist of it was that some experiments had
been done which took mouse cancers and implanted them in mouse wombs and
they grew into mouse fetuses while they took mouse embryos and implanted
them in other mouse locations and they turned into mouse cancers.  This 
suggests that the distinction between embryo and cancer is not as clear 
as you might think.  

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Description of the Fetal Remains from an Abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:38:33 GMT

And the second great response DOD's post generated
in alt.romance.  Mind you - I asked both these folks
if I could send their responses over to t.a, and
got permission from both, even though it is NOT
e-mail - I wanted them to know that they might get
e-mail from others if I did this.
 
Diana

pettit@cs.unc.edu (Cynthia Pettit) writes:

] Oh, man...  I've been waiting for a thread on abortion...
] 
] First of all, you were >asking< to get flamed (or perhaps >I< am the gullable
] one... ;) )
] 
] And second, this alt.romance, not an talk.abortion...
] 
] And with that out of the way, I must say something to prolifers.  Abortion is
] no new 20th century medical advance.  Women have been giving themselves
] miscarriages and abortions from time eternal.  The advance is making it safe
] for the woman -- clean, safe and under the guidence of a professional doctor.
] 
] The fact about making abortion illegal is not reducing the number of
] abortions in this country -- but reducing the number of >safe< abortions.  If
] abortion is to become illegal, women >will< use coathangers in the back
] allys...  You can't denigh it.
] 
] If you agree to making abortion illegal you are agreeing for this to happen. 
] There's no other way to look at it.  It is saying, "I want abortion to be
] unhealthy, dirty and life threatening to women..."  Go ahead and argue that
] it's the women's fault.  It's not the issue here.  
] 
] The point is not whether abortions >should< happen or not, because they
] >will< no matter what you do -- the issue is do you >want< the death and
] mutilation of women?
] 
] 
] And as for your posting, if you are trying to scare women furthur by this
] disgusting description, you are helping to keep women afraid of their bodies
] and feeling guilty for their own sexuality.  
] 
] If you really want to save a baby's life, go adopt one.  And I don't mean a
] nice healthy white, middle-class child -- go adopt a poor, black or hispanic
] cocaine baby if you feel such tremendous compassion.  
] 
] Do something real besides making it harder for women to love themselves and
] their ability to create a life -- and not hate themselves and their own
] flesh.
] 
] If you really want to do some good, work to >forward< alternatives to
] abortion, not undermine abortion itself.  Work for free birth-control, work
] to promote the adoption of minority babies, work for the support of single
] mothers in the streets, educate and train a woman for a better job.
] 
] Do some >good< for a change.  The world needs less hate from people like you.
] 
] Cyn
] 
] ---
] Pro-child, pro-choice!
] 
] 
] 


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48713 talk.religion.misc:21587 alt.atheism:21709
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 20 Nov 92 03:12:38 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov19.210645.6256@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus):
>> In article jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
 
>> Then we get to the question of his alleged direct decent from king David.
>> Ever notice in Matthew it traces Jesus ancestry through JOSEPH to David?

>And in the Gospel of Luke, his ancestry his traced through MARY to David.
>So there you have it.  A direct bloodline.

>> Ever notice the contradictions in the geneologies given in the other gospels?

>Heh?  Just because one's paternal and one's maternal does not mean they
>contradict.

It does if God is his father, not Joseph. :-)

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: restrictions
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:44:19 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center


Perhaps some of you are rather put-off by the person asking, or
perhaps it is the way it is asked.  It is, however, a facet
that should not be neglected.  Why would you allow (or 
support) any restrictions on abortion?  Although one person
(at least) considers it to be rather silly, I'm pretty sure
the rest of you understand that I am addressing abortion
specifically, and mean restrictions that would single out
abortion.  The only rational response that I have seen
at all is the pragmatic one of facilitating a compromise,
fed by the fear of worse possibilities.  I, for one, am
not at all happy with that.  As for the others, they
seem to be either feel-good rationalizations or downright
sloppy thinking.  If you do support restrictions, perhaps
you should ask yourself why.  It might give you a clue as
to how you arrive at your conclusion.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Dougie lies again.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:19:31 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Nov20.185956.9174@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>I'm glad you enjoyed my post to soc.singles, Mr. Margolis.
>Despite your threatening e-mail to my sysadmin, I shall
>continue to post to soc.singles.

This statement is not correct.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48771 soc.men:19645 alt.dads-rights:2653
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 20 Nov 1992 07:46:13 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BxzDx5.IMu@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1ebjs2INNmmn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <BxuK2B.32F@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>In article <1e9108INNlmu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>What a woman has is the right to define how her physical
>>body will or will not be used. 
>>
>>Which is precisely analogous and symetrical to a man's right to determine how
>>his physical body will or will not be used.
>
>Either his body is used 40 hours a week to earn money or 
>it is used 168 hours a week to pace a 10x10 room.

You know, Don, it *IS* possible for people to have rational discussions in
this newsgroup. 

Why don't you pay close attention to a few and maybe you, too, can manage 
it.  This tripe, above, isn't worthy of response!

We don't have slavery in this country.  We don't force a man to work at some
task, any task deemed by society to be productive, and take his money from
him.  This sophistry does not forward the discussion.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Garvin refuted
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:03:44 GMT

In article <nyikos.722267650@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

> [.. Jeff Greenfield's post ..]

> BTW I am curious to know whether Susan endorses the words I mistakenly
> attributed to her.  They sounded quite in character with the other
> things she has written.

Of course she does endorse Jeff Greenfield's bogus arguments.
But notice how she never addressed your rebuttal of his arguments,
nor did anyone else.   


>Peter Nyikos  (Menu for today: crow and humble pie)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: idiots
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:49:45 GMT

It seems our Most Reverend Father Doug has gotten a little miffed
about Nyikos being elected an idiot and has gone about trying 
to make a fool of himself in as many newsgroups as possible.

Maybe we should can all the talk about idiots so that these
"pro-life" types won't knock themselves out competing...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality