HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I tend to be Pro-Choice because: 2
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 12 Aug 1992 20:33:43 MDT
Organization: Brigham Young University

Doug Holtsinger (dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu) writes:

#In article <1992Aug12.162402.19224@advtech.uswest.com>
#steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
#
#>> = (Linda Heather Springer) writes:
#
#> "..."
#>> Also, the Jews were under different rules than Christians.  They were
#>> allowed to have slaves and kill other nations.  God expects more of
#>> Christians. Please se my previous article *Re: I tend...*.
#
#> Dear deluded Bible twinkie: if your "god" is this much of a shithead, who
#> needs him anyway?
#
#Ms. Springer was responding to a pro-abortionist who raised the
#subject of the interpretation of the bible.  If you pro-abortionists
#don't want to hear about the subject, then I suggest that you stop
#bringing it up.

Hey Dougie, I object of you calling me a, quote: "pro-abortionist."  By my
own admission, I consider myself a Pro-Choicer.  In other words, I respect
the woman's choice over what is going on in HER womb.  If she chooses to
abort the fetus, that is HER choice.  If she chooses to carry it to term,
so much the better.  Personally, I would not like to see my wife to commit
an abortion (other than in case of rape, incest, or in a "life-threatening
situation"), but that would ultimately be HER choice.  So, Doug, wouldn't
you support an abortion in case of rape?  If you do, doesn't that make YOU
a "pro-abortionist"???

#>| Steve Novak |


#Doug Holtsinger

Casper Knies    isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.elections
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bush, Clinton, and the Abortion Issue
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:50:32 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug18.164057.23032@ncsu.edu>, Doug Holtsinger writes:

> In the past, he [Bush] has taken less extreme stances on abortion,
> such as supporting exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

How generous of him.  If I'm *real* nice and eat all my vegetables,
do you think he'll let me read _Catcher in the Rye_?

Why did he support these excpetions?  Is the fetus in the case of rape
or incest not as "good" as another fetus?  Why not?
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 03:37:12 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  <1992Aug15.205407.9744@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.005840.139822@cs.cmu.edu> kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) wri
>
> >A -- Minors are entitled to exercise the right of privacy at the same level
> >as adults.
> >
> >B. -- Minors are competent to give consent to sex with an adult.
> >
> >C. -- Minors are competent to give consent to an abortion without parental
> >consent.
>
> B and C are dependent on A.

(In Florida; according to Judge Lockett)

Your previous claim was that being in favor of B mean being in favor
of C, which is clearly not correct.  I'm glad to see that you've backed
off from this.

> >Which means that your statement above "According to Judge Lockett, to have
> >abortion rights, you must invalidate statutory rape laws" is incorrect.
>
> No, my statement is,

You mean your *new* statement, now that it's finally been made clear to
you that your previous statement (which Mr. Kluge quoted) is incorrect.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Myths and facts about Planned Parenthood
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:20:01 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug21.004156.2888@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> 	I saw one interesting omission:
> 
> 	There was no mention about masturbation.
> 
> 	Has PP ever promoted that as a safe form of sex?

But then you'd end up with unknowing guys severing their penises with
vacuum cleaners and nooses (disgusting but true!).

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Not So Good Bumper Sticker
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:14:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.131709.28545@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER,
JIMMY A.) writes:

}  But only if we choose to give up some of our freedoms in the fighting.
}A spectacular irony, isn't it?  We cannot be free unless we first surrender
}some of our freedom.

It is ironic only if we accept your postulate that freedom must fought for
by giving up freedom.  I, for one, do not believe that is the case.  It
is ironic that a great many people accept that, however.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another very good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:49:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.222923.12838@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> Right, he assumes that all women are pro-choice, that all women would actually
> _want_ to receive support for their right to an abortion, and that all women
> think alike.  That's sexist.

Keep thrashing and lying, Dougie.

He said all women deserve support for their right to choose.

He never said all women want that support or that choice.

You are the only one saying that, and I can't decide whether you
are too stupid to understand the difference, have deliberately
lied, or are still just trying to save face for your obvious
error.

I tend to think that you are just trying not to be
embarrassed yet again by yet another of your stupid, erroneous
statements.

Dean Kaflowitz




Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 06:52:58 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: world  

<1992Aug12.215027.1814@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
><1992Aug11.181819.9370@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>><1992Aug10.171155.7841@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
>>><1992Aug7.124015.18296@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) :
>>>Gee, I guess I must remind Patrick L Kaufman, Mark I Humphrey, Scotty
>>>Dog and Susan Regard that I am approaching, within 3 weeks, the first
>>>anniversary of my Internet access. 
>>>
>>>And none'ya have been able to remove me yet, 
>>...
>>Kinda like a barnacle.  Seriously, has someone *really* tried to get your
>>net access removed?  Do you have proof of this accusation?  Isn't true
>>that you think it was wonderful that Dan Bredy lost his net access?  And
>>now you are whining that you think someone tried to remove yours.
>
>Susan Garvin? 

I see a name.  I don't see any *proof*.

>Well, as for the others, I wouldn't say they wanted my access removed;

Then why did you imply above that they were trying to do so?

>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 

Poor Steve, not even aware that a growing number of child molestations are
being perpetrated on young boys (see "Catholic Priest"). 

>		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 

Your lies?  Absolutely.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Did Bill Clinton embrace the Bush campaign?
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:09:40 CDT


In article <1992Aug13.184108.24179@wuecl.wustl.edu>, dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:

Clinton, telling the crowd that the Republicans will try to distort
the Democrats postition by (Republicans) saying:

> "... We're against family values, we're against work, we're going to
> tax and spend to death."
>
> 			-- Governor Bill Clinton addressing a rally at 
>                            Independence Hall in Philadelphia, 8/10/92

Clinton made a similar statement in MN, in the context I added.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:11:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.191523.6408@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>When it comes to an issue of life versus choice, Cough Man, go check
>your law books and show me where choice > life. That's why legal
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>abortion is so badly endangered, Cough Man.  


Roe v. Wade.

DUHH...



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.tasteless
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Subject: Re: Pro-Life? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 09:11:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.202427.13189@becker.GTS.ORG> bdb@becker.GTS.ORG (Bruce Becker) writes:
>In article <1992Aug4.175921.11736@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
>|[ about the anencephalic baby... ]
>|
>|<1992Jul31.191315.10315@athena.cs.uga.edu> (Scott Hamel) writes:
>|> Also, wasn't this baby kept alive by artificial means?
>|
>|Not according to my recollection.  It was breathing, etc. on its
>|own.  It would certainly die naturally within weeks.  However,
>|in the process of natural death, the baby's organs would be damaged
>|(oxygen deprivation I think it was) and would not be suitable for
>|transplant.
>
>
>	I was born ancephalic, which proved to
>	be a severe handicap.
>
>
>	Recently, however, I discovered Usenet,
>	where my affliction is not visible...

Nor any handicap: you joined most of the posters here...

The Wisp. [Born without a head, never mind a brain...]
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 18 Aug 1992 21:18:38 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Family Values
 <1992Aug12.210641.9317@pwcs.stpaul.gov> <Bsy45t.7un@news.udel.edu>
 <1992Aug18.035938.19272@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

In article <1992Aug18.035938.19272@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran says:
>
>In article <Bsy45t.7un@news.udel.edu> Scott W Roby writes:
>>In article <1992Aug12.210641.9317@pwcs.stpaul.gov> Chris A Lyman writes:
>>
>>>I read an interesting editorial piece in the paper today.   It asserted
>>>that 'family values' is a code word for the issue of women's role in
>>>today's society.
>>
>>Reminds me of Reagan's campaigns, where I understood that "traditional
>>values" was a code word for pre-civil-rights "sensibilities".
>>
>>Scary, indeed.
>>Let's see...   abortion's a no-no, single motherhood (a la Murphy Brown)
>>is a no-no"....
>>
>>Can you say i_n_c_o_n_s_i_s_t_e_n_t ?  I knew you could.
>
>While travelling across Kansas recently, I came across a radio station
>(107.7fm) which was doing "Focus On The Family".  Their definition of
>"Traditional Family Values" is, and I quote...
>
>"Hetrosexual Men And Women Getting Married And Having Children".

Good lord, Canada has been infilitrated by Kansans.

Not very long ago there was a report on the activities
of a Conservative "Family" Caucus group in the national
paper the Globe and Mail.  In this article a member of
this group, who btw are all elected Members of Parliament
and the party in power, said that a goal of the caucus
was to amend to the Canadian constitution the following
definition of family:

 "A man and a woman living together to raise children"
  and that is the only definition there should be

In response to my very angry letter to this "Honourable"(1)
Member in which I pointed out that this definition would
exclude my family - I'm a single parent - not to mention
all single parents and gay couples (2) he wrote that that
was not the intention at all, no, no, what this caucus was
trying to do was exclude those same sex couples who live
together just because "they love each other" from receiving
family benefits, ie. pensions.

Needless to say he, and everyone remotely involved in
this sordid mess, received another angry letter.

It would appear that the people who wish to enshrine
family values only wish to protect certain families
and care little about those excluded.

This Caucus btw is also the group that takes pride in the
fact that they were instrumental in killing a national
day care initiative and the universal baby bonus.  Sigh,
this is what happens when Prime Ministers sing with
American Presidents.


1] he also referred to women as dames
2] one would think having read my letter in which
   I said the definition was offensive becasue it
   excluded gay couples he would have known better



Linda
--
I never march in demonstrations
I hold my breath for arbitration
      I'm far too Canadian
           Spirit of the West
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 17:03:36 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
	<nyikos.714317851@milo.math.scarolina.edu>



nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes
>Even if you go by the 3rd trimester figure, you get "less than
>1,600 per year" [How much less?  I'd really like to know!]
>and even that number of dead due to gay-bashing would not be
>considered insignificant.  And if you said what you say below
>about 1,600 deaths per year due to gay-bashing, let alone
>12,000 to 15,000, I'd hate to see how badly you get bashed in return.

I am gay.  I strongly resent Mr. Nyikos's comparison between gay-bashing
and abortion or infanticide.  Gay people are part of the social order,
whether certain groups wish to think kind thoughts about us or not. 
Third trimester abortion and infanticide involve the killing of beings
not yet in the social order and not yet appropriate objects for ethics.

Michael Loomis 



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another fantastic reason to vote for Bush
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:50:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.164210.13345@advtech.uswest.com> 
steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> That is a lie, President Bush supports fetal tissue research, but he 
>> opposes using fetal remains from elective abortions.  

> Bush does *not* support fetal tissue research.  

Wrong, Bush does support fetal tissue research.

----
From: tmg@nptn.org (Tom Grundner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: BUSH FACTSHEET: Abortion
Date: 19 Aug 1992 21:37:31 GMT

[...]

Research Using Fetal Tissue

The National Institutes of Health properly funds research involving
transplantation into humans of fetal tissue derived from
spontaneous abortions, ectopic (tubal) pregnancies, and cell
cultures.  The President supports that research, which may
contribute to medical breakthroughs against various diseases.

But the price for medical progress cannot be moral regress.  That's
why the President opposes federal funding of transplantation
research involving fetal tissue from deliberately-induced
abortions.  Such research could, either now or in the future,
encourage abortions, and it raises serious moral questions.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: STOP THE TERRORISTS!!!
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:27:49 GMT

In article <Bt5srz.EGw@chinet.chi.il.us> katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
>I'm brand new to talk.abortion, so I don't know if this subject
>has been talked to death. It doesn't matter, because it's a
>very important subject and I plan to keep it in front of everybody's
>face whenever I can. 
>
Good for you!

>It's not going to matter one little bit if abortion is legal or not,
>because soon, there won't be any more doctors performing abortions.
>One by one, all across the country, doctors are being pressured into
>giving up doing the procedure.
>
Unfortunately, that's true.  However, some states, like Washington, have
laws which can be used to stop or prevent the tactics that you've described
these people using.  It's commonly called a Stalking Law, and a person can
be arrested for following someone, and generally harassing them.  It's been
or being put to the test now. 

Stalking someone and/or their family to stop them from doing a legal action
is illegal in this state.  I hope those criminals who stalked that doctor
in Texas realize that.  (hummm, isn't Texas supposed to be George Bush's
home state--or so he claims?  No wonder.)

>My radical idea would be to give the harassers a taste of their own
>medicine. Harass them back, as blatently and as hard as they are
>giving. If it's legal for them, why not for us? If I lived in Dallas,
>I wouldn't mind marching out in front of Mr. Cyr's house with a sign
>saying "MR. CYR TERRORIZES INNOCENT, LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS."
>
I don't approve of illegal tactics, on either side.  However, I understand
your frustration and anger.  We should work within the legal system to stop
these radicals.  

>I'm pissed!
>
So am I.

>Vickie

Jennifer
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32730 alt.abortion.inequity:3187
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:17:42 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>  Whether or not you are celibate isyour choice.  My point being that we
>  must begin to accept responsibility for our actions, even if that means 
>  accepting responsibility for the failure of contraception.  

Please explain (without the use of truth by blatant assertion) why an
abortion is not a responsible response to an unwanted pregnancy.

Sarah McCabe
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:03:16 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>In article <opka2nc@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

>>But Mike, you seem to be laboring under a misapprehension.
>>You seem to think that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.
>>(Hint: it isn't.)  You also seem to think that abortion isn't
>>a way of taking responsibility for dealing with an unwanted
>>pregnancy.  (Hint: it is.)

>  By consenting to sex you are consenting to the possibility that
>  your actions will result in pregnancy.

[...]lots of info on sex, in a slightly condescending tone... :)

>  I could believe what I have just read if it were directed at my
>  4 year old son.  He is still quite naive in these matters.

Would you please read your above statement, and perhaps comprehend
what it is implying? If you look at the above statement, it is an utterly
preposterous statement that indicates pretty much that sex is only for
procreation. This is a complete fallacy. (If it was, sterile persons
would not want to engage in sex, as the impetus for it wouldn't be there.)
Maybe then you can see the validity of what was said, and parce it in
the manner of a 4 y-o so that your understanding will increase, and
you no longer will make statements like the above.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:48:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <23510@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>I'll have a lot more to say on this subject, hopefully as soon as
>>later this week.
>
>Hopefully you can do it in something less than 1000 lines.

Hopefully, he will realize what a hypocritical fool he is and not do
it all.

SJM
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 15:15:03 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  <1992Aug21.124544.2143@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.185320.21941@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@wats
> > In  <1992Aug19.174332.2123@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> >> In article <1992Aug13.165127.39789@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@w
>
> [...]
>
> >> > Actually, I pointed out that it's "Truth by Blatant Assertion" *because*
                                          ==========================
> >> > I believe it to not be true.  You're welcome to try to prove otherwise.
> >>                                                  ^
> >> I can't prove otherwise,                        /|\
> >                                                   |
> > OK, TbBA it is.                                   |
>                                                     |
> Excuse my ignorance, but what does TbBA stand for? -+

> >> You say it's ok to pick the arbitrary point of birth to abort.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> ie abortions before birth are ok, but infanticide is wrong.
> >
> > No.  See, I didn't say that abortions immediately before birth (or any time,
> > for that matter) are *OK*, just that drawing the line at birth was OK.
>
> I'm only using "ok" in an informal sense, so don't think that I'd think that
> you think (whew!) any abortions are "ok" in the strict sense of the term.
> BUT, let me try this again...
>
> You picked birth as the point, even drew a line there, but the line is
> really meaningless since you wouldn't want an abortion to occur just before
> birth?  Why did you draw the line?  I'm confused.

There are lots of things I wouldn't want, which would be wrong to
legislate against.  Birth is the line because that's when it's no
longer inside the woman.  That's the point at which it changes from
a fetus to an infant.  That's when you can control it *without*
controlling the woman.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32251 alt.politics.bush:1947 talk.politics.misc:40349