DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-03-20 18:50:23 EST, you write:
<< f "sexual aversion," whatever the hell that is, can be refuted by Jones'
sex life it is pertinent.
Got any ideas how that would be done? Think even Masters and Johnson could
do that? >>
Actually that shouldn't be too hard. If I claim that last month's rainstorm
left me with an aversion to vodka, you need only show that my intake of vodka
is unchanged from or greater than that of previous months to cast doubt on my
claim of a sudden aversion.
Doc
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
