Dentistry lesson, Bellinger Joseph - Nizkor (original) (raw)
Michael P. Stein writes:
In article <[email protected]>,
wrote:
>> [email protected]
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Fafner13 wrote:
>> I guess it looks like I will have to repost my Soviet Def
>> >Comedy Jams so the rest of us can get a good chuckle as well.
>>
>> I guess then I’ll just have to repost my Revisionist Def Comedy Jams.
>> The one about it taking longer to pull a tooth from a corpse than it
>> does to pull a live patient’s tooth is a real knee-slapper.
>>
>>>>>
>Comment: Why don’t you explain for us the procedure of extracting teeth
>from corpses and how it would be easier than extracting from a live
>person. Fact is, it would be difficult under both circumstances, but go
>ahead, explain it for us.
I would be rather surprised if anyone besides you and Leon Degrelle
need this explanation, but sure. Just for starters, your keen attention
to detail is once more evident. I did not say _easier_ (though it is),
but rather that it would not take as much time.
The reason it is easier and less time-consuming to pull a tooth from a
corpse (assuming of course you do the work prior to or after rigor mortis)
than from a live patient is due to the little-known fact that corpses do
not feel pain. Thus the procedure can be done without giving the corpse a
shot of novocaine and waiting for it to take effect before pulling its
teeth. Of course, if you are one of those tough guys who has his dental
work done without anaesthetic, then perhaps the time differential would
not be so great.
Furthermore, one need not be as careful in the extraction with a
corpse – if you bang against a good tooth with the pliers and crack it,
your “patient” is unlikely to file suit. So you can yank much more
brutally than you would dare to do with a live patient.
I trust this answers your question. If there are any other difficult
questions such as this which are beyond your ability to puzzle out, do not
hesitate to ask.
—
Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Bellinger’s Dentistry Lesson
Date: 27 Mar 1997 21:42:10 GMT
Organization: Sprynet News Service
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dd18-072.compuserve.com
X-Newsreader: SPRY News 3.03 (SPRY, Inc.)
> [email protected] (Michael P. Stein) writes:
> >>>>>
> >Comment: Why don’t you explain for us the procedure of extracting teeth
> >from corpses and how it would be easier than extracting from a live
> >person. Fact is, it would be difficult under both circumstances, but go
> >ahead, explain it for us.
>
> I would be rather surprised if anyone besides you and Leon Degrelle
> need this explanation, but sure. Just for starters, your keen attention
> to detail is once more evident. I did not say _easier_ (though it is),
> but rather that it would not take as much time.
>
> The reason it is easier and less time-consuming to pull a tooth from a
> corpse (assuming of course you do the work prior to or after rigor mortis)
> than from a live patient is due to the little-known fact that corpses do
> not feel pain. Thus the procedure can be done without giving the corpse a
> shot of novocaine and waiting for it to take effect before pulling its
> teeth. Of course, if you are one of those tough guys who has his dental
> work done without anaesthetic, then perhaps the time differential would
> not be so great.
>
> Furthermore, one need not be as careful in the extraction with a
> corpse – if you bang against a good tooth with the pliers and crack it,
> your “patient” is unlikely to file suit. So you can yank much more
> brutally than you would dare to do with a live patient.
>
> I trust this answers your question. If there are any other difficult
> questions such as this which are beyond your ability to puzzle out, do not
> hesitate to ask.
Comment: In truth the only thing lthat seems to be beyond my ability
is understanding what makes people like you tick. Thanks for the
explanation re the teeth. Are you speaking from experience? I shall
try to envison the scenario: the extractor asks the corpse to open wide,
please, and the corpse then accomodates him. Apparently if I need logical
answers to questions I shall need to direct them in another direction.
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: news.voyager.net!aanews.merit.net!news-out.internetmci.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.sprintlink.net!
news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!uucp5.uu.net!world!dkeren
From: [email protected] (Daniel Keren)
Subject: Re: Mr. Bellinger’s Dentistry Lesson
Message-ID:
Organization: The World, Public Access Internet, Brookline, MA
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 08:20:45 GMT
Lines: 24
[email protected] writes [to Mike Stein]:
# Comment: In truth the only thing lthat seems to be beyond my
# ability is understanding what makes people like you tick. Thanks
# for the explanation re the teeth. Are you speaking from
# experience? I shall try to envison the scenario: the extractor
# asks the corpse to open wide, please, and the corpse then
# accomodates him.
Well, that’s probably the method a “revisionist scholar” will
use; either that, or he’ll call on one of Zundel’s UFO’s from
the South Pole to help. However, someone with an IQ above that
of an amoeba will probably realize that all he has to do is
open the corpses’ mouth himself, and then snatch out the
gold tooth with a plier; this probably takes 10 seconds or so.
Are you seriously suggesting it takes more time to extract a
tooth from a corpse, than from a living person?
Is there no upper bound on “revisionist” insanity?
-Danny Keren.
From: Marty Kelley
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Bellinger’s Dentistry Lesson
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:27:29 -0700
Organization: The University of Arizona
Message-ID:
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kitts.u.arizona.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Lines: 40
On 27 Mar 1997 [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] (Michael P. Stein) writes:
> > The reason it is easier and less time-consuming to pull a tooth from a
> > corpse (assuming of course you do the work prior to or after rigor mortis)
> > than from a live patient is due to the little-known fact that corpses do
> > not feel pain. Thus the procedure can be done without giving the corpse a
> > shot of novocaine and waiting for it to take effect before pulling its
> > teeth. Of course, if you are one of those tough guys who has his dental
> > work done without anaesthetic, then perhaps the time differential would
> > not be so great.
> >
> > Furthermore, one need not be as careful in the extraction with a
> > corpse – if you bang against a good tooth with the pliers and crack it,
> > your “patient” is unlikely to file suit. So you can yank much more
> > brutally than you would dare to do with a live patient.
>
> Comment: In truth the only thing lthat seems to be beyond my ability
> is understanding what makes people like you tick. Thanks for the
> explanation re the teeth. Are you speaking from experience? I shall
> try to envison the scenario: the extractor asks the corpse to open wide,
> please, and the corpse then accomodates him. Apparently if I need logical
> answers to questions I shall need to direct them in another direction.
Ooh…let me try this one! How about this far-fetched idea: as long as
the corpse is not in rigor mortis, the extractor (get ready for this
highly technical explanation…) would merely have to force the corpse’s
mouth open. You may wish to consult your local College of Dentistry or
Medicine to ask them if it is indeed possible to open the mouth of a
cadaver without its permission or willing cooperation.
———————-
Marty Kelley ([email protected])
“Things are more like they are now than they
ever were before.” — Dwight D. Eisenhower
From: [email protected] (Rajiv K. Gandhi)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Bellinger’s Dentistry Lesson
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 18:08:12 -0700
Organization: Celyddon Forest
Lines: 24
Message-ID:
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vcta01m04-42.bctel.ca
X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.3d2
In article ,
Marty Kelley wrote:
[snip]
>Ooh…let me try this one! How about this far-fetched idea: as long as
>the corpse is not in rigor mortis, the extractor (get ready for this
>highly technical explanation…) would merely have to force the corpse’s
>mouth open. You may wish to consult your local College of Dentistry or
>Medicine to ask them if it is indeed possible to open the mouth of a
>cadaver without its permission or willing cooperation.
I took an gross anatomy course while pursuing my B.Sc. in which the lab
component involved the dissection of a cadaver. Without resorting to
excessive grotesqueness, these cadavers (we were allocated a total of
about 22, as I recall) were heavily preserved, and fairly stiff (rigor had
set in long ago.). Even so, it was possible to open the mouth without
great effort, to the point where inserting a moderately sized tool, in
order to extract a tooth, would have been easy.
Further, if one is not concerned with the outcome – namely the well being
of a body – it becomes all the more easier, since one could break the jaw
and/or enter the mouth by cutting away a portion of the cheek.
From: [email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Bellinger’s Dentistry Lesson
Date: 29 Mar 1997 05:57:36 GMT
Organization: ENTER.NET
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: m40atwn-1-47.enter.net
X-Newsreader: SPRY News 3.03 (SPRY, Inc.)
> [email protected] (Rajiv K. Gandhi) writes:
> I took an gross anatomy course while pursuing my B.Sc. in which the lab
> component involved the dissection of a cadaver. Without resorting to
> excessive grotesqueness, these cadavers (we were allocated a total of
> about 22, as I recall) were heavily preserved, and fairly stiff (rigor had
> set in long ago.). Even so, it was possible to open the mouth without
> great effort, to the point where inserting a moderately sized tool, in
> order to extract a tooth, would have been easy.
Moreover, it is well-known to pathologists the cyanide inhibits rigor. It is
rare for there to be any rigor at all with cyanide poisoning.
–YFE
From: [email protected] (Charles Power)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Bellinger’s Dentistry Lesson
Date: 29 Mar 1997 06:00:51 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 100-explorer2.clark.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In article <[email protected]>, wrote:
>Comment: Unless you are speaking from actual experience, your opinion
>is as good as Kermit the Frogs.
Some of us are able to figure simple things out even without experiencing
them. For instance, jumping off the Empire State Building would probably
not be good for my health. If you would like to try this out to make
sure, please do.
> It only stands to reason that extracting
teeth,
>even from corpses, would be an unpleasant and time consuming task.
Unpleasant, of course. This is why the task was assigned to prisoners.
Time consuming? Less than extracting teeth from the living, as you would
be able to figure out if you had even half a brain.
Do you enjoy showing the world how incredibly stupid you are, Joe?
>dentures? Sometimes teeth are not so easy to extract, whether alive or dead.
There was a very competitive process for the “dentist” positions. Those
who took too much time were murdered and replaced. This process very
probably led to the discovery of very efficient methods very quickly.
—
***********************************************************************
Charles R.L. Power ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/karlpov/
Documents in Envoy format, including the Bible in Esperanto, Doctor Syn
(Scarecrow of Romney Marsh) novels, other neat stuff
From: [email protected] (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Bellinger’s Dentistry Lesson
Date: 31 Mar 1997 08:06:50 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
In article <[email protected]>,
wrote:
>> [email protected] (Daniel Keren) writes:
>> Are you seriously suggesting it takes more time to extract a
>> tooth from a corpse, than from a living person?
>Comment: Unless you are speaking from actual experience, your opinion
>is as good as Kermit the Frogs. It only stands to reason that extracting
>teeth, even from corpses, would be an unpleasant and time consuming task.
And the amazing thing is that I am sure that Mr. Bellinger (who is a
book dealer, not a dentist) doesn’t even see the irony in the
juxtaposition of his first sentence and the opening phrase of the second,
“It only stands to reason.”
>Will the jaw remain open once you have pried it loose?
Before rigor mortis sets in, “prying” is a bit of an overstatement of
the effort needed. As for the jaws closing right up again – with a metal
pliers jammed into the mouth holding it open? You’re right, the teeth
will bite right through the metal pliers, allowing the jaws to close
again. How could I have been so stupid not to realize this?
Maybe the reason Mr. Bellinger comes up with such tripe is that he
writes his articles sitting down, and he must _stand_ in order to reason?
>Also, one has to search for the filled dentures. This is time consuming.
And I’m sure you will tell us about your actual experience? Perhaps
you could tell us how long it takes to spot the difference between a gold
tooth and a white one? The colors are after all so very close.
>What if there are a number of filled dentures? Sometimes teeth are not
>so easy to extract, whether alive or dead.
Do please tell us what you think the average time per tooth would be.
Speak about your actual experience. Or did you learn all this from Miss
Piggy?
Of course Mr. Bellinger’s article was more than a bit of a strawman.
I never denied that extracting a tooth takes _some_ amount of time. The
discussion was whether it takes _more_ time (as Leon Degrelle claimed) to
extract a tooth from a corpse than from a live patient. I pointed out
some reasons why it could be done more quickly – no need for anaesthesia,
no need for care not to damage the surrounding teeth. (Also no need to
bother with measures to prevent infection.) So Mr. Bellinger now tries to
pretend the issue under discussion was something different. Not the first
time, either.
—
Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
From: [email protected] (Mark Van Alstine)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Bellinger’s Dentistry Lesson
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 08:50:45 -0700
Organization: rbi software systems
Lines: 129
Message-ID:
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbi145.rbi.com
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.0.5b5
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > [email protected] (Daniel Keren) writes:
> > > [email protected] writes [to Mike Stein]:
> > >
> > > # Comment: In truth the only thing lthat seems to be beyond my
> > > # ability is understanding what makes people like you tick. Thanks
> > > # for the explanation re the teeth. Are you speaking from
> > > # experience? I shall try to envison the scenario: the extractor
> > > # asks the corpse to open wide, please, and the corpse then
> > > # accomodates him.
> > >
> > > Well, that’s probably the method a “revisionist scholar” will
> > > use; either that, or he’ll call on one of Zundel’s UFO’s from
> > > the South Pole to help. However, someone with an IQ above that
> > > of an amoeba will probably realize that all he has to do is
> > > open the corpses’ mouth himself, and then snatch out the
> > > gold tooth with a plier; this probably takes 10 seconds or so.
> > >
> > > Are you seriously suggesting it takes more time to extract a
> > > tooth from a corpse, than from a living person?
> > >
> > > Is there no upper bound on “revisionist” insanity?
> > > -Danny Keren.
> > Comment: Unless you are speaking from actual experience, your opinion
> > is as good as Kermit the Frogs. It only stands to reason that extracting
> > teeth, even from corpses, would be an unpleasant and time consuming task.
> > Will the jaw remain open once you have pried it loose? Also, one has to
> > search for the filled dentures. This is time consuming. What if there
> > are a number of filled dentures? Sometimes teeth are not so easy to
> > extract, whether alive or dead.
>
> But corpses are not likely to object to pain, when teeth are forcibly
> removed. Nor is it likely that the dentists(?) removing teeth from a
> corpse would need to be careful to avoid damaging nearby healthy (i.e.
> unfilled) teeth
According to Maurice Benroubi (Prisoner No. 51,059), who was assinged to
the grave digging kommando of bunker 1 in 1942:
…Ten minutes later, I saw in the distance big heaps of corpses, as if
there were a death factory nearby. As we approached, we could see them
better. They were all mixed up together like wooden dummies. Some had
their cheeks torn. Their gold teeth had been extracted. There were women,
children, and babies.
Source: Pressac, _Technique_, p. 162.
According to Dr. Myklos Nyiszli (Prisoner No. A 8450), who was Dr.
Mengele’s assistant and who lived in Krema II circa 1944-45:
…[T]he dead were next sent to the “tooth-pulling” commando, which was
stationed in front of the ovens. Consisting of eight men, this kommando
equipped its members with two tools, or, if you like, two intruments. In
one hand a lever, and in the other a pair of pliers for extracting teeth.
The dead lay on their backs; the kommando pried open the contracted jaw
with his lever; then, with his pliers he extracted, or broke off, all the
gold teeth, as well as any gold bridgework and fillings. All the members
of the kommando were fine stomatologists and dental surgeons. When Dr.
Mengele had called for candidates capable of per dental surgery, they had
volunteered in good faith, firmly believing they would be allowed to
exercise their profession in the camp. Exactly as I had done.
Source: Nyiszli, _Auschwitz: a doctor’s eyewitness account_, pp. 53-54.
According to Henry Tauber, a member of the Sonderkommando of
Kremas I,II,IV, and V:
…This group took the corpses from the gas chamber into the corridor near
the lift. There a barber cut off the women’s hair, then the bodies were
taken on the lift to the <> level. On this floor they were
put in they were put in the store room or taken directly to the <>, where they were heaped in front of the furnaces. Then, two
dentists, under the surveilance of the SS, pulled out the metal fillings
and false teeth.
They also removed the rings and earrings. The teeth were into a box marked
Source: Pressac, _Technique_, p. 489.
Mark
——————————————————————————–
“Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties–but
right through every human heart–and all human hearts.”
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “The Gulag Archipelago”
——————————————————————————–
From: [email protected] (Rajiv K. Gandhi)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Giwer’s Dentistry Lesson… was Re: Mr. Bellinger’s Dentistry Lesson
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 11:40:59 -0700
Organization: Celyddon Forest
Lines: 104
Message-ID:
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vcta01m04-42.bctel.ca
X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.3d3
Matt Giwer ([email protected]) posting under a poorly forged user-id wrote:
I> [email protected] (Rajiv K. Gandhi) wrote:
>> Joseph Bellinger posting alias-of-the-moment [email protected] wrote:
[snip]
>>>REPLY: well, we could go on comparing for years. The extraction of teeth
>>>from corpses would be time consuming.
>>You’re wrong, but for some reason you don’t have sense enough to admit it.
>>Extracting teeth from a corpse is a fairly simple task.
> Please describe the technique in detail. There is one VERY VERY simple
>point that you have to mention that any dentist will tell you. If you do not
>mention it, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I’m basically recalling what I remember from a gross anatomy class I took
in during my undergraduate studies. Anybody with more dental knowledge
than I is invited to correct my errors and fill in the gaps.
First of all, keep in mind that modern methodology for the extraction of
teeth is not particularly applicable to a situation where the patient is
deceased (as was the case at Auschwitz.) Certainly, there is little or no
need to apply an anaesthetic. In fact, the technician performing the
removal need not have any regard whatsoever for the corpse, especially
given that the corpse was destined for cremation. One doesn’t care if the
gum is damaged, or if a nerved is destroyed when the patient is already
dead. As I mentioned before, to enter the mouth of a corpse (even one in
which rigor mortis has set in long ago) is easy. I’ve done it (examined,
not removed), in the context of a gross anatomy lab. Further, the corpse
which I examined was not only stricken with rigor, but awash in
preservatives, and dated (this one could tell by the actual condition of
the cadaver.) Yet, it was easy enough to enter the mouth with relative
large instruments – far larger than those which might be used to extract
teeth. One last consideration is that when the object of the tooth
extraction is either a gold filling or a gold crown, it is hardly
necessary to extract the entire tooth, nor is it necessary to ensure the
integrity of the mouth – a technician would really only be interested in
the upper third of the tooth (the crown); the neck and the roots would
make little or no difference, since there would be no gold in these
portions. That is to say, a technician could break a tooth (especially the
incisor and canine teeth.) Additionally, the temperomandibular joint can
be seperated, and teeth themselves could simply be broken off – it doesn’t
take much force to do this.
The crown of each tooth has no direct attachment, either to the maxilla
(or mandible). The neck of each tooth is connected to the gingivae, or
gums. The gums, in turn, are attached not only to the neck of each tooth,
but the tooth sockets as well. The root of the tooth sits in the tooth
socket (called the alveolus), and is fixed in position by a fibrous
ligament. This fibrous ligament, in addition to the gingivae are the
primary reasons why a tooth is fixed in the tooth socket. Since both are
organic materials, on death, they will begin to decay. The teeth
themselves consist largely of the same material which comprises bone, and
as such, explains why thhe teeth are generally, in a healthy being,
resistant to fracture. However, teeth, like other bones, vary both in
tensile and compressive strength – the former is a resistance to it being
pulled apart, the latter is resistance to being crumbled. Teeth, in
particular, are designed to handle the latter more than the former, for
the reason that the mouth is designed to crush – not pull apart. (Primary
movement of the mouth is the mandible via the temporomandibular joint,
which allows excessive depression and elevation (opening and closing the
mouth, respectively); it also permits a somewhat more limited protraction
(when the jaw is protruded) and lateral movement.) Further, the teeth are
designed in such a manner as to cope best with stress applied to the top
of the tooth (the top of the crown) – not to the sides of the tooth. That
is to say, a tooth is not capable of tolerating excessive shearing or
twisting forces, while it is able to tolerate, to a a greater extent,
forces appled perpendicular to the top surface of the tooth. This is
partly because the roots of the tooth do not extend at right angles to the
crown and the neck. Because teeth do not deal well with shearing forces,
or any force applied at an angle to the root or the neck, it is possible
to efficiently remove a tooth with the forceful application of pressure at
right angles – ie by twisting the tooth, and further by applying tensile
pressure (ie pulling at the same time.)
While I said that modern dental techniques are not particularly relevant,
one can examine the process in which an artificial crown is fashioned for
a tooth following the procedure of a root canal. When a root canal is
completed, a temporary crown is fashioned and glued in place. This glue
will resist extreme pressure applied to it, so that attempting to pull the
temporary crown directly out of the mouth will be difficult (ie it will
require the application greater force) than twisting the temporary, which
requires comparatively less force. A permanent crown uses much stronger
glue, but it to is susceptible to the same twisting and shearing forces,
albeit at higher levels. The same idea apples with a real tooth in its
place.
For a technician to remove a tooth from a corpse is a comparatively easy
task, especially in a corpse in which the onset of rigor is delayed
because of cyanide poisoning. I’d wager that it becomes eave easier when
you consider that a technician who repeats this procedure day after day
after day will quickly develop the strength in the forearm and wrist to
deliver a short, but extremely sharp burst of force, necessary to remove
either a gold crown or a tooth with a gold filling.
As I said before, this comes from what I remember from an undergraduate
gross anatomy class; if anybody knows better, feel free to correct any
mistakes I might have made.
[troll-giwer garbage snipped]
From: [email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Bellinger’s Dentistry Lesson
Date: 11 Apr 1997 00:15:31 GMT
Organization: ENTER.NET
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m40atwn-3-6.enter.net
X-Newsreader: SPRY News 3.03 (SPRY, Inc.)
> [email protected] writes:
> > So is research. Perhaps that is why Bellinger avoids it so assiduously.
> REPLY: And of course Yale has researched how much time it would
> consume to extract teeth from the mouths of corpses. I do believe,
> however, that it would be easier to extract teeth from corpses than it
> would be to extract the truth from Yale.
Yup. Asked a very good oral surgeon and a very good reconstructive
dentist. They thought you were crazy as a loon.
P.S. the thought that only an idiot would phrase it as you have. There is a
real difference between the extraction of teeth and removing a filling.
–YFE
From: [email protected] (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Mr. Bellinger’s Dentistry Lesson
Supersedes: <[email protected]>
Date: 27 Mar 1997 02:37:15 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
