Apollo BBS Archive - August 1990

Apollo BBS Archive - August 30, 1990

Mail from Nick Ianuzzi
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 03:49:50

Your idea is a good one.  Too bad greed got in the way of the publisher of
Street News.  I'm sure you will make a good go of it.  If I can be of any
help, let me know.

I saw JT when I was in New York last month.  He is doing well and is writing
some very provocative stuff.  I have copies of some articles he wrote --
I'll drop them off at your place some time.  Are you still a night person?

Cervelli is engrossed in his new girlfriend as well as college. I don't hear
from him much.

Nick
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:I would like to see some of JT's work.  Is he setting about promoting 
 2:athesim in his articles, ha, ha.
 3:
 4:My log in times have been in the 3 a.m. range so I guess you could say that 
 5:I like the nights better but it does make it hard for my day job.  Dealing 
 6:was interesting and I'd do it all over again and take the same chances.
 7:
 8:It was nice to be able to walk into a store and pick something up without 
 9:having to worry about a budget.  But I am doing well in locksmithing 
10:although I am kind of sick of it.  It takes a lot of energy which usually 
11:leaves little for my projects.  Slowly but surely though.
12:
13:See you when I see you,         Rod

End of the Universe Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 1436
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Hermaphrodite
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 15:07:38

So we are being pulled around by our balls AND our tits?
Ouch.

Message: 1437
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: War!
Subject: Prayer
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 20:10:44

  I wonder which God would detest more, a nation praying that its armies be
successful in battle, or a sports team praying that it will win?
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 1438
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: War!
Subject: Dean/war or sport
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 21:32:31

An excellent question. Clearly, your thoughts have led you to ask an
extremely meaningful question. Unfortunately, there is no God referee and
therefore there is no judgment with respect to the venality of praying for
an army to succeed and a sports team praying for victory. However, if we
are willing to create a God for the purpose of detesting individuals who
pray for victory in war or in the sports arena, I think we would find God
detesting the sports person more than the war person. The war person, after
all, has his or her life on the line. It is your life or mine. God could
excuse the soldier huddled in the trench or in the jungle or in the blast
furnace of hell for asking for divine help. However, I am sure that God
would want to comdemn to the lowest regions of hell the general officers
who would pray for divine intervention while they sit far behind the lines
with their war-game strategies spending lives like so many points to gain
an advantage in the war.

Message: 1439
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: last
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 23:52:13

Bloody fucking well put.

Message: 1440
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Prayer
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 23:53:53

What about praying for sex?  I've done that when I was a Christian.  Man, it
took a long while to get that prayer answered but He finally came through.

Thank you Jeeeesus.


Message: 1441
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: last
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 02:00:13

I'm still waiting for the Second Coming.

Message: 1442
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Dean on God
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 09:14:50

Did you read in the paper where Hussein stated that God was on the side of
Iraq and Satan on the side of America??? 
Sigh! I guess that means we're gonna loose, right? (snicker!)
                              -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 1443
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 17:22:27

No, hardly.  Satan has control over the Earth, and can certainly set things
up so that we won't "loose"

Message: 1444
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Question?
Subject: Roger
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 18:17:45

Can we infer from your most recent post that you are no longer a Christian
Agnostic (whatever that means) but have become a full fledged atheist?

Message: 1445
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: rod/praise
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 20:00:07

Once in a while, I do let it all hang out. --- remember this is not
the X-rated Cosmos Sig ---

Message: 1446
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: Jeff/atheism
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 20:06:16

If being an Atheist means I have to like Madalyne Murray O'Hair, absolutely
not. See, if I say I'm an Atheist and I change my mind, I look like a fool.
No, I prefer my Christian Agnosticism. I also admire and enjoy the writings
of Paul Tillich.

Message: 1447
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 20:51:33

  I personally lean toward the sports team also, just because of the
triviality factor.
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 1448
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: War!
Subject: Ann
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 20:52:02

No, I didn't see it, but I think I could have predicted it.
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 1449
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann?Great Satan
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:42:44

No Ann, that means we will win.  You see, Adolph Hitler had God on his side
too.

Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 69028
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandi on Iraq
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 08:36:42

I remember a time long ago when we were worried about an unstable country
getting to be a world power and many thought we should nuke them before it
happened. That country was China. They did indeed become a super power, yet,
NOTHING has happened. They have THE BOMB! They are still a unstable country.
 
I do not believe that Hussein can be liken to Hitler and his power either.
For one thing, Germany was almost an entity unto itself - it didn't need
that much outside help, such as food supplies, etc. as Iraq does. A country
can have the world's biggest army and if they can't supply food, clothing,
and weaponry to that army, it is good for nothing. Germany had outside help
too because the world was split at that time - many were for Hitler and what
he was doing. Not so with Iraq - thus the United Nations embargo! 
 
I see no justification to wipe them out for fear they'll be a super power
someday. We do not have the patent on 'super power's' anyway. We should be
on the alert because the government of that country is very cunning. If we
are threatened - such as in the Cuban missile crisis THEN and only THEN do
we really interfer! -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 69029
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger on superpower
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 08:37:44

Re: that subject, my definition of a super Power is a country that has the
bomb and the power to use it! -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 69030
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod your 1 of 4
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 08:52:32

WOW! Terrific posts Rod. My only comment is that I agree with what you say.
This coutry and world have gone a bit bonkers. We forget the simpler way of
life and panic when our oil might be taken away. 
I remember a time, I think it was about ten years ago when we had a stupid
paper crisis or some such rot. People actually rioted at the stores to get
paper towels and toilet paper!! (no one ever thought of procuring the Sear's
Catalog instead! ha. ) I also remember a few people were killed in these
riots. We went to the store and people were coming out with 2 or 3 baskets
full of toilet paper - when we got inside, all was gone! The crisis passed
in a couple of days but it was scarey to see how these people acted when
they thought their toilet paper supply was going to be cut off! We also had
a short supply of beef at one time, but the people did not act so strongly
and there was no riots. Guess because the price of beef was higher than
toilet paper eh? Can't stock up on what you can't afford! We ARE SPOILED!
The best thing we can do is to be more self sufficient. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 69031
Author: $ Mad Max
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: College
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 13:15:19

Gee with all the horror stories about ASU, I'm glad I decided to attend GCU,
my registration yesterday went smooth as silk and I got every class I
wanted.Not only that I got them for the time slots I wanted also. The worst
thing that happend is that I have a class on monday nights during the time
STNG is on, but a vcr solved that problem. Again I want to thank the person
that recommended that I check out GCU, best move I ever made. Beautyfull
school, great people and atmosphere.

Message: 69032
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: College
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 15:17:33

Well, Pat, you were smart.  I only have one year left and if I quit now,
there goes 5 years down the tubes.  If I had to do it over again, I think I
would have gone to Europe for a year before starting and then taken all the
b.s. classes at a community college.  However, I did get to move into a dorm
my freshman year and getting out of my house at that time in my life was my
biggest priority.

Message: 69033
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pat/ASU
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 19:09:01

ASU's fine as long as you stay out of the engineering, math and chemistry
departments where none of the TA's have any grasp of English.

Message: 69034
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: general BS
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 19:21:12

Consider such diverse things such as ammonia, dynamite, paint, cellophane,
synthetic rubber, some types of cloth, plastic, fertilizer, medicine and
dishwashing detergent, weed killers and insecticides. Just for starters,
these are a few things either made from petroleum itself or made from
petroleum products that have nothing to do with cars, gas guzzlers or
otherwise. 
I know many people on this board like to think that the conflict in the
Middle East would be made a moot issue if we all just parked our cars and
sat at home twiddling our thumbs until someone perfects the hydrogen engine
or makes affordable electric cars that can go farther than Mesa to
Metrocenter and back, but even the part of the argument that has to do with
the petroleum itself has to do with a great deal more than just cars.

Message: 69035
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff B
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 19:22:10

Whatever Thou say.

Message: 69036
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Answer!
Subject: super power/Ann
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 19:32:02

For one thing, you don't see China going to war against everyone all the
time...when this thing first happened, dad told me that there was a war
about to start in the Middle East, and I asked him, "so what else is new?" I
couldn't even figure out what he was so excited about. They are always at
war. The only reason Middle Eastern squabbles (constantly occurring for no
good reason) stay safely in the other hemisphere is because none of them is
powerful enough to do any more than take potshots at their neighbors. The
thought of one of those countries finally getting the military might to do
something to the US other than call us names is very frightening...
I wasn't there, but I suspect that Germany didn't have very many friends
(other than the US, initially who sold them some weapons). They still had a
bad reputation from WWI. The only reason no one countered Germany in the
beginning was because no one in Europe wanted to go to war. Well, they got
to go to war all right...
The Sudentenland was "the last territorial claim I have to make in Europe"
in order to "repatriate" all German-speaking people. I bet Czechoslovakia
wasn't too impressed. Britain and France thought they had achieved "peace in
their time."
The parallels are striking.

Message: 69037
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: War!
Subject: Rod/Iraq/Iran
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 20:28:12

  Iran would have been able to defeat Iraq outright, but when the Shah was
removed, the entire officer corps of the Iranian military was purged along
with him. They effectively went back to WWI fighting methods, with mass
charges of poorly armed troop{ taking horrendous casualties to prevent the
Iraqis from advancing. Iraq modernized it forces, and become a more modern,
mechanized war machine. As the war dragged on, Iran was ground completely up
as far as its men were concerned, and Iraq was ground up financially, by the
effort of keeping its technically superior, but outnumbered, forces on the
attack. The war wound down without a clear victor. Iraq got the contended
strip of land, but it is practically useless to them because it has become
so polluted. The debt Iraq ran up in fighting Iran is the major reason Iraq
invaded Kuwait. Kuwait was holding billions of dollars of Iraqi debt, which
Iraq believes it has liquidated by seizing the country. And of course,
getting control of Kuwait's oil production meant that Iraq could keep prices
higher to help them raise money.
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 69038
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Dean/economics
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 20:33:42

"You have said, '...the essence of market controls is to prevent or penalize
misrepresentation and coercion when individuals choose to trade.'  If that
were only true, then we would not be having this conversation and countless
other examples of government intervention against the market for corrupt or
wrong-headed reasons would not have occured."
 
First, I do not understand your assertion that the existence of a
controversy could prove or disprove the contentions of one side or another.
People can disagree about anything; that doesn't prove that one side isn't
right, or that the other side is.  Second, you beg the question when you
speak of examples of government intervention for corrupt or wrong-headed
reasons.  We have only your assurance that the Alcoa affair was as you
stated -- or any other example of government intervention gone wrong which
you have so far used.  Third, I never asserted that market controls could
not be misused; I merely stated what their proper *intent* is, not their
universal purity or efficiency in application.  We have laws restricting the
behavior of individuals, and their intent is to protect society, but that
doesn't mean they are always justly applied or uncorrupted.

"The fact that government power has corrupted the market everywhere is no
proof that the market needed such corruption.  Your demand that I show you a
pure free market before you will agree that it is good is on a par with
someone demanding that they be shown a nation where there is no murder
before they will believe that a nation without murder could be a good
thing."

This might be a valid analogy if it was the contention of one party that
murder was caused by government intervention in the form of laws restricting
individual liberty.  In such a case, the second party would need to find a
nation without such laws where murder still existed before the first party
could be made to admit his error, since he could always argue, no matter
what the other circumstances were, that it was government interference which
caused murder.  Similarly, in order to divest you of your quasi-religous
devotion to laissez-faire mythology, it is necessary to find a pure free
market for analysis, otherwise you will always claim that it is the evil
influence of the government which has produced the excesses of capitalism.

"I can, however, show you a modern example of an industry where there are
no market controls.  It is a huge industry which operates all over the world
and yet it is still carried out by business units [of all sizes].  It has
existed for hundreds of years and yet it has resisted the efforts of all who
would combine it into one large monopoly.  And it has remained largely open
and competitive despite the fact that government isn't regulating its prices
wages, benifits or ownership...it is the drug trade, of course."
 
But this is ludicrous!!  You could not have provided a worse example with
which to illustrate your point!  Have you ever heard of drug cartels?  Ever
heard of the Columbians?  Ever heard of the Mafia?  Do you really think that
the existence of the corner drug peddler shows competition at work? Where do
you think he gets his merchandise?  Eventually, it is all controlled by a
few sources, who largely collude with each other.  He isn't an entrepreneur;
he's a distrubutor for the firm.  What do you think would happen if someone
decided that they could make a profit by investing capital in, say, the
production of cocaine, and undercutting the monopolistic prices of the drug
cartels?  Talk about barriers to entry!  And there is certainly plenty of
room for undercutting.  Do you really imagine that there is any reasonable
relation between the price of cocaine and its costs of capital and
production?  Do you honestly think that the prices are anywhere near any
minimum average cost, or that the profits are anywhere near a normal
interest return on investment, including any costs due to illegalities?

Your economic theories are so simplistic as to be laughable.  They would
only find application in a marketplace of atomistic competition with
homogeneous products.  They don't apply to the real world at all, as
empirical evidence clearly shows, because they don't take into account the
structural differences of industries.  These include the concentration of
sellers in an industry, the degree of differentiation among the industry's
products, and the ease or difficulty with which new sellers can enter the
industry.
You seem to think of investment capital as some mythical ether; all
pervasive and immune to blockage, and yet somehow able to carry waves of
economic influence which affect real world entities.
Mergers and aquisitions were the way our economy grew so concentrated; "high
entry barriers," obstacles confronting a potentially new competitor into an
industry, are why it remains so.  The threat of a new entrant can discourage
existing firms from establishing "unreasonable" prices, but "reasonable"
prices are not necessarily competitive prices.  And sometimes, the threat of
a new entrant is no real threat at all.
The effective height of these barriers varies.  "Blockaded entry" allows
sellers to set monopolistic prices, if they wish, without attracting entry.
"Impeded entry" allows established sellers to raise their prices above
minimal average costs without attracting new sellers, but not as high as a
monopolist's price.  "Easy entry" does not permit established sellers to
raise their prices at all above minimal average costs without attracting new
entrants.

These barriers take various forms.  Costs for established sellers may be
much lower than they would be for new entrants.  Existing firms may have all
distribution outlets tied up by "exclusive dealing" contracts, requiring a
new firm to enter both on a production AND a distribution level.  The
economics of the industry may be such that new entrants would have to be
able to command a substantial share of the market before they could operate
profitably.   The large capital outlay initially required itself can
discriminate against potential new firms.
Another important barrier is "product differentiation" -- excessive, non-
informational advertising.  Once a product is made to seem sexier or
faster or glossier or cooler, the advertiser can price it above the other
brands, confident that consumers will continue to buy from him because a
sense of brand-name loyalty has been developed.  I went into ABCO recently,
and while "Western Family" aspirins sold for $4.39 per 200, Bayer brand
aspirins sold for $8.89 per 200.  Aspirin, a basic chemical compound, is
aspirin.  Yet who do you think has the greater market share?  Who has the
greater profit?  You have said that "You cannot produce something at a price
which is not related to its costs of capital and production and stay in
business, unless you are using state power to hold the capital hostage or
to subsidize the price through the theft of taxation."  Where, then, is the
"invisible hand" ?  Wait, I think I see it...giving the finger to Adam
Smith.  Truly, "Bayer works wonders."
Seller concentration is another monkey wrench in your fantasy world...so is
aggregate concentration...

As of *1969* the top 200 manufacturing corporations already controlled about
two-thirds of all assets held by corporations engaged primarily in
manufacturing.  Try, for a minute, to comprehend that fact: imagine a room
seating 200 people, not much larger than a college classroom.  There could
sit the men who control two-thirds of American industry and approximately
one-third of all *world* manufacturing.  And that was in 1969!  Just
imagine, given all of the take-overs and mergers which have since occur, and
which reached such a fevered pitch in the 1980s, the amount of concentration
which exists in 1990.  Yet even the asset size of our largest corporations
under-estimates the extent of industrial concentration.  Three additional
factors decrease the vigor of competition.  First, joint ventures.
Businesses that are partners in one market may be disinclined to behave
independently when they meet as rivals in others.  Second, interlocking
management and directors are prevalent.  In *1962* the 29 largest
manufacturing firms alone had interlocks with 745 industrial and commercial
corporations, 330 banks, and 51 other corporations.  Third, by *1967*  49
banks were trustees of $139 billion dollars in assets.  They had
interlocking directorates with 6,591 companies; an average of 164 per bank.
More than 750 of these interlocks were with 286 of the 500 largest
industrial companies in the U.S..  The same pattern of interlocking
relationships was discovered between these 49 banks and each of the 50
largest merchandising, transportation, utility and life insurance companies.
By *1973* large commercial banks controlled assets of nearly 1 trillion
dollars,4 times that of insurance industries & 20 times that of mutual funds

There are three sources of control exerted by these banks: credit, trust
departments, and holding companies.  It is ABSURD to think that banks ignore
the holdings of their trust departments when they face major loan decisions.
It is equally absurd to think that a bank will ignore the needs of its
holding company subsidiaries.
As of *1972*, Chase Manhattan bank (at the time, the third largest bank in
the world) ALONE had $28 billion in assets, $23 billion in deposits, and
nearly two hundred domestic offices and more than a hundred in foreign
countries.  On its board sat directors, in many instances chairmen, of the
following companies:  Exxon, Standard Oil, Atlantic Richfield, Allied
Chemical, General Motors, Uniroyal, Chrysler, International Smelting and
Refining, International Nickel, R.J. Reynolds Industries, FMC Farm Machinery
Corporation, United Aircraft, Pan Am Airways, General Electric, Hewlett
Packard Electronics, AT&T, CBS, Metropolitan Life, Travelers Insurance,
American Express, General Foods, Kellogg's, Macy's, Federated Dept. Stores,
International Paper...the list is by no means complete, even by category,
and goes on.  Twenty-three of Chase's directors held 105 other commercial
directorships in major corporations and fifty-four non-commercial trustee-
ships, many on the board of wealthy foundations. 
As of *1973*, fourteen banks and eighteen of the largest oil companies have
overlapping directorates, and similar ties exist between oil firms and
insurance companies, investment banking firms and foundations. 
Imagine what things are like 30 years later.  Is it any wonder that large
corporations in competitive fields act more like partners than rivals?

I'll be posting more...but I thought seven messages were about all anyone
would be willing to read at once 

Message: 69046
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: ASU/OSU
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 21:15:59

When I attended Ohio State University I couldn't understand the TA who
taught Analytic Geometry. I had to teach it to myself using the Schaum
guide to AG. I sneaked through with a C, took Trig from an American,
got an A, took Calculus I and II from an american got two A's, took
Differential Equations from and American and got a B. I think they use those
foreign TA's to weed out the folks who need to get spoon-fed and keep those
who can teach themselves, which, after all, is one of the purposes of 
college.

Message: 69047
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: jeff/velocity
Date: 08/29/90  Time: 21:25:37

vectors and position in the "real" world. Would you agree that an object
in the "real" world that follows some path in space-time, such that the
path can be mapped onto an x,y,z coordinate system, has a velocity vector
at a point X,Y,Z, where X,Y,and Z is some point that can be mapped onto
a coordinate system such that there is one and only one point on the
graph that maps to that point. For example, the point 1,1,1 lying a curve
mapped from the real system. Would you agree that the velocity vector at
that point is a unique point in velocity space with respect to x,y,z and
further that the velocity vector is the tangent to the curve at the point
X,Y,Z ?

Message: 69048
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Question?
Subject: Dean/Iraq/Kuwait
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 00:00:48

Are you saying that Saddam Hessein repossessed Kuwait for unpaid bills?

Message: 69049
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: But Sandi
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 00:06:36

Whoever ends up with the middle eastern oil producing countries this week
will still sell the stuff in hopefully a free market atmosphere.  Their
wealth is not oil itself but it is what they can trade the oil for.

Besides there is a limited supply of black gold and as our supplies dwindle
then we humans will come up with suitable replacements for it.  We could go
back to using plants for medicine.  Have your ever heard of THC?

Message: 69050
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hussein
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 00:07:21

Saddam Hussein had challenged President Bush to a television debate.  Well
that's all I managed to catch thus far.

If this is true then I will have to give Hussein credit because that is how
a war situation should be handled, on international television with each
side stating their views for all to hear.

Does anyone know if Bush has accepted?  If he accepts then I will have to
give him credit also but if he flat refuses then I'd say that there was
something rotten in Denmark, so to speak.

I feel the American people, the same ones who are footing the bill for this
entire escapade has the right to hear Hussein give his reasons for his
actions.  I think it would clear the air.  And if Bush has nothing to hide
and that will hopefully be made evident if he does accept the debate then
everyone will have a better understanding of this tense situation.

In all honesty I will have to say that my world citizenship comes before
any other and I want to find out all I can in order to make the decision
that is better for the future of mankind rather than for any one nation.


Message: 69051
Author: Ed Sheridan
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Saddam Hussein
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 00:20:03

I agee with you Rod.

 *
[B[:

Message: 69052
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Roger/college days
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 01:50:31

If you aren't careful, your tongue is likely to poke a hole in your cheek.

Message: 69053
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Roger/velocity
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 01:54:02

No.  You are confusing reality with a mathematical schematic.  But
mathematics can be applied to yield remarkably accurate *results*, using
various approximations and analytical concepts.

Message: 69054
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Rod/debate
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 01:56:57

Bush has, and should, decline.  Hussein wants to portray himself as an arab
hero vs. the American/Zionist imperialists, and a TV debate would allow him
to do that.  The negotiation process should continue to be mediated through
the U.N..  It should be presented as Saddam Hussein vs. the World Community.

Message: 69055
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Question?
Subject: Mmax
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 05:21:24

 By GCU, are you referring to Glendale Community College? If so, when did it
achieve university status? I pass it daily, and believe that the sign still
says COllege, and the last schedule they published, to the best of my
knowledge, still offerred an associates degree at best.
 Anyway, I'm glad that you got the courses you wanted, and are happy with
the school. It is a nice place.

Message: 69056
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandi - Hitler
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 09:04:19

Wish I could remember my history better re: who was supposedly his friend
before world war ll. I do know that the German people for the most part were
behind him/believed in what he told them.  My ex- husband's wife was born
and in Germany during Hitler's time (she was about 12 years old) her family
and friends were behind him - but they soon become disillusioned. As far as
countries - I think most of the world were at least trying to be friendly -
they traded with Germany, but perhaps they didn't like what was happening
over there. The U.S. did supply a lot of things. England did too and both
countries tried to stay out of a war. It was not to happen. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 69057
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Answer!
Subject: Rod/Iraq/Kuwait
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 17:45:54

No, Rod, you've got it backwards.  Dean implied that Kuwait had loaned lots
of money to Iraq during Iraq's war with Iran, and that Hussein took over
Kuwait so that he wouldn't have to pay back those debts.

Message: 69058
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Question?
Subject: Roger
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 18:50:23

The purpose of college is to learn to teach one's self?  
News to me.  I just thought it was the only way to survive with a decent GPA

Message: 69059
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Answer!
Subject: Rod/Iraq
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:24:27

That's exactly what he did and why...also Kuwait objected recently to a plan
put forward by Iraq in the OPEC meetings to artificially raise oil prices to
$30 a barrel.

Message: 69060
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/oil
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:26:06

I didn't mean to insinuate that all drugs etc are made from petroleum (or,
from petrochemicals, as plastics, some drugs are). I was merely trying to
point out that petroleum has more uses than feeding 1970 Chrysler New
Yorkers...

Message: 69061
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/WWII
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:32:38

America was full of people who didn't want to get involved a European war
where there was no threat to our homeland. Great Britain and France were
ready to kiss ^@# to prevent another war. No one liked us Germans very much
but there was no one who wanted to stand up and just say no. (*I just had to
say that, sorry*)

Message: 69062
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: hussein/mecham
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:36:59

Saddam Hussein reminds me of that slime-ball Mecham.

Message: 69063
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: Jeff/OSU
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:37:27

'scuse me ?

Message: 69065
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Question?
Subject: Melissa
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:51:42

Very funny.

Message: 69066
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: jeff/velocity
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:55:44

Perhaps I'm being too subtle. I'm opening a new discussion.
Consider this: an object with mass has a center of gravity. consider
the path the point that the center of gravity makes in x,y,z,t (real
space-time). At some point X,Y,Z,T on that path, is the velocity 
vector tangent to the curve at X,Y,Z,T ?

Message: 69067
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Jeff B./Econ
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:07:09

  We wouldn't be having this conversation because I wouldn't have said
anything against market controls if they were in fact used to prevent fraud
and force in consentual trade. That simply is not even the intent of much
market control.
  The intent you claim for market controls would not require one percent of
the intrusion and cost of existing government regulation of the marketplace.

  Your contention that laizzez-faire can only exist in mythology unless it
exists in pure form right this minute is flawed. A true test of
Laissez-faire would be to actally have it in place for a significant length
of time. That is not a mythological requirement. If fifty years of
free-market economics, with government doing nothing but punishing fraud and
coercion, resulted in total monopoly and rising prices coupled with falling
standards of living for the majority of citizens, then free markets would
have been tried and failed. That is my criteria for disproof, since I
refuse to lay the failing of a mixed economy at the doorstep of the only
segment of that economy which produces anything.

  You are incorrect in seeing the drug trade as one big oligopoly. The
barriers to entry are strictly caused by illegality, as you have to realize,
and the actual numbers of suppliers is infinitely greater than a glance at
the news would leave you to believe. What barriers there are to competition
are mainly due to thuggery, as I mentioned. Suppressing this thuggery is a
valid function of government, which would leave the business a model of free
enterprise, if the price inflation due to the risks of illegality were
removed.

  The economics of production I described are simple, and they are the basis
of everything that comes into being. To declare that they do not apply to
this or that situation is to be in error. Complex arrangements do not change
the underlying truths.{ Market controls impede the entry of capital into
specific areas more often than anything else.

  Don't you see that when a new entrant would have to be of a certain size
to compete with established firms, the existing firm is obviously passing
along the benefits of its growth to customers? That is the whole point of
free markets, that a winner be allowed to win by doing a better job. How can
you call that a negative? How can you call that a justiication of governmetn
interferance? We are speaking entirely different languages if you indentify
easy entry into every market as the only test of an economic system,
regardless of the progress that is being made under it. This sounds like an
attitude derived from a religious devotion to regulation (sorry, but you
asked for it).


Message: 69072
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandi/oil
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:50:03

Perhaps it will soon become profitable to pump U.S. oil again.  Buy
American, eh.  

And don't laugh but my wife has a 1976 Chrysler Newport.  It has a 360 cu.
in. power plant, all electric and goes around the block on a tank of gas.

But we didn't plan it that way as her grandmother from Sun City made us take
it.

Message: 69073
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ed Sheridan
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:50:17

The check is in the mail.

Message: 69074
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Doggie
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:50:35

Thanks for putting me straight.

Message: 69075
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hussein/Mecham
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:53:06

A man who is willing to go on national television and state his position
is, in my eyes, more of a man than one who refuses.

Who has something to hide, eh?

Message: 69076
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: American Politricks
Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:54:27

What is different about the U.S. Government now than in 1964?  Has it
improved, became more honest in its dealings with the general population?

In August, 1964 the American People were informed via mass media that
warships of the United States of America were attacked without warning by
the North Vietemese while in international waters.  The attack was not
provoked by the U.S.  Immediately thereafter the then President Lyndon
Baines Johnson was given full power to make war in an 88 to 2 vote by the
Senate, a unanimous vote by the House of Representatives and was
overwhelmingly supported by Congress.

Johnson said: "Aggression unchallenged is aggression unleashed."  Senator
Barry Goldwater said: "We cannot allow the American flag to be shot at
anywhere on this earth if we are to retain our respect and prestige."

And the entire incident was a lie and Johnson knew about it because he had
the CIA set it up.  And there were many more politicians in bed with old
Lyndon.  The warships were not attacked but Johnson and his cronies needed
to gain the approval of the American people in order to start a vicious war
that would leave hundred of thousands dead or worse, crippled for life.  And
thus just after our little war with North Viet Namn the U.S. was in bad
financial shape just as Iraq was after their war with Iran.

This incident was not by far the first time the people of America were
outright lied too and I doubt if it was the last.

By the way, has anyone heard, did Bush accept the public debate with Saddam
Hussein?
                                        Rod