Apollo BBS Archive - August 1990

Apollo BBS Archive - August 9, 1990

Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 68425
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Rod
Date: 08/08/90  Time: 23:42:48

Brain dead?  Probably. 
Oh, hey - I have a Match.  

Message: 68426
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann 
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 01:16:06

Just caught up with your message, Ann, and thanks a lot!

Tell you what about Piccadilly Circus?  It was still there last time I went,
complete with the status of Eros in the middle.  Funny subject for a
supposedly staid city (at least it was when they put the statue there).
There is, or used to be, an all-night chemist's shop [drugstore] right in
Piccadilly Circus, and back in the 60s the junkies used to form a long line
outside between 11:00 and midnight, so that they could fill their daily
heroin prescriptions, which fell due at the beginning of the day (midnight).
Perfectly respectable place, otherwise.

I'd say Maggie Thatcher was a minority taste in Britain, perhaps 40% at a
guess.  The present political situation came about when the Labour Party
lurched so absurdly to the left that any socialist with any sense (there are
a few) came out and joined the new Social Democrats.  So the opposition vote
is drastically split; hence the present chaotic political situation.

Not that Maggie hasn't put a lot of things right.  But she went overboard
with the recent poll tax.  You might have read about the riots in London
started by demonstrators against the poll tax.  They were widely publicized.
What most papers didn't give much publicity to was the huge number of people
involved in *peaceful* demonstrations against the poll tax all over the
country.  The papers gave the impression that opponents of the poll tax are
mainly a lunatic fringe, instead of a probable majority.

Britain is probably more fed up with its politicians than the U.S.  When I
lived there I noticed a depressing tendency among many people to sit around
and groan about government policy instead of getting up and forming pressure
groups to try to change it, which happens more in the U.S.  And they almost
never have a referendum in Britain, unlike the ones we have here at state
level (I'd like to see some at the *Federal* level!)  So there's no direct
popular participation in government; the politicians do the lot.

British politicians do have an image of being less corrupt than U.S.
politicians, though.  Mind you, I'm careful to say "an image", because a
more or less subtle form of censorship does operate in the British press.

The Queen?  She's well liked on the whole.  There's always a good turnout
for a Royal wedding or whatever.  There are one or two bolshie types who
object to her, notably a left-wing Scottish MP some years ago who thought
the monarchy ought to be abolished as a remnant of class oppression and all
that stuff.  He didn't get very far.

It can be valuable to have a titular head of state who has no political
power in practice, because she can serve as a focus for national pride
without being a target for the brickbats that political leaders attract.

The Queen does live very grandly, but her duties keep her working very hard,
besides the enormous constraints on her personal life.  *I* wouldn't want
her job!  And surprisingly, although it costs a lot of money to keep up all
those palaces and residences, she actually represents a net financial gain
to Britain because of the value of Royalty as a tourist attraction.  The
Queen is good for business.

Enjoyed meeting you at the GT, and I do like your pictures.  Unfortunately I
can't draw to save my life.

     - Gordon

Message: 68429
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: The latter
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 01:21:03

What is love?  Is it something you feel?  Somebody once said that "love is
something you *do*".  (For people, that is.)

It's hardly surprising the Greeks had so many different words for love,
because the whole difficulty of defining it arises from there being several
different feelings and motivations involved, usually all mixed up together.
Most people fail to separate them out, which often gets them into trouble.

There's good old plain lust, of course.  I wouldn't underestimate the value
of it as an important element in a marriage.  If it's valued between a
couple, it *can* lead the two people involved to behave caringly toward one
another and thus develop love in other areas.  But the reason you can't glue
a marriage together entirely with lust is obvious.  You only spend a small
percentage of your time actually making lust with one another.  You spend
much more time doing other practical things together, and those times
together have to work properly as well.

Then there's something I might call "a sense of community", or perhaps
"affiliation".  This is something that happens between people who have
common interests, common needs, common approaches, a common ideology.  This
sense of community helps them work together in harmony, and they enjoy one
another because of it.  There is an easy camaraderie between such people,
and because their interests and approaches are similar, they know and trust
one another.  A good-sized dollop of this kind of love is essential to a
marriage, or any mutual enterprise for that matter.

There's also something I could describe as "love by association".  When
people have a good time together, they tend to associate the presence of
those other people with the pleasure they had while together.  "Good old
Joe, I remember the time when we..."  The feeling of pleasure rubs off onto
the person we had the pleasure with.  This kind of love plays a part in
marriage too.  Spending time together doing enjoyable things strengthens the
bond between two people, or an entire family.

I think mother-love is in a category by itself.  I define it very
prosaically as an instinctive need to fulfill the nurturing part of the
identity.  Like most other forms of love, it does fulfill one's own needs as
well as those of the loved one, and if exaggerated into smother-love can
become stifling.  But it is universally revered, and rightly so.  It does
motivate genuine sacrifices; and the world needs more nurturing people.  It
is lucky that "mother-love" is not limited to mothers.  Men and women do
mother one another, as well as their children.  What would a marriage be --
even a childless one -- without a little mothering?

Then there is dependency.  This sounds very unhealthy; and if it assumes too
large a proportion, it can indeed be unhealthy.  I very much liked Melissa's
explanation in <68371> of why battered women stay with their partners.  I
thought it was accurate, and it might be surprising to realize that these
women are actually motivated by dependency on this type of partner and this
form of relationship: because they know no other.

Dependency is the original source of a small and helpless child's love for
its parents, whom it needs for sheer survival.  It is one of the most
selfish forms of love, and can easily turn to anger when the loved one does
not fulfill the need as expected.  Luckily children develop other kinds of
love as they grow, and eventually (perhaps around the age of 50!) can learn
to appreciate their parents as people rather than just as providers.  But it
would be unduly negative, futile, and irrelevant to characterize dependency
as "unhealthy" or "immature".  Dependency is not only perfectly normal, but
actually a very important, not to say powerful, form of love.  It is the
largest element in the romantic feeling of "falling in love" (as opposed to
falling in lust) with someone.  It is the child within that "falls in love".
In the child's optimistic mind, the loved one will make everything all right
for ever after.  He or she never does, of course.  Other forms of love are
necessary to make that happen.  But dependency feelings are quite
unavoidable, and other things being equal, they ought to be enjoyed while
they are there.

People often do things for one another simply because they are in the habit
of doing them, or think they are expected to do them, or think it is wise
policy because they confidently anticipate getting something in return.  I
don't know that I could describe such deeds as being done "out of love", but
it's certainly a wise policy for people to develop habits of helping one
another.  Real love grows out of such behavior.

Gore Vidal, the supreme cynic on this subject, thinks there is no such thing
as love, and sees people as doing things for one another solely for selfish
reasons.  I can't deny that many forms of love serve one's own interests at
bottom.  But I suspect that Vidal is too hung up on lust, and maybe
dependency as well, to see that any other forms of love exist.

Lastly, there is empathy.  This I think is the highest form of human love,
because it is the only unselfish one.  It enables us to stand in another's
shoes, see the world through that person's eyes, and feel his or her
feelings.  When there is contention and anger between two people, other
forms of love can fail.  Only empathy stands alone and can bring two warring
parties to a mutual peace.  Empathy most of all binds the human race
together.  The Christians on this board might describe it as the closest to
a Godly kind of love, which does not cease because another person has
angered us.  But you don't have to be religious to have empathy.  It is seen
in children as early as eighteen months of age.  But sometimes, for whatever
reason, it just isn't there.  Many here might remember "Ordinary People".
The wife in that movie said at one point that she "loved" her husband; yet
she was, as her own words later proved, totally lacking in empathy.  For
her, and for those around her, the result was catastrophic.

I don't know what all those Greek words were; the only one that seems to
stick in my mind is "eros"!  And for all I know there might be a few more
forms of love that I've forgotten.  But what we feel for people we love is
almost always a complex mixture of several of the above.  No wonder it is
hard to describe!

Anyway, love to you all, and lust to a few.

     - Gordon

Message: 68435
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Joke
Subject: Jack and Jill
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 01:32:31

English version of <68377> (mainly mine):

     Jack and Jill
       went up the hill,
         but not to fetch some water.
     Jill came down
       with half a crown
         for doin' what she di'n' oughter.

Message: 68436
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff B/Jordan
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 06:04:11

 What you say is very true, but have you considered whether the leadership
od the other Arab nations really reflect the feelings and wishes of the
people? Are their requests for U.S. aid indicative of the man in the
street's opinions, or are they merely trying to protect their own power and
position?
 While I tend to feel about all news media the way you do about CBS, I did
hear Arabs in an Arabic country speak with their own mouths words condemning
U.S. interference in what they consider an Arab problem. It does cause one
to at least wonder if there isn't some credibility in what they say,
especially when they say that, even though they don't like Hussein or what
he is doing, they wold band together with him should he call for Arab help
against the U.S. intrusion.

Message: 68437
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Question?
Subject: Sandi Marlin
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 06:10:04

 Maybe I missed something, since I believe that you came aboard while I was
on vacation. You have mentioned in several posts things about preparing
stories on current topics, doing interviews, etc. I'm curious. What do you
do, and for whom? Do you have a byline? Where? Thanks for the answer.
Paul

Message: 68438
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bobby
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 08:26:07

We all have a 'fixation' on what we post - me, I talk about Arnie, cute
buns, Bon Jovi, heavy metal, my car, drawing - so you could say I have a
fixation too. Especially about cute buns! *Heh -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 68439
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bobby on war
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 08:27:26

I just don't want to see anyone get killed. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 68440
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandi on busses
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 08:30:48

I'm not saying it's a cure all - but L.A. is a sprawling city - one of the
biggest and it's bus system works very well - they run constantly and all
night long. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 68441
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: John C.
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 08:43:35

I am sure Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein etc. all have their religions and moral
codes. I don't believe they would call themselves Athiests. Most religions
of the world teach/preach pretty much the same codes - whether they live by
them or not. Hitler was not a religious man - but the bulk of the Germans at
that time that believed in him were Lutheran's if I'm not mistaken. Love,
compassion, kindness, mercy are not just Christian codes - they were ancient
before Christ was born. 
Re: "Don't we have to go to an organized religion for moral codes?"
I don't think we do. If you go into the deepest jungle and find a very
primitive tribe - they will have a set of moral codes that is not very
unlike the Christian one. You wouldn't call this an organized religion. 
 
I have found that most organized religions go against their own moral codes
at sometime or another - even the Christians. Case in point the Inquisition
and the Reformation periods. The Christians would go into a country, conquor
them and force their beliefs on the people or kill them if they didn't
conform. They even have a name for unbelievers - heathens!
                         -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 68442
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon on England
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 08:49:43

Thanks for the wonderful 'tour' of England. Very interesting, especially
about the queen. I always thought it such a waste, but after what you said,
I now believe we need a head of state that has no power but we can respect.
At least it would be somebody! Ha. Thanks. -=*) ANNIE (*=-

Message: 68443
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/sex & love
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 08:54:19

What wonderful posts Gordon on Sex & Love ! Your wife has got to be one
lucky person to have gotten you for a mate. Thanks for those posts.
                     -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 68444
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Max
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 10:37:20

Re  "What happens if we don't intervene? Sadam would overrun the rest of
the mideast, and eventually control all the oil."

Not likely.  He's been trying to overrun Iran for some time now and can't
make it.  Just because he "beat up" on little Kuwait doesn't mean he can
overrun the rest of the mideast.

Message: 68445
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 10:39:44

Re:  "I have grave doubts regarding the integrity or intelligence of CBS
news"

I have trouble with all of them.  We do not get truth in news.  All news is
colored with bias.  The best bet is to have some "left" reports and some
"right" reports and try to sort out the bias.

Message: 68446
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: War!
Subject: Jeff
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 10:42:10

Re:  "Why is everyone drawing comparisons to Vietnam in their warnings
against US military involvement."

You're right Jeff.  There is almost no comparison.  Vietnam also had the
full backing of Red China.  No one is backing Iraq.

Message: 68447
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: War!
Subject: John
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 10:44:40

Re:  "He is almost the reincarnation of Adolph, and what he is doing sounds
eerily like a replay of 1935 to 1939."

He may be like Adolph, but he has neither the power or intelligence that
Hitler had.

Message: 68448
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: John
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 10:45:48

Re:  "On the other hand, in the atheist camp, we find Idi Amin, Saddam
Hussein, etc., and a complete lack of organized encouragement of the
virtues."

Good point John.

Message: 68449
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 10:57:49

Re: "Don't we have to go to an organized religion for moral codes?" I don't
think we do. If you go into the deepest jungle and find a very primitive
tribe - they will have a set of moral codes that is not very unlike the
Christian one. You wouldn't call this an organized religion.

I think God has written what is morally right and wrong in every man's
heart.  This accounts for the similar morals of all people.  Some break the
moral code and know it is wrong to  so, but if it is broken enough times, it
no longer seems wrong.

Message: 68450
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: JB/questions
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 11:39:02

Sorry, I'm not  up to answering more physics questions.  Maybe after I
recover from this viral attack, I'll feel up to it.  If so, you'll have to
remind me of the posts or repost them.

Message: 68452
Author: $ Jeff Lochansky
Category: War!
Subject: Mideast Bob T.
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 12:28:32

Iran is the only country in the mideast next to iraq that has an army worth
speaking about. The saudi's for one have an active duty army of 40000
troups,airforce army navy and support combined. Don't tell me that hussain
couldn't overrun the saudi's without our help. The iraqy army is rated
number FOUR in the world as far as size, equipment, arms, training. That is
strait out of jane's defense journal. Before iraq are 3. the US, 2. the
USSR,1. the chinese. So were does that put hussain and iraq now. It makes
them a mayor world military power for conventional warfare. The saudi's
wouldn't last 24 hours without help from outside. Look at were the rest of
the arab world is at, they can't even make up their mind when to hold their
emergency summit, must no be an emergeny if they can postphone it for one
day. The saudi's asked us for help and we gave it. Years ago we pledged to
help, and we did. Should the US say no, if so, that would not make us any
better then the iraq'is, by going back on our word. What good is having a
military in peacetime, if you refuse to use it in a crisis situation. To me
it sounds like giving away 2 million paychecks.

Message: 68453
Author: Hans Glans
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cars/68278
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 12:59:16

I guess from your figures, one could assertain that the Yugo is a better car
than GM?

Message: 68454
Author: Hans Glans
Category: Religion
Subject: SAVAGE/68299
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 13:06:29

Do you really believe that? The only reason people in our society respect
the fellow man is because of the fear of punishment for wrongdoing...Whether
by the authorities, or retribution of the victim.
Love thy neighbor is great...but I remember reading someone talking about
loving the man that tried to rape his daughter, that's absurd. 
That's the problem with your viewpoint, it's too extreme...It's ok not to
love someone who is out to hurt you.

Message: 68455
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 0,5,2
Date: 08/09/90  Time: 14:13:16

Spiritual pre-symbolic transformation.