Apollo BBS Archive - August 1991

Apollo BBS Archive - August 10, 1991

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:RC7905-

Message: 7906
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: last
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 04:03:39

Thanks, Rod.

So, DID he get hit by lightning?

Message: 7907
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 04:06:22

Thanks for your comment on my post, Daryl.  Did you mean 7853?  That was the
only one about evolution.  I was also wondering what reaction you had to
#7819-7826, which was concerned solely with the age of the Earth, not with
evolution.

I think it's very necessary in science to take separate issues and treat
them separately.  I think there's very strong evidence for evolution, but of
course we can't point to a skeleton of something exactly halfway between a
man and an ape and say "there you are, the Missing Link; that *proves* it".
Furthermore, we can't point to any evidence for continuing evolution in Homo
Sapiens within *recorded* history, that I know of.  It's all circumstantial
evidence.  So it's always possible to cast doubt on the theory somehow.

However, with the age of the Earth, which is a separate issue, we do have
that crucial continuity with the past.  We can point to processes occurring
today, watch what they do and how fast they do it, then see for a fact what
they have done in the past and measure how long it must have taken.  Yes,
there will always be some uncertainty about the exact age of the Earth, but
the proof that it's older than a few thousand years is, literally, as
"rock"-solid as you can get.

Message: 7908
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ostriches
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 04:07:33

An even better question about the ostrich is why it exists at all.  Why does
it have wings when it can't fly?  It would be better off with arms, or
tentacles, or anything other than wings.  The ostrich doesn't look as if it
was consciously designed for a purpose at all.

It's easy enough to explain, however, if certain birds in the past found
they could survive better with the benefit of greater size to beat off
predators.  Ostriches are good fighters and kickers.  Gradually the birds
evolved to be larger, and size was eventually more useful than the faculty
of flight.  So they grew big enough to give an enemy a good drubbing, but
far too heavy to get off the ground.  Their wings then became mere vestiges
of the days when their ancestors *could* fly.

We can say even more about the human appendix.  It's useless.  It's a
liability, in fact, because it's prone to a certain number of infections
that cause death.  Obviously it hasn't had time to evolve away completely
since we changed our diet.  Its presence doesn't serve any useful purpose or
provide evidence of conscious design.  It does, however, provide evidence
that our ancestors were a lot better at eating their veggies than we are,
mainly grass and other tough cellulose stuff that took a lot of digesting.

Message: 7909
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl on bone
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 08:31:04

I was NOT trying to give some 'flimsy' attempt at evidence toward proving
that birds evolved from reptiles! AND PLEASE be me guest and research it for
yourself. You people keep saying OVER & OVER again for us to prove this
evolution thing and when we attempt to, you redicule us - as if we do not
have a brain to think this out with! 
My comment about the bone was just a small one - there is overwhelming
evidence that birds were reptiles whether you say it isn't so or not! Even a
total novice can see with their eyes and smell with their noses.
                              *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 7910
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Rebuttal
Subject: Daryl
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 08:33:52

Daryl, Daryl, Daryl. Sometimes you amaze me. Don't you know sarcasm when you
hear it? *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 7911
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Thad/Second law
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 21:25:24

        That argument about the watch parts being stirred for centuries
until a real watch pops out (or derivatives--e.g., a thousand monkeys
hitting typewriter keys until *Hamlet* is produced) is a very interesting
argument, to me. While I want to neither prove nor disprove the existence of
God, I think it is intensely interesting to consider the origin of mankind,
and I am inclined to believe that Divine intervention is the only probable
and reasonable explanation.          --John C--

Message: 7912
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl's fast feet
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 22:48:18

So you just ignore evidence and reasoning when it suits you, tarring it with
the epithet "religious beliefs".  And then you have the audacity to put
creation scientists up on a pedestal above people who can actually reason
out some sort of truth from a set of facts.
 
Let's hear some of this wondrous reasoning of Creation Scientists?  Let's
hear their explanations of the geological evidence which Gordon posted last
week.

Message: 7913
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject:  Watches and Monkeys
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 22:57:23

I don't like the argument about the watch parts so much, because the trouble
with stirring watch parts around is that there is an awkward tendency (as we
all know) for the little screws to get knocked out of the holes as soon as
they pop in, instead of being screwed up tightly.  I prefer the monkeys and
Shakespeare myself, because you can assume that the monkeys are truly
hitting keys at random.  Given enough time, their eventual authorship of
Hamlet is a certainty.  It would be an awfully *long* time, but it would not
be infinite.  Furthermore, we can actually compute, according to the laws
of probability, how long it would take them.

It can be hard to escape the notion of Divine intervention at some stage to
ensure that the creation of Man would occur.  The question is, at what stage
did such intervention occur?  Was it right at the time of the event?  Or did
God cleverly design a set of basic physical laws that he knew, given lots
and lots of time, would eventually result in life arising and ultimately
lead to the advent of Homo Sapiens?

Message: 7914
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Gordon/Lightening
Date: 08/11/91  Time: 01:22:49

No, he died about 10 years ago of heart failure.  No doubt he is in the
depths of hell and will be until it freezes over.

I have died several times now and both times found the experience quite
refreshing.  At least I went to the brink of physical death slightly into
calm and peace.  It will be great, the most fun thing a person can do, I
well imagine.  Just don't tense up, relax and enjoy and you just may wake up
feeling better than at any conscience time in your life.

I've noticed that when a person thinks they are going to have a heart attack
and worry about it, tense up and freak out then they are probably going to
have a heart attack.  But if you can honestly feel that, "okay" so I've
messed up and stressed out so if I am going to have a heart attack I may as
well relax and go quietly to sleep.  Those weren't the times I felt death
approaching but on those particular occasions, I've always woke up feeling
like a top.

The human form is somewhat of a joke and of course it is on us.  Our bodies
are stupid growths and compared to spiders and squirrels and other
creatures, we are no more ugly or beautiful than they.

We aren't even any better, just another life form living and trying for some
unknown reason to survive and reproduce.

Message: 7915
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 08/11/91  Time: 01:33:46

Prove that your god exists.  If your god does exist as you say it does and
if it is as all powerful as you say then perhaps you could invoke some help
out of it to prove your point.  If it is too busy then perhaps it could send
you a helper of lesser but capable power for your assistance.

Sounds logical to me.  But I am almost sure that you will point out
something from your Book of Rules which you call a bible that says something
to the tune of, sorry can't help, against the rules.

X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 4978
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Who-dun-it
Subject: Mike/FL SEX CRIMES
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 06:09:51

> Did your infintesimal imaginations ever dream there could be
> another reason for the cops being at the place Pee Wee just
> happened to be?
 
        In an Associated Press story credited to James Martinez, the Gazette
says (in part):
        "Theater employees said as many as eight undercover vice and
narcotics detectives have been in the theater for hours at a time.
        "'I don't have to explain why we do what we do,' Sheriff Geoff Monge
said in refusing requests from The Associated Press for an interview. ...
        "Monge has said his undercover detectives' top priority is drug
enforcement.  Patrols of adult theaters and other vice stings are done only
to ***FILL THE BOREDOM BETWEEN COMPLEX DRUG INVESTIGATIONS,*** he has said. 
[Emphasis added. -wrb]
        "For example, if a drug buy were set up for the evening and fell
through, then the detectives would go to the adult movie theater, according
to a sheriff's spokesman, Capt. Terry Lewis."
 
Sounds like heavy-duty investigative work to me.

Message: 4979
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer !
Subject: Mike
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 14:30:28

Another unemotional response, I see.  You have done nothing to support your 
ideas on women.  Conversely, everytime you open up your flap, you sound more
and more like the "womyn" you destest.  What a whinner...
In any case, people have already addressed your ignorance about our supposed
ignorance as to what the police were really doing there.  If cops really
want to stop "criminal activity in their area", why don't they get out of
the porno theatres and back on the streets.  

Message: 4980
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Re-BuTTal
Subject: Cops
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 22:25:38

"Dance around the true issue with the cops?"  The *true* issue?  Just what
IS the true issue with the cops?

        "'I don't have to explain why we do what we do,' Sheriff Geoff Monge
said in refusing requests from The Associated Press for an interview.

"I don't have to explain..."  Just who the fuck does this arrogant asshole
think he is?  He is a public SERVANT!  He is paid and employed to HELP the
public and protect them from people and things that do them harm, NOT to go
picking on people and things that do no harm, and certainly not to condone
the actions of a bunch of people throwing their weight around and ruining
harmless people's lives to "relieve boredom".  Especially not at public
expense!  This conduct, and this incredible arrogance, is intolerable.

Just what the hell are we really saying here?  Yes, there's crime, and yes,
we need policemen to protect us against crime.  And yes, it's a tough job.
So are we saying that we owe these people a debt for doing a tough job that
we need done?  Yes indeed.

But that's where I draw the line.  Is the payment of that debt supposed to
include overlooking unpardonable behavior?  Does it include letting cops run
roughshod over the populace, like the beating of Rodney King?  Because we
need tough people to do this job, do we have to employ thugs and sadists and
people with such overweening arrogance?  Is this what we're saying?  NO WAY!

Message: 4981
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Pee Wee & Cops
Date: 08/11/91  Time: 01:41:16

Okay, a cop sting goes bad and there are no arrests so the cops take some
people they can rough up and one of their favorite spots for practicing
sadism is the XXX Adult movie theater.  The people there are poor,
proletariat class and can almost be counted on to cower under the brutality
of the cops.  Pee Wee blew their cover because he was the exception.  They
have been doing it for years.  It was probably on the cops list of "fun
things to do when bored and want to be able to feel manly again at least
until they go home to their wives."  

Public Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 77481
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Thad/LUST!
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 04:09:17

 TC>>Are you familiar with the meaning of the good old English word "lust"?
 TC>>I don't mean the word itself...but are you familiar with the feeling or
 TC>>emotion that it is used to describe?

Well (grin), just to be deliberately obtuse, I'm going to pretend you really
did ask two questions here, and answer them both.

Second one first.  As far as I know -- yes!  Now how do you describe a
feeling so that you know it's the same thing that somebody else is feeling?
Lust is a feeling that makes me go "WAAAAAAUUUUGHHHH!"  It's a STRONG
desire, and a delicious sensation!

How about the meaning of the good *old* English word "lust"?  This is very
significant.  It's an ancient word of Germanic origin, and originally it
meant no more than "pleasure" in a general sense, with an overtone of "want"
or "desire".  In modern German the meaning of the word hasn't changed so
much, and it isn't a bad word at all; quite the reverse.  The adjective
"lustig" means "merry".  The title of Strauss's waltz "Mein Lebenslauf ist
Lieb' und Lust" is translated as "My Life is Love and *Laughter*".  If the
Germans want to talk about what *we* call "lust", they use the word
"Wollust".

For comparison, we don't seem to have spoiled the modern English adjective
"lusty" (as opposed to "lust*ful*").  "Lusty" has all kinds of positive
connotations: healthy, hearty, vigorous, full of strength and vitality.  We
picture someone enthusiastic, raring to go out and do great things.  And the
German phrase "mit Lust und Liebe" is best translated as the English phrase
"with heart and soul".

It's true that we use the word "lust" in nonsexual contexts today when we
speak of some "lusting" after money, or power.  It is possible, after all,
to want something *too* much, to be overcome with desire.  But if it's money
they want, we have to say so explicitly.  If we use the word "lust" on its
own, it *always* means sex!  And people say that's *bad*.  They labeled it
one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

So what did they do?  They took all these good things -- pleasure, strength,
vitality, desire, healthy natural instincts -- and they plastered a label on
them saying they're bad and dirty.  They told people they should be ashamed
of themselves for wanting something, and for having the instincts they were
born with.  It's a sorry tale of how some people took a perfectly good word
and sullied it with their nasty minds and their sick guilt and their jealous
spite and their oppressive need to spoil everyone else's "Lust" -- their
pleasure.  *These* are the people who should be ashamed.

Message: 77483
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: John C.
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 04:11:11

Welcome back!

     Where have all the philosophers gone?
     They're on Apollo, every one...

 JC>>Are women really equal to men, or was Thomas Aquinas right when he
 JC>>thought that they should not be as culpable for sin, for the poor
 JC>>things are not capable of really serious cerebral activity?

Equal, but usually a bit different, depending on the individual.  The real
difference between men and women in my view is just that their motivations
and their priorities are usually somewhat different.  Thomas Aquinas was all
wet if he thought that women aren't capable of serious cerebral activity.
But you can't necessarily expect women to think exactly the same as men if
they don't start from quite the same premises.  That's what he missed.

He was at least a kind man, better than many others who want to punish a
woman *worse* than a man for what they are pleased to call the "sin" of lust
(q.v.)

P.S.  I'm sure that ANYTHING they say about Australians is true.

Message: 77484
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon on lust
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 08:18:27

I loved you posts on the subject. Thanks once again Gordon for putting
things into prospective. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 77485
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Rod
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 14:39:01

I love ya man, but I hate to see disinformation spread about contraception.
What data do you have that states condoms cause STDs?  I agree that they are
pretty unromantic and cumbersome, but for horney teens that are just excited
about "gettin' any", I'd strongly suggest them.  
In fact, I put some extra condom I had laying (excuse the pun) around the
house on the back of my teen survival poem booklet, _Survivors_.  The
booklet is free and they were gone in a week from Peter's store.  I hope
they came (excuse me again) in handy.  

Message: 77486
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Politics
Subject: Porn
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 14:45:11

Gosh, the one time you all are talking about something that interests me and
I haven't had time to respond.  Great posts by Gordon, Dean and some good
stuff from the other side as well. 

Message: 77487
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ah'm back
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 15:21:27

I'm back. You may recommence calling me by whatever name you choose.

Message: 77488
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/STD
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 20:51:47

"STD" in Britain stands for "Subscriber Trunk Dialling", i.e., the ability
to dial long-distance telephone calls directly.

Now, I'm beginning to wonder if they got around to substituting this new
term for "VD" in Britain, or if British Telecom objects.

Can condoms be hazardous to your phone bill?

Message: 77489
Author: $ Thad Coons
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/lust
Date: 08/10/91  Time: 22:14:28

Lust was probably named as one of the "seven deadly sins" because of the
quotation of Jesus "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh
on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart". Perhaps theologians have made too much of this, but it seems to me
that there is considerable psychological truth to it. 
  Pornographic material (erotica, if you prefer... a skunk by any other name
smells just as bad) has the effect of inspiring sexual desires, and
fantasies...even if the direct object of desire is not available, the
desire, once aroused, is easily transferred to one that is...and desires and
fantasies often lead to plans or at least increased awareness of
opportunities.
  My wife's sister was happily married to a man who seemed to share many of
her values and ideals. I don't know all the details, since it happened
before I knew my wife well, but apparently they were having problems with
their marriage, and were seeing some marriage counselors with an excellent
reputation. After they had been seeing them and had not made much progress,
they asked my sister-in-law if her husband was involved with pornographic
material. She said "yes", and they said they thought so..it showed.
  My mother claimed that she could tell when her children were or had been
involved with it, also. Again, I don't know how she could tell, but
evidently it has a discernable effect on a person's personality and
character.  (After my sister in law's husband began  abusing her and the
ideals he used to share with her, she filed for divorce.)

Message: 77490
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Melissa/Gordon/condo
Date: 08/11/91  Time: 01:50:53

I guess I am on the hook with my message about condoms so here is my
explanation(s).

It sez so in the bible?

It sez so in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1989 editon.

They smell really bad.

None of the above.

All of the above.

Pick the one you like best. Remember you may be graded.