Apollo BBS Archive - August 1991
Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
August 1991 -> August 9
Apollo BBS Archive - August 9, 1991
*=* $tatus Club Bulletin Board entered *=*
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 7867
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: filling the void
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:04:36
Hmm, not a lot of activity on here. Time to fill it up...
Message: 7868
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Idea for thought
Subject: Ruminations (1/8)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:05:48
I couldn't help noticing that the Barbarian kept talking about the "bibble",
but until I read Cliff's post it hadn't occurred to me that he might be
doing it deliberately to annoy people. Yes, I know that isn't what Cliff
said, but as soon as he pointed out that he *does* find it offensive it led
me naturally to the speculation that it could be deliberate.
There are two interesting points here that deserve thought. The first is
the enormous significance of names and other titles.
An adjective defines only an attribute of somebody or something. It's a
single aspect that must take its place and be seen in perspective among all
the other aspects of that person or thing. So you could describe me as
"brown-haired" or "moderately tall" or "English", and they're just parts of
who I am. But nobody would like me or hire me or marry me based on those
attributes alone. I have to add lots of other attributes like "friendly" or
"amusing" or "trustworthy" or "hard-working" or "goal-oriented" or "good-
looking and sexy" to get them to do that.
A noun on the other hand purports to be a more or less complete description
of what something is. When we say "knife" or "house" or "cosmos" or "George
Washington", the name gives us a pretty complete picture of what the thing
or person is supposed to be, the ideas it brings up in our mind and the
feelings we have about it.
Message: 7869
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Idea for thought
Subject: Ruminations (2/8)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:06:54
So we can afford to be free and easy with adjectives, but we have to be very
careful with nouns. It's OK to use a noun to describe somebody's *role* in
a limited context, like "the waiter overcharged me" or "the manager did a
lousy job". But the essential property of people is that they're all part
of the human race and like to be seen as such. We can safely describe
people as "brown-haired" or "Jewish" or "Chinese" or "gay" or "Christian"
and so forth. But when we use these words as nouns instead, they attain far
greater significance because they're seen as defining the whole identity of
the person.
At this point we have to take into account the person's own attitude to his
identity. Being a "trash collector" for example doesn't totally define who
a person is. Whether or not he objects to being stuck with a label depends
on his own attitude to that label, or what he perceives to be other people's
attitude toward people with that label. So if some guy is proud of being an
"American", a "veteran", a "Christian", or whatever, and parades that
quality assertively in front of others, he won't mind having it used as a
label to describe his identity. He also can't object to being described
with adjective like "Jewish" or "gay" or "Chinese", if these things are
true. But if some other people see such qualities negatively, he may well
regard "Jews" and "gays" and "Chinamen" as insulting words.
We can insult people with adjectives, by calling them "stupid" or other bad
things. But the worst insults we heap on people are usually nouns.
Message: 7870
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Idea for thought
Subject: Ruminations (3/8)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:08:00
Even labeling a person with a neutral quality is suspect, if it suggests
that the label defines completely who a person is. There's nothing wrong
with having brown hair, or light hair either. But if we describe a woman as
"a brunette" or "a blonde", that doesn't come anywhere near to describing
who she is, unless we add other facts like "tall" and "maternal" and
"mathematically inclined" and "agnostic" and "midwestern" and "rich" and
"soft-spoken" and so forth. So she might well object to being categorized
on the basis of one randomly selected physical characteristic.
Proper names of people are especially important -- "holy", as one Japanese
colleague of mine wrote when he complained of people misspelling his name.
(His name was "Oka", which wasn't so hard to spell.) People in some tribes
have a "public" name and also a "private" name that is kept secret from all
except their most intimate friends, in the belief that someone who learns
your name acquires power over you. (Remember the fairy tale about
Rumpelstiltskin?) Some Native American tribes, as is well known, would give
a child a name at birth and a second name later on when it became more
obvious what kind of person he was turning out to be. The Xhosa tribes of
South Africa had a most curious taboo. A woman was not allowed to pronounce
the names of her mate's male ancestors -- *ever*. This meant that when she
said an ordinary word that happened to contain the sound of one of those
names, she would actually change the sound of the syllable to avoid uttering
the forbidden name. And to the Hebrews, of course, the name of the Deity
was so holy that it was not to be uttered.
Message: 7871
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Idea for thought
Subject: Ruminations (4/8)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:09:04
I used to work with a fellow named Ramaswamy Balasubramanian. It is a bit
of a mouthful, so some people called him "RB". He didn't like it much. And
it wasn't much effort to call him "Ramaswamy". I also used to work with a
fellow whose name was Przezdziecki. Not surprisingly, people called him
Joe. But *he* didn't mind, and that made all the difference.
I think it behooves us to show good manners by addressing people and groups
with the names they prefer to be called by. If the people of "Rhodesia"
want to call their country "Zimbabwe", I don't see why we should continue to
name it after someone who to them was just a honky. And I'm sure that the
"pro-abortion" and "anti-choice" groups would rather we emphasized their
positive qualities by referring to them as "pro-choice" and "pro-life".
If somebody wants to adopt a name that is essentially untruthful or
demeaning to somebody else (like King of the World), we don't have to
recognize that. But if (to cite some actual people) David Wallace wants to
be called David Wallechinsky, or John Stephenson wants to be called Sean
MacStiofain, or Richard Raskind wants to be called Renee Richards, or
Cassius Clay wants to be called Mohammed Ali, or a certain person who shall
remain nameless wants to be called Green Lantern, they have good reasons of
their own and I think we should respect that.
Message: 7872
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Idea for thought
Subject: Ruminations (5/8)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:10:10
We have set ourselves a pretty problem in English by capitalizing some
titles and not others. The Germans are more logical in recognizing the
power of nouns and capitalizing all of them without exception -- as
Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence. Capitalization today is
sometimes a mark of respect, or a recognition that there's only one of
whatever we're talking about within some universe of discourse. (Good, I'd
been looking for a chance to work *that* learned-sounding phrase in
somewhere!) People used to write about "my Father" or "my Mother", but they
rarely do that any longer, even though they still only have one of them.
I've seen memos suggesting that you "discuss something with your Manager",
but people who write that are in the minority. But it seems normal to me to
write about "the President of the United States", and to go on to refer to
him simply as "the President". So *I* was very offended to read in some
manual of "usage" that one should capitalize "President" but *not* the
titles of other heads of state; thus if the Queen of England visits the
U.S., the newspapers report that "the President gave a banquet for the
queen" with a small "q". I think this is very arrogant.
There's no ambiguity about proper nouns in English. We always capitalize
them. We can talk about a matter being "in the lap of the gods", but when
we talk about "God" *without* an article, we're saying there's only one of
him and "God" is his proper name. When people write his name with a small
"g" I can only infer that they're trying to be rude. The best response to
that is to address the offender by name, starting with a lowercase letter.
Message: 7873
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Idea for thought
Subject: Ruminations (6/8)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:11:15
The question is, whom are they trying to be rude *to*? Not, presumably, to
a god they don't believe in. Obviously, therefore, to the people they're
talking to. This raises an even stickier question, and it's where we came
in with Cliff's comment. Granted that it behooves us to treat *people* with
respect, and address them as "John" or "Fred" as opposed to "hey asshole".
But what responsibility do we have to treat with respect the things that
*they* hold sacred? Especially if somebody happens to hold those same
things in contempt.
The answer to this clearly lies in what we're trying to achieve with
conversation. I remember the headmaster (that's "principal" to you people)
of my old school -- a dry old stick he was -- standing up and prating about
the Purpose of Debate. "The Purpose of Debate," he intoned solemnly, "is
not to..." something or other, I'm damned if I can remember what it was now.
Couldn't have been important. "The Purpose of Debate," he droned on, "is
not to Entertain. That is the job of the Comedian." I remembered *that*
point, because I disagreed with it. First of all, if something's worth
doing, it's worth having fun while you're doing it. Secondly, and more to
the point, if you can make somebody laugh you're more likely to get them on
your side -- which leads me to what he said last: "The Purpose of Debate,"
he concluded pompously, "is to Persuade!"
So if we really want somebody to *listen* to our point of view -- even if
we're angry -- we're better off not doing things calculated to annoy them.
Message: 7874
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Idea for thought
Subject: Ruminations (7/8)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:12:19
If on the other hand our real object is to piss them off, then by all means
let's go ahead and call them all kinds of a jerk and spit on everything they
hold sacred. But let's be honest about what we're doing.
Conversely, if somebody does something to annoy *us*, especially saying we
must be dumb to hold some particular view... well, what are they really
saying? If I truly think I'm right about something, and somebody else
thinks I'm stupid, what does that say? Either I made an honest mistake,
which everybody does, and that doesn't make me stupid, it just makes me
wrong. No big deal. Or else *they're* wrong. In either case, *their*
opinion of me as "stupid" is completely unfounded. That makes *them* wrong.
So why should I get annoyed at somebody who calls me stupid, when the very
act of doing so proves that they're wrong?
Um, well, I guess all of that was the first of the "two interesting points
that deserve thought". The second one is how we react to people's actions,
based on what we believe about their intentions. Cliff thought the
Barbarian was trying to be offensive by referring to the "bibble". He could
be right. Only the Barbarian himself can tell us the truth. My belief was
that the guy simply has trouble with spelling -- which was amply borne out
by lots of other typos. I thought of this as the written equivalent of
spluttering with anger.
Message: 7875
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Idea for thought
Subject: Ruminations (8/8)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:13:03
The point is that if we simply ignore the things people do to piss us off --
and not seeing them in the first place or "believing they're not there" has
exactly the same effect -- then we're more likely to respond calmly and
rationally to an attack. I don't advise doing this when somebody points a
gun at you. I do say that it works with verbal attacks. All of those
insults are just so much harmless crap that really translate into a simple
"I'm angry". If we did that mental translation every time we saw a rude
word, we'd find it a lot easier to come up with the right response.
Message: 7876
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Annie/awe
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 05:20:54
I'm not confused,dearie. The Hebrew word that is translated "fear"
indicates a reverential awe as opposed to yet another Hebrew word that
translates to fear as in terror. Nothing confusing or mysterious about that.
Message: 7877
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Gordon/bunches
Dat
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit-Chat
Subject:Gordon/your 8
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:Great posts. I like to refer to the bible as the babble. I think that
2:fundamentalist religion, because there is a lot of it still in existence,
3:holds the human back from a better, more clear and concise life.
4:
5:Because fundamentialism affects me directly I use some of my free space to
6:refute it, whenever and where ever I can.
7:
8:I can and have posted without using a red harring but the answer or comment
9:I receive from the fundamentialists are demeaning. So, I like to say Xtian
10:and that god is a dork and such stuff. I like to piss people off who piss
11:me off, who are rude enough to answer my posts with meaningless bible
12:passages.
13:
14:But another reason I do it, and it was the main reason, was to shock minds.
15:It all came about around 1969 when I was a self-taught Christian and I heard
16:my best friend of 15 years say, "Damn God, damn Him." It freaked me out and
17:I expected a lightening bolt to hit him or for him to die in the night.
18:
19:I just remember the head trip that I got from the experience and I am a
20:sharing kind of guy.
21:
22:Again, good posts,
2 lines left
23: Rod
1 line left
24:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 7905
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$RC
Press to abort
Message: 7877
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Gordon/bunches
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 05:30:19
Like WOW! An 11 post message on the main board, and then an 8 post message
here!
Do you stay up all night thinking on these things?
Strange part of it is, I really dislike such loooooooooooong messages, but
yours are about the only such that I take the time to really read. Thanks
for taking the time to post them, even the points with which I don't
necessarily agree.
Message: 7878
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: 2nd Law
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 07:47:00
Give me a break. Take a break from chemistry and read some physics. Learn
just where and how the 2nd law gets applied, and where it doesn't. And what
forces can seem to repudiate it.
You talk about fundamental laws which "govern the extent of our
capabilities. One of these is that everything has a beginning and an end."
What do you mean by "our capabilities" ??? The human capacity to function?
Perhaps the human capacity to think? Or do you mean something more
"universal" than that -- like that the Universe has to have a beginning and
an end, or that God has to have a beginning and an end? If we're going to
consider evidence irrefutable ...
Message: 7879
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Names
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 07:56:51
I have noticed, since the Green Lantern scandal, that the users of this
system continue to address me as Beau while proclaiming the need to address
Green Lantern by what they presume is his "real" name. I also recall that
the switch to "Felix" by another user didn't bother folks too much.
No persuasion here, just bringing up a few observations. Probably not even
entertaining.
Reverend Beauregard Jackson Culpeper Dog, Colonel, CSA, retired
Message: 7880
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Rebuttal
Subject: Gordon: Idiot, Huh?
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 08:04:02
> will-I-am will always be an idiot. [...] I think Bill might
> have something to say about [that] sentence...
Yes: I have to agree. (With the sentence, not that I might have something
to say about it.)
Message: 7881
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: Gordon's Ruminations
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 08:04:28
Re your Ruminations (8/8): Wonderful stuff. Should be required reading by
all!
Message: 7882
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Beau
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 09:26:14
I think the reason people are/were upset about the name "$ Green Lantern"
is the way he insisted that he wasn't the same person who used to log on as
"$ Roger Mann" in spite of a lot of evidence that he was. People don't like
being lied to. "$ Felix Cat" came right out and said that he was changing
his BBS name, so no-one got upset.
Message: 7883
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question?
Subject: Pauley on awe
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 10:23:20
But I speak English and the Bible is written in English, right? Why would
anyone have to know Hebrew? *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 7884
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Gordon on you 8
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 10:25:52
Veddy interesting! *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 7885
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Paul
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 12:51:46
I suppose the topics discussed on here float in and out of my head at all
sorts of odd moments, and then I feel a sudden urge to write something.
It's a bit like a sudden urge to... well, I suppose I could think of a lot
of parallels!
As far as taking the time goes, the pieces I posted last night were both
ones that I'd started writing previously. Just so happened that they got
finished together, so the result was probably a bit like dropping two bombs.
Message: 7886
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Names vs. Handles
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 21:01:15
Well, you might try to let them wriggle out that way, but I remember at
least one who insisted that it just wasn't right to address someone by the
handle when you knew their name.
Message: 7887
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Bill
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 23:12:53
Thanks for the comment, Bill!
Re 7880: Aren't you being too modest? :)
Message: 7888
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul Savage
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 01:04:05
I have seen plenty of messages where you tell people, "Oh, you're going to
hell! The bible says it, I interpret it, I judge you". Shall we put it to
a vote?
Message: 7889
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Names
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 05:30:41
Speaking strictly for myself, ROn, I have no problem at all calling you
Beau Dog, nor do I have a problem with referring to Bob Thornburg as Felix,
since neither of you ever tried to hide your true identity behind some
half-baked subterfuge. I do, however, have a problem with the underhanded,
tacky way that Roger Mann turned himself into the green lantern, and do not
choose to go along with the ploy. That is my opinion, and that is my choice.
By refusing to recognize a phony name, I am not demeaning or insulting any
real user of this BBS, and so am not breaking any rules. Therefore, I will
continue to refer to that individual as Roger Lantern, Green Mann or
whatever uninsulting term comes to mind. I believe such a practice falls
under my constitutional right of free expression, doesn't it?
Message: 7890
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Annie
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 05:33:34
One doesn't really have to KNOW Hebrew, Annie. Just realize that there are
many expressions in Hebrew and NT Gr
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit-Chat
Subject:Paul/Green Lantern
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:Don't you have the capability to live and let live?
2:
3:
Edit command:
Enter for a list of commands
Edit command:
Enter for a list of commands
Edit command:
Enter for a list of commands
Edit command:
Enter for a list of commands
Edit command:
Enter for a list of commands
Edit command:A
Message entry aborted
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$RC
Press to abort
Message: 7890
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Annie
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 05:33:34
One doesn't really have to KNOW Hebrew, Annie. Just realize that there are
many expressions in Hebrew and NT Greek that can and do have more than one
interpretation when translated into English. A good concordance, such as
Strong's, would help a lot in this regard, and would enhance your study of
God's Word and your understanding of it.
Message: 7891
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: James Hawley
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 05:37:31
Like you, I have opinions. Like you, I exercize my right to express those
opinions, as opinions. I judge nobody at any time. Judgement is not in my
nomenclature. Take all the votes you wish. If it is your opinion that I
judge anyone, that is your opinion, nothing more.
Message: 7892
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Answer!
Subject: Gordon
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 08:00:10
> Re 7880: Aren't you being too modest? :)
Oh, all right. I'm usually more of a FLAMING idiot.
Geez. Now I'm embarrassed.
Message: 7893
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Beau dog
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 17:21:13
BD> What do you mean by "our capabilities" ???
Our capabilities; meaning our ability to measure and size up the world we
live in with what we have available to us to do so. Some very obvious
limitations are our own senses. Granted they're quite marvelous, but
totally inapropriate for the most part of science. We are finding the
need for more and more "test" equipment...equipment geared for our
limited senses to sense activity we could otherwise not. So it bears
to reason there are more things about us that we cannot sense even
with existing equipment. -Still more stuff to discover. If you had
told someone 100 years ago you could prove the existance of atoms by
writing your name with 50 of them they'd laughed you out of the town.
Our ability to sense and measure is very limited compared to what we'd
like to sense and measure. Wouldn't you aggree?
RE: 2nd law: There's no such thing as a true representation of a closed
set. Physically impossible. You cannot truly isolate a part of the
earth from itself. You are always bound to it. Mathematically this is
equivalent to the "Paradox of set". ; Is the set complete without
including itself as a part of the set? Again, nice try, no cigars.
You've given no evidence to refute the matter and energy issue, where
do you come up with your foundation for your set of religious beliefs in
the "Biggie Bang Theory"?
Message: 7894
Author: $ Thad Coons
Category: Question?
Subject: Ann/Hebrew
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 18:29:17
You speak English and Don Quixote is written in English, so why should
anyone have to learn Spanish? You speak English and 'Crime and Punishment'
is written in English, so why bother to learn Russian? Or have you never
heard that sometimes subtle and important nuances sometimes get
lost in translation?
Message: 7895
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Mike
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 20:19:50
OK, no closed system. Therefore, there will be what seem like exceptions to
the 2nd law. Therefore, the second law may not apply in all of the cases
which you'd like to think it does.
I don't know what you're on about with this matter-and-energy thing. I
maintain that it was all around at the big bang, and seems to have been
spreading since. Of course, it may *not* have been a big bang, but that
seems to be the best explanation for a universe that seems to be expanding
in all directions from a common center.
So we're broadening our horizons with explorations into the very small, the
very distant, and the very large (strings of galaxies, etc.). Are you going
to tie that observation to part of this discussion? Perhaps you'll go back
to your comment in 7895 and my 7878 and see how your definition of
capabilities can be used to show that God doesn't have to have a beginning
and an end, or that the Universe can't be eternal? Perhaps our limitations
are really in fathoming the infinite?
Message: 7896
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann / 7848
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 21:55:24
I've known of terminal patients that have asked for the 23rd Psalm or
some other text of comfort to be read to them. In their hour of pain, the
only thing that helps them through the pain and the agony is knowing that
their God is with them.
I think that it's rather unfair of you to assume the thoughts of the
dying, much less group them together as a whole. How do you know?
Too many people gauge the quality of life on material things and
superficial matters. Who are we to attempt to search the hearts and minds
of the elderly and terminally ill?
Message: 7897
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann / 7849
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 22:00:12
No, I'm not going to 'whip out' that Bible that you seem to hate so
much. But I am going to disagree with you. So the ostrich has a bone that
disappears before it is born, and the evolutionists claim that it is
identical to a dinosaur bone? It doesn't prove that at all. It just proves
that it has a bone that disappears before it is born (and I would want to
research that matter for myself anyhow). Anyhow, that is a rather flimsy
attempt at evidence toward 'proving' that birds evolved from reptiles. It
proves nothing. "They could NOT have evolved from this to now in a scant
8,000." You know, I agree with you there. And you want to know why?
Because they didn't evolve at all.
Message: 7898
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Gordon / Evolution
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 22:15:25
Good post. I don't think that there will be any way to accurately gauge
the actual age of the earth. Since we only have the present and not the
past, we can only really speculate. We have no way of testing the accuracy
of any dating system. In the end, creationism and evolutionism (really the
only two world views on the matter) are belief systems, religions if you
will, with a set of dogmas, beliefs and creeds. Each one attempts to
interpret the scientific evidence in light of it's own religious beliefs.
Personally, I feel that the creation scientists seem to do a better job of
it. But I don't expect anyone to agree with me, just as I don't expect to
see eye to eye with a Jehovah's Witness.
Message: 7899
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff / "Bibble"
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 22:19:30
I find it offensive as well, however it is not the first superficial
attack I have seen taken out on the Bible, and it certainly won't be the
last. I have only my own life and actions to be held personally responsible
for, and if someone feels that it is his lot in life to behave in such
fashion, that is his personal decision. However, if he is wrong and we are
right, then he will come to a day when he will have to accept
responsibility for his actions.
Message: 7900
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Beau's list.
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 22:21:07
I am. We are. I always will be.
Message: 7901
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Mike on Prayer
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 22:24:45
When nothing else can be done, prayer is a Christian's most effective
tool.
"Get on your knees and fight like a man!" - (Petra)
Message: 7902
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann / 7863
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 22:34:15
Annie, Annie, Annie. Sometimes you amaze me. Have you forgotten that the
Bible was not originally penned in English? The Hebrew and Greek words from
which all English versions are translated do not have single one-definition
word-for-word meanings that can always be rendered into English in one word.
The TEV reads, "To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the
LORD. Stupid people have no respect for wisdom and refuse to learn."
The Amplified Bible (one of the few versions that attempts to convey all the
richness and depth of meaning found in the original manuscripts) reads, "The
reverent and worshipful fear of the Lord is the beginning and the principal
and choice part of knowledge - that is, its starting point and its essence;
but fools despise skillful and godly wisdom, instruction and discipline."
Message: 7903
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann / Bible
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 22:46:58
Ann, the Bible is NOT written in English. It is written in Hebrew,
Greek and portions in Aramaic and is TRANSLATED into English. The fact that
English and these languages are not 100% literally and structurally
compatible shows the importance of at LEAST knowing how to get definitions
of certain words (such as a Hebrew/Greek lexicon).
Message: 7904
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: James / 7888
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 22:49:25
Hey, it's my personal belief that anyone who dies rejecting the Son of
God is going to have a very unpleasant afterlife. I do not make apologies
for it. If I felt I had to, then my beliefs would not be very strong, now
would they? I feel that Paul will agree here.
Message: 7905
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Gordon/your 8
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 23:43:55
Great posts. I like to refer to the bible as the babble. I think that
fundamentalist religion, because there is a lot of it still in existence,
holds the human back from a better, more clear and concise life.
Because fundamentialism affects me directly I use some of my free space to
refute it, whenever and where ever I can.
I can and have posted without using a red harring but the answer or comment
I receive from the fundamentialists are demeaning. So, I like to say Xtian
and that god is a dork and such stuff. I like to piss people off who piss
me off, who are rude enough to answer my posts with meaningless bible
passages.
But another reason I do it, and it was the main reason, was to shock minds.
It all came about around 1969 when I was a self-taught Christian and I heard
my best friend of 15 years say, "Damn God, damn Him." It freaked me out and
I expected a lightening bolt to hit him or for him to die in the night.
I just remember the head trip that I got from the experience and I am a
sharing kind of guy.
Again, good posts,
Rod
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:UIP
Message to update (7856-7905):7905
Edit command:F
Range of lines to fill:
Invalid line number
Edit command:L7
7:
8:I can and have posted without using a red harring but the answer or comment
9:I receive from the fundamentialists are demeaning. So, I like to say Xtian
10:and that god is a dork and such stuff. I like to piss people off who piss
11:me off, who are rude enough to answer my posts with meaningless bible
12:passages.
13:
14:But another reason I do it, and it was the main reason, was to shock minds.
15:It all came about around 1969 when I was a self-taught Christian and I heard
16:my best friend of 15 years say, "Damn God, damn Him." It freaked me out and
17:I expected a lightening bolt to hit him or for him to die in the night.
18:
19:I just remember the head trip that I got from the experience and I am a
20:sharing kind of guy.
21:
22:Again, good posts,
23: Rod
Edit command:E7
Cannot edit an empty line, use eplace
Edit command:E8
8:I can and have posted without using a red harring but the answer or comment
Find text:harring
Replace text:herring
8:I can and have posted without using a red herring but the answer or comment
Find text:
Edit command:L8
8:I can and have posted without using a red herring but the answer or comment
9:I receive from the fundamentialists are demeaning. So, I like to say Xtian
10:and that god is a dork and such stuff. I like to piss people off who piss
11:me off, who are rude enough to answer my posts with meaningless bible
12:passages.
13:
14:But another reason I do it, and it was the main reason, was to shock minds.
15:It all came about around 1969 when I was a self-taught Christian and I heard
16:my best friend of 15 years say, "Damn God, damn Him." It freaked me out and
17:I expected a lightening bolt to hit him or for him to die in the night.
18:
19:I just remember the head trip that I got from the experience and I am a
20:sharing kind of guy.
21:
22:Again, good posts,
23: Rod
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 7905
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board entered *=*
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 4972
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Pee
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 10:34:06
No one told me who saw his privates? Did he expose himself to the general
public or just to some people in the back room of the place? If he came out
of the back waving his Talley Whacker, then he should have been arrested. If
he were in the back with himself exposed, so what? Are the police so naive
as to think these guys never get a hard on - take it out of their pants??
Why are the police spending money staking out a place like that unless there
was reports of exposure to people that didn't want to see such things?
People that go to such places are fair game for seeing something like that -
along with moans, groans and sighs! If he went out on the street with his
THANG hanging down - or standing up, what ever, then he should have been put
in the slammer. *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 4973
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Geez...
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 21:03:30
He was in an adult movie theatre, not a book store. There were three films
showing (sequentially, on the same screen). It was dark. Some undercover
cops were apparently wandering about the theatre during the movie. At least
one of them allegedly saw Pee Wee expose himself.
Pee Wee has admitted to being in the theatre, but no more.
Message: 4974
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Doggy last
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 07:17:44
Those cops get paid to wonder around those kinds of movies? I could think of
a lot of places they would be needed more. I don't think Pee Wee comitted
any unpardonable sin - but if he intended to continue his career, not only
should he NOT of exposed himself, he shouldn't be going near those places! I
don't think he should be prosecuted though. That's silly. I can understand
parents banning him now on the other hand. Such is life. *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 4975
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer !
Subject: You lot
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 17:29:23
It's pa{ently hilarious to watch you guys dance around the true
issue here with the cops.
SOmeone said the cops's budget is too fat or words to that effect.
Gee. Another expert observation by someone who probably knows
everything there is to know, no doubt.
Let me interject some common sense and see what happens;
Cops are paid and governed by the local City for whom they serve.
If a citizen complains about criminal activity in their area, one
would expect them to show up, wouldn't one?
If you took your hand away from your noses, you might put 2 and 2
together...but it might ruin one of your pet arguments in the running.
The cops are *always* going to porn shoppes because CRIME AND VIOLENCE
tend to inhabit some..read *SOME* of them.
Did you ever take a minute out to think that maybe, perhaps the cops
are there to curb or catch criminals and not just sex crimes?
The fact is, DRUGS are a large part of the porno-goer's lore these
days. Did your infintesimal imaginations ever dream there could be
another reason for the cops being at the place Pee Wee just happened
to be?
Or is it oh-so too convenient to blast the cops for doing their jobs
you really have no fucking idea about anyway ?
Message: 4976
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Buzzz!
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 20:25:06
Thanks for playing, though, Mike.
This *was* a 'sting' operation against the patrons of the theatre.
(Not really a sting, but they went in knowing what they were going to get)
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Cosmos-Chatter
Subject:last
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:Off?
2:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 4977
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:R4977
Message: 4977
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: last
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 23:54:12
Off?
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* FILm & Video Bulletin Board entered *=*
FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 1752
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: PC Robin Hood
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 07:58:56
Someone suggested out that Robin Hood was PC. I *will* mention that there
is a big surprise when King Richard makes his appearance.
Message: 1753
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Costner
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 07:59:27
You know, I'm not sure he's the right actor for *any* part, except perhaps
"The Kevin Costner Story."
Message: 1754
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 17:40:48
That'd be pretty boring.
FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*
Public Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 77450
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: room for one more?
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:17:28
Wow, only four posts since early this evening! What would we do without
Rod? Time to fill this board up a bit, too...
Message: 77451
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Erotica (1/11)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:18:39
I've stopped referring to "porn" because the word itself (from the Greek
word for "harlot") imposes a prejudice in people's minds that labels it
"bad" right from the outset. I prefer the neutral word describing simply
"something that arouses erotic instincts".
I haven't seen a single argument here to convince me that ordinary erotica
showing normal sex between two people is in any way harmful. To be quite
clear about this, what I mean by "harmful" is that the sale of erotica in
some way contributes to crime, to violence, to bad relationships between
people, or somehow causes the breakdown of society. Conversely, if we made
erotica unavailable to people, I don't believe for one moment that the evils
we have in society today would magically disappear, or even dwindle a bit.
Let me start off by stating what I believe to be ideal goals concerning sex.
One, we need to reproduce ourselves. Two, people ought to have close,
honest, and loving relationships. Three, people have a right to enjoy the
fulfillment of their sexual desires. And four, people shouldn't abuse one
another. That's all we need to say.
The *enjoyment* of sex is extremely important, and has a very positive value
to society. Couples only have sex once in a while in order to reproduce.
The rest of the time, they do it because they like it. And if they *do*
like it, they like one another more.
Message: 77452
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Erotica (2/11)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:19:44
We have a strong interest in keeping couples together in the long term, not
least for the sake of any children they might have. I certainly don't say
that sex is all there is to marriage, but I do say that sexual difficulties
can and do ruin marriages, and conversely that sex can be a powerful bonding
factor that motivates people to work on other problems they might have in
their relationship. Good sex is in everybody's interest.
Now, what influence does erotica have on couple relationships? Two good
ones that I can think of. One, a number of couples (a large number if I can
believe what I hear) like to look at various kinds of erotica and,
especially in the age of the VCR, rent erotic movies. They watch this stuff
together and get turned on. And then they go and enjoy one another. The
movie intensifies their enjoyment. It contributes to exciting sex, and
therefore to good bonding. Who can argue with that?
The second point concerns the general atmosphere of openness about sex that
erotica encourages. The fact that something appears in a book, or a
picture, or a movie, is evidence that the creator of the work believes it is
OK to feel these feelings and enjoy doing these things and to communicate
those facts openly to other people. That openness has a real effect on the
viewer's belief system about what is OK and what he or she "ought to" feel
guilty about. It encourages people to be honest with *one another* about
what they like and want, or don't want. A close relationship must be based
on honest sharing of self, not on concealment through fear of disapproval.
Message: 77453
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Erotica (3/11)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:20:49
I can imagine that thousands, perhaps even millions, of people might have
wanted to suggest something to their mate, or share some fantasy, and felt
too awkward to do so. Then perhaps they might watch an erotic movie
together and the subject matter gave them exactly the cue they needed to say
what they felt, or wanted -- as well as the "permission" to do so. This can
only be positive.
Now, what are the alleged drawbacks of erotica as far as couple
relationships are concerned? I've heard somebody say that "there's
something wrong if couples need a dirty movie to get turned on". Maybe
there is. But if there is, it isn't a problem that will be solved by making
the erotica unavailable. The problem is there anyway. If anything, viewing
erotica is likely to stimulate more open discussion that could lead to
solving the problem. And even if it doesn't, I would far sooner see couples
having good sex with the crutch of erotica that not having any sex at all.
Some people are concerned about what happens if a child should stumble on an
erotic movie -- whether the movie stars the child's parents or someone
entirely different. Now I don't think erotic scenes should be intentionally
inflicted on a child. Prepubertal children don't have the emotional
equipment to *share* in a sexual experience with another person. They can't
understand the feelings involved. Unlike sharing a game or a fishing trip
with a child, the only person who gets any pleasure out of it is the adult.
Message: 77454
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Erotica (4/11)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:22:19
So showing an openly erotic scene to a child is confusing to the child. How
is he or she expected to react? Not the same way that the adult does,
obviously; that just isn't possible. The adult gets some kind of
gratification, but the child is probably uncertain and scared. This is a
kind of molestation.
However, the key word here is "inflicted". If a child, alone, should happen
to come across an erotic videotape and watch it, the experience may be
puzzling, even stimulating; but at the same time the child has complete
control over the situation and can stop at any time. Adults *do* do things
that puzzle children. Children do stumble on their parents making love, or
see things they "shouldn't". These things don't do any harm. I wouldn't
show an erotic movie to my daughter deliberately, but neither would I be
worried if she happened to see part of one somewhere. If it did happen, I
would hope -- furthermore, I would *expect*, knowing her -- that she would
tell me or my wife about it, and probably ask some pertinent questions.
I would add two points of caution. One is that I assume parents should, and
do, discuss sex openly with their children. If a child is given the message
that discussion of sex is off limits, there is no outlet to resolve feelings
or confusion about sex. I strongly suspect that some people who are opposed
to erotica are also opposed to sex education and are uncomfortable
discussing sex with their children. This is their problem. Unfortunately
they make it their children's problem as well.
Message: 77455
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Erotica (5/11)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:23:30
The second point is the precise content of any sexual scene viewed by a
child. I wouldn't worry about a child who happened to see a bit of the
Playboy channel, any more than I'd worry about a child who walked into the
bedroom and surprised his parents making love, or stumbled across a couple
doing something out in a field somewhere. (Of course, I wouldn't want a
child to have a steady diet of that stuff!) But I would worry about a child
whose first exposure to sex was in the context of violence or some other
perversion. I suspect that the first exposure to sex makes a very great
impression, and as such it ought to be a good one.
I'm reminded of a story I once read in a book called "The Sexual Deviate"
about a young man who was attracted to animals. According to the author,
this young man lived on a farm as a boy, and at the age of nine he witnessed
a bull and a cow copulating. "Through some tortuous mental process that
need not concern us here," wrote the author (thus bugging the hell out of me
because that "tortuous mental process" was *exactly* what I'd like to have
understood; but this wasn't a really scholarly book), "he came to regard the
cow as a suitable object for his own lust..." I'm not suggesting that every
farm boy who saw such a thing would be attracted to bestiality. But clearly
that early experience was formative for somebody naive and uninformed. In
my opinion the best antidote to such things is open discussion and sex
education for young children. I don't mean erotic movies. I do mean clear
statements about what sex entails in a mechanical sense. Children will fill
in the emotional part for themselves when they're ready.
Message: 77456
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Erotica (6/11)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:24:40
As a side benefit for young children, open discussion of sex helps to
protect them against molestation. A child isn't afraid to come to Mom or
Dad and complain that "Johnny hit me". Many children *are* afraid to come
to Mom or Dad and say that "Mr. Smith tried to put his hand up my skirt."
They don't understand what's going on to begin with, and afterwards they
think they aren't allowed to talk about it. If they *know* they're allowed
to talk about it, they can say "no", they know they will get reassurance and
support, and you can go round to Mr. Smith's house and sort the bugger out.
But I'm digressing as usual. The difference between a child stumbling on a
movie that's simply "erotic" and one that's violent -- showing a rape, for
example -- is quite considerable. There is a good argument against violent
pornography. The only question, as I've said before, is where to draw the
line. I'm sure a lot of people like to play bondage games and similar
things, and I can't see any objection to anything people do with one
another's consent.
Now, what other objections to erotica have I heard? That it excites
prurient interests. I'm trying to figure out precisely what this means.
The assumption is that it means something bad (oops, I typed "bed" and had
to correct it; must be getting late, Sigmund). So what is it that's bad?
Is it the fact that the viewer is getting turned on? Sorry, I totally
disagree that "getting turned on" is bad. It's a perfectly normal
physiological function, and nothing to feel guilty about.
Message: 77457
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Erotica (7/11)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:25:47
The only other thing I can think of is that the viewer (let's say it's a
man) is identifying with the male figure in the scene and fantasizing making
love with the woman. And of course, he's NOT MARRIED to her! Sorry, I have
to totally disagree that this is "wrong" also. I always make a very clear
distinction between feelings (or fantasies) and behavior. I can think of
some very objectionable people I've known whose heads I would love to bash
in. That's "feelings" and "fantasy". But what goes on in my head doesn't
hurt anybody at all. If I were to act out those fantasies, on the other
hand, that would be very wrong. So I would never consider doing such a
thing. We can only be held to account for our acts, not for our thoughts.
All right, so this viewer has a fantasy about making love to this woman.
But is he going to be encouraged to act out such a fantasy? The answer is
that he can't, because the woman in the movie is inaccessible to him. He
can only seek to make love with some other woman. It might well be his
wife! If it isn't -- or if he isn't married -- you can rest assured that he
would have cooked up such desires spontaneously in any case.
Perhaps the real objection to erotica is that it encourages people to think
about sex. Again, to me sex is a normal function, and I see nothing wrong
with it. Attempting to inflict guilt is self-serving moralizing.
Another objection I keep hearing is that erotica is "addictive". People get
hooked on it, so they say.
Message: 77458
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Erotica (8/11)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:26:56
The best way to tackle this question is first to ask what kind of people get
hooked on erotica, and second -- because this is the point -- to ask how it
would help if erotica were banned.
What kind of people do use erotica to the extent that they feel "hooked"?
As I said before, erotic feelings are something that should ideally be
shared with another human being and used to build relationships of intimacy.
In order to do that, you have to have trust that your feelings and desires
will be accepted. Now I would say that *all* of the people who feel
"addicted" to erotica share one characteristic: that they believe they have
no opportunity to share their desires safely with a partner. That's why
they're sitting alone with their books and films, instead of with somebody.
What kind of people are they? The first kind of person is the one who can't
share because he feels guilty about any kind of sexual feelings. The guilt
is HIS problem, not anybody else's. He isn't hurting anybody by sitting
alone and drooling over erotica. If you took the erotica away, he might be
frustrated. Or he might be grateful because you "removed the temptation".
But it isn't our responsibility to remove people's temptation to do things
that don't hurt anybody and aren't wrong in the first place. It's up to
them to sort their own heads out. Are they more likely to sort their own
heads out if we do remove the erotica? No way! They'll just bury their
guilt problem and pretend it doesn't exist. If they *do* have the erotica
at least they may eventually face up to whatever problem they do have.
Message: 77459
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Erotica (9/11)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:28:01
The second kind of person is allied to the first. Perhaps he's married, but
he'd like something his wife isn't giving him. Perhaps she can't help it.
Perhaps he made the mistake of marrying a blonde when he has a secret
hankering after redheads. Or perhaps there's something he'd like to do
sexually that's distasteful to his wife. So he'll look at his erotica and
fantasize. No big deal. What happens if you take it away? He'll look at
other women and fantasize. Or maybe do more than fantasize. Now is that
better or worse? Perhaps if his wife discovers his erotica she'll be
shocked. Or perhaps it will give him an opportunity to talk to her about
it. If she won't talk, that's her fault, not his. Perhaps he can get her
to dye her hair red, or whatever turns him on! Or perhaps she's a bitch who
isn't prepared to accept him for who he is and what he wants anyway. Either
way, it's a wash.
The third kind of person is simply the one who's too shy to form a
relationship. Does erotica help him or hinder him? It gives him an outlet,
so that's pleasant at least. Does it discourage him from seeking out a real
relationship, because it's easier to look at erotica? Or is he stimulated
to look for something more real? I don't know; but either way, he isn't
doing any harm to anyone else.
The fourth kind of person, either temporarily or permanently, is not able to
engage in a relationship with anyone for some practical reason. Again,
erotica provides an outlet for him without hurting anybody else.
Message: 77460
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Erotica (10/11)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:29:04
The last kind of person is the one with some kind of kink. If he's into
some strange fetish, or violent sadism, or something along those lines, it's
something that he *can't* safely share with a partner, because there's
nobody who would want to sit down and rub him all over with fur, or stand
still while he cuts them to pieces with a knife. This guy is a loner
because he has to be. So of course he will use erotica to stimulate his
fantasies. And when he does some woman in and they cart him off to jail, he
will have vivid memories of all those lonely evenings sitting in front of a
magazine or a TV screen looking at images and fantasizing what he'd like to
do to the women in them. If five percent of men commit violent crimes, and
ninety percent of those use erotica to stimulate their sick fantasies, of
COURSE you're going to find a connection between the two. I've said it
twice before already, and I'll say it again: the porn did *not* cause the
violence. The violent tendencies that were *already* in existence could
only be gratified by using porn -- or by acting them out.
So what happens if you take the erotica away? These guys will make their
own. In their heads. Or they'll cut out pictures of women and draw
mutilations on them or stick knives in them or whatever. You will *not*
stop violence by suppressing erotica.
Again, I might make an exception in the case of violent or sadistic porn, on
the grounds that it "gives permission" to indulge in such acts. But again
the question is, where do we draw the line?
Message: 77461
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Erotica (11/11)
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:29:47
Perhaps one answer is to license the sale of the nasty stuff so that we can
keep tabs on the people who buy it. Such an idea seems un-American, but we
do have the concept of "registered sex offenders", so maybe it isn't totally
without precedent.
But those who would support banning any kind of erotica I totally disagree
with. I don't buy "saving" people from their addictions when the cause --
and the cure -- of those addictions are in their own head. Especially when
they're not harming anybody else, and when removal of the "drug" will only
substitute one set of problems for another.
I really suspect that the lack of clear thinking about sex is still a
hangover of the puritanical attitudes we've been poisoned with for
centuries. It's high time we exorcised this demon of guilt.
Message: 77462
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: On the Lighter Side
Subject: Ann/statuary
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 04:30:55
In Hemel Hempstead, where I used to live, the Borough Council in the 1960s
erected a bronze statue of a Greek discus-thrower. After it had been there
a while, a few people complained about the statue's anatomical correctness.
So the Borough Council responded by "accessorizing" the statue, as we would
say today, with a matching bronze fig-leaf to cover the offending parts.
(It's a good thing they hadn't gone too far in erecting the statue to begin
with, otherwise they would have had to use a much bigger fig-leaf.)
Anyway, it wasn't too long before somebody in the town couldn't resist the
impulse to add a fig-leaf to his personal collection of souvenirs. Suddenly
the statue was "au naturel" again. But the Borough Council reacted swiftly.
With commendable foresight, they had ordered not *one* fig-leaf, but a whole
batch of them, to cover just such a contingency. The statue's modesty was
restored within a day or two.
Still, what can be done once can be done again, and within a short time the
second fig-leaf had also disappeared. The Borough Council responded again.
So a war of attrition ensued, with anonymous members of the public stealing
fig-leaves as fast as the Borough Council could put them back on. As far as
I remember, they eventually gave up.
The whole business was reported in the local newspaper, the "Gazette", and
needless to say most people (myself included) found it all screamingly
funny. What would life be like without a few prudes to laugh at?
Message: 77463
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pornography
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 08:39:38
An argument could be made that "sick porn" (pornography that shows violent
mistreatment of people or animals) may make such behavior seem more
acceptable to those that are so inclined, but I think this kind of material
is a tiny percentage of what's out there now that women are part of the
target audience.
Message: 77464
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: conscious planning
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 09:39:43
One of the points I was trying to make is that the parts of us that
interefere with the plans we consciously make may be aware of factors we
didn't consider when we made the plans. If the unconscious or semiconscious
influences make it TOO difficult to follow through, maybe we shouldn't try
so hard. On the other hand, some disciplined, goal-oriented people seem to
make themselves happy with achievements that can only be accomplished
through strength of will and sacrifice. I don't think it's possible to
become a doctor or a double-E without going through a period of doing a lot
of things you don't feel like most of your waking hours, but I can see how
this could be rewarding in the long run. Is the reward THEN worth the
suffering NOW?
Message: 77465
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Thad
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 09:45:25
I know what you mean regarding improving conscious planning to work around
limitations caused by unconscious influences. I now know myself well enough
to recognize that I'm NOT going to feel like doing anything for a couple
hours after I get home from work, so I stop to exercize, go grocery
shopping, and such on the way home, rather than going straight home and then
feeling guilty for not getting off the couch to go out and get this stuff
done.
Message: 77466
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon on fig leaf
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 10:13:55
That was hilarious. I can imagine the city government asking the main
government for help in paying for fig leaves! I guess it works like that
over there. Anyway - funnnnnnie! *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 77467
Author: $ Thad Coons
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Children
Date: 08/08/91 Time: 22:38:14
I like Rod's post on puberty and the effects that occur there, and I would
like to add a couple of other ideas. It is regrettable and unfortunate that
there has been a lot of religious teaching that sex is inherently 'bad' and
that youngsters will go to hell for their curiosity about it. There has been
a lot of reaction to that kind of teaching... overreaction, I might say.
The ideal for parents would be to notice that developing interest,
curiousity, and desires, and teach their children... not that sex is bad,
dirty, or that they will go to hell, but that their desires should be
controlled and restrained until the proper time for their expression...
which is within marriage. The natural consequence of the desire to mate is
that one of the two people gets pregnant: and begetting a child with making
provisions for a stable family life and its proper nourishment and support
is immoral. There are other reasons for the various restrictions taught by
Jews, Christians, and others, on sexual behavior.
Unrestrained and unrestricted sex is destructive...to societies as well as
individuals. The sexual desires Rod speaks of are too powerful to be treated
casually or lightly, as modern libertines would have it, and too strong
(for most people) to be entirely ignored or suppressed, as mistaken
religionists would have it.
Message: 77468
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 01:49:53
My dictonary defines pornography as: Obscene literature, photographs,
paintings, etc., intended to cause sexual excitement.
(The New Lexicon Websters Dictionary of the English Language 1989)
Therefore you stated that if a couple made a tape of themselves and viewed
it later, obviously becoming sexually excited, it is porn. So you do
believe that some porn is acceptable.
Message: 77469
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/Tape
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 02:13:34
I don't belong to the COSmos SIG, and it wouldn't be appropriate
to review an explicit adult film in the FILm SIG. I was essentially
joking when I made reference to posting a complete review of the tape.
Your series on erotica was very good. I agree that using the word
'pornography' carries a negative connotation, but at least it offers
the advantage of being readily shortened to 'porn' for the writer who
is getting lazy or tired or needs to make a rhyme with 'reborn'.
See You later,
Dean H.
Message: 77470
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike/Porn
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 02:14:33
I am not sure if the fault is more yours or mine, but the full, intended
meaning of some of what I have been saying doesn't seem to have gotten
through. For example, from your recent posts:
>Your original message stated that "Theism" said sex was impossible
>and unenjoyable outside of the "rigid" rules. You also claim that
>sex outside of this is threatless and perfectly safe. Wrongo.
Yes, those statements are wrongo, but they are not accurate interpretations
of what I wrote. I said that theists portray sex, when it is without their
benediction, as being evil, dangerous, and unfulfilling. And I said that
pornography presents a conflicting image, I didn't say that all sex was
always completely harmless. My position has always been that the truth lies
in-between the 'death and damnation' position of theism and the 'wide-open
anything goes' fantasy images of pornography. In truth, the kind of sex
theism would never condone can be enjoyed without undue risk, but some care
must be taken in the who and the how.
>Statistic clearly show STD's are skyrocketing. Perhaps they know, but
>like you choose to ingnore the warnings?
The fact that a lot of people are contracting STD's does not negate my
statement that everyone is well aware that they exist. Some still don't
know how they work and how to avoid them. And of course, where AIDS is
concerned, there would be new cases reported constantly for several years
even if all new infection stopped today, just because of the long
incubation period. The fact that many STD cases are occurring means it is
necessary to be informed and cautious, but it does not mean that sex=death.
Message: 77471
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike/2of3
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 02:15:21
If what I have said can be reasonably be interpreted as meaning that
STD's can just be ignored then that was sloppy expression on my part. When
I said that they were not unavoidable I expected the reader to realize that
I meant that risks could be minimized with some effort, and not that STD's
were of no consequence.
>The empirical evidence for one, refutes any mere opinions that porn and
>crime aren't connected. There's far too many criminals and crime scene
>evidence and testimony to believe otherwise.
In this case I am just responding to something where we differ in opinion
and, unlike the previous points, I don't think there is a problem of
interpretation. If enough murderers, along with their attorneys and their
health-food-promoting expert witnesses, contended that their murders were
attributable to Twinkies, would that body of evidence then refute any mere
opinions to the contrary? How about a steady string of killers who
'confessed' that it was their drooling over the seductively lit and
photographed centerfold in the latest issue of "GUNS & AMMO" on one too
many hot and sultry nights that drove them to kill? I do not support
restricting the rights of non-criminals to enjoy non-coercive
activities just because certain criminal types may tend to partake of those
same non-coercive activities.
Message: 77472
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike/3of3
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 02:16:26
>It seems you are the one contradicting your previous stance, admitting
>there is a danger here and that such things could ruin an existing
>relationship. I rest my case.
My stance hasn't changed. I hope I have been able to clarify it so that
your interpretation will be closer to what I meant to communicate.
>I'd almost say that you speak like you might have a vested interest in
>pornography, like stock holdings perhaps?
I don't own any stock, and my pornographic vest never came back from the
cleaners. I would hate to see non-violent erotica which features only
consenting adults become suppressed literature. Just like banning firearms,
banning erotica would not accomplish any of the stated goals of the persons
desiring the ban, but it would allow them to force their own tastes upon
others.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 77473
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: James Hawley
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 05:19:58
In the context of two consenting adults doing something in the privacy of
their own bedroom, for their own benefit, then yes, that is acceptable, even
if it falls under the general definition of pornography.
Message: 77474
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: out of here
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 05:23:43
I'm gone for a few weeks of fun in the sun, or something like that. See
y'all around the end of the month.
Message: 77476
Author: $ Thad Coons
Category: Question?
Subject: Gordon/erotica
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 18:18:26
Are you familiar with the meaning of the good old English word "lust"?
I don't mean the word itself...but are you familiar with the feeling or
emotion that it is used to describe?
Message: 77477
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 19:33:31
There used to be a line, "I am about to be in lust with her," to
describe that feeling or emotion, and to differentiate it from the real
feeling of love (or even a phony feeling of love.)
Message: 77478
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: All
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 20:03:36
Dagblag that call waiting thing! I've been cut off four times in the
past three days. I finally read the phone book, and now I've programmed my
Telix to shoot out the *70 before the number, so I should be all right.
Until my daughter wants to call a friend, then no more ansi again. I hope
this works.
At anyrate, I was wondering where all the philosophers have gone
(sounds like a song from 1968, right?) (Or was it '58?) Does "civil rights"
really mean affirmative action and anti-conservative, or does it have some
connectionwith "equality"? Is mankind really just a version of animal, or is
there a "human soul" which is different IN KIND, not just in amount? Are
women really equal to men, or was Thomas Aquinas right when he thought that
they should not be as culpable for sin, for the poor things are not capable
of really serious cerebral activity?
And, is it true what they say about Australians? --John C.--
Message: 77479
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Thad on James
Date: 08/09/91 Time: 22:55:26
"He was presenting things as what I believed..not what I actually believed"
Such as what? I'd be interested to know.
Public Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit Chat
Subject:Condoms
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:Condoms cause STDs.
2:end
Edit command:C
2:
3:These past few days were really busy. Please accept this post as my
4:contribution. Thank you.
Saving message...
The message is 77480
Public Bulletin Board command:R77480
Message: 77480
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Condoms
Date: 08/10/91 Time: 00:06:40
Condoms cause STDs.
These past few days were really busy. Please accept this post as my
contribution. Thank you.