Apollo BBS Archive - Feburary 1990
Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
Feburary 1990 -> Feburary 2 - 10
Apollo BBS Archive - Feburary 2 - 10, 1990
Apollo 7.2 300/1200/2400
What is your first name:JOESPH
What is your last name:BLOW
Hello, Joesph Blow
Is your name correct:Yes
Unacceptable name
Type
Apollo 7.2 300/1200/2400
What is your first name:TOM
What is your last name:WRIGHT
Hello, Tom Wright
Is your name correct:Yes
Caller # 144709 (29 today)
It is now 02/10/90 21:52:18
Message range is (62966-63220)
*=* Main Menu entered *=*
Main Menu command ( for help):B
*=* Bulletin Board entered *=*
Bulletin Board command ( for help):RC
Message to read (62966-63220):62966-
Press to abort
Message: 62966
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 05:47:37
Yep. I'm fortunate enough to only have the problem in one eye, and that is
well under control. Of course, I have had two surgeries on that eye, one for
the glaucoma and the second for the cataract that the first one caused. Now,
with a lens implant, I still use drops twice a day, but my peripheral vision
is stable and I see better out of the operated eye than I do the "good" one.
(I still have not seen marijuana prescribed for glaucoma patients, which was
the reason for my last post on the subject. It was experimented with several
years ago, but is not used, at least to my knowledge.)
Message: 62967
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Tommy Tenuta
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 05:55:17
There are presently two cases in Phoenix who are the subjects of fund
raising drives for life saving operations. Tommy Tenuta is one and a 22 year
old girl in need of a heart lung transplant is the other. Something like
60-100 thousand dollars is necessary just to get on a waiting list for
organ donors.
I think it is a damn shame, and a blot on the medical profession, when
babies and young people have to be put in the position of buying life. If
you aren't rich, or can't raise enough money, go crawl in a hole and die.
What ever happened to the Hippocratic (or is that hypocritic?) oath, part of
which says that everybody, regardless of ability to pay, deserves the best
the profession has to offer?
I thank God every day for good health!
Message: 62968
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Peter on victims
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 06:03:56
People addicted to drugs are, generally speaking, non-productive members of
society. They can't work and function properly under the influence of
mind-altering drugs. Since a normal source of income would not be available
to them, they would continue to steal to obtain money for drugs, legal or
not. The only alternative to that would be to set up a drug-welfare program
to support their addiction, a step too far to suit most of us.
Legalization would also fail to prevent pregnant women from using, and thus
we wold be legally creating even more addicted babies.
Victimless? Hardly.
Message: 62969
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: old fart/young mind
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 07:57:44
Thanks, that is a real compliment.
Message: 62970
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: capitol punishment
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 08:00:19
Although I dislike congress as much as anyone, I am not ready for such
draconian measures. Although, one could define capitol punishment as the
devastation inflicted on all of us by the denizens of such a place. :-)
Message: 62971
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: daryl/62956
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 08:02:47
There are no winners in a situation like this. My point is that if you
are going to stick your nose in other people's business, their business
becomes your business.
Message: 62972
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Paul on stealing
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 08:54:07
People will steal for many reasons. But because drugs are illegal,
they are WAY over priced. Priced so high that an average person making an
average wage HAS to steal to support his habit. I have known several drug
users, and the idea that they don't do anything usefull except take drugs
is a myth. Many of them successfully work right along side their
counterparts being undetected as a drug user.
Now, IF they were legalized, the cost of using drugs would really
come way down...making it possible for the normal wage earner to support
this habit. And.... when the time came for this person who made the mistake
of taking drugs in the first place, to kick the habit, there would be help
for him, without him being held criminally libel.
I would be crazy to think stealing would vanish off the face of the
earth, but there would be a major drop in the need to steal!
Paul, you seem to think that because drugs are illegal now, that
they are unattainable to pregnant woman... The only thing unattainable is
friendly help, as you made that mom to be, a criminal!
*=* Cliff *=*
Message: 62973
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Politics
Subject: Morality
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 09:05:37
I see that some people in Aspen are trying to force their morality
on the citizens within that city in regards to buying and selling of furs.
This means fur coats, fur lined boots and gloves....
Morality is a fine thing, but how far does one need to push it.
Next, they will make it mandatory we all become vegetarians.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 62974
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bobby/pills
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 10:01:25
The only powerful drug I've ever taken is ONE Tylnol3 - a pain pill! I hated
the way it made me feel - like I lost momentary control of my body. It of
course, took the pain away, but I never want to take another.
The only other drug I tried twice was grass - once in smoking it and once in
eating it in brownies. The first time I smoked it, I thought right away it
was the greatest thing in the world! I litterly laughed for two hours. BUT -
you crash with the stuff. One minute it's there, the next, it's gone and you
feel WAAAAAY down! Very unlike alcohol where it's a gradual let down. Soon
after that, we ate the Brownies and I got sick! No laughing here. So that
was the end of my drug use. It's highly over rated in my opinion. I don't
want to have a substance take away my control. With alcohol, I remain in
control. So if any of it were legalized, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot
pole - make that 50 foot! -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 62975
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/drunk
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 10:08:28
But it is your responsibility if you get drunk! Not mine - not the
bartender's - not the booze manufacturer's - not Cliff's - etc. etc.
No one bends my elbow for me. Hey, I've got an idea - let's have a 'drunk'
GT??!! *Heh We should always have GT's that go along with the theme of the
BB discussions don't you think? Ha ha. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 62976
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on drugs
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 10:11:12
Your posts are still running excellent. You ought to write an article on the
subject. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 62977
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff again
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 10:15:02
Never do you give the opinion in your posts that you want drugs legalized
- but you point out that seems to be one of the only solutions. I too feel
this way. I don't want us to have legal drugs - it is so untasteful to think
about it - that we, as a nation need this sort of thing. But facts are facts
and we can't hide in the sand.
-=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 62978
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/last/fur
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 10:23:23
I too do not like forced morality even though I'm totally against using fur
for clothing when it is not needed. I would like to see it all abolished -
not through forced laws, but by the people simply not buying it. They at
least are coming out with such fabulous fakes that one doesn't not need the
real thing to be stylish. But if someone were to buy it, I would not throw
stones at them. That's their business. I might have a long talk with them
though! Ha.
However, this doesn't not work in all cases - I.E. the distruction of the
rain forrests, etc. All the education and convincing in the world isn't
going to help re: this subject. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 62979
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on drugs
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 11:19:47
Cliff is right. If the cost of drugs is lessened (it's estimated that
if drugs were legalized, the price would drop by as much as 90%, less
whatever tax the government felt like adding on there) then the addict can
better afford to buy his fix, and won't need to steal. Studies indicate
that even addicts only take their dosage to a certain point; in other words,
they don't just keep on going until the can't go any more. Thus legalizing
drugs would indeed have a significant effect even on the criminal activities
of users who steal to support their habit.
Message: 62980
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Politics
Subject: 62973/Morality
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 15:25:27
Do you think we tend to make laws too quickly in the US. Anytime a
group gets enough legislative strength they try to foist their morality
on others who don't share their same values. Your example of Aspen is
one form of this type of despotism, another is the perennial drive to
rid the streets of pornography. What could the US do counteract this
tendency to convert morality into legality ?
Message: 62981
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Vote
Subject: The question
Date: 02/02/90 Time: 18:43:57
After a week or so have passed, I'd like to see the same questions regarding
marijuana.
Message: 62983
Author: Melissa Dee
Category: Entertainment/Movies
Subject: Home of the Brave
Date: 02/03/90 Time: 02:25:00
Wow.
See this movie if at all possible.
It is currently running at Arcadia 8 at Midnight but you may be able to
rent it from Tower.
Message: 62984
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: morality and furs
Date: 02/03/90 Time: 04:03:26
The senseless and brutal destruction of animals for trivial purposes is a
worthy thing to outlaw, I believe. The crime should not be in the possession
of fur coats or ivory trinkets, but should focus on the trapper or poacher.
Message: 62985
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: drugs
Date: 02/03/90 Time: 04:14:20
Most drugs alter the ability to reason. Since we pride ourselves as being a
species capable of great reasoning ability, and since our society is
structured upon said reason, to legalize drugs would only serve to corrupt
the basis of our society. The government cannot condone that which
potentially impairs society.
I do not believe the use of drugs by an individual should result in
imprisonment. However, the convicted addict or casual user should be forced
to make an effort to come to grips with his substance abuse, or suffer the
loss of certain privileges.
Message: 62986
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger #62980
Date: 02/03/90 Time: 08:32:35
I'll answer that question .... 'Let the people vote on most major laws that
they are trying to pass' ... AND .... No riders on any law that is trying to
get passed!!!
I do believe there is nothing in our Constitution that says we can't vote
more that once a year. A special election could be held for just such laws
as abortion, legalizing drugs, flouridating our water supply. And none of
the old proposition types either where they are confusing - if you vote yes,
it's really no, etc. I.E. this abortion issue is getting dangerous. If they
put it to the vote of the majority of this state, that would be that. It may
go against what I believe in - but I firmly believe in the majority rule.
Didn't we vote down Val Trans and the Stadium successfully? The
Terry Goddard's of this world, wether we voted them into office or not,
cannot use their own morality against the public. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 62987
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Nick on furs
Date: 02/03/90 Time: 08:40:02
Trouble is .. trappers are legal, poachers are not. Did you know that the
latter are distroying the elephant herd in Africa to get their tusks for
ivory? Who needs things made out of ivory anyway when plastic would be
better? They just cut off their complete faces and leave the carcass to rot.
Here again, as long as there's a market for such things, they'll continue to
do it. Ditto the Rhino - they use his horn for aphrodeasac (sp?) purposes.
I am thankful at least that the people of America arne't interested in such
trinkets, but there is still a big market for it world wide.
-=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 62988
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bad news
Date: 02/03/90 Time: 09:04:35
For those of you that do not belong to the O.F.'s sig - there was a message
left in there this morning by Paul saying his youngest son got killed in a
car accident in Redding Calif. What a awful shock. He will be back
wednesday. Poor Pauley. My heart goes out to him. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 62989
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul and family
Date: 02/03/90 Time: 09:33:37
I hope they recover quickly and manage to live with this great loss.
Message: 62990
Author: Melissa Dee
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul
Date: 02/03/90 Time: 10:56:51
Ya, I was going to put up a funny post about Rhino horns but it doesn't
really seem appropriate now.
My sympathies to you Paul.
Message: 62991
Author: Henrietta Cruz
Category: Question?
Subject: Irrationality
Date: 02/03/90 Time: 11:40:15
Why is it that pro-abortion legislators, when they want to block pro-life
legislation, deny that a fetus is a baby, but when they want to use
taxpayers' money for prenatal care, they refer to "the mother and her unborn
baby" and "the baby in the womb?"
Why is it that pro-abortionists adamantly state that government must stay
out of women's private lives, but at the same time are doing everything they
can to get the government to fund abortions?
These discrepancies are just two blaring indications of the fundamental
lack of integrity and reason inherent in the pro-abortion arguments. These
people should reflect on the realization required by common sense that they
can't have it both ways.
Message: 62992
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Nick
Date: 02/03/90 Time: 12:58:15
Re: The senseless and brutal destruction of animals for trivial purposes is
a worthy thing to outlaw"
I even remember reading about clothing being made of "unborn seal skin". It
is such a travesty. Although I don't think a movement against things of
this nature will make much headway, considering the rate and attitude of
abortion.
Message: 62993
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie
Date: 02/03/90 Time: 13:00:16
Re: "No riders on any law that is trying to get passed!!!"
I agree! Either that or allow the pres to line item veto.
Message: 62994
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: INTERESTING
Date: 02/03/90 Time: 14:37:59
(excerpts from two articles in today's Republic.....)
"Americans drank less liquor last year, continuing a decadelong trend,
and wine consumption dropped for the third straight year, and industry group
reported Friday.
Changing lifestyles, concerns about health and publicity about drunk
driving and alcohol abuse contributed to the declines, according to the
Jobson Beverage Alcohol Group, which publishes an annual survey of
alcoholic-beverage consumption."
"William Bennett, the nation's drug policy director, raised questions
Friday about the effectiveness of drug-education programs. He said children
are more likely to respond to aggressive law enforcement and ensured
punishment."
My questions: If alcohol abuse has declined due in part to education, why
wouldn't the abuse of other drugs also decline with education? Furthermore,
if drugs were legalized would Bennett be out of a job and does that have
anything to do with his going against the facts and waging a "war" we've
already lost?
Message: 62995
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Peter
Date: 02/03/90 Time: 21:27:01
Re: "If alcohol abuse has declined due in part to education, why
wouldn't the abuse of other drugs also decline with education?"
Maybe alcohol abuse has declined in favor of drug abuse?
Alcohol abuse is down and drug abuse is up. Hmmmmm.
Message: 62996
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 62985
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 01:18:09
We pride ourselves on being a species capable of great reasoning ability...
The keyword is "capable." Most of the time our cognitive, problem solving
skills are whored to achieve irrational or unethical ends.
Message: 62997
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: 62973
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 01:24:37
Mandatory vegetarianism might not be a bad idea. I'm not a vegetarian, but
would gladly vote in (and obey) such legislation if it were actually
offered. Neither of us has any right to kill other beings for food, or for
any other purposes, merely because it is useful or appeals to our aesthetic
or sensual tastes. Any rationalizations of such acts are absolutely without
merit.
If I were starving in the wilderness and a wild hare wandered into range of
a well thrown rock, the right thing to do would be to leave it alone. I'm
not saying that I would do this, but that would be the proper thing to do.
Message: 62998
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: drugs
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 01:43:06
I feel that the legalization of drugs would greatly reduce theft, burglary,
and drug-related violence, however, the argument that drug use would not
increase, based on the assumption that more or less everyone who would use
drugs already does, seems a bit weak.
I believe that a substantial portion of this country's non-using population
refrains from drug use because of a fear of the law and also because of the
societal stigma associated with the use of the illicit. Obviously, I am
refering to a certain type of person: someone who feels that it simply isn't
worth the risk of losing their job or the respect of their family, or the
possibility of jail or other punishments, should they be arrested for an
illegal act. Someone for whom respectibility is paramount: someone who is
basically comfortable with themselves, and whose life (past or present) does
not drive them to take dangerous substances in order to escape their
emotional problems.
The reasons for not using drugs are relatively few:
(1) Fear of prosecution : (2) Fear of the effects of the drugs : (3) The
stigma attatched to drug use : (4) Too expensive
Remove three of these reasons, and it seems fairly obvious that drug use
will increase. If this were the case, the question then becomes "is the
increase in public funds and the reduction of certain types of crimes worth
the (possible) increase in drug use."
Message: 62999
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Entertainment/Movies
Subject: laser show
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 01:54:47
Missed the laser show?
Don't feel bad; you didn't miss much. The show lasted 90 minutes,
accompanied by Pink Floyd music, much of which would have been enjoyable had
not its volume been excessive. I have always tried to avoid concerts and
concert-like events (indoors) because of this problem, and I can only kick
my own ass for having been such a damn fool to sit through the whole thing.
Even with my fingers partially plugging my ears during much of the show, it
is clear that I have suffered some degree of hearing damage, hopefully
temporary. When I exited the show, I was accosted by a man who asked "Dude,
where is my instrument?" I thought he was a lunatic, until he repeated his
question and I realized he was asking the location of "Main Street." In the
car, the radio, which had been playing at a moderate volume, sounded like a
whisper. The lyrics were totally incomprehensible. Charles Panati has said
that the generation of Westerners addicted to headphones and loud music will
by age fourty-five hear only half as well as their parents did at
sixty-five. Thus, the teenager who resents having to repeat himself to
grandpa will himself be barking grandpa's "What's that?" a full two decades
earlier.
Getting back to the laser show, most of the graphics were primitive. Lasers
are at their best when displaying complex geometric shapes, and at their
worst when displaying simple line drawings with halting animation. Guess
which predominated?
The staging was amateurish. At several points in the show, a formula babe
with the requisite short black dress and long blond hair came out and played
a large saxaphone. This was so campy that for a while I thought she was
merely pretending, though in fact she was actually playing.
There was one rather interesting point in the show, during a song about
suicide. A laser graphic of a small (perhaps .25 caliber) semi-auto was
displayed on the screen, and slowly rotated toward the audience. As it came
to face us, there was an exceptionally powerful discharge of sound, such
that the chest cavity vibrated forcefully, and a brilliant, blinding flash
of white light.
The graphics were projected onto a recessed 50 foot screen in the rear of
the stage, thus making an unobstructed view impossible for those with seats
near the sides of the isles. Some of the more hypnotic imagery was totally
lost to the audience, as it was projected high into the rear of the ceiling:
only those with balcony seats, or those in the far front of the auditorium,
would be able to see these. I was seated in the middle, and only glimpsed
this by leaning out from under the balcony floor and glancing up from time
to time.
Message: 63001
Author: Andrew Diceclay
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: jeff beck eats meat?
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 04:27:00
forsssomeone so smart, your prettystupid,didyouknowtht?
youssay
youarenotavegetaran,buthatyouthinkitwoudbeagooddetomaakeitmdtoryandalllifeis
sacredblahblah...yetyouareNOTavegetarian!!! whatahypocrite1!!!!!!
alsoifalllifeissacred,doesthat,mean,you,never,kill,cockroaches/////?
get,real,jeff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
then,you,say,ay,attempt,to,justfy,klling,another,animal,is,rtionizaton,and,
is,really,immoral? can,U,explaain,why,this,is,so/???
of,course,you,cant!!!!!!!!!!
or,do,you,never,kill,cockroaches//???
Message: 63002
Author: Andrew Diceclay
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: jeffbecksreaasons
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 04:31:59
there are more than 4 reasons to not do drugs.
#5 there is something better to do
thaat is as valid a reason as any of the ones you mentioned, and 10 X as
infuenciaal in the decision of whether or not to do drugs.....
so there!!!
im a new user by the way i just got my first computer annd modem about a
months ago and i still can7t type wotrth a dam....sorry...
Message: 63003
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Peter
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 09:27:02
Re: "Your Question" ------ you've got an excellent point there peter.
-=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63004
Author: Rose Rayes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pro-lifers care
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 11:41:35
The charge that pro-lifers care for distressed mothers only until their
babies are born is easy to make, but far easier to disprove.
In 1986 I discovered that, though I was unmarried, I was three months
pregnant. So-called "pro-choice" advocates only offered me an abortion.
Pro-lifers gave me encouragement, helped me rebuild my self-esteem and
assisted me with food, clothing, housing and transportation. Since my
child's birth, pro-lifers have helped me with clothing, college and
baby-sitting (they are the most nurturing bunch of baby sitters I've met,
contrary to their media image of stern austerity). Pro-lifers show no signs
of letting me go.
There are 18 pro-life centers for women in distress in Arizona. Pro-life
dollars support these centers, including Birthright, Crisis Pregnancy
Center, Northside Pregnancy Testing Center and Alpha Pregnancy Center.
I thank God that pro-lifers care enough about women and children to
support them, and I'm proud to say that I have become an active member of
their movement.
Message: 63005
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak/Drugs
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 12:57:34
Parachutes come with a ripcord which (in most cases) releases the chute.
Obviously, it doesn't always work, and I'm not one who is about to tempt
fate with a diversion such as parachuting. But where is this "ripcord" on a
drug? Where does one "pop the chute" when hit with a bad Ice trip?
Life is an interesting enough experience in itself. I don't wish to try and
modify it by ingesting something my body was not made for.
Message: 63006
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak/Decriminalizatio
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 12:59:00
My message was sarcasm. I have not bowed to the pressure of the pro-drug
advocates.
Message: 63007
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak/Bakker
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 12:59:36
Good for him.
So?
Message: 63008
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Drugs
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 13:01:48
I'm not one for oppresive government either, but I'm also not one for
anarchy. There are some things which should just not be legal. Did anyone
watch the Reporters last night? What is your opinion on Ice, Zak?
Message: 63009
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Peter/Burroughs
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 13:03:34
May have had? Did he dry up? That's news to me.
Message: 63010
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/62971
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 13:06:46
I respect your opinion. My opinion is that society has degenerated enough as
it is. I'm not looking forward to the legalization of something that will
be then embraced by Madison Avenue, made respectable, and will be the media
responsible for the further mass-degeneration of society.
What would Manson have been without drugs?
Message: 63011
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Drugs
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 13:11:24
But what about the addictive drugs like Crack or Ice? Sure, you and I and
Zak are not about to go out there and try them, but there are a lot of
unsuspecting individuals out there who have and who have suffered.
But my point is, on an addictive drug like those stated above, what would be
the point in bringing the price down if those addicted to them "need" them?
They are going to get them one way or another, and if R.J. Reynolds decided
to market it, why would they want to put a budget price tag on something
they know they can get a lot more for? Whatever the market will bear,
remember?
The deregulation of the phone company was supposed to bring prices down and
make the use of the phone an easier experience. What do we have now?
Operators who cannot suggest advice, 6-digit numbers for long distance
operators, busy signals or just plain ringing on directory assistance, AND
PRICE INCREASES.
Message: 63012
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Furs
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 13:14:04
IMHO:
* Killing For Food Is Ok, also sometimes Necessary.
* Killing For Vanity Is Obscenity.
Message: 63013
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak/62979
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 13:15:56
In other words, addicts never overdose.
Message: 63014
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Nick/Drugs
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 13:23:27
I agree, I believe that the user should not simply be "locked up" as our
"Do Drugs Do Time" campaign endorses. What I feel should be done is to
require these individuals to undergo a drug-rehabilitation therapy program.
This program should stress care and concern for these individuals, as there
is something lacking in their life that has caused them to turn to drugs. To
simply lock them up gives them one more aspect of society that has turned
it's back on them, and makes the continued use of drugs a certainty in their
lives. Many have become criminals as a result of drug abuse, and were not so
beforehand. The cause must be eliminated, along with the need, through
therapy, the person's self-respect built up, their priorities and outlook on
life reviewed, and most of all, the person needs to feel NEEDED.
In my opinion, the answer is arms outstretched in love, not prison bars.
Message: 63015
Author: Jayana Clerk
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: outstretched in love
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 13:31:56
I don't see your arms outstrethed in ove. Only in hate.
Message: 63016
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 13:48:41
Re: "Neither of us has any right to kill other beings for food, or for
any other purposes, merely because it is useful or appeals to our aesthetic
or sensual tastes. Any rationalizations of such acts are absolutely without
merit."
Hey! I thought you were pro abortion? Am I wrong?
Message: 63017
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 13:51:47
Re: "The reasons for not using drugs are relatively few:
(1) Fear of prosecution : (2) Fear of the effects of the drugs : (3) The
stigma attatched to drug use : (4) Too expensive"
There's a fifth one you left out Jeff.
(5) Intelligence
I think the majority of people who do not use illegal drugs, do not for this
fifth reason.
Message: 63018
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Andrew D.
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 13:54:29
Re: "yetyouareNOTavegetarian!!!"
Either you or your computer has a severe problem.
Message: 63019
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 13:59:49
Re: "But my point is, on an addictive drug like those stated above, what
would be the point in bringing the price down if those addicted to them
"need" them? They are going to get them one way or another"
We could do what England does. We could give the drugs away free to those
who are addicted. What a glorious use of our tax dollars.
Just to keep the record straight, the above is massive sarcasm.
Message: 63020
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Westfall
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 14:42:47
If you do not think the prices would drop if made legal, then you
know NOTHING about Capitalism and Free enterprise.
Another thing... If you think we need laws to prevent people from
doing stupid things...you must think people are pretty stupid. If they are
too stupid not to use drugs, then they are surly too stupid to pay attention
to any law.
You sound like the dooms day people who said when Prohibition ended,
America would be a land of nothing but 'drunks'... It never happened!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63021
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/Furs
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 14:47:39
Killing Rabbit for food is okay... But throw the fur away as it
will not be legal to use it for gloves or anysort of clothing.
Pretty damn stupid.....don't you think? The rabbit is dead
anyways.
Fur can keep you pretty warm in cold climates, is that Vanity?
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63022
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Sigh, Westfall again
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 14:53:25
Who is going to pay for this "outstretching of Love" you think every
drug user should get? There are millions of them, remember. The only thing
lacking in their life sounds like the 'HIGH' you want to keep them from.
If Joe Blow want to blow his brains out...let him!
Democrats and their social 'love' programs drive me up the wall.
Grrrrrrr First off, that should have been left up to Churches, not
Government!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63023
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Politics
Subject: Killing?
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 14:56:08
Todays morality... It is okay to kill HUMAN babies, but don't you
dare kill a bunny!
NUTZ!
Message: 63024
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Vote
Subject: Westfall & Thornburg
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 15:05:06
Okay, you say if drugs are legalized...we will all be DOPE heads.
Please explain the current ote question posted in the ain menu?
With your logic, answer [B] sould be doing something. It ain't!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63025
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last/pro-life
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 16:26:06
Would you mind telling us the name of center, dates, why you went
there in the first place ?
8
Message: 63026
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: manson sans drugs
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 16:27:12
Most likely a sociopathic homicidal maniac.
8
Message: 63027
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Politics
Subject: fetuses
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 16:29:57
A fetus is not a baby.
A fetus is not a baby.
I want you to repeat this sentence 100 times until you get it right.
Message: 63028
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bob T.
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 20:47:21
Sorry, Bob, but almost any intelligent reason you can think of falls under
one of my four categories. Care to name one that doesn't?
Message: 63029
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: 63016/Bob T.
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 20:50:44
I find abortions acceptable only prior to that point where the abortion
results in the death of an aware being capable of suffering. Obviously,
this does not include a simple fertilized egg. I cannot give you any firm
line of demarcation, which is why I would just as soon not be responsible
for a pregnancy unless it was planned.
Message: 63030
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: "Andrew"
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 21:02:19
I didn't say that "all life is sacred." And yes, it is somewhat
hypocritical, but also somewhat practical, for me to advocate mandatory
vegetarianism and yet be an omnivore. When being a vegetarian can have some
effect on society as a whole, then I will become a vegetarian.
No, I don't kill cockroaches, actually: I catch them in empty margerine tubs
and release them. This is not the result of any conviction that cockroaches
are aware beings, as much as it is a theoretically kind act. Of course, in
my house, I see so few cockroaches (aside from impeccable hygenic habits, we
use insecticide (hypocracy rears its ugly head again...)
Message: 63031
Author: $ Todd Reese
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Interesting...
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 21:20:08
Pro-Lifers are called fanatics. Anti-fur people are called heroes.
Something is wrong.
Message: 63032
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jayana/Judgment
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 22:29:11
How can you say that? You have never met me in person. The first thing you
have to learn about BBS debates is that they seldom leave the BBS. For
instance, Zak was just by my shop a little over a week ago and bought a tape
deck from me. We chatted about this and that and we are friends! You needn't
take this BBS thing so seriously.
I am a loving, caring individual. I hope this does not sound too
self-serving, but ask anyone on the board who knows me and has met me in
person. Sure, I have my shortcomings, but don't we all? Yes, I hate the
actions of the drug dealers that are selling this poison to our fellow
citizens, adults and children. My beliefs prohibit me from condoning the
legalization of these drugs. Drugs ruined the lives of both of my brothers,
and almost ruined my sister's life as well. As a result, I now have one
brother dead. I know firsthand the effects of drugs on loved ones. Do you
understand now why I just cannot stand to see any effort made to legalize
drugs?
I tried to make a positive suggestion in the wake of hundreds of thousands
of ruined lives, and you condemn me as being hateful. Zak and I have been
tossing the most heated salvos at each other...why don't you ask HIM if I am
a hateful person? I have tried to present my point of view (not too well,
obviously, because I have been restraining myself [for certain reasons] from
quoting from the source of my beliefs). I don't mean to sound rude, but I
think you need to meet me before you make such a rash judgment. PBWY.
Message: 63033
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff/Food
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 22:31:47
Well, if I were to mention man's God-given dominion over the animals, and
the right to use them for food, would you respect it? I am, however,
strongly against the killing of animals simply for the use of unnecessary
human adornment (furs, ivory, animal heads on plaques, etc., etc.)
Message: 63034
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob/5 reasons
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 22:32:58
I believe that your fifth reason is necessary to make Jeff's first three
possible, eh?
Message: 63035
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sarcasm
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 22:34:14
Taken.
"Let's put the 'D' back in FDA, eh?" Heh!
Message: 63036
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/"Drunks"
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 22:36:22
Are you saying alcoholism is not a widespread and very serious problem? Of
course, it may not equal the numbers predicted by the pro-hibitionists, but
alcoholism is a big problem...both among adults and children.
Message: 63037
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Furs
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 22:40:27
Cliff, I am talking about the wholesale slaughter of seals, minks, etc.,
where the purpose of the killing is the fur alone, not the food. I am not
talking about using the furs for NECESSARY purposes but for useless vanity
mink coats and stoles to be bought at top dollar by those who don't NEED
them to keep warm. Know what I'm sayin'?
Message: 63038
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff...Cliff...
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 22:47:24
Gee, I have this feeling that there is this huge punching bag somewhere in
Arizona with my face plastered on it. Cliff, did I say that it was
necessarily the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility for a program like this? Why not
organize a church outreach? There are certainly enough people in Phoenix who
have several hours of spare time that they could devote to helping a fellow
human in need. Cliff, whatever happened to "love your neighbor as yourself?"
Much less "whatever you have not done for the least of these, you have not
done for Me [Christ]?" I ask this in light of your suggestion that we just
let Joe Blow toss his life in the gutter while we conveniently look the
other way and cry "Am I my brother's keeper?" It is exactly attitudes like
this that prevent a truly organized effort among the churches to establish a
network of rehab/support centers. I'm sorry, but I can't turn a blind eye to
someone who is throwing their life away. The least I can do is TRY to help.
Message: 63039
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/63026/Manson
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 22:49:52
Justify your last statement.
Give me a reason to believe it.
Message: 63040
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/Fetus
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 22:51:12
Tell me, Roger, where does the word "fetus" derive from? (I'll give you a
hint, it's Latin. Look it up.)
Message: 63041
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Todd/63031
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 22:53:29
Yes, I agree.
Cute fuzzy little big-eyed harp seals are important, but a helpless
developing baby isn't.
[I believe that both are important.]
Message: 63042
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Politics
Subject: Fetus/Roger
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 23:08:54
Roger... the first 3 month stage is an embryo. From the end of the
third month of pregnancy until birth, it's a fetus. And that is a living
baby!
A fetus is a baby.
A fetus is a baby.
A fetus is a baby but more people will defend a bunny!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63043
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/"drunks"
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 23:22:17
You don't read so well... Alcoholism was a big problem during
prohibition. And the problem is on the decline today. As anything, the
media greatly exagerates it. Violent deaths by mobs (gangs) went right down
when prohibition ended. There were less deaths due to drinking wood alcohol
and other nasty concoctions when it was legalized. In short, the industry
cleaned up its act to meet government standards. The taxes collected from
booze is a staggering amount. At least the blood of good people is no
longer spilled trying to fight it.
However, the people who drink and drive...are criminals, they are
the ones who should be punished, not the ones who use the substance
correctly. The laws you want to pass, punish everyone.
Message: 63044
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Politics
Subject: Daryl/furs
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 23:28:22
But the LAW talks about ALL furs. Since most law men can't tell the
difference beteen rabbit and mink, they ban them all! The law in Aspen does
not set up a difference between VANITY and NECESSARY, it just wants to ban
all furs. Again, forcing the morals of some on everyone, and that I resent!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63045
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Mr Westfall...
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 23:49:01
Maybe the drug users do not want your help. I know a few, and from
what I gather, they hate do-gooders. If you want, I can give your name and
address to a group? After they beat you up, maybe you can post how LOVE
helped them solve their problem. If you think a nice pep talk will make
them see the light....you need more help then they do.
I am all for helping a person who wants and seeks help. If churchs
would only reach out and help when asked that would be nice. But now days,
very few churches will help drug problems because they are too complex and
the churches do not have the money to help. A free hug won't solve their
problems. If drug use did not have the word "CRIMINAL" attched to it, more
people would probably seek help. Passing more laws outlawing it has chased
them deep underground. Some love... all talk and no understanding. As I
said a few months ago (or was it last year) I lost a good friend to drugs.
He had no where to go for help! He died!
Message: 63046
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: On the Lighter Side
Subject: Everyone...
Date: 02/04/90 Time: 23:53:24
Smile, do not let these debates get you down. They are just
expressions of ideas. God knows, I ain't always right.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=* I don't believe I said that??
Message: 63047
Author: Greg Wendel
Category: Answer!
Subject: SYSOP 63042
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 00:52:59
THEN MAKE ABORTION LEGAL FOR THE FIRST THREE MONTHS!
Message: 63048
Author: Rick Myers
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: fetuses vs. bunnies
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 02:43:12
Bunnies are cuter than fetuses.
Message: 63049
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Fetus is a baby
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 06:27:16
Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit ...
Message: 63050
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rose, clinics
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 07:59:39
Then let them make the choice of going to the abortion clinic or to the
pro-life centers. You were able to make YOUR choice. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63051
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/ripcord
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 08:01:31
The ripcord on drugs in found in your right or left hand, depending. Just
don't raise it to your mouth, arm or anywhere else with drugs in it! See?
Simple! -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63052
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on Manson
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 08:03:14
"What would Manson have been without drugs?"
Insane! What else? -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63053
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on rabbits
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 08:11:54
I agree there. I think any animal used for food should have it's fur used
also as well as all parts of it's body. I.E. Cattle, sheep, rabbits, etc.
etc. We do not eat mink, chinchilla, elephants, seal, whales, Dolphins,
Ostriches (sp?), tigers, leopards, etc. etc. That is, not unless we
were starving. What is so terrible re: the elephants - some tribes do indeed
eat them, but the poaches leave them to rot in the hot African sun and they
do no one anygood except the idiots that buy this stuff. If that's
considered good? -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63054
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Toddy/pro-lifers
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 08:15:46
The pro-lifers ARE being fanatics! Haven't you read the paper lately?
-=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63055
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl/#63036
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 08:18:13
Our population has double is why there is more alcoholics today.
-=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63056
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/helping hands
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 08:30:16
"There are certainly enought people in Phoenix who have several hours of
spare time that they could devote to helping a fellow human in need"!
Yes there is! But it just doesn't happen on the average Daryl. Most of these
people do a lot of talking, but when it comes down to it, won't do a thing
if it disrupts their life. How many people for instance that you know are
taking in un-wed preg. women so that they can have their babies and not get
an abortion? How many are taking in drug addicts? There might be clinics and
help centers for these people, but they go out on their own at some point,
because no one wants them. You can preach till your blue in the face to an
addict in one of those places, but he'll still go out and do his thing! How
many white families are taking in black drug addicts or preg. women? How
much money do they put out on these people in need?
These so called people that could devote to helping a fellow human in need a
couple years ago voted in a law that we could all 'rat' on our neighbors if
their yards were a mess, or they had a RV parked in their view, etc. etc.
If these people can't tolarate their neighbors, how are they going to
tolarate a stranger that 's in trouble living in their houses? I'm afraid
that "love thy neighbor" is not the way of life around here - if it ever
was. It is good to think it could be - but it isn't! FACT! -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63057
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Cliff
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 08:33:33
Those are powerful words in your drug posts Cliffy. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63058
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: anti-fur heroes
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 08:45:33
Don't worry, there are many of us who put the anti-fur kooks in the same
category as the anti-choice crowd.
Message: 63059
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: justification/daryl
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 08:48:44
I think it is self-evident. Do you think Manson is sane today ? If there
were no drugs available, would you invite him to stay overnight in your
house. I rest my case.
Message: 63060
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: daryl/fetus
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 08:52:08
I see no "baby" in my dictionary. However, I am willing to concede that I
meant embryo as opposed to fetus.
Message: 63061
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Politics
Subject: fetus/embryo
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 08:54:55
OK: A fetus is not a baby.A baby must be born to be a baby. A three month
fetus is not a baby. Even an 8 month fetus is not a baby. Also, an embryo
is not a baby. A zygote is not a baby.
Message: 63063
Author: Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 12:35:49
Well, screaming and shoving pictures of dead animals in the faces
of people with furs seems pretty fanatical.
I agree with their main idea, not kiling animals for fur, but their
execution is what I have a problem with.
Message: 63064
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Politics
Subject: More meddling...
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 12:59:05
Again, your local state government is going to try and pass a
mandatory seat belt law. Last year it passed the House, but did not make
it through the Senate. So they are going to try again. Someone wants it
put on the books as LAW and are not going to stop till it's there. I am all
for the wearing of seat belts...as an act of free choice!
When will government do its job of running government and quit
playing mommy and daddy to its citizens? And to think, we pay taxes for
this bull$#!+
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63065
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: News Today
Subject: Deadly cars
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 13:08:26
The CORVETT is the most deadly car on the road if you get into an
accident. This info was released today.... But I knew this.... There
have been several death related accident at 35th Ave and Bell road over the
past few years. People just killed with fiberglass splinters, when they
just should have not been killed. The only thing more dangerous, is
smoking. Now someone who smokes and drives a Corvett, is wanting to die!
A four door Volvo (tank) is suppose to be one of the safest cars.
And any other large STEEL car. I wonder why government is trying to cram us
into little (beer can) compacts? What is more important, to save lives or
to save gas?
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Thanks for the soap box!
Message: 63066
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Beer can compacts
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 15:06:09
If *everyone* drove beer can compacts, or everyone rode bicycles, everyone
would be equally safe (and more safe than the average driver out there
today).
Message: 63067
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last/not practical
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 15:12:18
Then how do we get goods to our stores? You need TRUCKS for that,
not beer can compacts or bicycles. Dog, rethink your answer for a more
practical solution!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63068
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Practicality
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 18:54:36
Railroads connected to light rail. Light trucks, similar to the light
vehicles.
For the bicycle solution, light trucks/light rail, perhaps restricted to
certain roads/hours.
Message: 63069
Author: Phil Pape
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: love
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 20:22:17
to candice prettigew
from phil
teenager love
Message: 63070
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Furs
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 21:20:08
I agree. A line needs to be drawn between usefulness and uselessness. I will
not join PETA because I eat meat. I purchased a compilation album once that
was sponsored by them, and all of the inserts that came with the album were
designed to hang a dungload of guilt on anyone who even THOUGHT about being
anything other than a vegetarian.*
Message: 63071
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Drugs
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 21:24:16
You say that you lost a good friend to drugs, because he had nowhere to go
for help. I don't mean to sound heartless here, but where were you? Did you
offer help? Or did you withhold simply because he didn't offer or didn't
think he needed help? Cliff, those who get pulled down into the lies of drug
use convince themselves that they don't need help, when in all actuality
they DO. Those who won't admit that they don't have a problem are usually
the ones that have the worst problem. It's the same problem as alcoholism,
the first step is admitting the problem. And one cannot do that alone.
Message: 63072
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/63046
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 21:25:00
DO MY EARS DECIEVE ME? Gee, I think I shall have a heart attack now. Cliff
NOT right? Someone alert da media! (Heh heh heh...)
Message: 63073
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Drugs/Parachute
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 21:30:09
And the simplest way to avoid faulty parachutes is not to parachute. Heh
heh. Seriously, though, I'm trying to figure the point of your message. I'm
talking about getting OUT of a bad trip once the irresponsible decision has
been made to take the drug. Time machines would be cool...have a bad trip?
Just go back about 20 minutes and toss the drug away. (But then again, if
the trip was good, one could go back and do it again and again and
again...uh, scrap the time machine idea.) Heh!
Message: 63074
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/63052
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 21:31:36
How do you know that for sure? If he hadn't taken all of those LSD trips, he
wouldn't have thought he was Jesus Christ.
Message: 63075
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/LoveThyNeighbor
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 21:45:57
The reason that we do not "Love Our Neighbors" anymore is because (uhoh,
here he goes again) the world has turned their backs on God in search of
their own selfish pursuits. A helping hand to a person in need is a gift to
God [Matthew 25:31-46]. However, too many have a "what's in it for me"
attitude. If it does not benefit them in some way, they will not do it. Even
public recognition is a benefit, because it makes one look good in the eyes
of others [Matthew 6:1-4].
Yes, it is sad that many cannot love their neighbors (be it a family member,
or the guy down the block, or the poor man on the street corner, or even the
unborn child...yes, according to Scripture all of these are our "neighbors"
[Luke 10:25-37]). But any effort, on a large or small scale, must begin in
the heart of the individual.
Message: 63076
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/Manson
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 21:51:58
You have to consider that Manson would probably be or look nothing like he
is had he not fried his mind on LSD. If he had never taken drugs, I probably
would not mind having him at my house, as he would probably look and act
nothing like he did and does today.
Message: 63077
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/Fetus
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 21:52:56
Ok, I agree with your error in terminology, though I still disagree with
your stance. ("Fetus" by the way, is derived from the Latin word for
"offspring.")
Message: 63078
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/NOT NOT NOT
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 21:54:37
Ok, you have stated your opinions. Just be careful and don't repeat them
over and over too loudly, especially if you are alone, or someone might
think that you are talking to an invisible bunny-rabbit friend or somethin.
Heh!
Message: 63079
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Seatbelts
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 21:57:52
I agree on this one. Anyhow, most insurance companies will not cover injured
parties who weren't wearing safety belts at the time. Isn't this punishment
enough?
Message: 63080
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Killer Carz
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 21:59:15
I thought the Yugo was supposed to be the most unsafe car. In an accident,
those things are supposed to accordion just like a Coors can. You know what
they say about Yugos...You buy a Yugo, it breaks down, Yugo buy another one.
Message: 63082
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Goods
Date: 02/05/90 Time: 22:00:25
SLED DOGS, dude! Where's yer mind? MUSH! MUSH!
Message: 63083
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Ianuzzi
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 00:37:33
Your arguments for the illegalization of drugs don't work.
Your first argument goes as follows: 1. Drugs alter reasoning
ability. 2. We pride ourselves on our great ability to reason. 3.
Therefore, drugs should be illegal.
Even if the first two premises were wholly true, the conclusion would
still not follow from them.
First of all, it is true that man has the greatest reasoning capability
of all earth's creatures. But of all the things America seems to take pride
in, reason isn't on the top of this list. A society that keeps shows like
*Geraldo* on the air and elects Ronald Reagan to a 2nd term can hardly be
called a society that holds reason as the highest virtue.
Anyway, even if reason *were* the highest virtue, it would not follow
that all things that alter one's ability to reason should thus be illegal.
Even though reason is good, it is a good that must be chosen, not forced.
If an individual chooses to forfeit his reasoning abilities for a few hours
in favor of drugs, that is his choice. The idea that we must force people
to always spend their time doing things that involve reason is, in itself,
an UN-reasonable idea.
By your argument, meditation should also be illegal, since in a
meditative state many people imagine things to be true that are false, and
to feel sensations and imagine places where they had never been before. In
other words, meditation alters one's ability to reason.
Message: 63084
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Ianuzzi
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 00:50:29
Also, I have to assume, based on your argument, that you are for the
criminalization of alcohol, since it too alters one's ability to reason. If
you are not against alcohol being legal, then your position is horribly
inconsistant.
You also state that "The government cannot condone that which
potentially impairs society." You thus give the government the role of an
all-knowing parent who must tell us all what is and is not good for us.
This is not the government's role, and if it were, we'd all be suffering
from a loss of rights. The government is designed to help establish order
in society, and to protect us from each other -- it is not designed to
protect us from ourselves.
Another problem with your above statement is that it assumes that for
something to be legal, it must be "condoneable" by the government. This is
plainly absurd, as I'm sure you will become aware if you put some thought to
it.
Drugs do not impair society. The abusive mis-use of drugs does. But
so also does mis-use of other things have an impairing effect. Everything
can be said to have a potential to impair society: Nintendos, cars, knives,
guns, stereos -- depending on how each item is used. If people use drugs in
ways that do not result in the harm of others, then we should no more be
concerned than if people use Nintendoes in ways that do not result in the
harm of others. Nintendo mis-use can result in jitteriness, eye trouble,
etc., but they should not be made illegal.
Message: 63085
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Ianuzzi - last
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 01:05:25
One last criticism:
You say "the convicted addict or casual user should be forced to come
to grips with their substance abuse."
First of all, why are you putting addicts and casual users in the same
boat? It seems to me that casual users aren't doing much harm. That is
like putting casual beer-drinkers and chronic alcohics in the same boat.
You seem to have good intentions in wanting to force people to come to
terms with their substance abuse. The question is, who is responsible for
making these people come to terms? The government? Families? Friends?
The person who's addicted? I don't know the answer, I admit, but it's
obvious that making drug-use a crime isn't it.
Crime is an activity which violates the rights of others. Killing,
stealing, commiting fraud, rape, molestation, kidnapping, assaulting, and so
on are all crimes and all have good reasons for being made illegal.
Drug use, on the other hand, does not violate anybody's rights. The
person is doing something to himself, not to somebody else. If the drug use
results in negative effects (such as the drug user killing somebody in an
auto accident), then it is the poor judgment of the drug user (not
controlling his environment while using drugs) that is responsible, not the
drug itself. There can be such a thing as responsible drug use, just as
there is such a thing as responsible alcohol use (in which the person
drinking chooses to limit himself to a certain amount, or when he is
excessive, indulges in a situation where he will not be able to have easy
access to his car).
Message: 63086
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Adkins, er, Beck
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 01:15:11
Your reasons not to use drugs:
1. Fear of prosecution; 2. Fear of the drug's effects; 3. Drug use
stigma; 4. Too expensive.
You claim that if drugs were made legal, 3 of these fears would
disappear. But your analysis of the fears does not take a realistic view of
what people's motives for using and not using drugs really are.
The first reason, fear of prosecution, is one of the weakest reasons.
I've never chosen to not use drugs based on this reason, because I know that
drugs are easy to get without anybody knowing about it. You don't have to
be sneaky to safely get drugs; you have to be subtle, but not sneaky.
Unless the police start doing random, unconstitutional searches on people's
cars and houses, this fear is pretty small.
The second fear, that the drugs will have bad effects, you admitted
would stay the same if drugs were legal. I add that if the drugs were legal
they should be sold with information about their effects, side-effects, and
long-term effects printed on each package.
The third reason, the stigma associated with drug use, would probably
diminish somewhat with legalization. At least, people wouldn't worry about
their peers looking down on them because they were doing something illegal.
However, I think there would be just as much of a stigma attached to
irresponsible drug use as there is today. (Example: alcohol abuse stigma.)
The fourth reason that people don't do drugs you cited is that they are
too expensive. You are right that they would become cheaper if they were
made legal, and thus those people who are only being held back from doing
drugs because of the high price would probably do more drugs. But how many
people are out there who are not doing drugs only because they can't afford
it? (Especially people who have never tried drugs.) This
explanation of why people don't do drugs does not account for the high use
of drugs among the lower classes.
So, in summary, given the reasons you listed for not doing drugs, there
is no reason to assume that drug legalization would result in mass drug
hysteria, or anything even remotely close. The first and last reasons are
weak, and the second and third reasons (drug effects and stigma) would not
be affected by legalization.
And, finally, somebody else on this BBS was right in adding a 5th
reason to not use drugs: 5. Because there are better things to do.
People who choose not to use drugs now mostly choose not to use them
because they know that the good feeling brought on by drugs is artificial,
and therefore meaningless. There are many avenues of satisfaction to seek
in life, and most people wisely choose avenues that have substantial value
and lasting meaning (well, at least more meaning than a drug high can bring
on.)
Message: 63088
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Daryl on drugs
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 01:35:37
You're a prolific guy, Daryl, and thus hard to adequately respond to.
But I'm sure gonna try.
RE: "Parachutes come with a ripcord. Where is the 'ripcord' on a
drug?"
In this reaction to my analogy between parachuting and drug use, you
are missing the point of the analogy. The point is that both are dangerous
activities with the potential to harm the user, and that both should still
be legal anyway. The 'ripcord' on a drug is the user's decision to take
steps to ensure that his drug use will be safe. That means not using
high doses, and controlling his environment. This is analogous to a
backup parachute. I admit that this analogy is not 100% perfect, but it has
value nonetheless. I could come up with other analogies to say the same
thing, but this one serves my purpose fine for the time being. There are
other dangerous activities where no 'ripcord' is involved. Try to stick to
the point, instead of clouding it.
RE: Your reason for not using drugs: "Life is interesting enough in
iteself."
I'm glad you made this decision, Daryl, but it does not mean that
everybody else should be declared a criminal if they decide otherwise.
Message: 63089
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Daryl on drugs
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 01:45:06
RE: "What is your opinion of ice?"
I think it's a nasty drug. Even if drugs were legal, I wouldn't use
it.
RE: your assertion that if drugs were legalized, they'd be "embraced by
Madison Avenue," and "made respectable."
They might try, but advertisers cannot make anyone respect anything,
they can only suggest it. If drugs were legalized, there would still be
plenty of room for people to advertise against the negative effects of drug
use. I think the anti-cocaine use ad in which the man walks in circles
repeating "I do coke so I can work harder so I can make more money so I can
buy more coke so I can work harder..." is very effective. What would stop
such advertisements if drugs were legal?
RE: "In other words, addicts never overdose."
That is not a fair assessment of what I was saying.
Even so, I believe that for the most part, addicts do not choose to
overdose, and that overdoses are usually the result of a miscalculation on
the part of the addict, or of intended self-harm.
Message: 63090
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Daryl on drugs
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 01:53:13
The following is excerpted from this month's issue of Reason. The
article is titled Control Yourself. It is by Stanton Peele.
"Research has shown decisively that alcoholics, even while drinking,
are crucially influenced by value choices and environmental considerations.
Alcoholics who seem to be out of control on the street are actually pursuing
deliberate drinking strategies designed to achieve specific levels of
drunkenness. Street alcoholics allowed to earn credit for booze in a
laboratory will work until they accumulate enough chits to attain the exact
level of intoxication they seek. Or, allowed to drink freely in an
isolation booth, they will voluntarily cut down their drinking to spend more
time in a comfortable, abstinent environment with other alcoholics watching
television. Such alcoholics do get drunk a lot, and they prefer drinking to
most other options available to them in their natural environments.
Nonetheless, alcoholic drinking is a largely purposive behavior, even if
alcoholics' purposes are quite alien to most people and even though
alcoholics frequently regret their choices after they become sober (at
least, until they become drunk again).
Much of the work on alcoholics' intentions while drinking has been
conducted at the Baltimore City Hospital, part of the federally supported
Addiction Research Center. But many of these same investigators are now
giving their work with cocaine addicts a very different slant from the one
they gave their alcohol research. This research group is often shown on
television working with addicts attached to electrodes or giving responses
recorded on a computer as they take or come down from their cocaine doses.
A researcher then explains to the interviewer how cocaine provides a
tremendous uplift, followed by an enervating down.
Actually, this process is a standard one observed in human being
engaged in activities ranging from eating carbohydrates to sexual
intercourse (hence the readiness with which these activities are equated
with drug addictions). Often, the researchers observe how the anticipation
of the cocaine high or the need to reintroduce cocain to alleviate the low
will drive the addict to do anything. Sometimes reference is made to
laboratory studies in which animals continue to inject cocaine through an
implanted catheter until they kill themselves.
Just how addictive are cocaine and crack? Cocaine in any form is less
addictive than cigarettes by the two key behavioral measures of addiction.
Five times as many regular cigarette as crack smokers become addicted,
according to Jack Hennigfield, a researcher at the National Institute on
Drug Abuse, and addicts indicate it is easier to give up crack than
cigarettes. In fact, if we go by the NIDA survey to which George Bush
alluded in his nationally televised speech last September, very few cocaine
users become addicted. The survey found that 21 million Americans had used
cocaine, 8 million had used it in the last year, and 3 million were current
users, buy only 300,000 used cocain daily or nearly so. Government
statistics thus show that 10 percent of current users and 1.5 percent of all
users take the drug close to every day.
Message: 63092
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: another article
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 02:09:44
Another good recent article pertaining to drugs is the interview with
Michael S. Gazzaniga, a professor of neuroscience at Dartmouth Medical
School, in the *National Review*.
A few quotes:
"...Another example of hyperbole is the recent claim that there were
375,000 'crack babies' born last year; how could that possibly be, when the
government (the National Institute on Drug Abuse) informs us that there were
only 500,000 crack *users* last year? Exaggeration and misinformation run
rampant on this subject."
"If your goal were, pure and simple, to get high, you might try crack
or cocaine, or some amphetamine. You wouldn't go for marijuana, which is a
mild hallucinogen and tranquilizer. So, if you wanted to be up and you
didn't have much time, you might go to crack. But then if it were
absolutely established that there was a higher addiction rate with crack,
legalization could, paradoxically, diminish its use. This is so because if
cocaine were reduced to the same price as crack, the abuser, acknowledging
the higher rate of addiction, might forgo the more intensive high of crack,
opting for the slower high of cocaine. Crack was introduced years ago as
offering an alluring new psychoactive experience. But its special hold on
the ghetto is the result of its price. Remember that -- on another front --
we know that 120-proof alcohol doesn't sell as readily as the 86 proof, not
by a long shot, even though the higher the proof, the faster the
psychological effect that alcohol users are seeking."
"Most experts insist that the rate of alcohol use before Prohibition
was the same as after."
"...It is worth noting that the largest proportion of [alcohol] is sold
to the social drinker, not the drunk, just as most cocaine is sold to the
casual user, not the addict."
"...the vast majority of early drinkers stop excessive drinking all by
themselves. In fact, drug use of all types drops off radically with age."
"*All* the cocaine users make up 2 per cent of the adult population,
and the addicts make up less than one-quarter of 1 per cent of the total
population."
"Again, it is estimated that 21 million people tried cocaine in 1988.
Yet of those, only 3 million currently use it, and only a small percentage
are addicted."
I could quote more and more, but I've already given you enough to chew
on for a while.
Message: 63094
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Religion
Subject: Daryl
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 02:18:17
RE: Your response to my comment about Jim Bakker: "Good for him. So?"
Did my mentioning of Bakker's current situation bug you, or what?
I think it's great that Bakker is cleaning toilets. Poetic justice.
"Heh!"
Message: 63095
Author: Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Last few
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 03:07:46
No wonder I couldn't get on here tonight...
Message: 63096
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 03:56:16
I suppose you think that the government should keep its nose out of
inspecting our food and mandating clean air standards as well.
By the way, meditation doesn't impair the ability to reason, it augments it.
Your comments on my posts were too much in the style of JT circa 1984 to
discuss further.
Message: 63097
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/Manson
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 07:45:17
Of course, there is no way to know that for sure. I suspect, however, that
drugs probably do not cause mental illness, but they probably exacerbate
it.
Message: 63098
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/Fetus
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 07:48:18
Actually, I oppose abortion. I also oppose flagrant misuse of the English
language.
Message: 63099
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Daryl/parachuting
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 08:15:58
The ripcord in parachuting is an integral part of the 'trip down'. Once you
take that step out of the plane, you're heading down. Just the way you
describe the effects of one dose of drugs.
Message: 63100
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak/Reason
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 09:18:29
(Re: Reagan & Geraldo) Maybe they're all on drugs. Heh.
Message: 63101
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak/Bakker
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 09:24:15
Poetic justice in the fact that he abused his position as a minister of the
world, and refused to come clean even after the truth was made known, yes.
It just seemed rather conveniently placed, that's all.
Message: 63102
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/Misuse Of Eng.
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 09:25:09
Are you insinuating that I have done so? Point it out.
Message: 63103
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on seat belts
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 09:44:16
I too agree with you here and was going to put the same post in today.
I wear mine at all times, but be damned if I want anyone telling me I HAVE
to! FACT: seat belts do cut down on hospital costs, lives lost, at times,
depending upon the circumstances of the accident. FACT: The insurance
companies want this to pass - they would make more profits if they did.
FACT: Insurance companies have the money to pay for lobbiests! FACT: It
would be another un-inforcable law - but they would be gathering more
revenue from the fines when they do catch drivers without them. Just another
way to fill the coffers. All this at the tax payers expense again. I don't
think they give a hoot in hell about our lives!
I firmely believe this should be put to the vote of the people of Arizona!
FACT: our insurance rates would not go down if this law was passed. Anyone
that thinks it would is naive. If they did happen to go down, it would be
tiny in preportion to what we are paying. This insurance thing is a scam to
begin with. We pay and pay and lose more or I should say, get less and less
from them when we need it! We're all in the wrong business! -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63104
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff - your post
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 09:52:53
Ahem! By any chance was that directed to me re: Corvettes and smoking? Ha!
Re: the dangers of Corvettes - makes sense. It's a high powered sports car
that people are going to drive fast in - take chances. Why else get it then?
It is also very small and made out of fiberglass. Not the most sturdiest
substance on earth. But you failed to mention that the statistics were much
lower on women Corvette drivers! Personally, I drive like a little old lady
from Sun City! Oh lord! I AM A LITTLE OLD LADY! Sob! Time to give up the
Vette I guess! (weep!) -=*) ANN (*=-
P.S. I will admit that the article kind of made me uneasy to say the least.
When in it, you do feel like your driving a small coffin! But I'd certainly
reather be driving it than the other compact cars. At least mine is
attractive! Gets excellent gas milage also. Whitey is talking about getting
a big Cadillac again. I do miss a big car sometimes.
Message: 63105
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on Beau's post
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 09:55:28
In foreign countries they drive only small cars and small trucks. Large
trucks have their own routes. He's right. That would be the answer. If two
compacts had an accident, chances are no one would be killed - but hit by a
standard sized pick-up or a full sized Caddy or Lincoln is another story.
-=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63106
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 09:58:14
Re: the parashute message - I think you got me mixed up with someone else. I
posted nothing about parashutes. Wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole or
drugs. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63107
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on Manson
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 09:59:50
I think Manson thought he was Jesus Christ before he took drugs. He was
insane - probably born that way. But then again, how do we know he Wasn't
Jesus? There were many in Jesus' time that thought He wasn't! -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63108
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/L.T.N.
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 10:04:48
Re: love thy neighbor ... I don't think it has anything to do with believing
in God the way it is today. You would just not know what your getting into.
You take some drug addict in - give him a helping hand, he falls on your rug
and hits his head and then turns around and sues the hell outta you! We're a
society of 'sue crazies'! Get something for nothing when ever you can
society! The lawyers have turned this thing around for their own profits.
It's nice to think 'love thy neighbor' - but when he takes you to court,
that's hard to do. Am I right or what? -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63109
Author: Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Drugs
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 12:37:03
People who use drugs in a responsible mannor would continue to do so if they
were legal. Those who abuse drugs now would probably continue to do so but
it might stop some of the people who get a kick out of doing drugs to
go against athority(like parents, police, etc).
Message: 63110
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/english
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 13:01:08
I am not sure it was you, but the whole thing that started my tirade against
murder of the English language was a statement that equated fetuses to
babies. If it was you, then shame on you. If not, you may feel satisfaction.
Message: 63111
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Fetii are babies
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 13:11:22
Kill da wabbit
Message: 63112
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: embryo<>fetus<>baby
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 13:41:19
I am accustomed to opponents of abortion incorrectly referring to
first-trimester EMBRYOS as "fetuses", but now they're calling them "babies"
and even "children." Pretty soon they'll be calling unfertilized eggs
full-grown adults.
Message: 63113
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Daryl on loss
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 15:09:06
Don't you preach to me about where I was when my friend got on
drugs. I tried to talk him out of it. He did not want to even see me and
avoided me. He had made some new (bad) friends... I tried several times to
get in touch with him.... next thing I heard was he died.
First off, this was many years ago. I knew nothing much about drugs
or how to cope with a drug user.
I however felt the loss... this may be the reason I stayed off
drugs myself.... and the fact I was racing full time in those days, and did
not have time for such things. Idle hands equal trouble!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63114
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Ianuzzi
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 16:05:17
Keeping our food and environment clean is in no way connected to
whether or not drugs should be legal. I don't know why you are so quick to
assume my position on those things; actually, I think we should have laws
that control the quality of our food, water, and air. That isn't
inconsistant with anything I've said, I think.
I'd like to hear more about hypnosis augmenting reason. I'm sure it
can help people, but there are also situations where people under hypnotic
suggestion babble about their "past lives" and on stage I have seen people
convinced that they were chickens. Hardly augmentation of reason there.
I was not around during Apollo's "glory days" and don't know what JT
was like, but I'll consider your comparison a compliment for the time being.
Message: 63115
Author: Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Last
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 17:09:37
Indeed.
Message: 63116
Author: Mike Carter
Category: Question?
Subject: Ann on Foreign cars
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 18:46:58
Excuse me Ann, but before you blast off with a blanket statement;
"In foreign countries they drive only small cars and small trucks."
You can forget and completely iron out:
Australia, Africa, England, France and Germany in that statement.
Other countries I'm not sure about.
And another thing...he's *not* right. Statistics indicate otherwise.
The overwhelmming majority of road fatalities involve passenger
vehicles. Not a BIG truck colliding with a little car as you would
like to suggest.
Someone once suggested outlawing cars and using motorcycles only as a means
to safer roads. Ha. These fools out here can't drive a stabilzed platform
at decent speeds...and they want to put those same geeks on two wheels?
One thing is for sure, all the bad drivers would die off VERY quickly.
-Mike
Message: 63117
Author: Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl Westfall
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 19:01:28
B U L L S # ! + !!!!
"It is the same problem as alcoholism, the first step is admitting the
problem. AND ONE CANNOT DO THAT ALONE."
I say again... B U L L S # ! + !!!!
Ohhh boyyy. You make it sound like it's everyone else's fault that so
and so is on drugs. You further state that if we don't tell them
they have a problem, they'll never be at fault .
Somewhere you seem to have swallowed this current barrage of bull-puckey
we're getting from the "specialist generation". The hoardes of lawyers
and shrinks and quacks generated from the years of glorification on
TV in the last 20 years. The years of constant parental misguidance
and status symbology pounding. And now we see people making a disease
out of an attitude. Turning a bad attitude and a selfish contempt into
some form of inherited disease that requires S#!+PILES of BUCKS and a
ton of salt to swallow it all down as they coddle and pamper the deviant
weenies with their "Addictive relationships," "Pedicure nightmares"
and psycho-counseling for muffy, the 70 lb chihuahuha with an eating
disorder.
GAG ME WITH A F-ING JACKHAMMER! Get a GRIP. Can you say that? G-R-I-P
on life. BE RESPONSIBLE...remember that word? People are NOT BEING
responsible it's as simple as that! And they're reaping it!
They think PRAYER in school requires a spanish inquisition requiring
hundreds of thousands of dollars to decide ..while all this time johnny
is blowing crack up his a$$ in the closet. Geee. Priorities, priorities.
I don't mean to pick on your parade Daryl, but all it took is someone
with good sense like yourself to start spouting this same line of
crap and you're it.
We give these drug addicts, alcoholics and certifiably brain damaged
counselors a reason to thrive on their misery. Attention and pity.
I am by ** NO MEANS ** advocating you stop trying to help someone..
My entire point spins around the growing idiocy of turning fact into
six thousand different stories. Taking a simple problem like drug abuse
and turning it into a multi billion dollar "war".
The complete stupidity of calling an attitude problem a disease.
It's the "I'm sick, care for me generation."
I'll care for them when they, the abusers, sickos and slime balls
take the first step and recognize the problem on THEIR OWN.
You can't force a horse to drink...but what are we trying to do?
With all of this current "Pity the druggies, pushers and homos" charade
we're losing sight of the real problems. Problems that cause it all
to begin with. SO while congress decides to shaft the only real source
of moral standard, the holy bible, johnny, jimmy, cindy and frank
are all busy blowing their lives out their a$$es .
And to think we have elections that don't check for drug use..
"Ohh wow man, like, check this psychadellic ballot out..wowwww."
I have no pity left for drug users. Die and be happy.
Let God sort them out.
Message: 63119
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Zak
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 20:42:03
Please stop leaping over my very careful delineations. Fear of prosecution
is quite powerful -- in the group I described. You obviously have no
concept of the bourgeois mindset. Merely because YOU are not daunted by the
possibility of prosecution, nor are your friends and associates, it does not
follow that everyone else is the same. I have known a number of people for
whom the mortification associated with prosecution is deterrent enough --
never mind the actual penalties.
Yes, the stigma of using illicit drugs would diminish with legalization.
Yes, there still would be the stigma of the addict, but that was not the
stigma I was refering to in any case.
I would suggest that the high price of drugs is only part of the reason some
people choose not to use them. Really, for most, it is merely a
rationalization for their more conservative fears. The point is, it is
enough to discourage a borderline case with the pre-existing tendency not to
use drugs. There are plenty of such people around. Just consider drugs to
be another consumer item, and you will see how this is plausible (i.e. I
might take up skiing (I have heard it is extremely exciting) if it didn't
cost so much.)
The lower classes, as we know, pay for their expensive drugs with criminal
proceeds. Again, my message did not involve such people.
Finally, I did not respond to the "fifth reason" when it was originally
posted, because it is rather contrived (read "silly").
To say that people should choose not to use drugs because "there is
something better to do" is to say nothing. Is there ALWAYS something better
to do? Why? Can you give me a reason why there should be something better
to do that does not involve one of my four reasons? Your statement, "People
who choose not to use drugs now mostly choose not to use them because they
know that the good feeling brought on by drugs is artificial and therefore
meaningless", is laughably naive. The point in doing drugs, just as the
point in listening to music or viewing art, is to alter one's emotional
state in a pleasant manner (and admittedly, in some cases, to provide some
accompanying degree of mental stimulation): but this is rather subjective,
and certainly, one does not eschew all of life's activities merely because
they lack meaning. Pleasure is a more mundane motive than philosophy.
Message: 63121
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl/63033
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 21:00:51
No.
Please do not invent anthropomorphic authority figures to condone your
selfish and barbaric acts. If you are going to be evil -- if you are going
to use others for your own benifit regardless of their suffering -- then
stand up on your hind legs and admit that you just don't give a damn.
It's always so terribly pathetic when evil people wuss out. If it isn't
"drugs/my childhood/my war experiences/my psychotic episodes made me do it",
it's "God says it's OK." Who do you think you're fooling? Why bother
trying to.
Message: 63122
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Beck
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 21:57:42
I still maintain that fear of the drug's effects is the single most
powerful deterrent for potential drug users. If the number of users
increases when drugs are legalized (I can't say this won't happen), it is
likely to even out just as it did not long after prohibition.
Say there is a substantial increase in drug users. The ratio of
addicts is pretty low, but perhaps drug legalization would yield a few
(*few*) more addicts. Even if this were the case, big deal. Society as a
whole is not going to cease to function. We'd save $11 billion, reduce
crime more-than-significantly, at the cost of a handful of people who
weren't emotionally stable to begin with. Sounds like a good deal to me.
I don't know who this group of people with the "bourgeois mindset" are
that you speak of. You have some friends who fall into this category. What
financial category do they fall into? Did somebody actually tell you that
fear of prosecution was the main motive behind his/her not using drugs?
You shouldn't laugh at the fifth reason (something better to do). I'm
not talking about casual users here, I'm talking about addicts. Also, we
should make some distinctions between different drugs (marijuana, which has
relaxing and/or hallucinogenic effects; and cocaine, which produces a plain
feeling of happiness because it stimulates endorphin release). In "junk
drugs" such as cocaine and heroin, you cannot make a comparison between
enjoying music and art. For while one is stimulates through appreciation,
the other stimulates directly through neurological chemistry. Anybody can
see that there is a difference between these two forms of "pleasure."
Message: 63123
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Beck
Date: 02/06/90 Time: 22:11:42
To say that people would equally well choose one form of "pleasure"
over the other denies that people can tell the difference. And if there are
people who can't tell the differene (or who just don't give a s#!t), how
many of them are holding back from using drugs now because they're afraid of
getting caught? If you said "practically none," you would be right!
Our whole discussion is based on value systems. I can't speak for
everybody, but in general people tend to place more value on productive
and educational activities than on mere pleasure. (You may be laughing at
my naivete' at this point. Just let me finish.) Personal responsibility is
based on self-value, and it seems that people establish this feeling of
value more and more as they engage in meaningful activities such as doing
work, having friendships, obtaining material goods and learning about the
world. People who become addicted to drugs are mixed up about their values,
or perhaps don't have good self-value. The number of people with such
emotional problems will not change if drugs are made legal. People tend to
give up drug use when other more meaningful things in life are more
important. (Example: William Bennett gave up his cigarette habit before he
became drug czar.)
Anyway, some people are beyond treatment and not everyone will freely
choose to give up drugs. That's a fact of life with or without drug
legalization.
Casual use, by the way, is only a problem insofar as it affects other
people. I think a stigma would still exist among people with strong values.
Message: 63124
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Posts...
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 00:32:33
Great posts guys..... I can see the great depth of thinking on this subect.
Not an easy problem, for sure, but let's be sure to keep our cool here. If
the answer was too easy, there would be no problem.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63125
Author: Melissa Dee
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Last
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 02:22:02
Yeah, F---in' right, Cliff.
Message: 63126
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 04:03:48
I said that meditation and the effects thereof could augment the ability to
reason, not hypnosis. A person in an hypnotic state is no more able to
reason well than a person who is asleep.
Message: 63127
Author: Hans Glans
Category: War!
Subject: Drug War
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 09:35:55
Well, Zak, you have some good points there. I would like to add this. A
common arguement is about people stealing to pay for legalized drugs. True,
this would happen, but I know those who steal to buy a bottle, or cartons of
cigarettes. And like you said, it would eliminate the whole "drug mafia",
since, with their profit margin, they couldn't compete with even highly
taxed legal drugs. Which, of course, they should be taxed in line with
alcohol and cigarette taxes.Revenue for a money hungry government. Maybe the
tax money could be used for treatment and education. Rather than
enforcement, like now, where the money comes from other programs.
Also, I find the ad about "do drugs, do time", with the young, conservative
looking lady being booked. How does this fight the drug war? By making
someone lose their job? Wouldn't this make them want to alter their senses
even more?
Message: 63128
Author: Hans Glans
Category: War!
Subject: Thorny Dude
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 09:41:16
I have friends that are undoubtedly more intelligent that use pot for the
altered state of mind. One uses it for creativity in writing music, another
for relaxation on the weekend. You may not choose to do it, but it is not
your right to condemn others that use drugs in ways that do not hurt others.
Message: 63129
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike on cars
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 10:06:08
I do believe that at least England, France and Germany do indeed drive small
cars for the most part. I know Japan does. All you have to do is watch a
travalog on these countries to see. In fact, what other countries even
manufacture as large a car as Lincoln or a Caddy?
Actually , to really be safe, we ought to ride bicycles only. Motorcycles,
no! -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63130
Author: Melissa Dee
Category: Entertainment/Movies
Subject: Laurie Anderson
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 13:45:41
Tonight at Gammage, 8PM.
I believe there are still seats available.
Message: 63131
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 15:55:12
Re: "we will all be DOPE heads"
Surely you have me mixed up with someone else?
Message: 63132
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger Doger
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 15:57:55
Re:
A fetus is not a baby.
A fetus is not a baby.
Like, what is this supposed to prove? Are you saying it is wrong to murder
a baby, but it is perfectly OK to murder a fetus?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Message: 63133
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 16:01:18
Re: "one of my four categories"
Gee, I missed a day and all ready forgot your four. I remember the fifth
reason that I provided. "Intelligence"
Intelligent people don't do drugs.
Message: 63134
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 16:04:58
Re: "I cannot give you any firm
line of demarcation"
That sounds like a reasonable answer. I am nottotally against abortion.
There are reasons for it. Convenience is not a proper reason.
Message: 63135
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 16:09:52
Re: "If you want, I can give your name and address to a group? After they
beat you up, maybe you can post how LOVE helped them solve their problem."
A group? You mean like in "Hells Angels?"
Message: 63136
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 16:15:26
Re: "The pro-lifers ARE being fanatics!"
You can't say pro-lifers are all fanatics anymore that I could say all
pro-abortionist are all fanatics. There are fanatics and non-fanatics in
both groups. If you insist that all pro-lifers are fanatics, and since I am
pro-life, I will punch your nose the next time I see you.
But very gently to be sure. I wouldn't want to make you cry.
Maybe I should just give you a dirty look.
What is your preference?
:-)
Message: 63137
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 16:18:14
Re: "Now someone who smokes and drives a Corvett, is wanting to die!"
Now who could Cliff be possibly talking about, huh Annie? :-{
Message: 63138
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bob on Hells Angels
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 16:29:09
The Hells Angels I have met are nice guys compared to the group of
drug addicts I had in mind.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63139
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Tales & Tall Stories
Subject: Helmet laws
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 18:09:26
From Rider, March 1990:
From the *I Got a New Attitude* department: Gary Busey, still recovering
from his run-in with a curb in Culver City, California, has changed his tune
and now advocates the use of helmets. To a cheering studio crowd the actor
told the audience of the Arsenio Hall Show on November 28, 1989, "Next time
you're doing 45 miles per hour, look at the curb and think about
slam-dancing with it once, and you'll start thinking about helmets." Saying
he had reflected on the wreck and the effect his subsequent ouspoken
preference for riding helmetless might have had on kids, Busey stated, "My
attitude is becoming helmet-conscious to wear one" and went on to encourage
any kids watching the program to wear helmets.
Message: 63140
Author: Lawrence Wilson
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hi-Tech Drug soluti
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 21:13:42
S P E C I A L R E P O R T
BRAIN TUNER
It looks like a Walkman but the Brain Tuner is much
more. According to articles published in OMNI and
Magical Blend magazine, results commonly reported
by users of this experimental research are stress
reduction, raising of stress tolerance levels,
decrease in worry, depression and anxiety, normalized
sleep patterns, reduced sleep requirements, more
vivid and lucid dreams, improvement in both short
term and long term memory, improved concentration,
increased energy levels and reduced psychophysiological
craving and withdrawal symptoms from drugs and alcohol.
---------------------------------------------------------
This wonderous, new device has just come on the market.
For more information call (602)968-9764. Ask for
Mr. Brian. If anyone you love is hooked in the
nightmare of drug addition, the solution may be a
phone call away !!!!!!!!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------
Highest success rate to date !!!!!!!!!
Message: 63141
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 22:14:08
Wow! That sounds like the the early reports of the benefits of heroin.
See You Later
Dean H.
Message: 63142
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Absence
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 22:19:02
I was off the board for a while and everything I was arguing about seems
to have scrolled clear off the system. I just wanted to let anyone who had
addressed me know that I am not ignoring it, I just never saw it.
See You Later
Dean H.
p.s.(either that or I didn't actually post all those messages I thought I
posted last time I was on)w3
Message: 63143
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: News Today
Subject: Yellow Belts
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 23:02:19
Today my both boys got their 'YELLOW' belts in Karate.
Congats to Tyler and Travis......
PaPa Cliffy
Message: 63144
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: English Only, Ja?
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 23:38:45
The "English-Only" law was overturned as unconstitutional. My opinions on
the matter?
WHAT TOOK THEM SO LONG?
Another Neanderthal law dies a quick death.
Message: 63145
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Paradrugs
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 23:40:00
Gosh, I'm glad to hear that! I was having nightmares about you jumping out
of airplanes while on a mixture of Peyote and LSD. Whew! :)
Message: 63146
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Manson
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 23:50:48
He "recieved" his "revelation" while on a bad acid trip.
As to whether or not Manson was/is actually Jesus? AH! A chance to use my
SOURCE! Hm, lemme see here.
"Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him...""
(Revelation 1:7a)
"For as lightning that comes from
the east is visible even in the
west, so will be the coming of the
Son of Man." (Matthew 24:37)
"They will see the Son of Man coming
on the clouds of the sky, with
power and great glory. And he will
send his angels with a loud trumpet
call, and they will gather his
elect from the four winds, from one
end of the heavens to the other."
The only "cloud" that Manson came in on was a drug haze.
Message: 63147
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: L.T.N./Getting Sued
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 23:56:30
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I
tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take
your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one
mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn
away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42)
Material goods are temporary. If he wishes to sue me in spite of my good
will, let him take what petty material things he wants. That will be his
payment in full.
Message: 63148
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/Fetus
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 23:57:44
And I justified my use of the word "fetus" to mean "baby." You were the one
that corrected yourself and decided that "embryo" was your better choice.
Message: 63149
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Friend
Date: 02/07/90 Time: 23:59:26
I know it is hard, Cliff. You did what you could, you did your part. We
should at least reach out as best we can. You tried. I'm sorry.
Message: 63150
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Wiz/Gee...
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 00:03:23
Nice attitude, guy.
Message: 63151
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff/Last
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 00:10:59
I'm not even going to entertain that with an answer. I attempt to respect
your opinion. If you are going to attack my belief in God and call me "evil"
because I try to follow His word and defend my viewpoints with it, then it
is pointless to even carry on a discussion with you. Just eat your carrots
and celery and feel self-righteous.
Message: 63152
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Thornburg
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 01:32:58
RE: "Intelligent people don't do drugs."
How do you know?
Message: 63153
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: BRAIN TUNERS
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 06:02:27
Once the sometimes euphoric effects of these gizmos gets out, the gov't
will outlaw them too.
Message: 63154
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Question?
Subject: THORNBUB
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 06:04:07
RE: "Intelligent people don't do drugs."
What is your definition of 'intelligent' and do you include alcohol and
cigarettes in your definition of drugs?
Message: 63155
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: MANSON SANS DRUGS
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 06:06:06
Either a tv preacher or a leader of an organization similar to The
Order. Or maybe a member of Guns n' Roses.
More on Manson when I log on again.
Message: 63156
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bobby/Wobby
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 07:52:50
You cannot murder a fetus. If it was murder, we would have executed
millions of unwed mothers in the electric chair or gas chamber.
Your use of the rose analogy shows the confusion that you have between
the formation of something and the thing itself. Clearly a germinated seed
that will result in a rose bush is not the same thing as the bush itself.
Likewise, a zygote that will result in a human being is not the same thing
as a human being.
Message: 63157
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: better than drugs
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 07:55:51
Where can I get one of these things. I could use it.
Message: 63158
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl Loan Agency
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 07:58:28
I need $10,000 for my personal use. I will pay you back in 20 years ---
no interest.
Message: 63159
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl Baby
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 08:01:01
No you didn't.
Message: 63160
Author: Hans Glans
Category: War!
Subject: Abortion
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 09:27:46
Pro-lifers attempt to control the bodies of others.
Pro-choice want people to have the right to choose for themselves.
Why legislate morality? Control...just like gun laws...and drug laws...and
seat-belt laws...
And, you pro-lifers, if abortion was outlawed, would you line up for your
baby? Adoption is the chime of the movement...but they talk of the number of
"babies" "killed" each year. If all of those were born, the adoption demand
would quickly be satisfied...But were will all the pro-life hypocrits be?
Off on their next cause...while someone else is left to deal with the
problem...
Message: 63161
Author: Hans Glans
Category: War!
Subject: Defending bunnies
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 09:29:42
It is not anyone's right to defend a part of someone else's body unless they
request that defense.
Message: 63162
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question?
Subject: Bobby on fanatics
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 10:00:53
I did not mean to imply that ALL pro-lifers are fanatics - but the group
that rallied downtown certainly was. This is something that will go against
them, not for them. Don't they know that.
My idea about abortion .......
Keep it legal but with restraints ..... the third month should be the limit.
Not being able to have more than two - records could be kept for those that
have them. Have clinics that are gov. sponsered but ditto the two limit. In
other words, no using them for birth control methods. If you haven't learned
your lesson after two mistakes, sorry! Leave it on having one to save the
mother's life, etc. etc. And above all - do not give them to underage
children without their parents approval. How they have let this happen I'll
never know. For one thing, an abortion is an operation and some risk to the
patient. I feel parents have the right to yea or nay this.
What do you think? -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63163
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bobby
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 10:02:18
RE: "now someone who smokes and drives a Corvette is wanting to die!"
Cliffy said that? Not true - I don't want to die - never give it a thought.
-=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63164
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Congratulations ...
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 10:05:05
... Travis and Tyler on your Yellow belts. Now you can defend yourselves
against your parents! The next time they tell you to go to bed and you don't
want to - just 'Karate' them and they'll think twice next time! Way to go
guys! -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63165
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on English law
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 10:37:00
The will of the people over-rode by one man and you are happy?
Why bother to VOTE on anything...just set up a one man ditatorship
and let him decide.
The IRS and taxes are unconstitutional, but you don't see them axing
that, do you? I wonder why?
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63166
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Politics
Subject: Voting of the people
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 11:24:22
One of the reasons that this is a representative democracy is that it tends
to keep the majority from being a tyranny which puts down and suppresses
minorities. This is one of the fears I have about South Africa changing its
political system -- the black majority, once it gets to vote, may decide to
punish the whites who kept them down for so long. Only an 'impartial'
justice system, and before that, intelligent, thoughtful debate by
representatives of the people, can prevent this sort of thing.
Message: 63167
Author: Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Abortion
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 18:13:18
Hey, I have an idea. Instead of warring over who is right and who isn't,
why not drop the issue altogether. When you look at it, abortion really
isn't the problem. Make it legal, there will be abortions.
Make it illegal, there will still be abortions. Law or no law,
people will do as they damn well please. You will not change their minds
about how to feel , much less change their thinking and interpretation
of what constitutes life, so why rage on in pithy group temper tantrums?
Personally, I disaggree whole heartedly with killing human life.
However, piss me off sufficiently and I will most likely kill.
I will kill in defense also.
Killing a baby, fetus, growing child, teenager, adult or aged person
is still killing. You stop life. No more growing, no tomorrow.
Life here is temporary. We will all die. No matter how much or how
little it matters to you, you will die. Death will come.
In my life I have learned for myself instead of letting others decide
for me, that there is a God and a saviour and eternal life. I have
that to look forward to. The little price I pay here is insignificant
to the return I will receive.
My point; Challenge those who have such a low value on life, but
donot allow yourself to become anything else but Salt. Try to heal them,
not infect them.
The price will be paid now or later. It's up to them on the length of
the terms.
-Mike
Message: 63168
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Beau of S.A.
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 22:01:38
He correctly predicted the explosion of ethnic violence in the Soviet
sphere as their control weakened. He's probably right about this too.
See You Later
Dean H.
Message: 63169
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Small Cars
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 22:06:09
When a small car hits something, even if it is just a stationary object,
there is less ability to absorb impact in the structure of the car itself.
This means that more of the impact is transferred to the occupants, all
safety features being equal, than would be the case in a larger car.
See You Later
Dean H.
Message: 63170
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean on me
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 23:00:48
Thanks, Dean. Sometimes I wonder if people read my posts.
Message: 63171
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean on momentum
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 23:02:38
It is a bit more complicated than that. You have to think about the masses
involved, and also about the 'stopping potential' of the various shielding
materials. Smaller, lighter cars that didn't go as fast, I still say, would
be safer for all concerned.
Message: 63172
Author: Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean on impacts
Date: 02/08/90 Time: 23:19:51
If you study the physics involved, taking a static example as a
reference, you could not accurately say that more of the kinetic
energy is transfered to the occupants.
If the object the vehicle impacts with is immovable, say the concrete
bulkhead of a freeway overpass, the following should be noted:
(1) Vehicle (A) has a mass of 2000 kg and is travelling at
35 mph
(2) Vehicle (B) has a mass of 4000 kg and is travelling at
35 mph.
(3) Both vehicles impacted at 35 mph.
In vehicle A's case, the amount of force delivered to the wall
is 1/2 that of the force delivered by vehicle B. (F= Ma)
Force = Mass times Acceleration.
The occupants, if seated without seatbelts or other restraining
devices, would impact with the dashboard and front window at
35mph also. Where you get the notion a larger car somehow protects
you from this I seem to miss.
Vehicle B's destructive power is a result of the sheer mass. That
same mass requires greater energy to become motive. Now, if Vehicle
B collides with Vehcile A, Vehcile B's occupants have a much higher
probability of escaping serious injury NOT because of the car's
ability to ABSORB the impact for the occupant, but because vehicle
A is not completely going to stop Vehicle B...in which case the
occupants experience mild decelleration compared t ( CONTINUED )
vehicle A's occupants who not only get the full impact of their
own vehicles energy, but receive a bounce effect which can cause
death quite quickly.
Now, if you're like some folks who would rather feel safe in a large
mammoth yank tank, think about this;
If you're involved in an accident with another large american yank
tank, your chances of surviving the accident are less than if you
had the same accident in two small cars. Reason is because of the
kinetic energies involved. That's why when two trucks collide
on the interstate it makes such an unholy mess...the trucks just
don't stop.
Divert this energy into right angles and the likes and you get
acrobatic effects and stuntman performances. Ever hear of a
Yugo doing a 3 point end-over end? You wont.
It's not how much steel you drive, it's how well built to absorb
impact it is. That's why Volvo's fold like paper mache' when they're
hit...car is designed to graduate the transferance of energy...
like a shock absorber.
"See you later"
Mike C.
Message: 63174
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Beau/63170
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 03:01:41
What?
Message: 63175
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 05:14:09
Re: "The "English-Only" law was overturned as unconstitutional"
It's funny how everyone can argue about something like this and spends
thousands of dollars in a vote, and on and on. Then in the end, one man
steps in and totally stops it with a bang, and no one can do anything about
it.
Personally, I saw nothing wrong with the English-Only rule.
Message: 63176
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 05:17:02
RE: "Intelligent people don't do drugs." How do you know?
I think it is self evident. Why don't you know?
Message: 63177
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pete
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 05:21:41
Re: "What is your definition of 'intelligent'
Man, I glad you asked that. I've been dying to try out this new "online
dictionary!"
% intelligent adj 1 : having or showing intelligence
% intelligently adv
Re: "definition of drugs?"
% drug n drugs 1 : substance used as or in medicine 2 : narcotic; drugged;
drugging vb 3 : affect with drugs
% druggist n ; druggists
% drugstore n ; drugstores
Isn't that neat? I'm not sure where those "%" things came from.
Message: 63178
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 05:27:23
Re: "a zygote that will result in a human being is not the same thing
as a human being"
Roger, you're just playing with semantics here. If a zygote does not fall
into the category of a human, what category is it? A monkey maybe?
What ever name you want to hang on it, it's alive, and it belongs to the
homo sapiens what ever group. It's a member of the human race Roger!
Message: 63179
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak/63152
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 07:52:10
Let me interject: They may be intelligent, but they lack good common sense.
Message: 63180
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/Loan
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 07:53:45
Uh, okay. What you gonna use it for?
Message: 63181
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/No I Didn't.
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 07:54:15
No I didn't WHAT?
Message: 63182
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Law
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 08:03:14
Well, I agree with you on the IRS and tax part (anyone who wouldn't needs
their head examined!) but wouldn't you agree that we should use the
Constitution as a measuring tool for the fairness of all of our laws? You
avoid the meat; that, in a country comprised of the most diverse cultural,
ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds, that a law that shows prejudice for any
other language in government operations than English, is very very wrong?
Message: 63183
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: impact energy
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 08:35:56
I believe it is impact energy that is important. And energy is defined
as 1/2mv**2. So, energy increases linearly with mass, but exponentially
with velocity. Speed kills. The smaller the car, the less likely the car
will absorb the impact energy, thus allowing the occupants to absorb more
energy than a car that is larger to impact the energy. BTW, ever notice
how well those "little" Indy500 cars absorb energy by crumpling and throwing
off parts ? We could probably make our small cars a lot safer if the car
mfrs applied the same technology to our cars. (Of course, we probably
wouldn't be able to absorb the cost, then). In the case of the Tank, I
suspect that if the tank transmitted the impact energy to the occupants
without absorbing any of it (due to its armor plate not bending) that would
account for a large massive body not protecting its occupants.
Message: 63184
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: bob/anglais
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 08:37:30
Repetez, sil vous plait. Je ne parle pas Anglais.
Message: 63185
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob/meaning
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 08:40:28
This is James White's favorite argument. When faced with an irrefutable
fact, call it "playing with semantics". I charge you with playing with the
facts. Refute that statement with a logical argument, not silliness.
Message: 63186
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Loan/Allen Organ
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 08:41:28
I am going to buy an Allen Organ for my home.
Message: 63187
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/Didn't what?
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 08:42:22
Didn't what WHAT ?
This is silly.
Message: 63188
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/English
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 10:13:17
I did not think that law was wrong... people that come to this
country should learn English. We should not have to pay to have every form
written in many different languages. Stupid people always jump to the
conclusion that one is 'prejudice' because one wants something standardized.
I mean, why don't we let people drive on the left side of the road while we
are at it. They do it in other countries.
I wish you guys would get that word "prejudice" you have been brain
washed with and stick it where the sun don't shine.... I am sick of hearing
it! You use it when ever you don't like something.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63189
Author: Steve Hodode
Category: Joke
Subject: LANG.
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 11:40:18
THE PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIC'S DICTIONARY
.
WEEKEND : ANY ILLINESS THAT CAUSES A SLOWLY PROGRESSIVE DEATH.
HARRY DIED AFTER A LONG WEEKEND.
.
GOOD MORNING : WHAT YOU SAY WHEN YOUR ENEMY DIES.
I TOLD HARRYS MOTHER GOOD MORNING THE MORNING AFTER
HARRY DIED.
.
FIX : TO GET EVEN WITH REVENGE.
HARRY'S DOCTOR TOLD HIM THAT HE WOULD FIX HIM UP.
Message: 63190
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 12:37:43
Why is it self-evident? That's a cop-out if I ever heard one. The
fact is, there are plenty of intelligent people out there who have tried or
use drugs.
Message: 63192
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Intelligence
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 13:33:10
Trying drugs isn't any more likely to kill you than riding a motorcycle,
taking to the Phoenix streets on a bicycle, or walking in Boston. Then
think of air travel.
Message: 63193
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: News Today
Subject: Andy Rooney
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 14:05:07
'Looking at the other side of things'! .........
In this morning's paper there was an article with the headline .. "Andy
Rooney off air, accused of prejudice". Seems he will be suspended for at
least three months without pay because of remarks about blacks & gays
attributed to him in a National Gay magazine. He was quoted as saying ...
"Most people are born with equal intelligence, but blacks have watered down
their genes because the less-intelligent ones are the ones that have the
most children. They drop out of school early, do drugs and get pregnant!"
Also he was quoted as saying that, although he felt sympathetic to prejudice
against gays, he found homosexual acts "repugnant" and homosexuality "not
normal"!
In a Thursday interview Rooney categorically denied having made racist
remarks, saying he was talking about problems with educating people of all
races, not just blacks. However, he acknowledged having made derogatory
comments about gays. "I am guilty of what I said about gays and I deeply
regret having offended them"!
My comment: I won't quote the rest of the article that states what he said
he said about blacks. I believe him to be misquoted on the subject and they
took it out of context to make it more scandalizing. Besides, what he said
to a certain degree is very true.
Besides, what he stated is a fact in a lot of cases - they do drop out of
school - do drugs and get pregnant! I think the statistics prove that, do
they not? Where is this a racial statement anyway? If he was talking about
white people, would he have gotten all this flack? I doubt it. It does
happen to white people too! As you all know, I proclaim to having no
prejudice - I detest it and think it is ruining our nation. BUT .... since
when is someone that states their personal opinion, be it prejudiced or not,
lose their rights? Do they not have for instance the same rights as I do to
state my opinion against prejudice? That is really beside the point here -I
don't feel that particular statement was prejudice in nature and the
reaction was ridiculous. In fact, I feel the same way, but that does not
mean I condemn all blacks nor do I think these are the majority either. Why
would they automatically assume that Rooney feels any differently when he
made that statement? If he did!
Re: the gay statement ....
He said he felt sympathy for the prejudice against gays and goes on to state
... he felt the act "repugnant" and "not normal"! I do believe that normal
people, for whatever that means, feels the homosexual act repugnant and not
normal!!! I don't feel especially repugnancy, but certainly feel it's not
normal! For his statement of truth, he had to profusely apologize. If he is
indeed prejudice to the core, since when does a minority have such power?
Since when does he have no rights to state what he feels?
It seems that now the homosexuals has more rights than the heterosexuals. At
least they are not afraid to state their opinions about hetros. and not have
the ceiling come down on them. Ditto anything said in the least derogatory
against blacks. It is all getting out of hand and if they are not careful,
there will be a backlash and that would be sad. I have much to say
derogatory
against 'some' blacks and 'some' gays and some 'whities' too. That doesn't
make me prejudice, just honest. Why can't Andy Rooney have the same
privilege? Any comments?
-=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 63196
Author: Melissa Dee
Category: Entertainment/Movies
Subject: My board
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 15:12:38
Yes, I have a subboard on Pro's Corner (Neighborhood Pro's board). It is an
adult board and there will be posts much like the one you may have seen on
the Cos sig here.
If you want access to my board, and are over 18, call 983-6289 and leave me
mail.
(Oh, under Mychele Nickels)
See ya there!
Message: 63197
Author: Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Roger Mann
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 16:36:17
I think you contradicted not only yourself but the laws of physics
in you post about impact energy and the size of cars.
Expanding on your hypothesis with a common root, you are saying
that a 100 lb man hits harder in a large vessel than he does in
a small one travelling at the same speed. You seem to forget
that the passenger IS NOT a part of the car. Next time you have a wreck
tell me what happened when the car stopped.
The transferrance of energy from car to occupant is not the dammmaging
factor...it's the occupant's OWN kinetic energy that kills them in
most cases. Now if the big car slams into the little car, and the
big car actually HITS one of the occupants, THEN the transferrance
of energy is deadly.
If I wrecked at 40 mph into a brick wall in a sherman tank, I would
impact the tank (inside) at approx 40 mph . The force of the impact would
be a product of my weight and the tanks initial velocity. If I impacted
the wall in a yugo at 40 mph, I would impact the yugo with the same
force. I fail to see where you reason otherwise.
Nevertheless, it's moot. I drive a truck for the sane reason that most
poor drivers are also driving small cars...so if they hit me, I'll be
just fine.
-Impactus correctus
Message: 63198
Author: Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Andy rooney
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 16:42:10
I think Mr Ronney's employer should take a VERY hard look at their
policy of suspending him for that period without pay.
They are giving credence to hearsay, they are judging him without
proof and in doing so have added more power to those
who spread lies and rumors to hurt people. (Child Molestation
investigations happen this way)
I would think that a public apology for a private phone conversation
would be plenty, if not outrageous. But to openly suspend someone
based on the words spoken in a private conversation?
Even if Andy Rooney did admit to it, I think it's really pathetic,
regardless of what was said, that an Employer feels justified
to do that in the first place.
What they have done is punish him for his opinion.
and if you ask me, that's a crime worse than prejudice.
Message: 63199
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: B-Dog on walking
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 18:07:35
Walking is good for you.. Riding on a bike may get you someplace
usefull. There are some things we NEED to do in everyday life that may be
dangerous, but taking drugs is not one of them.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
Message: 63200
Author: Mike Middleton
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Move over rovers
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 19:57:24
OK, you guys, I just read the last 300+ posts here. I do know a thing or
three about 1)teenage pregnancy, 2)drug use, 3)Impact and momentum, 4)that
Daryl Westfall is really a nice person, 4)the appropriate role for
governmental agencies, and 5)blaming everyone and everything else for
problems that are really inside us. However, going on the presumption that
only those who are uninformed argue, since those who know do not need to
have opinions verified in that manner, I will just leave a few of the things
I have learned as a High School teacher of drop-outs and potention drop
outs, College Physics professor, avid reader, and friend of Daryl Westfall:
to whit:
1)the problem with teenage pregnancy and abortion is that those are
symptoms of a deeper problem and remedies directed at those symptoms will
not reach the root problem. All the verbage in this area is sound and fury.
2)those who seek to change the outside world or escape from it, rather
than change themselves to fit in will use drugs and/or alcohol. Laws only
make matters worse. The problem is that when people (I mean ANYONE) is not
assured that they are loved and that the world can work out to be a good
place, that person develops defense mechanisms. It could happen to you.
3)F (Delta t) = Delta mv. You know that Roger. It is the impact that gets
a person in a wreck. The cars with fold-up front ends are safer than the
steel tank variety. Volvos crush...big delta t, small F. Momentum is the
killer. If everyone tailgated about 1 inch apart there'd be no wrecks. Think
about it.
con't next post
Message: 63201
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Brain Tuner
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 20:20:41
Omni and Magical Blend magazines?
I've never read Magical Blend, but it sounds like one of those stupid
new-age self-indulgent delusional rags. Omni went downhill very fast. Lots
of "reports" of UFO cattle mutilations and such.
For the ultimate drug thrill, pay a black market surgeon to implant
electrodes into the pleasure center of your brain. Just plug in the
accompanying power supply into the newly installed DIN plug at the base of
your skull, and away you go!!
Comes with puzzle timer (cuts off the juice so that you remember to stop and
eat...resetting the timer requires solving a mechanical puzzle of relative
complexity)
Message: 63202
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Zak/63123
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 20:29:40
I didn't say that people gave no preference to one form of pleasure over
another. Actually, I can't imagine anyone who would be so indiscriminant.
The fact that someone needs to engage in activities which provide meaning
for his life does not preclude behavior of a purely hedonistic nature.
Everyone I have ever met, in person or through some medium, (including
yourself) engages in "meaningless", but pleasurable activity. That is not
to say that activities of this type necessarily include drug use; merely,
that in the absence of one of my four reasons, there is no real reason why
one might not choose one hedonistic experience over another (in the context
of our discussion).
Message: 63203
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Zak/63122
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 20:46:49
I fail to see how marijuana provides a more meaningful experience than any
other drug, since one artificially induced state is no more meaningful than
another in this context. As for casual users and addicts, almost all
addicts were at one time casual users. It is a question of time for most
people using addictive substances. Furthermore, are we discussing the
legalization of illicit drugs in general, or merely marijuana?
My comparison between music and drug use was not a comparison between the
mechanisms of pleasure for each. My point was that music and drugs
both function as mood altering stimuli. The common music listening
experience is just as impressionistic and "meaningless" as smoking a joint
or drinking a beer; unless you are telling me that you routinely analyze the
music you enjoy.
Yes, I have known people who would do things if they weren't illegal. Just
ask yourself this question: Is there nothing I would do if it became legal,
that I would not currently do, because of fear of prosecution? Personally,
I'd like to run raffles for profit: however, I will not because I do not
feel it is worth the risk because of the current laws. Similarly, many
people, even if the actual risk may be relatively low, feel that the purchse
and use of illicit drugs (particularly the hard ones) would put their job,
friendships, spousal or family relationships at risk, and it simply isn't
worth it to them.
Message: 63205
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Zak/attitudes
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 21:05:23
I know that this must be an alien concept for you, Zak, but there are
actually people out there, large numbers of people, which do not take drugs
because they were brought up to believe that right living people just don't
commit felonies.Many of these people choose friends with similar attitudes,
and thus, there are people who actually don't know anyone (to the best of
their knowledge) who even have access to things like cocaine or heroine (or
even marijuana). These people are not likely to drive down to south Phoenix
in order to try a new experience, even if drugs are sold almost openly in
certain parts of town.
Admittedly, these people are not likely to change, if only from inertia, if
drugs were suddenly legalized. But what about the next generation, which
will not suffer such constraints?
Message: 63206
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Beau on cars
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 21:34:40
If you are going to make the cars slower thats a whole different thing. I
don't want to go slower.
See You Later
Dean H.
Message: 63207
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike/cars
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 21:45:16
I don't buy it. The car's size contributes to its ability to take
punishment, and that reduces the punishment to the occupants. The downsizing
of cars on America's highways is a major factor in the increased death toll
there. Safety features, such as energy absorbing
construction, occupant restraints, etc., can all be applied to any size
vehicle with positive results, but they do not change the fact that a soft,
vulnerable, cargo is safer in a larger carton.
See You Later
Dean H.
Message: 63208
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Intelligence
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 22:01:37
One reason intelligent people have used drugs is the dishonesty of
anti-drug propaganda. When people found out that they had been lied to about
the effects of pot, they were no longer going to believe anything else the
government said about drugs. They found out for themselves. If there had
never been such false anti-drug campaigns as the 'Reefer Madness' hysteria,
people would have been a lot more likely to believe that harder drugs were
dangerous without trying them for themselves.
The same thing goes on today. We are told that crack is an incredibly
powerful substance which is instantly addicting. We are told that people who
use recreational drugs can not live normal productive lives. Many
intelligent people know that these things are false, and it gives them cause
to doubt everything they hear about drugs. By poisoning the well of
education with lies, you invite those who can smell those lies to drink
somewhere else.
See You Later
Dean H.
Message: 63209
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Intelligence & drugs
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 22:55:01
INTELLIGENT(?) people who have used drugs:
F. Scott Fitzgerald
George Washington
Ernest Hemingway
Tom Wolfe
Tom Robbins
Timothy Leary
Jack Kerouac
William S. Burroughs
Allen Ginsberg
Robert Bork
Bruce Babbit
Robert Anton Wilson
John Belushi
The Beatles
Robert DeNiro
Stanley Kubrick
My creative writing professor
Not to mention millions of intelligent people who drink alcohol or smoke.
Intelligence is not synonymous with common sense. Nor is it necessarily
life-endangering to take drugs under controlled circumstances.
Message: 63210
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann on Rooney
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 22:56:12
CBS was following the precedent they set earlier with their dismissal of
Jimmy the Greek.
Message: 63211
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Beck
Date: 02/09/90 Time: 23:09:52
RE: "Similarly, many people, even if the actual risk may be relatively low,
feel that the purchase and use of illicit drugs (particularly the hard ones)
would put their job, friendships, spousal or family relationships aat risk,
and it simply isn't worth it to them."
In other words, these people have something better to do. Reason #5. You
can't tell me the people you described above are only refraining from drug
use because they're afraid of getting caught. No, they simply have better
more important things to do with their life.
This doesn't mean that some of these people might not try drugs or use
drugs occasionally. My question is: what is the cost of occasional drug
use to society, if any at all?
While it may be true that most addicts started out as casual users,
this in no way means that all casual users will become addicts. Likewise,
all people who play Dungeons and Dragons don't end up D&D junkies, and all
people who listen to music occasionally don't end up music fanatics. It
takes a certain type of person in each case, and the casual use of something
will not change what type of person somebody is.
The naive, fearful-of-prosecution people you describe aren't *just* not
doing drugs because it's illegal. There are likely other reasons why this
group would stay away, and those reasons would probably not change if drugs
were legal. I just don't see droves of new drug users with legalization.
Message: 63213
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 02/10/90 Time: 00:06:13
Speaking of LIFE, I have been playing tonight with 1-dimensional cellular
automata. In this case, they consist of a 75 character single dimensional
array of cells, each of which has a binary value. The cells are initialized
with random values, and then all are updated at the same time according to
their own values, and the values of the two neighbors to each side. If a
cell has a value of 1 for that time unit, an asterisk is printed on the
screen in the current line in that position. If it has a value of zero, a
space is printed instead. Each following line represents the state of the
array at the following time unit. Various rules yield various patterns,
some of which are quite interesting. Some involve regular geometric shapes,
such as tilings of triangles. There are various stable configurations for
any given rule, and while different initial values do produce some
variation, their effect is generally one of detail rather than overall form,
such as is the case with different rules.
The system can be viewed as a series of discrete dynamical states, as the
lines follow one another and scroll the screen.
Message: 63214
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Zak/63211
Date: 02/10/90 Time: 00:39:23
No, not reason #5. Reasons #s 1 & 3: fear of prosecution and fear of social
stigma. Not "something better to do," but rather, intimidation. In some
cases, their refusal to use drugs IS purely due to fear of prosecution, just
as my refusal to hold private raffles is purely due to fear of prosecution.
Face it, Zak, you have backed yourself into a corner and now refuse to admit
that your position is untenable.
Also, your argument about casual users becoming addicts was jejune. I said
nothing about such a process. I did say that most addicts begin as casual
users, and that is certainly true. That does not, however, imply the
reverse. I also said that for many people using addictive drugs, it is
largely a matter of time before some degree of addiction occurs.
Your analogy between music, D&D, and drug is fails because, of course,
neither music nor D&D are physically addictive.
Message: 63215
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: automobile
Date: 02/10/90 Time: 03:48:17
Presumably, a large vehicle, upon impacting a fixed barrier, will
deaccelerate less quickly than a vehicle with a short, rigid, engine
compartment. This should result in less injury to the occupants. An added
benefit of a long, deformable front end is that it lessens the likelihood of
compromising the passenger compartment to the point of crushing the
occupants.
Message: 63216
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Thanks
Date: 02/10/90 Time: 07:34:04
I have returned from a very sad trip to Redding,Ca. where I had to bury my
youngest son. He was killed when his car was struck by a train at an ungated
crossing and dragged 1/2 mile down the tracks. It was not very pretty. I saw
the car, and I saw what was left of him, since I was having a major problem
comprehending any ything so horrible. Now I have an even more horrible
reality to live with.
Tom left a 2 year old daughter and a pregnant wife, along with the usual
assortment of debts, etc. that seem to always accompany young couples in
these perilous economic times.
The kind thoughts and prayers that have been expressed on here and in mail
are greatly appreciated. Thank you all very much.
I have returned.
Message: 63217
Author: Mike Middleton
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Move over con't
Date: 02/10/90 Time: 09:48:35
To recap, it is not the size or mass of the car, but the length of time it
takes to change velocity that determines the forces involved.
Drug are a symptom of a problem, not the problem. The problem is
externalizing. Mature people realize the enemy is us not them. Not that I
expect the opiners to quit, just laying the foundation for this post.
Daryl, you reading this? Daryl Westfall is young. He cares very deeply about
those hurting themselves with drugs or immorality. In his youth, he thinks
that words might turn that caring into change. He will learn. Think about
how wonderful it is to have young people who realize the need for the
committment of marriage before starting a new life. Think about how
important it is for fathers to see the baby growing in their wife's womb as
a blessed gift and not a burdensome curse. Think about our future when we
have young people, like Daryl, who get passionate about the wrongs and pains
in the world as they search for the means to make things better. THe world
needs young "firebrands" like Daryl. I wouldn't have it otherwise. He is
young. He will learn. His concerns are very deep in his heart. Give him a
break you guys!
Abortion: Again this is a symptom and not the problem. Choose life. Life
does not end at birth! Consider the childhood and lives that our children
will lead as a part of the thinking on this subject. Also place yourself in
the spot the typical unwed low-self-esteem teenage mom-to-be is in and come
down off the high horse. Mike
Message: 63218
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Beck
Date: 02/10/90 Time: 10:42:31
RE: "Face it, Zak, you have backed yourself into a corner and now refuse to
admit that your position is untenable."
BS. Show me why this is so. Your argument sucks.
The people you described did *not* necessarily have to fall under the
two reasons of stigma and fear of prosecution. If drugs were
half-acceptable and legal, people would still choose what was most important
to them, and if that something was friends, their job, their family, etc.,
these same people would choose the same course of action: not using drugs.
There is no evidence that occasional use of an addictive substance will
turn into an addiction. There is a difference between "occasional" use and
regular use. If a person does some cocaine at parties sometimes, that is
occasional use. If a person sneaks into the bathroom every day to get a
cocaine high, that is regular use. I know plenty of people who would fall
under the "occasional use" umbrella and who nowdays don't do drugs any more
than they did when they were experimenting, if even that much.
Not to mention non-addictive drugs such as LSD or marijuana. By no
means does occasional use of these drugs lead to addiction. Addiction
requires repeated, regular intake. Show me some statistics that prove
otherwise.
Message: 63220
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Bulletins
Subject: Tokyo
Date: 02/10/90 Time: 21:22:03
Mike Tyson got knocked out in the tenth round by Douglas. Unbelievable.
Bulletin Board command ( for help):EA
You chose Answer!
Subject:Ann
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:human that is capable of controlling their habit.
17:
18:
Edit command ( for help):S
Saving message...
The message is 63228
Bulletin Board command ( for help):EA
You chose Answer!
Subject:Nick
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:st powerful lobbyists.
17:
18:I suspect Adolph would be proud.
19:
20:
Edit command ( for help):
Enter for a list of commands
Edit command ( for help):S
Saving message...
The message is 63229
Bulletin Board command ( for help):RC63221-
Press to abort
Message: 63221
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie
Date: 02/10/90 Time: 23:08:37
Re: "I did not mean to imply that ALL pro-lifers are fanatics"
Whew! I'm glad to hear that Annie. After reading your post I have to say
you are a woman of moderation. Definitely not a fanatic. I agree with your
stand, almost. :-)
Now there are others on this fine BBS who are total jerks. And I feel
I'm being very kind to say only that. For example, their reasoning and
defense of their stand is supported mostly by name calling. If you ask them
to justify their viewpoint they say something like, "I know I'm right
because everyone who disagrees with me is a hypocrite!" Yelling "prejudice"
is one of their favorites. Then they usually paint some far out
hypothetical "what if" situation to prove they're always right. And to top
it off, they log on with a pseudonym and pick "War!" for their category.
And they got *no* $tatus! It must be difficult to cough up $10 (maybe it's
$12 now) when mommy and daddy restricts your allowance. But I don't mind a
little name calling if it's done with finesse. Both Zak and Dog are very
skillful in finesseful (some word there huh) name calling. Why just the
other day Zak called me a "hot dog" (maybe it was a "weenie") But such is
life. I guess you have to take the bad with the good, the sour with the
sweet. Where the eagles gather, the vultures descend.
And the Apollo is the place where the eagles gather! Ain't that right
Cliff!
Message: 63222
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie
Date: 02/10/90 Time: 23:09:14
Re: "Seems he will be suspended for at least three months without pay
because of remarks about blacks & gays attributed to him in a National Gay
magazine."
He should have vented his anger by bashing Christians. It's a well known
fact you can slander and libel Christians all you want and no one will give
you any grief. It's on TV all the time. For example, any modern movie with
a Christian in it, they are always made out to be stupid, conniving,
hypocritical, crooked, etc. Ted Turner is a good example. I think it
started on the up swing with Elmer Gantry.
Message: 63223
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dog
Date: 02/10/90 Time: 23:09:40
Re: "Trying drugs isn't any more likely to kill you than riding a
motorcycle, taking to the Phoenix streets on a bicycle, or walking in
Boston. Then think of air travel."
But Dog, we are talking about "illegal" drugs! The last I heard, riding a
motorcycle, etc. is not illegal.
Message: 63224
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 02/10/90 Time: 23:10:17
Roger, that's a very clever way to get away with playing with semantics!
When you play with semantics and someone calls you on it, just say, "This is
so-and-so's favorite argument. When faced with an irrefutable fact, call it
"playing with semantics"." So-and-so should be someone who has conquered
you in a debate. And has to be someone who has caught you playing with
semantics.
Clever Roger, real clever! But not so clever we can't see through it.
Message: 63225
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak
Date: 02/10/90 Time: 23:10:55
Re: "The fact is, there are plenty of intelligent people out there who have
tried or use drugs."
Actually Daryl said it better then I did. "They may be intelligent, but
they lack good common sense."
Zak, are you saying that you can't think of one single reason why
"intelligent" people shouldn't use illegal drugs? The first reason that
comes to my mind is, it is illegal! All societies have laws to protect the
people. The law is the law and should be obeyed. Yes, there are exceptions
for extenuating circumstances, but I wouldn't call doing "illegal drugs"
extenuating circumstances.
Message: 63226
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Zak
Date: 02/11/90 Time: 01:11:51
But I *have* shown you how you are wrong. I have shown you and given
numerous examples and even given you questions to ask yourself, which, if
answered honestly, would force you to concede my point: people would do LOTS
of things they currently would not now do, if there were no legal
reprocussions. Your failure to admit this indicates an unwillingness to
change your attitudes to fit reality, and a tendency to do the reverse.
As for the use of addictive substances, not everyone is going to instantly
become an addict, of course. But the fact that you know people who have
tried things like cocaine without becoming addicts in no way changes the
fact that cocaine is highly addictive. It is not quite the same thing as
alcohol, where addiction is more influenced by genetic predisposition than
by an inherent effect of the substance. If you insist on denying
established fact, I see no reason to continue this discussion. Your
attitude toward hard drugs is childishly naive and immoderate, and instead
of admitting that there are two sides to the coin of legalization, you
cling to the foolish notion that most everyone who would use drugs is
already doing so. Wake up. Stop dreaming.
Message: 63227
Author: Jeff Beck
Category: On the Lighter Side
Subject: meditation
Date: 02/11/90 Time: 01:28:27
Most people are familiar with the mantra, "om". (A mantra is a kind of
magical sound formula, a syllable or succession of symbols which, if
pronounced in the correct manner, serve as a lens to concentrate and direct
energy.)
Few people know that "om" is part of a Tantric Buddhist mantra, "Om mani
padme hum".
Fewer still are aware that it translates as "the jewel is in the lotus."
(We all know what THAT means, don't we?)
According to "Sex In History," "since sexual excitement was felt to indicate
the presence of divine energy, some (Tantric) initiates -- long before the
days of macho or even machismo -- ritually worshipped their own erect
penises. Others, more advanced still, attained identity with both god and
sakti (the feminine aspect of the World Soul) and were thus able to indulge
in perpetual and blissful intercourse with themselves . . . When ritual
intercourse took place, particularly in one of the convoluted positions that
were believed to stimulate the nervous system, the female energy, by complex
interaction with the nerve center around the man's navel, helped to convert
his activated but unreleased semen into a magical essence (bindu) which then
broke through the lalana and rasana channels, opened up a new channel, and
whisked it up through it to the cakra at the top of the head, the 'thousand
petalled lotus'." (Translation: it got lonely at the monasteries.)
"There is a particularly interested parallel here with the Chinese belief
that ... the semen could be made to ascend and nourish the brain." (So, next
time someone calls you a 'dickhead', thank them.)
Message: 63228
Author: Robert Thornbug
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann
Date: 02/11/90 Time: 01:30:23
In your message no. 62977 you say:
"I don't want us to have legal drugs - it is so untasteful to think about
it - that we, as a nation need this sort of thing. But facts are facts and
we can't hide in the sand."
You say that you do not want drugs to be made legal, however you admit in
other posts to being a drinker as well as a smoker. You also state that
you control your habit.
Okay, I'll buy that but aren't you being a hypocrite in denying others the
use of their chosen substance? I think so. Alcohol, by the way, is
responsible for many more death than the worst so-called illegal drug.
Would you please rethink your position on this issue. Or are you the only
human that is capable of controlling their habit.
Message: 63229
Author: Robert Thornbug
Category: Answer!
Subject: Nick
Date: 02/11/90 Time: 01:31:00
You state that drugs alter the ability to reason. Shouldn't we then pass
laws and set penalties for all things that alter our reasoning ability?
I can, offhand, think of several books and movies that could be considered
mind-altering. Come to think of it I can name quite a few albums that can
achieve the same thing. And cholesterol could also be added to this list.
What about staying up late? Going without sleep certainaly affects
reasoning. And what about poeple that must drag themselves out of bed when
not feeling quite rested? They chance loosing their menial jobs if they do
not arrive on time. They go unreasonably off to work, driving on the road
in this dangerous condition. This causes death and lifelong injuries from
accidents both on the road and on the job.
Why not let our glorious government decide for us. The offending
items could be decided by whoever has the most powerful lobbyists.
I suspect Adolph would be proud.
Goodbye, Robert Thornbug
You were on 03:43
Please hang up now
t^eT\Y|0$n?_4q
VOICE
ATDT2461432
A/ RINGING
CONNECT 1200
Type
Apollo 7.2 300/1200/2400
What is your first name:LARRY
What is your last name:MICHAELS
Hello, Larry Michaels
Is your name correct:Yes
Caller # 144714 (3 today)
It is now 02/11/90 01:33:13
Message range is (62974-63229)
*=* Main Menu entered *=*
Main Menu command ( for help):B
*=* Bulletin Board entered *=*
Bulletin Board command ( for help):EA
You chose Answer!
Subject:answers
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
Answer to several other posts from this board.
(1) Einstein (Intelligent people who used drugs; tobacco)
(2) Charles Manson was a product of his environment. Before he had ever
heard of drugs he had been beaten and bullied by his parents. He was
treated like a worthless nothing from his early childhood. It wasn't drugs
that did him in. It was a social structure that lacks in intelligence.
Edit command ( for help):S
Saving message...
The message is 63230
Bulletin Board command ( for help):G
Goodbye, Larry Michaels
You were on 00:35
Please hang up now