Apollo BBS Archive - January 1992
Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
January 1992 -> January 11 - 21
Apollo BBS Archive - January 11 - 21, 1992
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 8853
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Question?
Subject: Melissa
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 05:34:38
Did your friend go back into Sears and pay for the socks?
Message: 8854
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Playing
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 08:04:00
I'm not playing now. Substituting once in a while, though. No, the churches
don't ask. Organists are in short supply.
Message: 8855
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Rod/religion
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 08:05:21
re: ten percent premium. Seems only fair to me.
Message: 8856
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: organists
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 19:12:09
If organists are in such short supply, why don't you all charge *at least*
union rates?
Message: 8857
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: rates
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 20:25:28
We do. The AGO guide for pay is used in most churches, except for the little
old ladies who play for free.
Message: 8858
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: last
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 02:35:08
"American Guild of Organists"? Or does "the AGO guide for pay" mean they
compensate you at the same rates they used in 1890?
Message: 8859
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Kars / Automotive
Subject: Poor Charger
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 06:03:54
Even thought I have taken good care of my 1982 Charger, all things
point to the fact that it may be totaled. After all, the damage appears it
may exceed 'Blue-Book' value. I have been told they will consider the low
milage (63,000) and the fact it otherwise looks new.
I sure hope IF they total it, it will give me enough to buy a
replacement. After all, things are not to bright around here.
In the mean time I have a 1992 Dodge Mini-Van to drive with less
then 3,000 miles on it. Pretty neet... I am impressed with the way the
driver at fault insurance company is handling it so far. (State-Farm)
I got the mini-van yesterday and will have it till things are sorted out.
System-1 is the rental company, and even they have been very nice picking me
up at Bill Luke Dodge (where the Charger is at)
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 8860
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: AGO pay
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 09:30:02
According the AGO a director may get as much as $30,000 a year if he or she
has a PhD and is employed full time.
Message: 8861
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 09:45:37
Wow! I am in the WRONG profession.... sigh!
Anyone hiring out there?
Damn... Car is broke, Sandy is almost broke (hurt), Roof leaks, I have no
work, Mark,Mike and Rod are pissed at me.... Double sigh! Is this what
1992 is going to be like?
-clif
Message: 8862
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: last
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 12:15:02
I doubt that very much. Things *have* to start getting better now.
Is Rod pissed at you? I must have missed something. Mark's nuts, so who
cares. As for Mike, Mike LOVES to get angry. If you've made him cross,
you're probably doing him a favor. He'd miss you.
Message: 8863
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last...
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 12:26:08
Mike miss me...??? Har har har har har.....
As for Rod, he is ALWAYS mad at me it seems and when it comes out he was
uploading about the same message from Mark as Mike did, he will be really
mad when he finds out that was also ZAPPED. But then again...aren't we all
'mad' in one form or another?
As for things getting better 'soon'.... I have heard that before.
Come to think about it, I have heard that over the last few years....and?
You can see, I am so busy, I can answer posts mid-day minutes after
a member logs off.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 8864
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Last....
Subject: Oh well...
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 22:50:47
...if Rod's *always* mad at you, things can't be getting any worse.
And I promise I don't have any messages from Mr. Adkins to upload. (I
suspect he wouldn't trust me with one, anyway!)
Message: 8865
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 04:02:57
I'm not mad at you. And I hope Sandy is feeling better.
If they decide the Charger is a total, why not have them pay you a
settlement equal to what the value of the car is, minus the salvage value.
That way, you could keep the car and have it repaired.
Message: 8866
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 06:04:30
Every cloud has a silver lining, CLiff. Things will begin to brighten soon,
I'm sure.
How about taking advantage of the time you have now to get some training in
something you've always wanted to do? I have begun some computer courses at
GCC, and am having a ball! (Things are very slow in the clowning business
now, too.) Not only am I using some time that otherwise would probably be
wasted doing something unproductive, but I am also beginning to understand
this monster I have bought. It's an open entry/open exit course that I can
do at my leisure. THe High Tech Center at GCC is quite a place, with over
300 computers for students' use, and a very helpful staff ready to solve
your problems.
If you already know all you ever wanted to know about computers, they have
loads of courses in many varieties of different fields. Surely SOMETHING
there would attract your interest. Just one suggestion to take up some of
the slack in your schedule. God bless.
Message: 8867
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff on mad
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 09:08:12
I'm not mad at you either. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 8868
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: Paul
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 14:36:07
Re: THe High Tech Center at GCC is quite a place, with over 300 computers
for students' use, and a very helpful staff ready to solve your problems.
GCC also has some high tech "viruses" floating around in their computers.
Be careful what you bring home and put in your computer.
Message: 8869
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Kars / Automotive
Subject: Old Charger...
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 20:48:37
Sniff.... The repair estimate got to be a little over $2,800 and
they decided to just 'TOTAL' the car. They did not even get all the parts
that it needed... looks like they just stopped when it got that high.
I have not been told what they are going to give me for it, nor do
they know what the 'buy-back' will be ...yet.
James Hawley and I went to Bill Luke Dodge and took the Charger out
of there today.... before parts grow legs.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif- the night mare continues
Message: 8870
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Kars / Automotive
Subject: Old Charger ...
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 22:20:43
If you decide to "trade" the car in for a settlement (instead of keeping it
and either parting it out yourself or trying to restore it), make sure they
understand that you had no intention of replacing that car, it was primary
transportation for you (or Sandy), etc.
I assume that you know not to finalize a medical settlement until at least
six months from now -- enough time to make sure no now-hidden problems will
appear in Sandy.
Message: 8871
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Felix
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 05:29:18
THanks for the warning Bob, but I have enough software for my 386 that
right now I don't need anything that GCC has. THe stuff I'm working with in
the pit generally stays in my briefcase between sessions. THere is quite a
bit of similarity betwen the Enable software that they use and the Lotus
WOrks that were already programmed into my HD. After I get done with the
course I'm now taking, I think I'll take a course in WIndows, which I also
have here.
Message: 8872
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: Paul-Viruses
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 07:57:02
Viruses can also be spread via data (as opposed to program) disks, Paul. I
don't peecees, so I can't recommend a particular virus detector, but I
surely recommend you use one.
Message: 8873
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Hi.
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 16:59:08
I haven't been on in a few months. Sorry to hear about Sandy's accident.
My Australian cousin Katherine will be in the states for about another week.
I'd like to move to Sydney to study product design (industrial design) and
apply what I learn about ergonomics to computer software design.
I might be teaching at GCC at night next semester. It would be entertaining
to have Paul Savage as one of my students.
Message: 8874
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Answer!
Subject: Last
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 00:56:46
Flunk him. He's such a clown.
Message: 8875
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bill/viruses
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 06:36:35
Maybe I wasn't too clear in my response to Bob. How about NO disks that I
use at the college get placed into my computer? It can't catch a virus just
by being in the same room with a possibly corrupted disk, can it? I hope!
Message: 8876
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Michael my teacher?
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 06:40:02
That would be entertaining, for both if us! Haven't seen you in ages, and I
certainly don't have amy problem learning from anybody who knows more about
these things than I do, which is just about everybody, at least at the High
Tech Center. Is that where you'll be teaching?
I think that after this course I'm taking now (the beginners course) I will
progress to the next one in line, and then possibly the course offered on
Windows, since I already have that installed in my system.
Maybe I'll see you there.
Message: 8877
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: class clown
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 09:49:26
I'll probably teach Ada or C or Pascal, but the lab time would be spent in
the High-Tech Center.
Message: 8878
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Kars / Automotive
Subject: Hello...
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 10:44:52
I have been off the system a few days. Sandy is really beginning to
hurt and I have to pretty much attend to her full time. We live in a
Tri-Level and it is really painfull to get her up or down stairs. There is
no bathroom on the main floor and this becomes a real problem.
The doctors found that her heel was in real bad shape and she got a
painfull shot in it thursday and the Doc said it would 'Hurt like Hell for a
few days'. He was right, my back does hurt like hell from trying to carry
Sandy around... it is getting to me.
I don't have 'TIME' to read the boards, so I hope Billy the Cubby
Sysop is on the job.
By the way, they want to give me 2300.00 for my Charger...but I
can't find a car in similar condition to replace the Charger in that price
range. Everything I look at is high milage, falling apart, piles of junk.
Sure, I could probably fix them up...for another two grand... but why should
I. Liz MaCoy at State Farm insurance does not wish to budge on this. I may
have an independent appraiser come in an see what s/he thinks the real value
of my car was. Like for instance, weatherstriping that would get old, torn
or brittal...I would replace with NEW weatherstriping/cat-whiskers etc.
Liz MaCoy tells me that is NORMAL maintenance...??? Then, How come I can't
find cars out there in this condition... for 2300.00
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif- State Farm *SUCKS*
Message: 8879
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Sandy the Gimp
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 11:51:46
Sorry to hear Sandy's still feeling poorly. Hope things improve soon!
Message: 8880
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Paul Tests Positive!
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 11:52:17
> How about NO disks that I use at the college get placed into my
> computer?
Now THAT sounds smarter! :)
Message: 8881
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Kars / Automotive
Subject: Cliff
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 17:34:42
I'm sorry to hear that Sandy's still hurting, Cliff. What is it with the
heel, a bad sprain, torn ligament or something like that that didn't show up
on the X-ray? That's the problem when there's bruises all over. Until some
of the lesser ones start going away, you don't notice so much which ones are
*really* hurting.
Yeah, Bill's doing his job here all right and keeping up his end of the
argument.
Too bad about the Charger. Could it be put back into driveable condition
for the two thousand and some-odd dollars, with the rest to be fixed up
later? Except that that's still a bummer because it still means a net
financial loss to get it back to its original condition.
My neighbor does bodywork (and very well too, I might add). Let me know if
you think it's worth giving him a call. Depending on what the damage is, he
may be able to suggest some way out at a more reasonable price.
He also has a very nice '79 Lincoln Continental for sale, very good
condition both inside and out with extensive mechanical reconditioning.
He's asking $4500 for it. I know you probably don't want to put that much
money into a car right now, but it's worth mentioning for anyone who's
interested because I'm sure it's a good buy.
Message: 8882
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Kars / Automotive
Subject: Last
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 19:40:24
The 2300.00 is what they will give me, but they KEEP the car. It is
difficult to fix if I ain't got it. I can also do some body work, but the
whole right rear quarter needs replacement... Way beyond the 'bondo' fix.
Also... I ONLY buy Mopar Cars... thanks anyway. I am looking the
market over for another 2.2 four banger. That Charger was quick, and yet
got fantastic mileage.
Oh yea, The Charger is still drivable... more then I can say for the
Ford f-150 truck that attacked my car.
Today I got some lines on possible replacements in that price
range, that I could get up to snuff in a reasonable time with little cash
outlay.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif- sigh.... wish it had NOT happened
Message: 8883
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Kars / Automotive
Subject: last
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 14:26:23
The Lincoln's in nice shape, but unlike the Charger, I can't say that a
Lincoln is all that quick. It was particularly noticeable after driving my
5-liter. I like cars that get up and go as well.
It must be at least a minor satisfaction to know that the Charger won the
fight with the truck...
Message: 8884
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Sandy
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 18:45:54
Several years ago, I fractured my heel, doing something totally essary ans
and stupid. KNowing that it was totally my own fault didn't make the pain
one bit less, though, so I canfully sympathize with you on your happy pills.
Hope that it gets better quickly, 'cause it ain't no fun!
Message: 8885
Author: $ Joe Bottomlee
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Bill/Viruses
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 00:10:41
RE: Viruses can also be spread via data.
I disagree. Only Exe or COM. files can spread viruses. Data files can
become corrupt. But it can not spread a virus.
<<< Joe >>>
Message: 8886
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Kars / Automotive
Subject: Cliff
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 02:09:45
My neighbor also has a Dodge Dart GT (V8), I think it's a '69, that he's
planning on doing up and selling. It has some dents he's going to fix.
Don't know anything about it otherwise, but I gather this is a bit of a
classic. I'm not an expert on MoPar. (And I'm a bloody foreigner to boot.
I know about Cortinas and stuff like that.) His comment about the Charger
though was that if it were his car and it still ran fine, he'd buy it back
off the insurance company and fix up the body. I'm sure he'd be willing to
take a brief look at it and pronounce a verdict on whether it could be fixed
for a moderate price. How much will the insurance co. give you if you want
to buy the car back from them?
Message: 8887
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: Joe-Safe Computing
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 06:39:55
> Only Exe or COM. files can spread viruses. Data files can
> become corrupt. But it can not spread a virus.
You're probably speaking from better knowledge than I have, Joe. My main
experience of late is with the Amiga. Once they are in RAM, many of the
viruses that afflict AmigaDOS go on to infect EVERY disk inserted into every
drive. And they continue to do so until the machine is shut off.
Message: 8888
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff on insurance
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 08:35:57
What is so sad - if you had put ALL that money aside that you have spent on
insurance over the years, you could afford a nice car now that yours is
wrecked!
BTW - as I was telling Sandy - look for your insurance rates to go up no
matter if it's your fault or not. Fair? Hell not!!! -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 8889
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Kars / Automotive
Subject: Gordon
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 09:33:18
I like 69 Darts...
The insurance company has only said that buy-back would be at least
$450.00 PLUS. The quoting has been for replacment body panels. Not a 5
pound bucket of fiberglas (bondo). The parts are rather expensive, but if
your friend wants to look at it, let him.
The problem with buy-back from a 'total' is that this goes into the
title of the car and even after you fix it PERFECTLY...it has no value for
re-sale.
Bring him by....
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 8890
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Answer!
Subject: Last
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 13:18:48
Why should it go into the title? If the title never changes hands, then it
CAN'T go into the title. That would only apply if you bought a total, I
think.
Message: 8891
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 14:43:13
A new law requires that any auto that is totaled to have its plates
and title turned in and you get a salvage title in return.
And when/if the auto is repaired, it must be inspected by the state
and then you get a new tile...but, the fact it was a total stays in the new
title. Thus...making it worth a lot less for resale.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 8892
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Viruses
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 20:24:24
What Joe says is true for most MS-DOS applications. It certainly is not
true for Macintosh files. I can't say one way or the other about Amiga.
Message: 8893
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Question?
Subject: Cliff
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 00:55:38
Where is the Charger, Cliff? Is it at your house, or somewhere else?
Message: 8894
Author: $ Joe Bottomlee
Category: Entertainment
Subject: Safe Computing
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 06:08:09
A few months ago the Pastor of my church had a hard drive crash and thought
that his computer had been attacked by a computer virus. As a joke I left
him a little package of sandwitch(sp) baggies with the following note
attached:
For safe computing please place one of these plastic bags over the
diskette before interting it into the floppy drive.
<<< Joe >>>
P.S. everyone got a big laugh over this. Even now, remembering it brings a
big smile to my face.
Message: 8895
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff #8891
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 06:40:38
There is ways to get around that even though it may cost more - go to New
Mexico and registar the car, come back here and re-register it. Salvage will
not appear on the title. The Corvette and a Cadillac that Whitey had bought
from the insurance lot a few years back came from N.M. and they do not
require a car to have a salvaged lic. Other states are the same.
If you buy and repair your car and then have to have the low blow of a
salvaged lic. - you would have been entirely cheated through no fault of
your own. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 8896
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Answer!
Subject: My Charger
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 09:19:23
Is at my home *AT THIS TIME* This could change if the insurance
company gives me what I want.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 8897
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann/Whitey
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 12:26:36
I should have known...leave it to Whitey to find away around that
silly law. Thanks Annie... your the sweetest ASSp I know!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif- grin (of course)
Message: 8898
Author: $ Gary Jones
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Sandy
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 15:39:30
Get better Sandy, although how you could get much better than you are now is
hard to understand. You're already much too good for this place as it is.
Sandy's fan club.
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit-Chat
Subject:What Me Mad?
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:I'm not mad, just disappointed. If anyone should not like Mark it would be
2:me. You heard about what happened way back when.
3:
4:You need to lighten up. Your rule about people logging in under an alias
5:and then leaving very clever messages is stupid. BBSing should be fun. Now
6:your shields are up and you are hurting your BBS. I thought you called
7:yourself a Xtian but I guess you do so for some kind of convenience.
8:
9: Rod
10:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 8899
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board entered *=*
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 5302
Author: $ Gary Jones
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Russ Whitney
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 15:24:34
Thanks for the info on Officer Whitney. The Glendale Whitneys I kmow are
from the Brazil-Whitney clan. They'e have been Glendale sinse early days.
Gary
Message: 5303
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Russ Whitney
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 21:52:02
He's not longer in super-intensive care. His skull has been closed up, the
tracheotomy went well. He's not responding as well as he used to, though,
so apparently they're classifying it now as a "moderate to extreme" coma.
His dad tells him he'd better wake up or he'll miss the Redskins in the
Super Bowl ...
Message: 5304
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Emissions
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 17:30:05
I've been told that a modern computerized performance car like the Corvette
passes idle or constant load emissions tests easily but still pollutes a lot
under hard acceleration because the engine computer switches to an open-loop
control system to dump as much fuel into the engine as possible.
Message: 5305
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Russ Whitney
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 19:15:32
Russ opened an eye and moved his *right* leg today. He'd not had responses
on that side today. This is a marked change, and is certainly good news
after what his father was saying yesterday ("Well, *if* he wakes up ...")
The internist wants to move him to St. Luke's because they have a better PT
program there.
Let's all hope that the only PT he has to do is to overcome 2-3 weeks of
muscle atrophy...
Message: 5306
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: emissions
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 04:30:43
That's true. Generally, all computer controlled vehicles go "open loop" at
full throttle. EPA regulations don't apply to engines at full throttle,
since an engine spends little of its operating time there.
Message: 5307
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Russ/Good News
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 12:43:58
That is good news.
Message: 5308
Author: $ Sandy SysOp
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Russ W.
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 14:06:45
Is Russ going to be moved to the Phoenix St. Lukes?
When I get to where I go to work again, I would like to visit Russ.
My visits might be short, but I am sure any visit is better than none.
Sandy Sysop the Gimpette of Apollo
Message: 5309
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer !
Subject: Last
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 20:11:01
While stopping by to see Russ is a nice gesture, I think that the only
visitors he's allow are immediate family.
Message: 5310
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: $#!+
Subject: Randy Sandy
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 07:38:15
> ...just call me Queen G
Uh... Is that as in "spot?"
Good to see at least your fingers are doing relatively well.
Message: 5311
Author: $ Sandy SysOp
Category: Shit-Chat!
Subject: Queen G
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 13:40:59
He hehehe to you Bill .......
You Guess what I mean ........
Message: 5312
Author: $ Sandy SysOp
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Russ
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 13:41:18
It never hurts to ask when I am there ......
Message: 5313
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Russ
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 14:17:07
I don't know if he's been moved, or if it is scheduled. I also don't know
what has occurred *since* Thursday. I'll find out tomorrow and report.
Message: 5314
Author: $ Sandy SysOp
Category: Shit-Chat!
Subject: Beau in the know
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 20:15:08
Boy ..... there, Mr. Beau ...... aren't we up with our current
events? Hehehe
Message: 5315
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Excuse me!
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 22:32:48
Although I know Jack&Sally well (like I said, we vacation with them each
year), I know that there are many other people who call them, so I leave
them in what peace they can get. Jack usually stops by my office or talks
to me in the hall, and failing that, another friend of ours usually has the
poop.
Message: 5316
Author: $ Sandy SysOp
Category: Shit-Chat!
Subject: PooP!
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 16:40:06
Poop? It's called 'poop', now?
What happened to 'scoop'?
Message: 5317
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Russ
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 20:27:16
Nothing noteworthy to report. He was fighting a pretty bad fever on Sunday,
but it broke. As soon as he has a couple of good days in a row, they'll
move him to St. Luke's.
Message: 5318
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Russ
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 20:00:34
No major events over the weekend. He is still improving (physical
condition) which will get him set up to move to "Synigos" ?? (spelling) --
some place which specials in coma wakeup therapy.
Message: 5319
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Russ
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 21:20:28
Another of those times when no news is good news. Thanks for posting these
bulletins.
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board entered *=*
Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 1590
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit-Chat & Sing
Subject: I Hate Harry
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 06:40:48
I think I'm beginning to hate Harry Connick, Jr. He's young and
good-looking, talented and has quite a string of hit albums, and his fiance
is a lingerie model. Oh well.
Message: 1591
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit-Chat & Sing
Subject: lingerie models
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 01:54:49
Lingerie models usually aren't that great looking.
Message: 1592
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit-Chat & Sing
Subject: Models
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 12:52:18
> Lingerie models usually aren't that great looking.
Oh. Well, that makes me feel better. :)
Actually, I've worked with quite a few models and actresses. Many must be
lighted and photographed very carefully if they are to look good. Others
look great no matter what you do to them. I think a lot of it has to do
with their ability to project a pleasant personality.
Message: 1593
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Chit-Chat & Sing
Subject: Models
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 19:35:23
Interesting that you should be on that topic. Today at the Herberger, we
had our first fashion show (and hopefully are last). There were about 5
models flown in from NY and LA and the rest (18) were from a Phoenix agency.
You could really tell the difference. The presence on stage (like a smile)
and the attitude the "real" professionals projected was so much higher than
that of most of the local girls. And you're right about looking good. I
saw all these ladies before the make-up and costumes: Ugggggly. I guess it
doesn't matter much what they really look like since it's covered with make
up. A few were cute looking but most, I was really surprized, were really
not. One of the "real" professionals was a real bitch but I didn't have to
take any crap from her. Most of the girls were really nice. In fact, one
of the dressers was a girl I knew in high school. We were on Pom together.
She was usually the one in the middle of the line since she was so tall.
She told me today that she wasn't called for this "gig" because she wasn't
tall enough. "Only 5'10" and shoe size 8".
Message: 1594
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat & Sing
Subject: Question
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 21:22:15
Do they model lingerie because their bodies are better than their faces?
Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*
Public Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 81552
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Bulletins
Subject: Mark Adkins
Date: 01/12/92 Time: 23:20:07
Public announcement for legal reasons:
Mark Adkins is KICKED off Apollo.. and this goes for any other name
he might choose to use.
I also request no other user or member posts his messages on Apollo.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 81553
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:35:11
First things first. I'm very glad to hear Sandy is OK, beyond a few
bruises. Hope she's better soon and that rear end gets fixed up OK. The
car, I mean.
Message: 81554
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Arch/Hegel etc. 1/2
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:36:21
Hegel is a gap in my philosophy that I haven't properly filled in yet; and I
apologize if I've missed something on here because I was away. But I don't
think we disagree in the slightest. I look at government from a different
angle, and I see the question of power and control. When we realize that
neither the policy of the right nor that of the left fulfills people's
needs, we have to step back and ask ourselves, not how they differ from one
another, but what they have in common that people find objectionable. Where
they differ is in what they seek to control; but what they have in common is
that both sides seek to control *something*. The U.S. Constitution is
clearly aimed at limiting that control.
An old saying that I'm sure you're familiar with: "Take what you want, and
pay for it (says God)." This is the way life was meant to be.
Conservative version: "Take what you want and pay for it; but if you take
*this*, you're really gonna pay for it (because I say so)."
Liberal version: "Take what you want, except for *that* (because I say so),
and all of us will pay for it (because I say so)."
I've never quite figured out why the left-wing and right-wing positions
shoul be the "natural opposites" of one another, though both of them retain
the basic intent to exert control over *something*.
Message: 81555
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Arch/Hegel etc. 2/2
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:37:26
We need to get people's thinking turned ninety degrees, to wake them up to
the realization that the alternatives aren't to allow the government to
control one thing *or* another, but to pass that control back to the people.
Relinquishing government control is a move *forward*, in my thinking, and
"dodging from left to right" is the politicians' attempt to reinforce the
illusion that there's only one dimension to move in.
It's regrettable how politicians have succeeded in embedding this linear
thinking into people's minds. Every so often you see a survey questionnaire
asking how you rate your political views, but it only gives you the option
of filling in some point on the same old straight line: "conservative",
"liberal", or "moderate".
I've said here before that it's ironic that the Communist system professed
to concentrate so hard on equal distribution of *wealth* to the people. We
know that didn't happen in practice, but that's almost a side issue; the
point is that since people will naturally use their own power to acquire
wealth to differing degrees, the only way to achieve perfectly equal
distribution of wealth is by depriving people of power. Communism thus
focused on material needs to the total exclusion of motivational needs.
Distribution of power is a far better goal.
Message: 81556
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Cliff/Mike/Arch
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:39:48
Cliff> My labor today should be worth the same 20 years from now if
Cliff> I save my earned wages.
This is a typical example of why smartass jerkoffs in government win, while
their victims flounder around and waste their time fighting among
themselves, instead of fighting the real enemy. We're all so ticked off and
busy looking for a good fight that we grab the first one we see and spend
all our efforts on that one. Why don't we listen properly to the valuable
information that our friends have to offer, then look beyond our noses to
find out where the real fight is?
I KNOW how we *could* interpret Cliff's words. If we conveniently ignore
the word "today", we can pretend he means that his labor should be just as
valuable in 20 years as it is now. We can ignore the obvious clues in the
word "save". He *should* have said "the *wealth* I've saved from my labor
today should be worth the same 20 years from now..." Big deal. What his
*labor* is worth 20 years from now is a separate issue; but most of all,
it's a distraction from the real argument. The more people waste their
energies on petty fights, the less energy they have left over to fight the
real enemy. Arch spotted this one in no time at all. Why can't we all
LISTEN and DIG for the real meaning behind what people are saying?
That applies to both friends and enemies too.
Message: 81557
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/Hiro
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:40:19
I have to admit that I spotted who Hiro was based on seeing both messages
together. But then, how often am I up and about between 0526 and 0640?
Message: 81558
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Bill/inflation
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:41:30
I don't think we really disagree about the cause of inflation. Archimedes
already did a good job of explaining how debt leads to the printing of more
FRNs in 81531. I think what you're saying is that you incline more to the
"demand-pull" side of the theory: that inflation is caused by too much paper
chasing too few goods. I don't believe, though, that it tells the whole
story to say "Borrowing doesn't push inflation; inflation pushes borrowing".
That's why I said that "cost-push" versus "demand-pull" is a chicken-and-egg
debate because they both amount to the same thing. If anyone wants to argue
that it's an economists' smokescreen to distract attention from the real
issue, I promise not to make fun of them. The whole thing is a tightly-
coupled system that moves in lockstep. FRNs are printed in *response* to
people and businesses borrowing money. The act of printing FRNs doesn't in
itself force people to borrow. People borrow because of their own wants.
But when too many FRNs are in circulation and prices rise, those wants are
less easily satisfied, so people are more motivated to borrow.
The system needs both factors to operate: the demand of people to borrow
money, and the willingness of the government to print more FRNs in response.
Take one of these away, and the inflation spiral would stop. But you'll
never take away people's desire for wealth. So the system is only stopped
by taking away the machinery that prints out illusions of wealth, and
substituting instead a system that supplies *real* wealth, but also says:
"That's all there is right now. If you want more, you're going to have to
work for it and make it yourselves."
Message: 81559
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Bill/what we want
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:42:48
I've never argued that the people aren't stupid. I'm afraid too many of
them are. Some of them just aren't capable of understanding the issues, but
I think a lot of that has to do with their feelings. Understanding issues
takes effort, and people have to be motivated to make effort. They'll make
the effort only if they sense a reward at the end of it, in the form of some
good feeling. If you make the effort of thought, and what you get out of it
is "My God! That's awful! That's scary! I've been fooled!" -- and *if*
the way to change that state of affairs is not immediately obvious -- then
that's not much of a reward. Better not to think about it. Unfortunately
it's characteristic of many people that they don't think ahead, and would
rather trade in tomorrow's rewards for comfort today.
Another problem is the media. The media, especially TV stations (which take
a lot of capital to set up), are controlled mainly by large organizations
that benefit from the status quo. TV offers instant gratification and puts
people to sleep with comforting distractions like soap operas and similar
excitement, which discourage critical thought. I hope I don't sound too
much like Harlan Ellison. TV does have enormous power to stimulate the mind
and influence opinions, but that power is like a gun: it can be pointed in
any desired direction, not necessarily toward the target. TV actually does
two things: it soaks up time that would otherwise be filled by critical
thought; and in addition, when it does use its power to send a message, the
message it sends is usually the one that organizations with established
power would like you to hear.
Message: 81560
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: What we want (2/4)
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:44:06
As I said earlier, most people like a good fight, and most people recognize
that the world is full of competition. Trying to persuade people that this
isn't so would be disingenuous, far too unsubtle. They'd see through it in
an instant. So TV presents real contests between people and factions. On a
political level, it presents contests between Republocrats and Demolicians.
The excitement of the fight is very real, and it totally distracts people's
attention from the fact that there are other alternatives that are rarely
presented. TV isn't stupid, and it knows quite well that people are
frustrated with certain aspects of our political system, so from time to
time it also throws out a sop to these people with programs like "The IRS: A
Question of Power." This gains credibility for TV. It tackles the real
issue of power itself at a tangent, rather than focusing the spotlight full
on it. It pretends that what goes wrong in our political system is just an
infection that breaks out here and there, rather than a cancer invading the
whole body. By zooming in on the trees, it obscures our view of the forest.
I find it interesting that Archimedes, like me, doesn't watch much TV. I
call it mental pollution control.
We can't stop people from watching TV, and my daughter watches it, though
not as obsessively as some kids. Many parents let kids watch TV all the
time without comment, because it's a convenient babysitter. I think it's
dangerous to let pollution pour into people's eyes and ears unchallenged.
Message: 81561
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: What we want (3/4)
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:45:26
Some parents try to shut off kids' access to TV. I'm afraid this is
unrealistic and only arouses nonproductive hostility. It also shuts off
access to essential data about the way the world works. Pollution can be
neutralized. I like to encourage critical thought in my daughter by drawing
her attention to what Deborah Tannen would call the "metamessage" -- the
motivation behind the message. If somebody is trying to sell you something,
they have a message for you; but when you stop to think about it, common
sense says that there's a reason why they're going to all this effort to
send you that message. A little thought helps to discern that *their*
motive is to make a sale. Whether that sale is to your benefit or not is up
to you to judge.
I'm not a revolutionary anarchist who labels "the establishment" as an enemy
to be put up against the wall and shot. I just recognize the reality that
my ex-wife told me years ago, and I treasure this simple thought of hers in
spite of the fact that we couldn't live together: "People do things for
their own reasons." Your reasons and her reasons are not my reasons.
People pursue their own interests, and it's fruitless (counterproductive as
well) to hate them for doing it. At the same time, only a fool would fail
to recognize that other people's interests are often in opposition to our
own. That's a simple fact of life. Sooner that pretend other people are
around either to give me a good time, or to grind me into the dirt, I'd
rather expose the fact that their interests and my interests are just
separate, and sit down at the negotiating table to thrash out an agreement.
Message: 81562
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: What we want (4/4)
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:46:51
Anyway, I'm wandering off the subject as usual. I think TV has a pernicious
effect on people, but people aren't all that stupid and they realize in
either a vague or a clear way that politicians screw them over. The reasons
politicians keep getting elected is that people don't get a realistic
alternative. There are many alternative candidates out there, and many
alternative parties, but the electoral system makes it far too risky to vote
for an alternative. Why vote for an alternative when there are so many of
them that you know perfectly well most people won't vote for the same one,
so the result will be that the most-hated opposition candidate will probably
win? If you hate the Democrats, your *first* priority is to make sure they
don't win, and the only way to make sure of doing that is to vote for a
Republican to keep them out. Any other consideration takes second place to
that. Everybody votes for the second-worst choice instead of the best. If
I had the power to change the electoral system, the change I'd make first
(the one I *know* could not go wrong) is to make it mandatory for the
winning candidate to poll an absolute majority of the votes. Then people
could vote for an oddball candidate without the fear that they were letting
the "enemy" in. If no candidate gained an absolute majority, another round
of voting would be held. Better still, voters would state their preference
for candidates by placing them in order on the ballot; then there would be
no need to spend time and money to go through the process again. A system
with two well-established parties gives you no realistic alternative but to
vote for one or the other. If I had to concentrate my efforts on one risk-
free idea, I'd push the system of multiple preference voting.
Message: 81563
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/sexist terms
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:48:11
I'm sure I've discussed this once before on Apollo. The reason I don't like
"politically correct" terminology is not that I'm chauvinistic. My limited
experience of women bank managers is in fact that she did a very good job.
But I have an instinctive dislike of the practice of inserting "she" where
long tradition and habit leads the reader to expect "he".
Analyzing the exact cause of this reaction is a bit long and complicated.
It certainly isn't that I disagree with women's equality, or with the
necessity of reminding people from time to time that women can do jobs just
as well as men can, or even better. I'd summarize it by saying that there's
a right time and a wrong time to do something. When people do things at the
wrong time, it's distracting and therefore irritating. That's part of it,
but not quite all.
Suppose I'm reading a manual that tells me how to operate something, and in
the middle it says: "The operator must specify the output device she wants."
Of course the operator can be female as well as male. But habit and
tradition in English leads us to expect things to be expressed in certain
conventional ways. Good English flows along smoothly and pours out a stream
of meaning. The language is necessary to contain the meaning, but it's
subservient to the purpose of communicating meaning to the listener or the
reader. Good English, like any good servant, should be unobtrusive.
Message: 81564
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/sexist (2/3)
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:49:26
Anything out of the ordinary is noticeable, obtrusive. If the language has
bad grammar or a spelling erorr in the middle of a sentence, the reader
notices it and his attention is distracted from the meaning that the writer
is trying to express. In the same way, when I see "she" where convention
led me to expect "he", my attention is distracted. I say to myself, "I
thought the purpose of this book was to tell me how to work this gadget.
Instead, the writer is using it to push a political position of his (her?)
own. Then I start wondering about whether the writer *was* a she or a he,
and all kinds of things that aren't relevant to the subject at hand.
I suppose some people reading prose like this might just give the writer a
silent cheer and go on reading. It's not that I disagree with the political
view of the writer. It's more that I disapprove of the tactic itself.
To explain why, I must first admit that I myself introduced an irrelevancy
into a discussion of inflation by mentioning that I "hate political
correctness". It's true, I did distract the reader momentarily by touching
on a different topic. But this is a matter of style, the communication
environment and the audience. If I were writing a formal manual I would
never have done such a thing, because it takes unfair advantage of the
audience. In a face-to-face conversation, or on a computer bulletin board,
perhaps even in a newspaper editorial, the style is like a chat where the
most important assumption is that the listener will have some opportunity to
respond.
Message: 81565
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/sexist (3/3)
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:50:47
A manual, on the other hand, is a one-way communication where the assumption
is that the reader will just soak up the facts and use them, without any
chance to respond or argue back. Injection of personal opinion is therefore
unfair. The reader has to absorb the punch and can't hit back. On a
bulletin board he can -- as you have! :)
Even that isn't the whole story. The crux of the matter to me is honesty.
Facts are facts, and opinions are opinions. If I make an explicit statement
of fact as I see it, people are free to contradict it. If I make an
explicit statement of opinion, or personal feeling, people are free to
comment on it. The key is that the fact or opinion is explicitly identified
as such. "I hate 'political correctness.'" That's a statement of fact
about my current feelings. I've stated my position up front, and anyone
else is free to tell me that their feelings are different, or to try and
convince me to change my feelings if they can. All right, I wrote some
stuff about inflation and my head wandered off for a moment and I said what
was in my head, which happened to be irrelevant to the main line of thought.
But I was honest about it.
Introducing an unexpected personal pronoun, without comment, is to me
dishonest. There are no words around it to tell the reader "by the way,
this happens to be what I think." It's as if the writer were talking to you
face-to-face and in the meantime, stuck a dagger of personal opinion into
your side while you weren't watching. That's what I dislike.
Message: 81566
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/confusion
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:52:05
Hey Bill, I know you were having a jocular dig at me, so I hope you'll
excuse me for giving you kind of a serious answer. That's me again, saying
what's in my head. I like things that are both funny and serious together.
> *Why* does that agency manager's personal assistant need a personal
> assistant HERself? Answer: it makes HIM feel more important...
Boy, just for one moment I thought you'd got me , then I realized I wasn't
confused at all. The agency manager is assumed to be male. The personal
assistant is assumed to be female. The personal assistant to the personal
assistant -- God knows, maybe (s)he's transsexual? Who cares? Anyway, the
"him" referred to the agency manager, not to his personal assistant.
Conventional assumptions again. The guy at the top has the ultimate yea or
nay about who gets hired, and the guy at the top gets to feel most important
when the people working for him are the kind of people who have people
working for them too. "I believe my butler's butler/Has appeared on "Face
to Face" (old line from Flanders and Swann song). This is a manifestation
of Parkinson's Law (not to be confused with Parkinsonism, which is entirely
different). When the organization grows, the people who feel the most
benefit are those at the top. So the people at the top will do their best
to make the organization grow under them if they can.
I have this problem with being far too serious. I must lighten up. I must
make a habit of giggling regularly every morning. Discipline's the answer.
Message: 81567
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: On the Lighter Side
Subject: William of Orange
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 02:52:46
THE BANK OF ENGLAND
It was Williamanmary who first discovered the National Debt and had the
memorable idea of building the Bank of England to put it in. The National
Debt is a very Good Thing and it would be dangerous to pay it off, for fear
of Political Economy.
- Sellar & Yeatman, *1066 And All That*
Message: 81568
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Fred/congressmen
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 03:13:15
I think you're perfectly right about reelection being the goal. There's
another aspect to it also. Any organization, such as a business, has a
"culture", a set of shared values and ways of operating. People are judged
on whether they fit into that culture or not, and they usually operate more
successfully within it if they do fit: if their peers "approve of" them. So
anyone newly elected to Congress is soon going to feel subtle pressures to
start thinking and acting like the other representatives. A body like this
has an inertia of its own, and it takes a lot of effort to change it.
Message: 81569
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: News Today
Subject: Cliff/Sandy
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 05:15:58
I hope and pray that Sandy is OK. I'm sure you will keep us informed.
Message: 81570
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandy
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 05:55:54
Only have time to scan messages this morning, Cliff, but wanted to offer my
best wishes to Sandy. Let me know if there's any way I can help out.
Message: 81571
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: News Today
Subject: Accident on I-17
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 08:41:20
*TRUE* story... (first off, Sandy is okay now)
EMT Sandy leaves for work at 6:30am for PMT station 7, which is
located somewhere near Thomas and 39th Street.
6:45am
A dog on I-17 causes one motorist to STOP... The car behind this
motorist slams on their brakes, hits first car and then skids into lane
where Sandy driving the 1982 white Dodge Charger with 'SYSOP' plates has to
brake so as not to hit this car. The brakes in Sandy's car do stop her
intime, but behind Sandy is this Ford F-150 pickup truck... who slams into
her full force rearending the Charger sending it *flying* into the air for
just a bit, coming down right alongside the cement median divider. This
burst the left front tire and ground a little off the left front fender.
Sandy by the way did have on her seat/lap belt, but made the comment it felt
like it did not work. When all cars came to rest, Sandy jumped out with her
EMT bag in hand and went to all the other cars involved to see if anyone was
hurt. Mean while the Ford F-150 driver would look at his big truck and then
again at Sandy's little car and complained so all could hear that he could
not understand why the Charger was not damaged more and his truck less.
They (the Police) changed Sandy's tire for her and placed assorted parts
that had been torn off the car, into the trunk.
Message: 81572
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last/accident
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 08:54:22
Sorry about that... I almost forgot where I had left off in the
accident story, so I [U]pdated it to finish it. I had thought I would be
right back on it, but got distracted several times.
Sandy seems fine, except she is very stiff and complaining about a
few more pains here and there. I am sure she will be going to see the
doctor again for one more checkup as they suggested. Her humor is good
anyways.... Thanks for the posts
Message: 81573
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon on phones
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 09:27:46
Being a person that very rarely has to use a pay phone, I did not know just
how greedy the phone company had because until the other day when we were
out in the field and my husband was making a lot of calls. He mentioned how
he hated it sometimes when he had just so much time to talk. I did not know
that for your quarter you couldn't talk as long as you wanted to. I wonder
if it is that way with all pay phones?! Do they just automatically cut you
off or do they allow you to put another quarter in? -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 81574
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on Sandy
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 09:40:48
Please tell Dandy Sandy to feel better quick. What a terrible thing to
happen. She will be staying home for awhile won't she? -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 81575
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Answer!
Subject: Last
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 10:52:06
Sandy WANTS to get back to her job ASAP. As I believe she fears
loosing her schedual she worked so hard to get. But...if she can't
lift...then she is out.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 81576
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandy
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 12:04:01
I sincerely hope that the bruises and stiffness are short-lived. Meanwhile,
I'd glad to hear Sandy is taking it all in good heart.
Message: 81577
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: War!
Subject: Sysop CLiff
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 12:22:42
In the last months I have noticed a particularily distrubing trend
of yours growing worse. You seem to have lost your integrity
and have resorted to petty acts of selfish gratification.
I would like to know why my POst #81504 has been deleted.
I fail to see where it contained any personal attacks,
contained vulgar or profane words or even came close to being
minutely in loggerheads with the ules.
Have you now resorted to openly silencing opinion that conflicts
perhaps with your own?
I think its time you evaluated your position in censoring anyones
posts...especially when you have been a champion of freedoms of speech
in the past.
I fully agree that certain posts that contain indiscriminate material
should be wiped. But my post had none such. Please respond in
an adult fashion.
Message: 81578
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandy Sysop
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 13:25:09
Here's hoping for a speedy recovery and admiration on her "guts" getting ouy
and helping others...
Message: 81579
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Answer!
Subject: Mike Carter
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 15:56:40
Mike...
Yes, the post was Zapped. It did not contain profanity, but I will
be darned if I raise the ((SHIELDS)) to keep out Mark Adkins and he is going
to find away in though another user. In my 'BANNED off Apollo' Rules, not
only are they told not to call Apollo, but they are not to post or have
their writtings posted. It is a TOTAL ban.
The ((SHIELDS)) are up to keep him off... the sad part is, it is
keeping other non-members off as well, and this makes it totaly unfair if
his posts still get posted.
He (Mark) just kept up his nonsence to long. The posts between Fred
and Arci are between those two. It is NONE of Marks business. Mark was a
guest who abused his usage of Apollo. And that is that!
Mark is gone, let it drop as I am not going to change my mind
letting him back on.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 81580
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Archi/Fred
Date: 01/13/92 Time: 17:59:19
Hey guys... I met Fred at a GT not all that long ago. I like Fred,
and thought he was a great addition to Apollo. I STILL do! He does not
have to agree with me, nor I with him. In fact I respect Fred a lot, and my
anti FRNs post are not ment to take away any of that respect. If we all
agreed, would this not be a most boring BBS.
Archi seems like a nice guy to me also... He happens to have some
of the same feelings about FRNs that Sandy and I have had for a long time.
This does not make Archi evil as it does not make Fred evil. I do however
retain the right to side with whom I wish on any subject. Bill Burkett is
another one whom I like but do not agree with on MANY things politically.
This is ONE reason why he got the job as Cub-SysOp. I could have found a
'Yes' man, but I did not want that. I hoped this would give a fair balance
to the system.
Sometimes one has to get dramatic on a BBS to get a point across.
Sometimes it seems as if this 'breaks' some ule... But then I suppose it
could be how you READ the post and with what you take issue with, even if it
was not ment to be an INSULT. We could get so silly and say that at anytime
one does not agree with another..it is an 'INSULT'. Come-on-guys, get real!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif- Apollo is a DEBATE board!
Message: 81581
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Linear politics
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 02:37:05
To prove my earlier point, just a few hours after entering my complaint
about "one-dimensional politics", the following headline appeared by
coincidence in the morning newspaper:
'91 FRESHMEN MORE LIBERAL, RESEARCHERS SAY
The article sketched a number of findings from the annual UCLA survey of
student attitudes, including political attitudes. Political findings
included such things as the number of students who rate themselves
"conservative" or "far right", versus those rating themselves "liberal" or
"far left". One presumes they could rate themselves somewhere in between --
as long as they stuck to the officially approved single dimension that says
government ought to exert lots of control over *something*. This is a
perfect example of how "established" procedures perpetuate the existing
limitation of political choice in people's minds.
In particular, I'd expect the organizers of this survey to have a vested
interest in the liberal position.
Message: 81582
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: Mr. Adkins
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 03:33:31
Message: 79417
Author: James Matlock
Category: Question?
Subject: Ann
Date: 10/29/91 Time: 18:47:45
[stuff deleted] Never fear though: I'll be using James Matlock for the
foreseeable future, and should I decide to change it (only if I renew
$tatus) I'll be sure to announce who I am...
Ah, now we know how long "the foreseeable future" is. It's ten and a half
weeks. Funny how Mark kept going on in the past about free will and being
responsible, but could never resist his own impulse to mischief.
I think Mike has a valid gripe though with respect to his own post, since he
relayed message 81504 from Mark on Saturday night, and we never saw the
announcement that Mark was kicked off until Sunday night.
Message: 81583
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Melissa/rap
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 03:34:08
Interesting about the Public Enemy song. I didn't realize it wasn't new.
Goes to show the power of the media. If something doesn't get publicized,
it's never noticed. Or is it that's it's OK to sing something, but if you
make a movie about it, *then* people get upset?
Glad your poetry reading went well. Gonna post some more up here for us?
Message: 81584
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: Little on Mike
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 05:53:39
I never said "Mike did not have a valid gripe".... etc.
I took action and THEN announced my action on a need to know basis.
It would also have bloomed out quicker if not for the fact that my Sunday
morning was pre-occupied with an other unfolding event on I-17.
I would rather just forget Mark and not bash him either. Let's just
leave him alone as we are not going to suspend the ules.... They still
apply EVEN when he is not here to defend himself.
Now.... On to OTHER subjects PLEASE!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 81585
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandy Sysop
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 06:17:53
Glad to hear that you survived the harrowing experience with nothing major.
Hindsight being what it is (20/20 always), one would think that a dead dog
would have been a very acceptable alternative, eh? Anyway, it could have
been much wors, and thank God it wasn't. Take care.
Message: 81586
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon/Hegel 1/2
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 07:54:00
GL> Hegel is a gap in my philosophy that I haven't properly filled in
GL> yet; ...
HEGEL, 'HAY gul,' Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1770-1831), a German philosopher,
was one of the most influential thinkers of recent times. Like Aristotle
and Saint Thomas Aquinas before him, Hegel tried to develop a system of
philosophy in which all the contributions of his major predecessors would be
integrated. He did not view different philosophies as so many alternatives
among which one might shop to find congenial one. Instead, he considered
the historical sequence of philosophic ideas as crucial. He believed that
various systems represent successive phases in the development of the human
spirit (see CIVILIZATION [Theories About Civilization]). Hegel, more than
anyone else, established the history of philosophy as an important field of
study.
-- WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA (1962), Vol. 8
The Hegelian Formula: "THESIS + ANTITHESIS = SYNTHESIS. However things
currently are in a society, i.e., what is "acceptable" in a society, is the
Thesis. A concept or idea or human conduct in opposition to the norm,
therefore, is the Antithesis. Allow the two to ferment (controvert, hassle,
fight) and the result will eventually be the "Synthesis": a new social
order, a new perception of what is "acceptable" in society, a new "way
things are."
Message: 81587
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon/Hegel 2/2
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 07:55:16
Originally presented by Hegel as an explanation for the dynamics of social
change, the Hegelian Formula has come to be the instrument of change in use
by the movers and shakers of the world. The effectiveness of the Antithesis
in producing a Synthesis is in direct proportion to the number and
distribution of outlets and how effective is the control of them. For
example, most of the social change of the decade of the sixties came from
college campuses throughout the nation, and most of the Antithesis which
caused that change was not random; it was carefully structured and
controlled and dessiminated from the national Communist fraternity
organization which has chapters on every major college campus in the
country.
Yet, while the Antithesis (anti-Viet Nam war, anti-traditional moral values,
etc.) was desseminated by those Communist fraternity chapters, and the
strategy and tactical plans were crafted at the national and/or regional
levels and fed to those chapters as marching orders, those who actually
chose the target (the Viet Nam War, or Apartheid in South Africa, for
example) are neither national nor ideologically Communist. They are
INTERnational (mostly in the special jurisdiction of the downtown London
financial district) and their ideology is neither Communist nor Capitalist;
their ideology is exclusively political and economic power and they don't
care how they get it or what political faction is in power so long as they
control it directly or indirectly. And they do.
Message: 81588
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Self-interest
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 07:56:10
Gordon Little: "I just recognize the reality that my ex-wife told me years
ago, and I treasure this simple thought of hers in spite of the fact that we
couldn't live together: "People do things for their own reasons." Your
reasons and her reasons are not my reasons. People pursue their own
interests, and it's fruitless (counterproductive as well) to hate them for
doing it. At the same time, only a fool would fail to recognize that other
people's interests are often in opposition to our own. That's a simple fact
of life."
Or, as Robert Heinlein said (and is copyrighted by his estate):
"Never appeal to a man's better nature. He may not have one. Appealing to
his self-interest gives you more leverage."
Message: 81589
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Communist PBS piece
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 07:57:33
Did anyone watch the program on PBS channel 8 last night telling the story
of Peggy and Eugene Dennis? It was developed from the book "An
Autobiography of an American Communist." It should dispel forever any
question of the involvement in and manipulation of the American Labor
Movement by Communists in the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's.
It was also a very sad story. The pursuit of Communism tore this family
asunder even as Eugene Dennis became and served as head of the American
Communist Party. Yet they considered the Party more important than their
own children. The revelations of Stalin's murders of thousands upon
thousands of people almost destroyed the Party, almost destroyed them as
individuals and as a family, yet they stupidly clung to Communism, forsaking
all else.
It was clearly an emotional sympathy piece in support of Communism in
America, in support of the Communist participation in American labor, in
support of the destruction of individual values in favor of the beehive
mentality. It was clearly also a hit piece against the American authorities
who tried to stop them.
The viewer is led to feel very sorry for Peggy and Eugene Dennis.
Unfortunately, what happened to them is the price for being both wrong and
stupid, and they were lucky. Usually stupidity of this magnitude is a
capital offense.
Message: 81590
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/She
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 22:34:00
It does seem like a mild browbeating when a person whose gender is unknown
and of no relevence to the subject is referred to as 'she.' Where 'he' has
always been accepted until recently as meaning he or she when no individual
is being referred to, 'she' arbitrarily and unneccessarily precludes the
possibility that the gender could be male. This is of no great consequence
in itself, but it is jarring. It makes you wonder if you have missed some
bit of explanation earlier on denoting why the person referred to can only
be female. If 'he' can no longer be used to denote indeterminate gender
then 'she' doesn't make such a good substitute in my opinion.
If policical correctness demands that it can't be 'he', let it put forward
a better gender-free pronoun. I don't fault Bill, he has to get published
and that probably requires being on the cutting edge of social awareness,
etc.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 81591
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Hegel
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 22:44:21
I have never read Hegel, but his dynamic of social change sounds like it
was basically copied by Marx (which I am familiar with) as his own
'discovery' that social unrest is always a transition between conflicting
social conditions that carries with it, as its cause, the new social form
that will emerge. I know I haven't stated this well or used any of the terms
Marx used, but hopefully you will get the drift of what I am saying anyway.
It was one of the few things Marx said that actually seemed valid to me.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 81592
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: last
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 22:59:05
I understand also that Marx took Hegel as a starting-point. The only
knowledge I'm showing off here is what I just got out of skimming rapidly
through the encyclopedia. I always have trouble with encyclopedic summaries
of philosophical work. They seem far too high-level. You grope through a
fog of Being and Mind and Positive Negativism or something, and by the time
you get to the end, you think to yourself "now what was all that again?" I
guess I should take a sabbatical year and read up on philosophy to round out
my Cultural Literacy. I've heard of all these guys but I even get them
muddled up with one another -- Nietzsche and Superman and Kierkegaard and
Martin Fried-egg and Martin Hide-and-seek and Schilling and Goetherd?
Why are they all German? (All right, I know about Kierkegaard and Sartre.)
More to the point, why do they all sound so depressing?
Message: 81593
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Archimedes/Hegel I
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 23:00:16
Thanks for the info on Hegel. Let's see what I could get out of this.
It may be instructive to look at it metophorically in terms of vectors. At
any given time, the Thesis, the general "thrust" of what is acceptable to or
practiced by a society, might be seen as a vector of some specific magnitude
pointing in a particular direction. At the same time, a number of people in
that society will be dissatisfied with the Thesis (or be victimized as a
result of it), and therefore seek or construct an Antithesis to oppose it.
This can be looked at as another vector pointing in a different direction,
with a magnitude proportional to the strength of the opposition movement.
When you combine the two together in a vector diagram, you get a new
resultant vector that's the sum of the two. This represents the Synthesis.
If we looked at the diagram edgeways-on, we would see the vectors only in
one dimension: as two straight lines pointing in opposite directions,
generally of somewhat different lengths. It would be as if there were only
two different ways to go, either left or right. Seen from this limited
viewpoint, the only way to oppose the Thesis would be to go head-on against
it. The Synthesis seen from this perspective would look like a shortened
version of the original Thesis: the result of taking that Thesis and doing a
straight linear subtraction of the Antithesis. It would seem that Thesis
and Antithesis were nothing but opposite forces that moderate one another,
with the Synthesis changing in length from time to time, expanding and
contracting with the changing fortunes of Thesis and Antithesis.
Message: 81594
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Archimedes/Hegel II
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 23:01:23
But we looked at the diagram properly, from on top, we would see both
dimensions. Looked at that way, Thesis and Antithesis would most likely not
be pointing in exactly opposite directions, but meeting at an angle. The
resultant vector, the Synthesis, would be pointing off somewhat to the side.
Presumably if the people who construct the Antithesis are only interested in
opposing the Thesis, reducing the overall magnitude of the Thesis, then
there is a range of different Antitheses that could do that job for them
equally well. All would point in slightly different directions, but all
would be more or less opposite to that of the Thesis. Now, if somebody else
has the goal of getting the whole thing moving slowly in quite a different
direction -- off to the side, say -- and if they can subtly influence each
choice of successive Antitheses so that each time, the Synthesis moves just
a little bit in the direction they want -- then over time, provided they are
very patient, they will gradually gain what they want while the Thesis and
Antithesis are busy fighting about something else over and over again.
A sailboat can be made to progress in the opposite direction to the wind by
tacking from side to side.
We've seen many different pendulums swing back and forth through history --
economy, war and peace, politics, religion and so on, but humanity doubtless
has staggered overall in some general direction. For example, we know more
today than we ever did. Whether we're happier is another question.
Message: 81595
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Trends (1/9)
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 23:02:39
I was almost hesitant to post this, because I don't want to restart an old
and particularly fruitless line of discussion. But I thought it was
interesting from another perspective.
The UCLA survey on student attitudes covered a number of aspects of student
views and practices. The political trend to the left I've already
mentioned, but it's worth a couple more comments. First, when people think
there's nowhere else to go, a swing to the left is perfectly predictable in
times of economic uncertainty. When things go wrong, people start looking
round for someone (meaning government) to take care of them. Look what
happened in the thirties.
The effects of economic uncertainty also show up in the finding that fewer
students are interested in business careers. This number dropped from 24.6%
in 1987, to 18.4% in 1990, and now to 15.6% last year. With a perception
that "business" generally is in trouble, and a reaction to the insider
trading and S&L scandals of the 80s, there is both a nervousness about the
future of business careers and a moral repulsion to the extremes of some
business practices. This reaction too is predictable, besides being
congruent with the political swing to the left.
In spite of the apparent leftward trend, materialism is stated to be at an
all-time high. 75% of students say they're in college chiefly because they
think it will help them make more money.
Message: 81596
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Trends (2/9)
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 23:03:53
I don't see anything contradictory about this. We're not looking at the
idealistic leftism we saw in the 60s, when many people believed that radical
socialism could transform the world into some kind of utopia, and professed
(at least) to reject materialism and the "evil" profit motive. Perhaps it's
most illuminating to look at leftism as a kind of survival insurance in
people's minds. 60s leftism sprang from the fear of being engulfed in
global war, as well as from observing the contrast between those who were
(and always had been) badly off, and growing prosperity elsewhere. 90s
leftism springs more from the fear of personal starvation, besides being a
reaction to the worst excesses of the 80s. Yet when times are lean, people
are more acutely aware that material prosperity has its good points. We
would be utterly mistaken to suppose that leftism and materialism are
opposites. These survey findings are not all good news, but they are both
consistent and predictable.
A significant point historically is the relative amount of change in
opposing political creeds. Those who considered themselves "far right"
shrank slowly, from 22.8% in 1989, to 20.9% in 1990, then to 20.3% last
year. So most of that shrinkage had already happened by 1990. Many of
those who relinquished conservatism did so because of something that
happened over two years ago: possibly their view of the *past*, of the
events of the 80s. However, those who considered themselves "far left"
increased more this year, from 23.6 in 1989, to 24.4% in 1990, to 25.7% last
year. Arguably this increase is due to the worsening economy of *today*.
Message: 81597
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Trends (3/9)
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 23:05:20
Those changes are fairly small, and may not be statistically significant.
The article noted, though, that the self-designated "far leftists" hit a low
of 19.7% in 1981 -- and an all-time high of 38.7% only ten years before
that. The great swing to the left in the 60s was not due to a decrease in
conservative beliefs so much as to a huge increase in liberal beliefs. This
too is unsurprising. Conservatism after all is traditional, "conservative"
by nature if you like. It has always been there. The proportion of
conservatives varies less. Liberalism on the other hand was in many ways
new, experimental. Enthusiasm for an experiment is bound to be volatile, to
wax and wane along with the triumph or frustration of the moment.
It's notable also that liberalism has not made much of a comeback today, in
spite of the economic situation. This shows that people are cautious, still
mindful of the failure of many aspects of liberalism. That's not bad news,
if it means that people have longer memories than politicians think they do.
However, I don't doubt that it's a source of disappointment and depression
to many people. In the 60s there was a real political excitement -- yes,
and lots of anger too; but the point was that many people believed they had
a new direction to go in, a direction that would make the world better.
Since it didn't work out anything like the way it was meant to, too many
people today are unable to see just where to go next politically. Hence a
great deal of the apathy we find in many voters.
Most of the survey's other findings are unremarkable.
Message: 81598
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Trends (4/9)
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 23:06:31
A record number of students want to pursue careers in health care. This
we'd expect, since health care is an expanding industry with more technology
to play with, more ways to treat more illnesses, and more people living to
be older and sicker. How it will all be paid for is another question.
Fewer students than ever want a career in the performing arts. Their
numbers have been declining since 1975. I don't know that that's good news,
but I could make a few guesses at the reasons. While the performing arts
can be lucrative, they can also be a fickle source of income, and people
today are most likely looking for security. Less interest in the arts may
go with more materialism, or with the anxiety that a less prosperous society
is less able to afford the luxuries of entertainment and the arts.
Fewer students than ever want to pursue a career in law, following a
downward trend that started in 1988. I can't lament this fact. Our society
wastes far too many resources on litigation, frittering away time and energy
on fighting within itself instead of doing more productive things. If it
were possible to eliminate our waste of effort on contention in its many
forms, we might all work three days a week and still be a lot richer.
More than 87% of students agreed that a man has no right to force sex on a
woman, even if she "leads him on". This is good news. Obviously the
campaign to raise consciousness about this particular aspect of human rights
is taking effect.
Message: 81599
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Trends (5/9)
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 23:07:44
The result is also at odds with the findings of a high-school survey a
couple of years ago, where more students disagreed with that statement. But
they were younger, perhaps thinking less maturely about the issue.
Without knowing the proportion of males to females in the latest UCLA
survey, I can't work out what percentage of each sex agreed or disagreed.
The more men there were, the better the result looks. If it was half and
half, then 93.5% of women agreed, but only 80.5% of men -- because the
report said that men were "three times as likely as women" to disagree.
This too was predictable.
Unfortunately the article reported no data on sexual behavior, or on drug
use. It did however mention that the number of students who "drink beer" is
at an all-time low of only 57.3%. The previous high point was reached in
1970. This may not be surprising, in view of a general tendency to lump all
drugs together and make war on them, and the campaigns against drunk driving
in recent years. Whether it's unalloyed good news, I wouldn't like to say.
On the one hand, if a student's statement that "I drink beer" means "I get
smashed regularly and frequently", then it is good news. But since "I drink
beer" must also include those who drink it moderately, even occasionally, I
wonder what it means when 42.7% can say (priggishly?) that they never touch
the stuff. While it's perfectly OK *not* to drink, I hope we're not seeing
a certain stuffiness, a rigidity of mind that often goes with hypocritical
intolerance of *other* people's behavior. Society doesn't need intolerance.
Message: 81600
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Trends (6/9)
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 23:08:55
Thus far, the survey's findings give no cause for surprise. Most of them
are explainable, if not actually predictable. One discovery, however, is
very curious.
Since 1987, more and more students have been smoking cigarettes.
This is hardly as important as the trend in such matters as politics,
economics, and attitudes to our fellow woman. I was a bit reluctant to
mention the topic, because the last thing I want to do is to stimulate
another antismoking diatribe. All the same, I find it very intriguing.
It's worth drawing a parallel with the arguments Mark and I have had about
crime in the past, in which he got very angry at my views. One explanation
for those arguments is that my intent was to explore the causes of crime and
possible solutions, while Mark kept reverting to the issue of blame. He
seemed very cross with me because I refused to waste time echoing his anger
at the criminal, preferring instead to *study* the problem. Similarly, a
number of people want only to flap their hands and tut-tut at the news that
cigarette smoking is on the rise again. To me, it's simply interesting.
It's interesting because it seems to buck every other trend, and there's no
obvious cause for it. The increasing interest in health and exercise (even
an obsession, to some people) through the 80s has led to a great decrease in
smoking.
Message: 81601
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Trends (7/9)
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 23:10:03
Cigarettes too have been a victim of the "drug wars" that tend to lump all
chemical addictives together and label them "evil", even though nicotine
isn't a mind-altering substance. The decrease in beer-drinking suggests
that anti-drug trends are still being followed on college campuses.
In times when money is tighter, we might expect more people to think of not
smoking as a useful economy.
The percentage of smokers is still relatively small: 11.3%. In one way this
makes the phenomenon even more curious. If smokers were a majority, or a
substantial minority, one might reasonably expect their numbers to fluctuate
for various reasons. But when a minority is smaller, majorities often take
advantage of their greater numbers to be as nasty as they can to the
minority: to insult them, persecute them, isolate them, or eradicate them if
they can. There is no doubt that some antismokers have behaved this way.
Isn't peer pressure a net force against smoking today? Why would more
people want to join a persecuted minority?
I can hardly believe the increase in smoking is due to the success of
Camel's "Old Joe" advertising campaign.
What exactly are we looking at here? Stress, perhaps? People are more
likely to smoke while under stress. Perhaps the stress of trying to avoid
other drugs is showing up in increased smoking.
Message: 81602
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Trends (8/9)
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 23:11:13
Many systems are like a lumpy balloon. You push on a problem lump and it
goes down, but the pressure makes another lump pop up somewhere else
instead.
Maybe someone else has a more plausible suggestion, but the only answer I'm
left with is that we're seeing the natural and inevitable reversal of a
trend. Smoking decreased from 1966 to 1987. It must be time, so to speak,
for it to increase again.
Not that I expect to see smoking increase to its former level, or that I'm
going to cheer it on. But this may be another of the pendulum swings that
compose much of history. We see slow, periodic alternations between
depression and prosperity, sexual repression and sexual license, leftism and
rightism, and -- to take a cue from Orwell -- between war and peace, freedom
and slavery, ignorance and strength -- the very real strength of knowledge
and awareness. Because any social or political system has inertia, the
pendulum swings too far in a given direction for most people before they
react to their feelings that it has gone too far. Their energies take time
to start pushing it back again. The pendulum analogy is a perfect one.
We've seen swings in the American attitude to drinking, ranging from the
insanity of the Eighteenth Amendment to the commonsense of the Twenty-First,
the circa-1970 liberalization of "drinking ages" to the growing restrictions
of the 80s. We've seen the sexual revolution followed by herpes, then AIDS.
Message: 81603
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Trends (9/9)
Date: 01/14/92 Time: 23:12:23
We've seen the alternative religions and atheism of the 60s followed by the
fundamentalism of the 80s. We've seen the "energy crisis" of the 70s with
its small, sluggish cars and rigidly enforced speed limits, followed by a
throwing off of some of those restrictions in the 80s. People only follow a
trend for so long, then they get fed up with it.
I predict that many people will give up exercise in the 90s. It's tiring.
All the same, few of these trends vanish without a trace. They all leave
their mark afterwards. Environmentalism and the antiwar movement have
certainly not disappeared. And the energy business has led to some more
gas-efficient cars that also perform very well.
I think Hegel would have had something to say about all this, though I'm not
sure what.
I can only see the increase in smoking as a *reaction* -- a rebellion
against antismokers. I won't argue that smoking is healthy, even though I
do it myself, but I do argue that the instinct itself is healthy. When
people are pushed too far, they push back. They react against others trying
to tell them what to do. They may not always choose the best way to do it,
but they do it. Diversity continues to flourish in life. And the human
spirit is always resilient. I think that's something to cheer about.
Message: 81604
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Browbeating Dean
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 09:35:47
> It does seem like a mild browbeating when a person whose gender
> is unknown and of no relevence to the subject is referred to as
> 'she.' Where 'he' has always been accepted until recently as
> meaning he or she when no individual is being referred to,
> 'she' arbitrarily and unneccessarily precludes the possibility
> that the gender could be male.
If I read this right, you seem to be conflicted, Dean. When you say the
browbeating is "mild," are you downplaying it? And how does this jibe with
your second statement?
Message: 81605
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff-Disagreeing
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 09:36:21
> Bill Burkett is another one whom I like but do not agree with
> on MANY things politically. This is ONE reason why he got the
> job as Cub-SysOp. I could have found a 'Yes' man, but I did
> not want that.
Right, as always, Cliff.
> We could get so silly and say that at anytime one does not
> agree with another..it is an 'INSULT'. Come-on-guys, get real!
I enjoy reading John Kolbe's column in the _Gazette_, but I rarely find
anything quotable. Here's something he said in a discussion of a legislator
who's retiring and the changes in Arizona politics that brought it on:
"A grim aspect of this new politics is its increasing personalization, its
loss of a sense of humor. The old image of two lawmakers arguing fiercely
in debate, and then retiring for a beer together at the corner pub, is as
quaint as a Norman Rockwell scene."
Some seem to feel the notion that Apollo's members can disagree amiably is
just as quaint. That's too bad.
Message: 81606
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Disciplining Gordon
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 09:36:47
> I have this problem with being far too serious. I must lighten
> up. I must make a habit of giggling regularly every morning.
> Discipline's the answer.
I agree. Even when you're funny, you're serious. You must be disciplined.
(Now where's that whip?)
:^D
Message: 81607
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon-Inflation
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 09:37:12
> I think what you're saying is that you incline more to the
> "demand-pull" side of the theory: that inflation is caused by
> too much paper chasing too few goods.
Yes. My understanding of what causes inflation is, as you say, "too much
paper chasing too few goods." But I don't see that coming from the
demand-pull theory.
It comes simply from the money having no backing, freeing government to
print more whenever it wants.
Message: 81608
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon-Language
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 09:37:39
> The reason I don't like "politically correct" terminology is
> not that I'm chauvinistic.
Yes, we did discuss this once briefly.
I still argue that our actions are very much affected by our ways of
thinking about things and that one of the most important influences on our
thinking is the language we think in.
> Suppose I'm reading a manual that tells me how to operate
> something, and in the middle it says: "The operator must
> specify the output device she wants." Of course the operator
> can be female as well as male. But habit and tradition in
> English leads us to expect things to be expressed in certain
> conventional ways.
It is also habitual, traditional, and conventional to relegate women (and
other minorities) to certain roles -- roles that no longer apply in real
life. I would suggest that our writing, regardless of its context, should
reflect real life. This isn't agenda-pushing; it's documentation.
Message: 81609
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: War!
Subject: Public Enemy
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 15:16:50
Chuck D. and Public Enemy are blatant hypocrites. They also disown King
and everything he stood for with the release of their new video.
Remember Professor Griff? You, know, the one that said in an interview
with the WASHINGTON TIMES that "Jews are wicked...[and responsible for] the
majority of wickedness that goes on across the globe." In particular, he
said that Jews financed the slave trade and were "responsible for what's
happening in South Africa" and wondered aloud whether it is a "coincidence
that the Jews run the jewelry business and it's named JEW-elry?"
Why didn't Chuck D. break off ties with Griff when he made his
anti-Semitic views known? Because racism is of no concern for Chuck D...
that is...UNLESS...it is BLACKS that are experiencing the prejudice.
Furthermore, what about Griff calling one of the members of 3rd Bass (a
rap group on P.E.'s label) a "Jew bastard?"
"At a June 21st [1990] press conference, Chuck D. announced Griff's
dismissal from the group but termed Griff a "brother" and refused to
disassociate himself entirely from his former partner." (Rolling Stone)
And what about the lyrics on "Welcome to the Terrordrome," where Chuck
D. raps "Crucifixion ain't no fiction/So called chozen, frozen," and then
goes on to say that the Jews "got [him] like Jesus?"
Message: 81610
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: War!
Subject: Public Enemy
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 15:27:46
Finally, the "assassination plot" carried out in Public Enemy's video is
spit in the face to Martin Luther King, Jr. and everything that he stood
for. Perhaps Chuck D. and his cronies should read King's "Nonviolence and
Racial Justice": "If the American Negro and other victims of oppression
succumb to the temptation of using violence in the struggle for justice,
unborn generations will live in a desolate night of bitterness, and their
chief legacy will be an endless reign of chaos." ("Nonviolence And Racial
Justice, p. 7, "A TESTAMENT OF HOPE: THE ESSENTIAL WRITINGS AND SPEECHES OF
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.," ed. James M. Washington, HarperCollins, New York,
1986)
About the video, Chuck D. said at a press conference: "[The video] is
quite a radical point of view, most people would think, but I feel fine."
The question is not whether or not Chuck D. feels fine, but whether
Martin Luther King, Jr. would "feel fine" about having this visual symphony
of hatred and violence dedicated to his memory. I believe he would be sick.
Message: 81611
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bill/She
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 17:01:29
I said it seemed like a mild form of browbeating because it doesn't demand
that the reader accept that form and use it, it only interjects it in a
strange and slightly disconcerting manner. I don't see any conflict between
that and the rest of the post, where I voiced my opinion that there should
be a better way of handling gender-neutral situations than making them
read as if the gender must be female for some unexplained reason.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 81612
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Bill/Inflation
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 17:28:34
I agree that inflation is primarily caused by government increasing (or
allowing banks to increase) the overall money supply (including credit of
course). If a price increase or wage increase could lead to inflation
in an economy based on sound money, we would have had inflation even when we
were on the gold standard. We did not, not because businesses and employees
were not interested in higher prices and wages, but because sound money just
doesn't lend itself to inflation at will. The money just isn't there to back
anyone's desire when that desire is counter to market value. When the money
can be created out of nothing wherever there is a desire, it's a different
story.
One thing that I believe can cause inflation even in sound money economy
however, is a big leap in the price of some basic material that adds to the
cost of virtually everything in the economy, like oil for example. If the
price of oil jumps because of foreign causes beyond our control, then that
increase works its way through our whole economy as it gets added to
transport costs and the cost of everything derived from petroleum.
That kind of price inflation can be a serious problem, but at least it's
straightforward and honest compared to the way monetary inflation robs
everyone while allowing a false image of properity.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 81613
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Wow
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 20:25:32
This system looks different on a Macintosh.
Message: 81614
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Archimedes
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 20:56:58
Lesse. Lots to respond to, so little space to do it in time
wise. I guess I could engage the warp mouth drive and spew tons of
text on here but I don't want to be a hypocrite just yet...at least
not until I reach 70. :-)
Arch: While I still maintain that I agree that FRN's are pretty
much worthless, the issuance of gold coin in the current world
economy wouldn't give you the fix you seek. Gold would, after
becoming "as common as pocket change", be worth subtantially less
than it ever has..it would likely become as cheap as silver. Probably
one of the many good reasons why we aren't using gold coin to this
date. Still, we disagree about value of labor over time. If someone
made a computer 45 years ago and charges two million frn's for it,
the same money today will by a VASTLY superior product. You advocate
paying the same amount today for a 45 year old computer. Sorry,
but my point about supply and *demand* comes into play here. There
just aren't too many businesses in their right mind who'll pay you
two million to make them a computer using 45 year old technology,
parts, technical skills and labor either, let alone buying a used
one for that much. 10 Year old computer scrap runs about 5 cents on
the dollar at the local scrap yard. -See ya
Mike
Message: 81615
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: Cliff
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 21:03:09
Cliff: No, my definition of "pissed" at you is far from
yours. Just because I disagree on your zapping of my post
doesn't mean I hate you. I just think you have handled the whole
thing badly. When you get down to the rocks on this issue,
Mark Adkin's aliases shouldn't be *any* part of the issue because
a good percentage of your users here use "stupid" nick names,
something that is to this date still against the letter of the
Apollo ules. Saying someone is banished from the board just
because his/her messages were "stupid" is just a another way
of censoring them. Cliff, you say you support the freedom of speech
but only when it isnt the speech of "idiots logging in under false
names and leaving stupid messages". What makes Green laterns, or
Archimedes, or Apro Poet's false names better than anyone else's?
As for idiotic messages, that's in the eye of the beholder.
But when is free speech "free" when anyone can preemptorily shut up
anyone whom they deem is stupid? As for cowardice, or as you put it,
COWardice, what's so brave about deleting someone's messages that make
their opponent's opinions and posts look lame or foolish?
No Cliff, this board *is* subject to the worst type of censorship....
you have proven it by kicking someone off soley for their viewpoints
and at the advice of gossip. DON'T preach judgment to me when you have
"hung" a man as quickly and as you have.
-Mike
Message: 81616
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Question?
Subject: Daryl on MLK, Jr.
Date: 01/15/92 Time: 22:15:32
So, are you going to vote for an MLK Day in Ariz.? Did you vote for it last
time?
Message: 81619
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: Mike C.
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 00:15:04
I did not kick Mark off for being stupid, far from it, he is/was
quite smart. It was not his posts that caused this to happen, but his
constant breaking of the ules that I gave him chance after chance after
chance to redeem himself.
Mark's use of this board was not a 'RIGHT'.. but a 'PRIVILEGE'
Message: 81620
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: Letter of ules
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 00:22:24
Here Mike goes again...telling me, a 10 year SysOp veteran how to
read my rules. No where does it say you can't have a handle. In the real
world many people use pen-names etc. On Apollo, I want users to use ONE
name and stick to it. I do not want them logging in as another user other
then the user name they selected. This follows the letter of my rules.
I wrote them after all.
I have a problem with God's commandment... 'THOU Shalt not Kill'
Now let's see... to follow that to the letter, I assume we can't kill
plants, bugs, animals of any type. I mean, that is the LETTER of the LAW.
As for me doing in Mark so quickly... this has been going on for
years.... with lots of warnings. I never do in anyone without explaining
the rule in question carfully.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
P.S. We even had a ote on handles... and what do you know, the
Pro-Handle people won out... Accept it, it is *my* board and I accept it.
There is no ule that states you have to have a handle. But, whatever you
choose, that is your USER NAME, and you shalt not falsify that name by using
another. Simple... eccept for Mike that is.
Message: 81621
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/documentation
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 05:18:16
Why is a gender determination necessary at all in docs? Why not simply "THe
operator must specify the desired output device."?
Message: 81622
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: For sale
Subject: Computer reduced!
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 05:25:30
I have a Commodore 128, with a 171 disk drive, color monitor, 1200 bd
moden, joysticks, and Epsom MX80 printer and loads of software, manuals,
etc. Price reduced to $400, or make a reasonable offer for the whole works.
Message: 81623
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Dean-Inflation
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 07:54:34
> One thing that I believe can cause inflation even in sound
> money economy however, is a big leap in the price of some basic
> material that adds to the cost of virtually everything in the
> economy, like oil for example. If the price of oil jumps
> because of foreign causes beyond our control, then that
> increase works its way through our whole economy as it gets
> added to transport costs and the cost of everything derived
> from petroleum.
Agreed. And though the effects of this type of inflation can linger for
some time, it's also not the permanent, institutionalized inflation an
inappropriately growing money supply causes.
Message: 81624
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean-Language
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 07:55:00
OK. I understand your viewpoint better, I think. It seemed to me you were
saying using a gender-specific wasn't really so bad, then later saying it's
not a good thing to do.
While I tend to believe that a great many communication problems lie in
ambiguities permitted by the sender, there are times when receivers make
trouble for themselves. Using "she" in a general context no more implies
that an individual MUST be female than using "he" implies the individual
MUST be male. That may be how the reader interprets it, but that's not
necessarily a valid interpretation.
I still contend the use of either "he" or "she" reflects a changing world --
especially a changing American work place -- and is, therefore, a good way
to handle the problem.
Message: 81625
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: Mike on Mark
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 07:55:31
> But when is free speech "free" when anyone can preemptorily
> shut up anyone whom they deem is stupid?
"Stupid" may have been the word used to describe the posts "Hiro"
left, but that wasn't the reason Mark was banned, and he knows it.
Cliff's done a good job of explaining the whys of his move, but let
me add that it wasn't done on anything remotely resembling a whim. Cliff
and Mark, as well as Mark and I, have been in discussion for some time
regarding his past behavior on Apollo and what was expected of him now and
for the future. He pushed the line a couple times, then backed off when we
told him so. This time he simply went too far; he did something (posting
under yet another alias) that he had been told would result in his
banishment.
Cliff had no choice but to kick Mark off the system. I'm not sure I
would have respected any other decision even if he had made it.
As far as "free speech" goes, we all use this system only with
Cliff's permission. It is his property. He goes to great lengths to permit
nearly anything -- so long as it stays within Apollo's quite reasonable
(IMHO) ules.
Message: 81626
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul-Language
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 07:56:00
> Why is a gender determination necessary at all in docs? Why not
> simply "THe operator must specify the desired output device."?
That is one solution to the problem. Another is to change sentence
subjects to plurals: "Operators must specify the desired output device."
These are both rather passive, however, and will put readers to sleep in
short order.
My preference would be to make it a more direct, active sentence:
"Don't forget that the output device you wish to use must be specified."
Or, possibly: "Be sure to specify the output device you wish to use."
Unfortunately, this doesn't cover cases in which you wish to SHOW by
example what is to be done, such as in a hypothetical demonstration: "The
operator is ready to send the report to an output device. The output device
might be a disk drive or a printer, but whatever it is, *he/she* must
specify which device the program is to use." (Ugh. This is pretty rough,
but I'm not going to spend a lot of time polishing it.)
It's much more personal, and involves the reader more, to make our
operator a "real" person. And I see nothing wrong with occasionally making
that person female.
Message: 81627
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Taranto Speaks!
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 07:56:24
So, James. What are you doing these days? Are you in the Valley or calling
from the Great Beyond?
Message: 81628
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Dean H. 1/3
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 11:27:31
DH> One thing that I believe can cause inflation even in sound money
DH> economy however, is a big leap in the price of some basic material that
DH> adds to the cost of virtually everything in the economy, like oil for
DH> example. If the price of oil jumps because of foreign causes beyond our
DH> control, then that increase works its way through our whole economy as
DH> it gets added to transport costs and the cost of everything derived
DH> from petroleum.
AT LAST! I sincerely appreciate you opening the door and allowing this
discussion to move forward. This was the basis of my frustration with Fred;
I got the distinct impression he didn't want the discussion to reach this
level because now some of the greatest destructive fallacies of debt-money
can be revealed.
First, I agree with everything you said in your post. Let us now look at
the next level: As Bill Burkett pointed out in message #81623:
BB> Agreed. And though the effects of this type of inflation can linger
BB> for some time, it's also not the permanent, institutionalized inflation
BB> an inappropriately growing money supply causes.
Yes! And I would add, more specifically, that when this happens under a
sound monetary standard we don't wind up owing more money to the banksters
Message: 81629
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Dean H. 2/3
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 11:28:43
as a result of paying those higher prices.
Additionally, this so-called "type of inflation" is not inflation at all.
As previously pointed out, inflation occurs only when the money supply in
circulation exceeds the value of produced wealth in the community (nation).
A price increase as a result of dependence upon foreign suppliers is not
inflation; it is merely the unfettered and undistorted operation of the law
of supply and demand. Inflationists like John Kenneth Galbraith (and his
disciples like Fred and Matlock) like to confuse the issue to their own gain
by pointing to this sort of thing occurring under a sound monetary standard
and calling it "inflation," but it is not. It is a legitimately higher
price caused by scarcity, not caused by devaluation of the currency or of
labor.
But now we get to the REAL significant fact: In a sound money system, when
a price increase due to factors outside the economy occurs, the immediate
result is a TREMENDOUS amount of research and inventive effort which goes
into finding an improvement in technology which will obviate the price
increase by utilizing greater efficiency and/or by replacing the dependence
upon that particular resource with a new technology altogether. As a result
of this research and inventiveness there are numerous spin-offs which
benefit the living standard of everyone, even if the primary goal is not
achieved. Much of the huge technological advancement during the 1800's
Message: 81630
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Dean H. 3/3
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 11:29:41
was the result of specifically this kind of incentive.
In an unsound monetary system such as ours, on the other hand, there is less
incentive to find a solution because "who cares? We'll just inflate the
money and pass the cost off onto our children." And thus we remain
enslaved, not only to the foreign suppliers, but also in our debt to the
banksters.
Thus, in a sound monetary standard economy, the law of supply and demand
(whether naturally invoked by market forces or artificially invoked by
greedy manipulators) stimulates inventiveness and production and ultimately
improves the living standard of everyone. In an unsound monetary standard
economy all it stimulates is debt, and by extension, the bankster's profit
margin.
Message: 81631
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Mike Carter
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 11:30:48
MC> Gold would, after becoming "as common as pocket change", be worth
MC> subtantially less than it ever has..it would likely become as cheap as
MC> silver.
What you describe is the definition of "inflation," and would not occur --
*could* not occur -- unless gold mining became as efficient, for example, as
printing worthless paper debt-money on a printing press.
And even if it did occur, it would cause few problems in the economy because
the medium of exchange (gold) -- even if its value dropped to that of
pennies -- would still not represent debt as does our paper frns today. The
only problem would be that it would be too heavy to carry enough of it
around. This is a significant problem, I agree, but it isn't even a patch
on the problem of carrying around batches of "worthless" paper money, every
bill of which represents debt in the amount of one U.S. dollar's worth of
labor that must be repaid by future generations, the repaying of which will
simply generate more and more debt.
Regardless of how efficiently gold mining and gold coining became, it could
never become as big a threat to our survival as a sovereign nation as the
worthless paper debt-money we use has already become. Heck, as it became
forty or fifty years ago.
Message: 81632
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Mike/Compare 1/3
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 11:32:13
MC> Still, we disagree about value of labor over time. If someone made a
MC> computer 45 years ago and charges two million frn's for it, the same
MC> money today will by a VASTLY superior product. You advocate paying the
MC> same amount today for a 45 year old computer.
I advocate no such thing. Our discussion does not involve computers, which,
like all informal barter mediums *do* devalue over time; our discussion
involves the merits of a sound monetary standard of intrinsic value which
does *not* devalue over time. It seems to me your argument destroys your
argument; the devaluation (inflation) of frns over time is much closer to
how your computer analogy works than is gold standard dollars.
I.e., what is the difference between buying a computer for two million frns
45 years ago and selling it today, and simply putting that two million frns
into a desk drawer and dragging it out today? That two million frns you
earned 45 years ago to buy that computer with wouldn't buy any where near a
state-of-the-art computer today. It would buy a *better* computer, yes,
because of the improvement in technology, but it would not buy the *best*
computer today.
On the other hand, two million gold standard dollars would have bought a
state-of-the-art computer 45 years ago, and if you put that two million
Message: 81633
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Mike/Compare 2/3
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 11:33:30
gold standard dollars into a desk drawer and dragged it out today it *would*
buy a state-of-the-art computer today which would be vastly superior to the
one you might have bought 45 years ago. In fact, it would probably buy the
company that produces that state-of-the-art computer today.
You see, you are trying to compare apples to oranges. If you want to make a
valid comparison, compare how much essential food and shelter you could buy
with two million frns 45 years ago to how much you could buy with two
million frns today. Not much, my friend, by comparison.
A better valid comparison is this: compare how much *labor* you could buy
45 years ago with two million frns to how much labor you could buy today
with two million frns. Not much at all, by comparison. Then compare how
much labor you could buy 45 years ago with two million gold standard dollars
to how much labor you could buy today with two million gold standard
dollars. Dang near the same amount in terms of man-hours; one heck of a lot
more in terms of productive output due to improvements in technology and
training.
Another example is this: 45 years ago you could buy 40 man-hours of good
semi-skilled labor for approximately 35 U.S. dollars which, 45 years ago,
would also buy an ounce of gold on the open market. Today you can buy 40
Message: 81634
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Mike/Compare 3/3
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 11:34:30
man-hours of good semi-skilled labor for approximately 350 frns, and 350
frns today will also buy you an ounce of gold on the open market.
Note also that 45 years ago the worker received the full 35 U.S. dollars for
his week's work. Today the worker gets robbed of between 15 and 20% of that
350 frns before he ever sees his pay. Add to that the higher cost of living
and you find that if his labor purchased 100% of his needs 45 years ago, his
labor today purchases less than 50% of his needs.
You might also consider that while his pay (in numbers, not actual value)
increased 1,000% in 45 years, his costs have increased between 1,500 and
1,800% in 45 years -- all of which is the direct result of using debt-money
and running up the debt to the banksters. This is why he and his wife both
have to work today; 45 years ago his labor alone was sufficient to support
his family.
Message: 81635
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Bill/inflation
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 12:09:50
The significance of too much paper in the "demand-pull" theory is that
demand has force because it's backed by money. Too much "money" inflates
the demand and makes it appear to have more backing than it really does.
It makes a little demand into a BIG paper tiger, if you like.
Message: 81636
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Bill/personalization
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 12:11:22
BB>>"A grim aspect of this new politics is its increasing personalization,
BB>>its loss of a sense of humor. The old image of two lawmakers arguing
BB>>fiercely in debate, and then retiring for a beer together at the corner
BB>>pub, is as quaint as a Norman Rockwell scene."
Some British politician said something similar to John Kolbe's thought.
After describing some violent Parliamentary disagreements of the past, he
went on to say, in effect, that the reader might get the impression from all
this bitter argument that Conservatives and Labor MPs hated one another's
guts, but that wasn't true at all. This was business, and outside of
business they were often the best of friends, were dinner guests at one
another's homes, and so on. He was discussing events of several decades
ago, leaving it unclear whether the same atmosphere still existed today.
Just for one moment I tripped over Kolbe's word "personalization", thinking
that he should have said "DEpersonalization" instead. A sense of humor,
drinking a beer together, all that has a very "personal" flavor to it.
Isn't their disappearance a *loss* of the personal touch? Then I realized
that he did mean what he said: that mere political disagreements were now
spilling over and making themselves felt in personal relationships.
My confusion about this suggests that there really are two ways to look at
it. There's a complex thought here about the proper roles of politics and
personal relationships in life, but I don't have time to go into it now.
Message: 81637
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: gender pronouns
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 12:58:33
I like to mix he and she occasionally. It wakes up the reader.
Message: 81638
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: Cliff on ules
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 14:22:54
Here's some facts for you to chew:
Rule #3 says "Thou shalt not falsify thy name"
Phone conversation with DPS:
"Any other name that does not appear on any court certified
document or birth certificate is considered a false name, alias or
nickname unrecognized in legal proceedings..."
So you claim you know law eh?
NOWEHERE IN YOUR ULES DOES IT SAY:
You can't login as several users using different names..
You can use a HANDLE
So, Judge Cliff, I'll be sure to refrain posting any OPINION
on your court certified, holier-than-thou ules just in
case you take it like I'm trying to take over Apollo and
overthrow its unquestionable management. God forbid that
I even *suggest* you write your ammended rules down so new
people can see them...
Excuuuuuuuuuuuseeee mee for having an opinion. Scratch that,
excuse Me and my Non-persona wife BOTH for daring to have an
opinion.
Message: 81639
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: ules
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 14:26:20
I have always thought Cliff's ules were simple, honest and
quite reasonable. Nothing has changed there except that we now
find he likens them to the 10 Commandments issued by the Holy
Father. How quaint. All I *suggested* to Cliff was that he
may want to post the rules about handles and multiple logins.
Personally *I* could care less about Mark's banishment. I
think the stated reasons aren't in themselves unreasonable, just
that this discrepancy between the written ules and the
rules that aren't written down keeps popping up. Simple, except
that is, for Cliff, who despises being questioned.
Gimme a break.
Message: 81640
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pronouns
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 19:05:34
So what is wrong with that great genderless third-person singular pronoun?
No, I'm not talking about "it" - I'm talking about "one".
"Before running the program, one must choose the printer appropriate to
one's desired quality of output"
Works well in many languages, even English -- though most of us have
forgotten about it.
Message: 81641
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: Mike
Date: 01/16/92 Time: 19:12:15
Surely over the past five or more years you've seen Cliff explain that
handles are allowed, as long as it sticks. Surely you've seen this more
than once.
Message: 81643
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/personal
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 06:28:59
Well, if instructions are to be made more personal, therefore more
interesting, how about the personal pronoun, "you"? As in "whatever it is,
YOU must specify which device" etc.
At least the gender specific problem is thus eliminated, and the feminists
hopefully appeased,if that's possible.
Message: 81644
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: ules/Cliff
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 07:39:34
I have refrained from making any comment on the banishment of Mark Adkins
and his alter egos, and upon the current flak Cliff is taking, because I
have a perceived bias: Adkins and his alter egos and I have had serious
conflicts in the past about his approach to discussion if people didn't
immediately bow down and nominate him for the center of attention. However,
in view of the recent controversy, which seems to be getting unnecessarily
acrimonious, I now feel it is necessary to speak up.
Cliff, I support your decisions and see nothing unreasonable or excessively
judgmental about what you have done. Had you decided the other way I still
would have supported your decision. I see nothing whatever you have done in
your enforcement of the ules which meets the criteria of which you have
been accused in recent messages. I feel the acrimonious attacks have been
unwarranted and beyond any relationship to the facts. Just thought you
would like to know.
Message: 81645
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Beau-Pronouns
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 07:46:44
> So what is wrong with that great genderless third-person
> singular pronoun? ["one"]
It's boring; stilted. Much, much worse than "he" or "she." One never uses
the word in everyday conversation unless one is making fun of one's
superiors. And business writing is becoming more and more like conversation
all the time.
Message: 81646
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon-Inflation
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 07:47:12
> The significance of too much paper in the "demand-pull"
> theory...
Well, if you say so. It still seems to me like a minor overall effect.
Message: 81647
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon-Language
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 07:47:39
> My confusion about this ["personalization"/"depersonalization"]
> suggests that there really are two ways to look at it.
It strikes me as one of those wonderful paradoxes of language and thought
that reveals more about ourselves than simple, straightforward words would
allow.
Message: 81648
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul-You
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 07:47:58
Not a bad idea -- when it fits.
Message: 81649
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Beaus/pronouns
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 08:12:55
Or better yet, get rid of the pronoun:
"Choose the printer whose quality is appropriate before running the
program."
Message: 81650
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Public Enemy
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 08:36:28
Daryl brought up some good points. I have a hard time feeling sympathic to
a group that refers to THEMSELVES as "n1gg@r$". I hate that word. There
was an interesting "A Different World" last night that dealt with the racial
issue, but both sides. It was very well done, even if it was slanted to the
pro-black side. I liked that it showed the black kid had a part in the
prejudice, using myths like blacks are better in sports, to his advantage
and then getting upset by the white kids using some of the stereotypes
against them. When the black kids cried victim, he wasn't totally innocent.
Message: 81651
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Public Enemy
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 12:21:56
I liked Daryl's post also. There's nothing like "telling it like it is".
Message: 81652
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/sexist language
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 12:22:58
There's a difference between what happens in real life and the abstract
images of life that we form in our thoughts; and another difference between
those abstract images and the language conventions we use to represent them.
In each case there's a definite time lag between changes in external reality
and the corresponding changes in how we represent that reality.
A person's sex is often irrelevant, but it's an irrelevancy that refuses to
go away. Somebody pointed out that a person's sex is the first thing we
notice about them, and the last thing we forget. When we form a mental
image of a person in some context, we arbitrarily assign them to one sex or
the other without consciously thinking about it. In our thoughts, we have
to pick one or the other; we have no choice. If it's a truck driver,
usually our mental image will be male. If females start displacing males in
the trucking business, it will take a while for our mental habits to change.
Even then, there's no pressing reason for those habits to change at all if
over 50% of truckers are still male.
Language is more conservative still. We still talk about "knights in
shining armor" and "reinventing the wheel" and other things from hundreds of
years back, use ancient (and inappropriate) spellings, and so forth.
Language takes a long while to catch up to modern realities.
Message: 81653
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/sexist (2/5)
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 12:23:53
While reality does work its way into language, it's normally slowed down by
a process of filtration. When a choice of pronoun startles the reader, he
realizes that somebody must have deliberately circumvented that filtration
process, otherwise the effect wouldn't be so jarring. Changes in language
normally *follow* changes in reality, in their own time, at a comfortable
pace. If the change seems abnormally fast, *uncomfortably* fast -- if the
change even appears to be *leading* reality at times -- then he knows that
somebody must be pushing an agenda.
This is quite a lot of words attempting to explain a feeling, but the
feeling is real and needs explaining. Dean obviously has it too. It's
worth comparing the effect of the "she" pronoun in language with something
quite different: a photograph. If you saw the early Macintosh manuals, you
may have noticed that every single picture showed a male user. There were
no women users at all. This struck me as remarkably sexist, which was all
the more surprising when many of the pictures showed users in a college
environment. Photographs do show reality literally, if selectively, and it
would have been far better to include women as well as men.
One difference between a photograph and language is that photography forces
us to observe everything visible, while language only sketches in the
essentials. A picture or diagram showing a person pressing a button may
also show a hand, a sleeve, a watch, maybe even the color of the wallpaper.
Message: 81654
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/sexist (3/5)
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 12:24:51
A written description includes none of these things, because they make no
difference to how we operate something. When we read, we form images from
the words we're reading, and we fill in the other details for ourselves if
necessary. We're used to reading "he", and we've accepted through custom
that "he" doesn't really "mean" anything about a person's sex in certain
contexts. When "she" is forced on us, it seems like an invasion of that
image-territory that we thought was a blank slate reserved entirely for our
own use. Someone's barging in and drawing things on *our* slate!
I know what this kind of change is trying to achieve, but I think it's
politically unwise when it annoys people for no real gain. In the battle of
the sexes, it's an attack from an unexpected quarter. It's as if a truce
had been agreed on the battlefield, and then one of your factories behind
the lines was hit by a sneak missile attack. "Oh, the truce was only meant
to cover the ground forces. It's not our fault if you didn't expect to be
vulnerable from the air as well." But an argument like that will get
hostilities going again.
I agree with Dean's other points. Usage says that "he" can mean "he or
she", but in our minds, "she" is only used in speaking of a female. It's
reasonable enough for the female sex to demand to be included along with
males, but in the reader's mind the writer seems to be *replacing* men with
women. This looks like both an unreasonable and a threatening demand.
Message: 81655
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/sexist (4/5)
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 12:25:47
Deborah Tannen ought to have something to say about the competitive aspects
of that demand, but she fell foul of a similar mistake herself. In her
book, subtitled "Women and Men in Conversation", she repeatedly spoke of
"women and men" in that order. We're more used to the order "men and
women". "Women and men" isn't such a glaring difference, and it's often
preferable in some sentences; but just about every occurrence of this phrase
in her book put "women" first. Tannen would have been better advised to use
a more equal mixture of the two orders. She of all people knows that men
are more sensitive to the competitive aspect of messages than women are, and
more likely to be annoyed by anything that could be interpreted as an
aggressive move.
This is where a lot of women go wrong in trying to gain equality. They step
forward and make a claim to some territory that they think is their fair
share. In women's minds, they think they're going to stop when they get
their fair share; but in men's minds, all they see is that they're under
attack. When you're attacked, either you defend yourself and win, or you do
nothing and lose. Many women don't understand masculine thinking enough to
see this point. If they did, I think more of them would avoid irritating
men with niggling things like replacing "he" with "she" when it doesn't even
gain them anything of real value.
Again, as Dean mentioned, the only real answer to the language problem is a
new set of pronouns and possessives.
Message: 81656
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/sexist (5/5)
Date: 01/17/92 Time: 12:26:51
This is a far more radical language change than using a different word
already in existence, though paradoxically it could be more acceptable in
the long run because it offers peaceful coexistence instead of continuing a
cold war. Since it has been proposed before, I don't know if the reason it
failed was simply that it is so radical, or that it's hard to find suitable
gender-free substitutes for "he/she", "him/her", "his/her", and "his/hers".
You could put almost any made-up words in there ("blarg", "glurg", "quock",
and "flum"), but they have to look something like the way we expect English
pronouns and possessives to look. Someone suggested "te", "tim", and "tis",
but that didn't fly, perhaps because "tim" and "tis" are too obviously
modeled on the masculine forms. We've also seen people using "hir".
Orthographically it's an equal mixture of "his" and "her", or "him" and
"her", but phonologically it's indistinguishable from the feminine form
"her" (unless they pronounce it "heer"). How about modeling something on
the neuter form? "Te", "tit", and "tits"? No, I think women would object
to that. They might suspect that somebody was making fun. Better get out
the alphabet blocks and toss them up in the air again...
Being on the "cutting edge of social awareness" must really be more like
getting thrust unwillingly into the front line. No matter what you write,
somebody's bound to find some reason to complain about it!
Message: 81657
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: In search of
Subject: New posts
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 00:53:46
Good Lord! NOTHING new on Apollo for over twelve hours? Was there a crash
or something?
Message: 81658
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon-Language
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 11:50:13
I commented the other day that it was interesting that Archimedes and I
could agree on so much while continuing to disagree on so much. It seems
you and I have a very similar situation.
I agree with virtually everything you said in your posts. -- Except for
the premise you build on and the conclusion you reach.
It would appear that your sensitivity to seeing "she" used generally (it's
not really any more a "unisex" usage than "he" is; it's merely specific in
the other direction) is greater than most of the folks I've run into. I do
not believe that the majority of readers find this as disturbing or
offensive as you seem to. Maybe you feel you've been attacked by a writer
when she (!) uses a pronoun you hadn't expected, but others seem to simply
pass it by.
Your arguments boil down to one point, Gordon: You wish to see the status
quo maintained. Or perhaps just the image that it is being maintained.
That surprises me.
Message: 81659
Author: $ Sandy SysOp
Category: Bulletins
Subject: Beware! (1 of 15)
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 13:51:25
Just kidding .......
This is the only post. I heard so much about all these LONG posts .....
thought I would join the crowd.
Now, to see how many skipped my '1 of 15' post ......
For all those who thought enough of me to bother ..... I give you one free
ride to any hospital of your choise in this valley --- FREE.
For all those who thought not enough of me to hit the 'skip' button ....
you will be run over as I go Code 3 taking that user who won their
free ambulance ride because
"they cared".
Sandy Sysop the Gimpettet
or just call me Queen G
Message: 81660
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 16:09:42
I read it twice, Sandy. Do I get two free rides?
[By the way, I hope you're feeling better and not a member of the Gimpettes
for long.]
Message: 81661
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandy
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 17:38:25
I was quite disappointed there weren't 14 more posts. It was just getting
interesting.
Hope you're looking after yourself and staying off that heel...
Message: 81662
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/status quo 1/4
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 17:40:57
BB>>Your arguments boil down to one point, Gordon: You wish to see the
BB>>status quo maintained. Or perhaps just the image that it is being
BB>>maintained.
Ah, thanks for the straw man. Now, where are my matches? Here they are...
If by the "status quo" you mean I'd like to keep women at home where they
"belong", or in some inferior position, I think the opinions I've expressed
here in the past are sufficient contradiction of that. Furthermore, if it
were true, I'd never have complained about the male-only pictures in that
early Mac manual and called them "sexist". I think that also covers the
idea that I think documents ought to preserve the image of the status quo.
As for being attacked by a writer who used a pronoun I hadn't expected, the
truth is that I'd object a lot less to a writer who did that if her(!) main
purpose in writing was to attack men. The topic of sexism would then be out
in the open and up for discussion, rather than putting in these little
covert reminders of the sex war.
Tannen, for example, was *not* out to complain about sexism, but wrote some
very sensible and constructive books to help the two sexes understand one
another instead of unwittingly antagonizing one another. That's why I
thought the disproportionate use of "women and men" was a subtle *mistake*
on her part, and one that she might well be glad to reconsider.
Message: 81663
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Status quo (2/4)
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 17:41:54
My argument isn't against changing the status quo. My argument is against
particular *methods* of changing the status quo. I don't think I'm alone in
finding the pronoun substitution an irritant, since Dean found the same
thing; and I thought Green's remark was telling also. He said he liked to
throw a "she" in there from time to time because it "wakes up the reader".
This is quite true; it does. But we have to ask what mood people are in
when they're treated to a "rude awakening". Does it help relations overall,
or does irritation make people defensive?
For this reason I'm also arguing against the *efficacy* of such methods of
changing the status quo. Suppose we say the use of "he" to mean both sexes
has discriminated against women by pushing them into the background. I
don't believe the remedy for that is to get out the big stick that we
euphemistically called "affirmative action" (read "reverse discrimination")
and start putting "she" in instead. That's just a continuation of the same
old war, only this time we're giving an advantage to the other side. I
don't think the ultimate goal is to continue the war, while giving both
sides an equal supply of armaments. I think the ultimate goal is peace.
In a broader sense, we can see what happens when the oppression of one group
by another is countered by giving more weapons to the oppressed group. Laws
*against* racial discrimination have met with some opposition, but haven't
aroused anywhere near as much hostility from white people as things like
"quotas" and busing.
Message: 81664
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Status quo (3/4)
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 17:43:02
These latter actions may have short-term advantages, but in the long run
they only perpetuate the war of race against race. It's interesting to see
that in South Africa, where whites have subjugated blacks for so long, we
will probably see a black government oppressing a white minority before this
decade is done. This is what Arthur C. Clarke predicted over thirty years
ago, but I'm not convinced that persecution of whites is any better than
persecution of blacks.
Going back to writing, it's quite possible to even things out by sprinkling
an equal mixture of "he" and "she" liberally all over the page.
("Liberally" seems a good choice of adverb!) That might work in a way, but
the problem I see with it is that sex isn't really *relevant* to a great
deal of writing, for just the same reason that no writer would bother
telling the reader to push the button with the *right* hand unless there
were some good reason for doing so. As I mentioned in my piece on the
Computer SIG, there's meaning implicit in almost anything we write: not only
in the words themselves, but in the word order, in the choice of one synonym
over another, in what we include and in what we omit. Some of that meaning
may be there unintentionally. But I also think we should bear in mind how
the reader might interpret what we say, what he might think is our reason
for saying it, and how he's likely to react. Even if we mix up our "he" and
"she", it *reminds* the reader of the war. Do we really want to do that, if
doing so might only perpetuate the war?
Message: 81665
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Status quo (4/4)
Date: 01/18/92 Time: 17:43:31
As a final counter to the idea that I'm fighting to preserve the status quo,
I've actually suggested that the ultimate solution is a set of gender-free
pronouns and possessives, although it's a radical change. The best service
we could do is to invent an acceptable set and push for their use. The ones
I already mentioned have problems of their own. Anyone wanna be in the
vanguard of this movement? How about "shey", "shim", and "shis"? Anyone
have any other suggestions?
Message: 81666
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon - "Heel"
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 07:34:38
> Hope you're looking after yourself and staying off that heel...
Gordon I will not tolerate you speaking of Cliff in this way. :)
Message: 81667
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon-Language 1/4
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 07:35:40
> Ah, thanks for the straw man. Now, where are my matches?
Ha!
> As for being attacked...
That is exactly the problem! You feel threatened by the notion of women --
even unseen, hypothetical women -- appearing in business literature. That
to me reveals a deep-rooted sexism that cannot help but reveal itself in the
work place and elsewhere.
> Tannen, for example, was *not* out to complain about sexism...
I cannot defend Deborah Tannen. If she, as you claimed consistently used
"women and men," she is, indeed, as sexist as the next fellow. (!)
Message: 81668
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon-Language 2/4
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 07:36:07
> Does it help relations overall, or does irritation make people
> defensive?
Only those who have something to be defensive about. If, in fact, a large
proportion of readers are put off by reading "she" where traditional usage
would have used "he," I suspect just as many readers are encouraged by its
use. In reality, most readers don't care at all.
> I don't believe the remedy for that is to get out the big stick
> that we euphemistically called "affirmative action" (read
> "reverse discrimination") and start putting "she" in instead.
> That's just a continuation of the same old war, only this time
> we're giving an advantage to the other side.
Now it's my turn to thank YOU for the straw man.
I've never encouraged or espoused any sort of reverse discrimination. All I
suggest is that it's quite proper and acceptable to the majority of readers
for writers to scatter "he" and "she" about freely.
Message: 81669
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon-Language 3/4
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 07:36:31
> ...the problem I see with it is that sex isn't really
> *relevant* to a great deal of writing, for just the same reason
> that no writer would bother telling the reader to push the
> button with the *right* hand unless there were some good reason
> for doing so.
Has anyone but you suggested bringing sex into things when it isn't
appropriate? That's TWO of your straw men to my one.
> ...I've actually suggested that the ultimate solution is a set
> of gender-free pronouns and possessives ... How about "shey",
> "shim", and "shis"? Anyone have any other suggestions?
In his _On_Writing_Well_ (a VERY good book, BTW!) William Zinsser says:
Message: 81670
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon-Language 4/4
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 07:36:50
"The pedants, of course, have other solutions. they have proposed various
unisex pronouns, deriving from Nordic or Angle-Saxon roots that only they
have dug up, which they claim would fall easily into our speech if we just
started teaching them in our schools and writing them in our writings. One
of their typical candidates is "thon," a third-person pronoun that applies
to either gender and has a handy possessive ("thons") and reflexive
("thonself"). Maybe I don't speak for the average American, but I very much
doubt that thon wants that word in thons language or that thon would use it
thonself. This is not how language changes."
I agree!
Message: 81671
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandy Free Ride
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 09:59:25
OK, if I get run over by a herd of wild children driving boom boxes, I will
ask for you.
Message: 81672
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/One
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 12:12:04
One should use to learn "one" more often in conversation.
Message: 81673
Author: $ Sandy SysOp
Category: Answer!
Subject: Mr Archi
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 13:49:38
You, of all people! You, the one trying to right the wrongs!
You, who selflessly use your precious time and energy to educate the masses!
You dare try to take advantage of an 'injured' Sysopette on 'Happy Pills'.
In other words, the answer is "NO!"
Message: 81674
Author: $ Sandy SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon (2 of 15)
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 13:59:26
Now, for the ambulance ride ......
I will arrive at the accident sight. There I will assess the Accident scence
to be sure all is safe (for me, that is). I will then approach the injured
party (you, of course). I will identify myself and ask if can help you.
I then will check to make sure your airway is patent, you are breathing, and
you have a pulse. I will then ask you your 'chief complaint'.
A Secondary survey will then be performed. This starts with taking
vitals (Blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, capillary refill,
motor sensory of extremities, temp., Level of Consciousness). I now check
your head and neck out by slowly moving my fingers through your hair,
carressing every inch and slowly and gently moving my fingers to your hair
line where a gentle massage is felt as I check for fractures. The contour of
your face is stroked and touched ...........
Message: 81675
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: News Today
Subject: Birth announcement
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 14:36:11
On 19th January 1992, to Chilly Willy and Cactus Flower:
A daughter at 09:41, 7 1/2 oz., black and white like her mom. This one
insisted on burrowing up around mom's butt after she was born. Had to
keep showing her there was nothing to drink there, and she should be
looking elsewhere. I think she really wanted to play big sister and
greet her younger brothers and sister as they came out.
A son at 10:02, 7 1/2 oz., black like his mom's brother. Had to pull
the caul off this little guy's head so he didn't smother. If you're
born in a caul, doesn't that make you a witch? Or is it just good luck?
A son at 10:35, 7 1/2 oz., reddish black (we think) like his dad. This
was the feisty one of the bunch. He insisted on coming out butt first.
A daughter at 11:10, 7 1/4 oz., black and white, but with more black so
at least we can tell her and her sister apart. Both just as cute.
Congratulations to Flower for her good timing, doing it on a Sunday morning.
Mom and babies all doing fine, except that mom had just a momentary tummy
upset. Natural childbirth is a great way for humans to have babies too, but
I think eating the afterbirth is better left to Shih-Tzus.
Message: 81676
Author: $ Sandy SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 01/19/92 Time: 20:18:57
Gordon, just to let you know how much I really do keep up on this
board ..... I thought you were talking about your daughter.
Cliff informed me otherwise.
Message: 81678
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandy SysOp
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 02:15:04
I *knew* your story would get even better as it went along! Are there more
checks on blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, and Level of
Consciousness? They ought to be watched carefully, otherwise they could all
go through the roof...
Oh BTW, I'm not sure if I mentioned our dog before on the board, so I don't
think you missed anything. We had quite a parade of well-wishers through
the house today. Most of them were female. Most of them were under ten.
It was a lot of fun.
Message: 81679
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bill/sexism (1/6)
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 02:16:27
BB>>You feel threatened by the notion of women -- even unseen, hypothetical
BB>>women -- appearing in business literature. That to me reveals a deep-
BB>>rooted sexism...
It's all rooted in unconscious fear and hatred of my mother, a terrifyingly
powerful figure who smothered me from infancy on. Ever since I was a boy
I've been frightened of women. I'm even frightened of my daughter, and
she's only eight. I've tried to hide this fear and loathing all my life...
I was going to go on in this vein of heavy sarcasm, but I seriously don't
think I need to do any more than stand upon my record, while warming my
hands in the blaze. I hope the heat doesn't melt the record. They're only
made of plastic...
BB>>I cannot defend Deborah Tannen. If she, as you claimed consistently
BB>>used "women and men," she is, indeed, as sexist as the next fellow. (!)
Ah, here you really have got me! I did indeed fail to see that this was
"sexist". I don't want to bash Deborah Tannen, because on the whole she did
a very creditable job. I think the lesson here is that somebody must have
almost convinced me (and possibly Dr. Tannen too) that when men try to gain
an ascendancy over women, that's "sexism", but when women try to gain an
ascendancy over men, it isn't. Clearly they can't have it both ways.
Message: 81680
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bill/sexism (2/6)
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 02:17:33
I don't know where this contradictory idea came from, but to me it proves
more strongly that someone, somewhere, is trying to continue the war in the
guise of peace.
BB>>In reality, most readers don't care at all [about the use of "she"]
How do we know that? Has anybody done a survey? Lots of people keep their
gripes to themselves, unless they're asked. It may be significant that two
out of three people commenting on the topic who aren't professional writers
(Green, Dean and myself) said they felt they were being hit over the head.
BB>>I've never encouraged or espoused any sort of reverse discrimination.
I agree, you haven't. But this wasn't a straw man; I wasn't specifically
accusing you of doing so. To explain why, I'd better tie it in with...
BB>>Has anyone but you suggested bringing sex into things when it isn't
BB>>appropriate? That's TWO of your straw men to my one.
If nobody was concerned with the topic of sex in writing, then why on earth
would anyone bother changing "he" to "she"? "He" has been perfectly
serviceable for centuries. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Only because
somebody insisted on "bringing sex into things".
Message: 81681
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bill/sexism (3/6)
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 02:18:47
Words don't just have a literal meaning; they're also very evocative. They
hook onto little ideas and feelings in our skulls and drag them up to the
surface. They do this with varying degrees of power, depending on the
context. An unusual word is more eyecatching; it has more power than a run-
of-the-mill word. When we read "he" in a context where gender doesn't
matter, it's "usual and customary", as the doctor would say about his fees.
We don't think much about the sex of the person referred to. It might be at
the back of our mind, but we know that "he" isn't meant to exclude women.
In these contexts, the power of the word "he" to denote a male person and
exclude female persons has been largely eroded. The word "she", however,
retains its full power to denote a female person and exclude male persons.
When we read "she", a woman comes fully to the forefront of the mind.
If there's a mixture of "he" and "she" in the text, "she" is noticeable,
whereas "he" isn't. So the reader ends up with the *feeling* that reverse
discrimination is being practiced, even when the mixture is an equal one.
At the very least the reader knows that quotas are in effect, and *why* they
are in effect; and none of this has anything to do with the subject at hand.
Moreover, the constant switching between "she" and "he" keeps the reader
conscious of the issue of sex. It can't fade decently into the background
when it's continually being stirred up. This is why I say that even when
reverse discrimination or irrelevant discussion of sex is not consciously
intended, many readers are inclined to feel otherwise.
Message: 81682
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bill/sexism (4/6)
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 02:20:00
We know why this is happening. Somebody has been indulging in activism.
They've picked up the well-worn and comfortable word "he" and held it up at
arm's length as if it were something the cat dragged in, saying "Look!
Sexism!" when nothing of the kind was ever meant.
Surely any writer must realize that sex *has* been made into an issue in
many kinds of writing where it never was before. Can it really be possible
to mix up "he" and "she" automatically, without even thinking about the
implications of sex? Isn't the writer now obligated to install an extra
counter at the back of the brain that says "let me see, I've used "she" a
few times recently, so now it's time to give the guys a chance"? Isn't sex
just another unwanted issue that the writer is now forced to worry about?
And if you're looking for a *genuine* reason why this he-she business
irritates me, it isn't just how I feel when I read it. It's also because I
have to bother my head with this irrelevant rubbish when I write something
that's going to be read by a critical audience -- which sometimes happens.
I'm sure William Zinsser knows a lot about Writing Well, but if he says the
artificial introduction of new words "is not how language changes", he's
only telling us half the truth. If he thinks the likes and dislikes of the
average speaker will keep a new word forcibly out of the language, he hasn't
been noticing everything that's going on.
Message: 81683
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bill/sexism (5/6)
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 02:21:16
I have to go so far with Zinsser as to agree that most change in a language
takes place quite spontaneously, according to some mystic consensus among
its ordinary speakers. It's very difficult for academics to influence the
finer points of usage among those ordinary speakers. Language purists can
jump up and down about bad grammar and spelling and ignorance of vocabulary,
while the common man goes on his way with his "ain't got none" and his "me
and him snuck outside" and his chaise "lounge" and his "nucular" weapons.
However, there's a big difference in the way new *vocabulary* enters the
language. Here people are eager to grab at anything new, perhaps because it
sounds clever, or it shows they're keeping up with the latest trend, or just
because anything novel is interesting and relieves tedium. Here too, people
do regurgitate what they see and hear in the mass media. Let something once
become a buzzword, and suddenly everybody is using it. If it's state-of-
the-art, people like its look and feel. How about "political correctness"
itself? How many people knew what the word "ecology" meant twenty years
ago, and how many could spell "environment"? These aren't new words, of
course; but they are new to the common man. A long while ago, I suppose few
people knew what the word "alibi" meant. Today people use it all the time,
although many of them obviously still haven't a clue what it means.
A woman in the *Reader's Digest* said she told her husband he was "selecting
too many fried foods" in a self-service cafeteria. Why did she say this to
him? Do we really "select" foods in a cafeteria, or do we just "take" them?
Message: 81684
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bill/sexism (6/6)
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 02:22:32
Is this customary English, or was she imitating the vocabulary in all those
healthy-eating articles we read in the newspaper? I've also been offered a
"beverage" on many occasions when I'd far rather have had a plain old
ordinary drink. How did this pompous word get into common usage? It had to
be because some anti-alcohol nut was agitating to do away with the demon
"drink". It certainly wasn't part of the natural process of spontaneous
language change.
So I think a new set of pronouns would stand an excellent chance of success.
Novelty alone would encourage people to pick them up, apart from the broad
sympathy with the reason for using them. Our task isn't the difficult one
of getting the guy in the street to use them in everyday conversation -- not
to start with. It's only necessary to get professional writers and
journalists and the mass media to start using them, and that's a lot easier.
Writers imitate one another all the time, they have guidelines that they
follow, and they think about why they're writing something. If that weren't
true, we wouldn't be seeing all this "she" and "her" sprinkled all over the
place. I can't justify including that novelty in Mr. Zinsser's spontaneous
ideas of "how language changes". It's artificial and forced.
What we need is, most of all, *consensus* on which new words to use; but
support from segments of the written media is equally important. If we had
those two things, I think a new set of pronouns would take off like
wildfire. Or like a burning straw man.
Message: 81685
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Beau's One
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 06:31:48
> One should use to learn "one" more often in conversation.
Perhaps, one way or another, one will.
Message: 81686
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon's New Babies
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 06:32:06
Congratulations to mother and father. And grandparents Gordon and Jane,
too!
Message: 81687
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon-Language 1/3
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 06:37:47
> ...when men try to gain an ascendancy over women, that's
> "sexism", but when women try to gain an ascendancy over men, it
> isn't. Clearly they can't have it both ways.
I guess this one didn't get sufficiently incinerated. Where is the Wicked
Witch of the West you need her? I'm not advocating ascendancy; only
fairness.
> It may be significant that two out of three people commenting
> on the topic who aren't professional writers (Green, Dean and
> myself) said they felt they were being hit over the head.
Make that two our of four; I've been commenting, too. And one of your two
indicated he felt the browbeating was mild.
> If nobody was concerned with the topic of sex in writing, then
> why on earth would anyone bother changing "he" to "she"? "He"
> has been perfectly serviceable for centuries. If it ain't
> broke, why fix it?
Well, let me comment on this in tandem with the following remark:
Message: 81688
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon-Language 2/3
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 06:38:11
> Words don't just have a literal meaning; they're also very
> evocative. They hook onto little ideas and feelings in our
> skulls and drag them up to the surface.
First of all, you've taken my "concerned with sex" statement out of context
entirely. You brought up the question of why a specific gender should be
mentioned without a clear need any more than one (That's for you, Beau!)
should mention pushing a button with the right hand when the left will do
just as well. I agreed that it shouldn't.
Now, for the main event. A person's sex, as you've noted, is one of the
initial things we notice when we meet him or her for the first time. When
it's necessary to bring a hypothetical person into a piece of writing, the
writer is introducing that person to the reader. I believe it's helpful to
make that person a real as possible. If the people we invent for business
writing are to be real they must reflect the real work place. Therefore, a
sizable number of those people should be explicitly female.
Message: 81689
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon-Language 3/3
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 06:38:46
I'm glad to see you recognize the evocative and connotative power of words.
-- That is words except for "he." This particular word, you insist carries
with it, in a general sense, no sexual baggage (You know. The suitcase
you'd just as soon they NOT x-ray at the airport.). How can this be? If
"she" carries such strong and disturbing images with it, how can "he" be so
connotation free?
The answer, of course, is that it is not and cannot. It ain't broke? Are
you sure?
Message: 81690
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: News Today
Subject: In Other News...
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 06:39:23
Is this really the most interesting thing we have to talk about?
How is it that a large majority of those surveyed nationally still feel it's
the President's job to do something about the economy? Why don't they rag
on Congress for the economic mess? Why don't they see how President Bush
has tried to be accommodating and cooperative with the Democratic majority
in Congress only to have George Mitchell and Thomas Foley grind his face
into the mud?
How can the federal government continue to justify such huge defense
expenditures? Why are we so reluctant, now that we supposedly have no major
enemies, to pull back our troops and put them to work on the serious
problems we have here at home?
Why can't Arizona elect a decent Governor? How is it that every
non-appointed Governor we get turns out to be bum and a crook? Or is it
just Republican Governors? Should we have voted for Terry Goddard instead?
Message: 81691
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Answer!
Subject: last
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 07:07:51
Aaah! Cut to the quick!
Message: 81692
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Politics
Subject: What?
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 09:40:08
No comments on Senator DeeWeeinies 15% FLAT tax rate proposal?
A flat $4000.00 deduction PER member of the family. $25% for all earnings
over 100,000.00. Cut the IRS in HALF. The Tax form the size of a post
card.
No comments?
Message: 81693
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: (s)he
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 10:46:55
I've read all of Bill Burkett's messages and I still think it's rude to use
feminine pronouns for people of unknown gender.
Message: 81694
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Politics
Subject: Flat Rate
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 12:51:44
Income tax. I'm fer it.
Message: 81695
Author: $ Michael James
Category: In search of
Subject: bass guitar
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 16:17:29
If anyone here knows where I can borrow or rent a bass guitar for a couple
months, please leave me mail here.
Message: 81696
Author: $ Sandy SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: (s)he
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 16:49:10
I have not read all of Bill Burkett's messages and I do think it is
rude to use male pronouns for people of unkown gender.
(this message comes from a female)
Well ..... Gordon, where are these 'new' pronouns you were talking about?
I need one for someone of unkown gender as I am sure the pronoun 'it' is
out.
Message: 81698
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Peter's tired rant
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 20:14:04
Just give it up, no one is listening.
Message: 81699
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 15%
Date: 01/20/92 Time: 20:20:50
That would have reduced my 1989 tax bill.
Message: 81700
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Sandy
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 00:58:30
"Shey", "shim", and "shis"? Open to suggestions...
Message: 81701
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill (1/2)
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 00:59:44
BB>>I'm not advocating ascendancy; only fairness.
I'm sure that's true. My comments aren't aimed at your motives, Bill.
They're aimed at a specific practice, and what I'm trying to say is that
sometimes an audience doesn't receive things the way they were intended. It
falls into the great category of things we call "communication problems".
OK, two out of four people felt annoyed. Now Michael made that three out of
five. Knock off a bit for a "mild" browbeating; that's two and half out of
five. Even if the objectors were a minority, I'd still be concerned about
something that annoyed a *significant* minority. Otherwise we might use
that thinking to excuse other things that "only" annoyed a minority.
BB>>I believe it's helpful to make that person as real as possible.
I think there's a separate issue here. When we write about what people do,
it's often clearer to focus in on a specific example of a person and talk
about that person. A hypothetical individual, but a "definite" person.
When we do this, we create a character from our imagination and we fill in
details, like a specific name and job. "Sue is a sales manager." It
doesn't matter who and what the person is; it could be "Ted is a draftsman"
who also needs to know how to use our product. The detail is there only to
make the person real in the reader's mind. When we invent "definite"
people, we should certainly mix their identities to reflect reality.
Message: 81702
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill (2/2)
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 01:00:52
This is the same as my observation about the Mac manual, where pictures show
"definite" persons. With a definite person we have to be concerned with
sex; we have no choice. In many text passages, though, we're not going to
that trouble of inventing a fictitious character. We're only concerned with
the human being at large: with an "indefinite" person. This is where the
problem area lies.
I don't say the word "he" carries no implications of gender. What I do say
is that in this context of the indefinite person, its gender implications
are far weaker than those of "she".
As a kind of indefinite pronoun, I don't think "he" is broke. The most I'd
say is that it's a bit bent and rusty in places. Some people point out that
it still works, while others keep shouting about its creakiness. The real
trouble is that there is no ideal solution to satisfy everybody, not a
solution that's also painless. We can write gender-free English with our
present words if we want to, but if we do it consistently it gets a little
wordier, or a little clumsier, or a little less clear and direct. Then the
reader suffers. Or else we offend some people by using "he" all the time,
or a different lot of people by calling an indefinite person "she". That's
why I suggest the only ultimate way out is a radical one.
Oh, thanks for your baby congrats. Now I'm trying to decide whether I
should grow my beard again to fit the Grandfather image.
Message: 81703
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Symington etc.
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 01:02:05
I'm sure we shouldn't have voted for Goddard instead. I'd far rather see
personal integrity in a politician, but given Hobson's choice between a
crook who steals a few people's money and an "honest" zealot who steals
everyone's, I'll take the crook. One reason for this is that the damage
done by the crook is usually limited and repairable, and there's a chance of
bringing him to book for it. You can never do this with the zealot, and the
damage he does can take decades to repair.
I must have missed Senator Weenie's tax cut proposal. Sounds interesting.
The difficulty with tax cut proposals is forcing government to make the
necessary spending cuts to accommodate them. Too often the form of these
proposals gets accepted, while the content is gutted. 25% somehow magically
gets bumped up to 45% in the interest of making the result "revenue
neutral". We need proposals to remain strongly "revenue negative". This
was part of the trouble with the tax "reform" that was the great non-event
of the eighties.
"Revenue" can be a slimy word because it's used to try to delude people into
looking at losses upside-down. Some newspapers in the past have annoyed me
by discussing the effects of tax changes in terms of revenue all the time,
and speaking of "revenue losses". This is weasel wording. A "revenue loss"
is not a loss at all. The money doesn't vanish down the drain. But it
wouldn't be right to call it a "gain" for the people either. It's
*re*gaining money that was rightfully theirs all along.
Message: 81704
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Politics
Subject: Flat tax proposal
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 05:42:14
Sounds good to me, but 10% would be even better. THen force government to
live within it's means,beginning with congressmens' salary cuts and zero
based expense accounts that call for an accounting of every dollar spent.
Message: 81705
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Michael/guitar
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 05:44:06
Glendale Music Center usually has instruments for rent. You might try them.
Message: 81706
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Peter
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 05:51:52
Peter, I think you are beating a dead horse. The Mark Adkins by any name
issue is old news. It is history, done, over with. It seems that you are
standing alone out in left field with a hockey stick in your hands.
Cliff did what he thought was the best thing for the good of ALL Apollo
users. He did not ask for a vote. He did not ask for comments. He acted as
the sysop and the owner of this system and all of it's equipment.
It seems to me that, whether we agree or not, the very least we can do is
respect Cliff and his wishes so far as his property is concerned. Since you
are so vehemently opposed to his operation, might I suggest that you start
up a BBS of your own, run it any way you see fit, and walk a mile in
Cliff's shoes before
you continue your harrassment of him.
Message: 81707
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: For sale
Subject: Pewter Star Ship
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 10:33:56
The Franklin Mint Pewter 1701 Enterprize Star Ship from Star Trek.
This is a model of the original TV series Enterprise. From Franklin Mint
this would cost $207.75 total.
Now, I have one for sale at $125.00!!!!!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 81708
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon-Language
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 12:51:05
Well, it seems we've come to an impasse on this topic. I find little to
argue with in your most recent posts except for the notion that "he" is less
offensive than "she." It is just as clear to me that "he" is offensive to a
great many readers as it apparently is to you that it is not.
And I wouldn't put too much stock in the number of Apollonians who have
expressed agreement with you. I believe they are most likely being
persuaded by your accent rather than your arguments. :^D
Message: 81709
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon on Goddard
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 12:51:31
Well put re Goddard. You know, I don't recall him standing for much of
anything except the Gran Prix, Square One and the northeast location for the
Desert Sky Pavilion.
What amazes me about the Symington affair is the poll that indicated
something like 40% of Arizonans feel he should resign. 40%! How did these
folks come to this conclusion? Perhaps a more important issue is why was
the question asked in the first place? And why doesn't the media give more
details on these surveys: How large the sample was and whether it was
statistically significant; the margin of error; what, exactly, was asked;
who paid for the survey?
I've followed the news -- its presentation as well as it content -- closely
for years. It seems to me increasingly shallow and biased. Not biased
against any particular political view, but biased toward the so-called
"human interest" aspects of stories and the most sensational possible
interpretations of events.
Very disturbing.
Message: 81710
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Flat Tax
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 12:51:46
I heard only a brief report of Senator DeConweenie's flat tax proposal, but
it sounded like it was a flat tax in name only. There sure seemed to be an
awful lot of exceptions. Perhaps I'll call his office and see if I can get
a copy.
Message: 81711
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Flat rate
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 13:06:36
Cliff> No comments on Senator DeeWeeinies 15% FLAT tax rate proposal?
A flat $4000.00 deduction PER member of the family. $25% for all earnings
over 100,000.00. Cut the IRS in HALF. The Tax form the size of a post
card.
I hadn't heard of it, but I don't trust DeConnivingcini any further than I
could swing a baseball bat. In politics, "the more noble-sounding the
proposal, the more nefarious the purpose."
I am opposed to the proposal as described above. I am opposed to ANY "tax
reform" which falls short of restoring Constitutional taxation. ANY tax
system, however reformed, which allows wages to be taxed is flatly illegal
under the U.S. Constitution. [This is my opinion based upon my research. I
do not give legal advice.] Additionally, any "reform" of this illegal
system does nothing but reinforce the falsehood that a tax on individual
wages is legally enforceable and gives weight to the politician's argument
that "the people supported it," when in fact the people are supporting the
lesser of existing evils out of sheer desperation and ignorance of the
Constitution.
I wish people would stop falling for these "easy way out" schemes. There is
no "easy way out." There are only "easy ways further in" and one way --
only one way -- out: RESTORE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT.
Message: 81712
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: MLK 1/3
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 13:08:15
So much for Martin Luther King Jr.'s purported doctrine of non-violence.
When people cannot espouse their viewpoint, however warped and hateful, on
the courthouse steps or the steps of the Captol Building without being
pelted with rocks and bottles and threatened with bodily harm by an unruly
mob, the mob's commitment to individual civil rights must be questioned.
I am adamantly opposed to a paid Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. Though I
don't think we need a holiday honoring Civil Rights leaders (we have the
Fourth of July holiday already; anything additional would seem both
superfluous and a little too ideologically specific), I would nonetheless
support a general holiday honoring those who have fought for individual (not
collective) rights. I would do so, frankly, as a sop to those who think we
need to honor them more than we do already, not because *I* think we need to
honor them more. And I would do this reluctantly, because I don't think we
can afford another paid holiday.
I am opposed to a specific Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday for the simple
reason that the supporters of it are lying about it: it is not for the
purpose of honoring Civil Rights, nor is it for the purpose of honoring a
man who fought for Civil Rights. It is for the purpose of honoring the
alleged 'right' of LEGAL PLUNDER which developed out of the Civil Rights
Movement. It would stand as a memorial to LEGAL PLUNDER for all time, a
rallying point not against bigotry, but against any suggestion that
Message: 81713
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: MLK 2/3
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 13:10:01
government is and must be prohibited from robbing us all for the benefit of
a few. It would stand as a monument to Socialism and as a clarion call to
Communism.
I honor Martin Luther King, Jr. for making us think about the stupidity and
hatefulness and self-destructiveness of bigotry. I also despise him for
being either a Communist or a Communist fool; for accepting the support and
counsel of Communists, for inaugerating an entire racial culture of
ideological Communism, for preaching the doctrine of collectivism instead of
individual liberty and responsibility, for demanding legal plunder instead
of the opportunity to produce, for advocating equality of results instead of
equality of opportunity.
I honor Rosa Parks, too, for having the courage to refuse, under threat of
draconian legal penalties, to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. (My
wife figures Rosa was just having a bad day and decided not to take any more
crap, but that's irrelevant -- she stuck by her guns and it took *courage*,
a lot more courage than most American sheeple exhibit when faced with
government-backed social or political oppression.) In my view her act was
an act in support of individual rights and she should have her name
inscribed upon the roll of freedom fighters right beside Martin Luther King,
Jr. There are many others whose acts of courage in support of *individual*
rights have made us think and question the validity both of
Message: 81714
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: MLK 3/3
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 13:11:33
our motives and the motives of government, and such thinking is always good.
So if we *have* to honor something or someone with a holiday, let us honor
our inherited and unalienable rights secured to us by the Constitution of
the United States and let us honor those who have fought for recognition of
those *individual* rights. Let us honor ALL those who have advanced the
cause of *individual* rights. And let us reject those who would cynically
and with a hidden agenda hold up one man, a collectivist, a Communist, or at
the very least one of those fools Lenin called "useful idiots," as a desired
symbol for the present and future ideology of America.
I don't identify much with Julian Sanders, but he is right about one thing:
None of the suggestions above are or ever will be acceptable to the majority
of MLK holiday supporters parading through downtown Phoenix or downtown
Denver. I offer this fact as further indication of their hidden agenda. It
is not their objective to get us to support *rights* (if it were,
hate-mongers like the KKK would have just as much right to speak as they
do). It is their objective to get us to support their *ideological*
*agenda*, and they are going to get us to support it if they have to ram it
down our throats.
Message: 81715
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Zealotry
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 13:12:51
Gordon: "I'd far rather see personal integrity in a politician, but given
Hobson's choice between a crook who steals a few people's money and an
"honest" zealot who steals everyone's, I'll take the crook. One reason for
this is that the damage done by the crook is usually limited and repairable,
and there's a chance of bringing him to book for it. You can never do this
with the zealot, and the damage he does can take decades to repair.
Uh, what is an "'honest' zealot" and how does such an individual steal
everyone's money differently than the crook? Why can you never bring him to
book for it? Why does the damage by the "honest" zealot take decades to
repair, compared to the crook?
Sorry, Gordon, but that paragraph left me wondering who and what you were
talking about. Are you casting Terry Goddard in the role of the "honest"
zealot? If you are I won't quibble, I suppose, but it seems to me the
appellation (appears to) fit someone like Mecham or Charles Keating better.
And then again, what's wrong with an "honest" zealot in government who
really is a zealot about being, and requiring, honesty?
Message: 81716
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon/Tax Reform
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 13:14:54
Gordon: "We need proposals to remain strongly "revenue negative". This was
part of the trouble with the tax "reform" that was the great non-event of
the eighties."
Well, yeah, that's true. But the biggest trouble with the tax reform of the
eighties was that it was written by the IRS and signed off by a Congress
that didn't bother to read it. However, it did add a layer of bureaucracy
to the IRS which their victims may use in self-defense with some success
(Form 911 and the Taxpayer's Protection Act, for example).
The problem with all these tax "reforms" and wasting time trying to get a
"revenue negative" tax reform, etc., is that all such programs miss the
point and send people off spinning their wheels instead of addressing the
root problem. You can't have "revenue negative" taxation because if the IRS
takes less money out of the economy than the FED prints up, you get
inflation. All questions of who gets taxed and how much are a red herring
designed to divert attention: as long as we have an illegal debt-based
monetary system, the IRS MUST rob the economy of practically everything the
FED prints up, else inflation goes hyper.
WE NEED TO RESTORE LAWFUL MONEY, not waste time trying to figure out how to
make a fraudulent and unlawful system work or how to avoid paying the
INEVITABLE penalty fraudulent money exacts from us (higher taxes and
eventual bust).
Message: 81717
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Paul/Tax Reform 1/2
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 13:16:50
Paul Savage: "Sounds good to me, but 10% would be even better. THen force
government to live within it's means, beginning with congressmens' salary
cuts and zero based expense accounts that call for an accounting of every
dollar spent."
Wouldn't work. I support what you say, but the objective is reducing taxes.
As long as the FED prints up worthless paper money and lends it into the
economy as debt-money, taxes cannot be reduced without triggering inflation.
And the farther along the current road we travel, i.e., the more money that
is printed up and lent into the economy, the higher taxes are going to get.
If they are ever reduced significantly, inflation is going to take off.
When taxes get to the point that we simply can no longer pay them, inflation
is going to take off anyway.
The *only* alternative under this monetary system is out of our hands: When
the FED lowers the interest rate to near zero, and the economy does not
restart, then people are not borrowing money so the FED is not printing
money, so what taxes there may be is simply removing money from the economy
-- the economy stops dead in its tracks.
Either alternative results in starvation, food riots, anarchy, martial law,
terrorism, totalitarianism, and ultimately war -- war against anyone, for
any reason or no reason, so long as it gets the economy moving again.
Message: 81718
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Paul/Tax Reform 2/2
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 13:17:31
That is the inevitable price which must be paid for pursuing a fraudulent
monetary policy. There is no help for it short of kicking the FED out and
restoring lawful money. Period.
Message: 81719
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Arch's system
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 13:33:21
OK, let's grant that the situation is as you say it is, and that it should
be as it says it is. Do you or any of your co-researchers have a plan to
convert the situation from one to the other?
Message: 81720
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill B/Slimington
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 15:59:30
I've seen nothing shallow in the coverage of Slimington's current and former
doings. In fact, for as complicated as the subject of the developments,
and limited partnerships, and loaning vs investing, and a myriad of other
details I think they have done an excellent job of putting the info out in a
clear and concise format. The RTC lawyers said it best when the
characterized Slimington as "blatantly self-dealing". He is nothing but a
smart version of Mecham.
Message: 81721
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill Burkett
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 16:32:36
My opinion that it's rude and distracting to use feminine pronouns for
people of unknown gender goes back to the first time I encountered one.
Your arguments only confirm my belief that this ungrammatical practice is
intended to distract ("wake up") the reader with issues that are usually
irrelevant to the content.
Message: 81722
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/she
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 17:19:48
I did not support Gordon because of his accent. I supported his position
because it has also been my own position since first exposed to the use of
'she' where no delineation of gender was called for. I probably wouldn't
have said anything about it on my own because it isn't a big issue to me,
but I didn't want to let Gordon think he was alone when we was not.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 81723
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Japan
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 17:27:56
Unfortunately some of the Japanese have reacted to Iacocca's shrill,
self-serving, rants and given his ilk exactly the kind of ammunition they
dreamed of with the recent statements demeaning American workers. The
Japanese buy as much from America, per capita, as we buy from them. Since
our economy is twice as big as theirs they would have to buy twice as much
per capita for the trade to be balanced. Rather than admit this, and further
admit that maybe we should be trying to sell the Japanese something other
than cars, which they make so well themselves, Iacocca throws his weight
around and tries to get the American government to force his cars down
Japan's throat. If that doesn't work he wants a holy war. He sounds
amazingly like Hitler when he speaks of the Japanese.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 81724
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Iaccoca/Japs
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 19:57:32
He *is* of that generation...
Message: 81725
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Archi/zealots
Date: 01/21/92 Time: 23:51:21
Somebody who really was a zealot about honesty would be an honest zealot
without the quotation marks. Nothing wrong with that. I was talking about
an "'honest' zealot" (in quotes) who steals everybody's money by calling it
"taxes", and does it with apparent sincerity because it's all in the name of
"income redistribution" or "social justice" or whatever today's socialist
buzzword is. It doesn't matter that most of the money doesn't end up in his
personal pocket; we're still the losers. And outside of a revolution, I've
never seen a politician brought to book just for taxing a country to death,
as long as it was all done through the accepted mechanism of government.
Message: 81726
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Vote
Subject: by Fred Smith
Date: 01/22/92 Time: 00:30:35
You've no doubt heard something of the Recent visit to Japan by Bush and
friends to talk to the Japanese about the situation regarding auto imports.
How serious a problem do you think the Auto Import "problem" from Japan
and the rest of the foreign countries is?
[A] It's blown way out of proportion! It's not a big deal at all. I'm not
concerned.
[B] It's a bit of a problem for the U.S. but I can live with it.
[C] It's one of the basic problems confronting our country today. I think
something should be done about it one of these days.
[D] Given the $40 Billion trade deficit it causes, it's just about the
biggest problem the U.S. faces. I think we need action NOW!!
Message: 81727
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Vote
Subject: Last
Date: 01/22/92 Time: 00:36:21
That last post was the new [V]ote question uploaded by Fred Smith.
You can find the [V]ote in the [M]ain menu. Please consider Fred's poll
question and cast your [V]ote.
As always, what YOU [V]ote for is totaly private... I don't even
know what you select.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
P.S. Fred also uploaded another question that will follow this one.
Public Bulletin Board command:EQ
You chose Question?
Subject:Dog & Savage
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1: You both mentioned a "tired rant" by Peter. I just scanned the messages
2:from the last few days and saw no post by Petrisko. Maybe it scrolled by me?
3:
4: Or maybe Cliff has done a little "housecleaning" since Petrisko was
5:last on. :) :) :)
6:
7:
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 81728
Public Bulletin Board command:E$
You chose $tatus users only
Subject:Mark Adkins
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:Mark is a very good devil's advocate. He is intelligent. If he got under
2:your skin then perhaps you learned a little something even if it was to
3:bolster your original argument.
4:
5: Out of all of the users on this board I have the most reason to be
6:mad at Mark Adkins but I find it is easier and wiser to forgive. I am an
7:atheist.
8:
9: I think the rule about doing an occasional log-in under an alias is
10:both fun and funny. Some of my favorite posts were from mystery users.
11:Some damn good messages came about from those unknowns. This rule reminds
12:me of the security guards (rent-a-cops) who like to think up stupid rules so
13:they have something to enforce. I can't see harm in it.
14:
15:It is part of BBSing, a part of the fun. Now the shields are UP and have
16:been. Pity.
17:
18:I guess people think it camp to call themselves Xtians but cannot back it up
19:in thought OR action.
20:
21:I have a friend who has been trying to get on and post but to no avail. I
22:think he lost interest in it and the last time he spoke to me he said
2 lines left
23:he was going to try another board. Rod
1 line left
24:end
Edit command:L1
1:Mark is a very good devil's advocate. He is intelligent. If he got under
2:your skin then perhaps you learned a little something even if it was to
3:bolster your original argument.
4:
5: Out of all of the users on this board I have the most reason to be
6:mad at Mark Adkins but I find it is easier and wiser to forgive. I am an
7:atheist.
8:
9: I think the rule about doing an occasional log-in under an alias is
10:both fun and funny. Some of my favorite posts were from mystery users.
11:Some damn good messages came about from those unknowns. This rule reminds
12:me of the security guards (rent-a-cops) who like to think up stupid rules so
13:they have something to enforce. I can't see harm in it.
14:
15:It is part of BBSing, a part of the fun. Now the shields are UP and have
16:been. Pity.
17:
18:I guess people think it camp to call themselves Xtians but cannot back it up
19:in thought OR action.
20:
21:I have a friend who has been trying to get on and post but to no avail. I
22:think he lost interest in it and the last time he spoke to me he said
23:he was going to try another board. Rod
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 81729
Public Bulletin Board command:UIP
Message to update (81470-81729):81728
Edit command:L1
1: You both mentioned a "tired rant" by Peter. I just scanned the messages
2:from the last few days and saw no post by Petrisko. Maybe it scrolled by me?
3:
4: Or maybe Cliff has done a little "housecleaning" since Petrisko was
5:last on. :) :) :)
Edit command:E1
1: You both mentioned a "tired rant" by Peter. I just scanned the messages
Find text: You both
Replace text:You two
1:You two mentioned a "tired rant" by Peter. I just scanned the messages
Find text:
Edit command:L1
1:You two mentioned a "tired rant" by Peter. I just scanned the messages
2:from the last few days and saw no post by Petrisko. Maybe it scrolled by me?
3:
4: Or maybe Cliff has done a little "housecleaning" since Petrisko was
5:last on. :) :) :)
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 81728
Public Bulletin Board command:T
Caller # 167453 (3 today)
It is now 01/22/92 02:56:27
You have been on 56:17
Message range is (81470-81729)
The SYSOP is out
Shields 100 %
*=* Please ote *=*
Public Bulletin Board command:RC81728-
Press to abort
Message: 81728
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Question?
Subject: Dog & Savage
Date: 01/22/92 Time: 02:45:12
You two mentioned a "tired rant" by Peter. I just scanned the messages
from the last few days and saw no post by Petrisko. Maybe it scrolled by me?
Or maybe Cliff has done a little "housecleaning" since Petrisko was
last on. :) :) :)
Message: 81729
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: Mark Adkins
Date: 01/22/92 Time: 02:55:27
Mark is a very good devil's advocate. He is intelligent. If he got under
your skin then perhaps you learned a little something even if it was to
bolster your original argument.
Out of all of the users on this board I have the most reason to be
mad at Mark Adkins but I find it is easier and wiser to forgive. I am an
atheist.
I think the rule about doing an occasional log-in under an alias is
both fun and funny. Some of my favorite posts were from mystery users.
Some damn good messages came about from those unknowns. This rule reminds
me of the security guards (rent-a-cops) who like to think up stupid rules so
they have something to enforce. I can't see harm in it.
It is part of BBSing, a part of the fun. Now the shields are UP and have
been. Pity.
I guess people think it camp to call themselves Xtians but cannot back it up
in thought OR action.
I have a friend who has been trying to get on and post but to no avail. I
think he lost interest in it and the last time he spoke to me he said
he was going to try another board. Rod
Public Bulletin Board command:G
Goodbye, Rod Williams
You were on 56:58
Content of this site is ©
Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.