Apollo BBS Archive - January 1992

Apollo BBS Archive - January 3 - 4, 1992

Mail from Apollo SysOp
Date: 01/03/92  Time: 22:28:00

I stopped by to visit, to see the wedding pictures and see if you had any
work....  I was down that side of twon looking for jobs...found NOTHING...
Soon I will be seen carring a sign that will say "I WILL work for food..."

The defense industry is dead...  sniff...

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif- 

P.S. Glad to hear you had a pretty good week...  I may see James Hawley
about a job and training...  Sigh!
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:You could get started by learning the tricks of opening automobiles and 
 2:James and I both could send you the 'lockouts' in your area.  We both get 
 3:them.  Learning vehicle opening tricks is not that hard and the tools can 
 4:be made by using stock.
 5:
 6:You could probably get calls from other locksmiths for a percentage for 
 7:locksouts in your area.  I worked this way and did well.  James works this 
 8:way also.
 9:
10:It can be done.  And you could learn some other basics while it all 
11:progresses.  It ain't the end of the world but then again perhaps it is.
12:
13:                                Rod

Mail from Pete Fischer
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 00:00:25

Well, you, yourself said it was better not to retaliate. As I pointed out,
they have MANY advantages over me, not the least of which is number. I am
only one and they must be twenty or more. They have 24 hr presence in their
homes, I am frequently gone for 18 hrs on a stretch. If I "up the ante" as
it were, I must be prepared for a major offensive. Again I ask, is it really
worth all this?
        I'm afraid he would win any arm wrestling bout. He's a burly man.
A good 275 pounds and less than 6 feet tall. Thanks for the suggestions
though, I truely appreciate your concern. It's that "moral support" that has
seen me through this as far as I've gone. Pete
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:Twenty or more people!  Wow.  I didn't realize, I thought it was a man and 
 2:his wife.  I hope it slackens into non-existance.  -Rod

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 8791
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: History
Subject: Oldest BBS in AZ
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 01:42:48

Apollo is the oldest BBS in Arizona -- since 1982.  So which was the oldest
BBS in Arizona *before* 1982?

The use of "since" always makes me chuckle.  I see things like "Joseph Brown
& Co. -- Quality Furniture since 1925".  It always conjures up a vision of
the cobbled-up shoddy furniture they were selling *before* 1925.

X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 5289
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: last
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 11:55:53

I see the hit-and-run artist is at it again.

You chose Cosmos-Chatter

Subject:Hit and run

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:Yeah, Zak spends some of his life in other parts of the galaxy.  Can't 
 2:really blame him for that especially if he found a party universe.

Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 1589
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat & Sing
Subject: Zakey Baby
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 08:50:35

      
 
                         * SIGH!*

Public Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 81147
Author: James Matlock
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Green/various
Date: 01/03/92  Time: 22:21:16

Ricky, huh?  Those disembodied spirits just can't be trusted.  I'll bet it
didn't even belong to the Nelson family.  
 
The fourth dimension is just like the set of _Wheel of Fortune_ only bigger.
 
RE: your puzzle answer.  Not quite.  It might produce such a sequence
depending on what order the independent variables are changed in, but it
wouldn't have to produce that sequence.  In any case, the question asked not
what sequence, but what SET the range constituted.  You don't need to
specify an ordered set, just name the set (i.e., the set of all squares
ending in -4-5-6, etc.).  You get a brownie point for the attempt,
however.

Message: 81148
Author: James Matlock
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bill on Archi
Date: 01/03/92  Time: 22:37:22

BB >> (BTW, this has nothing to do with my SypOperly duty to enforce the
BB >> ules.  It only weakens your arguments in my opinion.  It moves
BB >> toward our dear friend the Straw Man.)
 
 
I see what you mean.  BTW, wasn't the Straw Man the one who sang "If I only
had a brain" in the Wizard of Oz?  Or is this merely a clever attempt to
skirt the ules?

Message: 81149
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Matlock's puzzle
Date: 01/03/92  Time: 23:35:51

The set which the function produces is the same set which you defined it to
work over -- natural numbers.

Message: 81150
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: Rod / 80905
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 00:07:42

Not true.  Matthew 7:21-23.
 
Daryl

Message: 81151
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Archi / 80916
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 00:10:33

     And if that is not enough, I heard one of the announcers pubicly
denounce Lenin.  I mean RIPPED him...up one side and down another!
 
     I've also heard them on several occasions plugging for advertisers. 
Interested parties can have their ads run in 15 different languages during
Radio Moscow's shortwave programming.

Message: 81152
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bill / 80920
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 00:28:03

Bill: "I suspect it's not unlike the pressure a child feels from a molesting
       parent."
 
Gee, no anti-Christian bias here.  Really now, who is the one who is being
forced to conform?  The youth who might happen to sing a song like "Silent
Night" (which, by the way is not only a part of the Christian heritage, but
also part of American culture) in a school Christmas pageant is not facing
nearly the pressure or damage than the Christian student attending public
school.  He is forced to sit in a required science class and then fed an
evolutionist doctrine that places pressure on him to abandon his beliefs
("give up your fairy tales and join the REAL world") and become another
individual that believes his ancestors swung from trees.
 
    Of course, I do not endorse the enforcement of participation in any
school activity that is at odds with one's personal religious beliefs (and
that includes science/biology classes).
 
    Oh, and could you please show you justify a parallel between a victim of
child abuse and a child who is asked to sing a Christmas song?  Pressure on
youth/teens is not limited to religious matters in our schools.  (If
anything, the pressure in the schools regarding religion is not on those who
are not religious, but on those who ARE.)  Peer pressure exists to an even
greater extent in the matter of pre-marital sex.  And what do we have to
relieve the situation?  "Now we're going to teach you about SAFE SEX."  Urg.

Message: 81153
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon / 80939
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 00:32:41

    I would have no problem with Hanukah songs.
 
Daryl

Message: 81154
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: Felix / 80971
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 00:35:16

    And that is exactly why my children will not attend public school as I
had to.
 
Daryl

Message: 81155
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: Bill / 80986
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 00:47:27

Bill: "The ones that use religious Christmas carols as part of their
       curriculum do, even if it is a subtle embrace."
 
    And therefore we must avoid it, lest we teach our children something
about our history or our culture.  Religion is an important part of our
history and our culture (and I am not just talking about Christianity here).
 
    Not everyone who sings Christmas carols like "Silent Night" or "Joy To
The World" is participating in a religious exercise, no more so than someone
who sings the "Battle Hymn of the Republic."  In fact, many popular singers
have sung a number of what are considered to be 'sacred' Christmas songs
with no intention of practicing, promoting or endorsing Christianity what-
soever.
 
    And as far as the "moment of silence" matter, I was in high school when
the moment of prayer was first incorporated into the start of the school
day.  My first period teacher refused to allow the students to observe it. 
 
Daryl

Message: 81156
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Question?
Subject: Football
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 00:53:09

    Did anyone catch the game that the network lost the feed on and had to
link up to a Japanese feed?  Does anyone have this on tape?  I've heard so
much about it and I am interested in viewing it from a technical standpoint.

Message: 81157
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Following
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 01:44:48

I've split the following into two, so there's only eight posts right now. 
Sorry about your 14K, Rod.

Message: 81158
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Religion&Govt
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 01:46:25

I haven't kept up with British politics enough to notice whether school
prayer has even become an issue there.  I suspect it hasn't, since the UK
still has a constitutional state religion.  One of the Queen's official
titles, which still appears on the coinage abbreviated as "FID DEF" or
"FJD", is "Fidei Defensor" -- Defender of the Faith".

A lot more titles appeared on British coinage in the past.  "IND IMP",
Emperor of India, was dropped for the best of reasons in 1948.  The
disappearance of BRITT OMN REX is harder to explain, especially when the
tradition behind the title is more than twelve hundred years old.  The 8th-
century King Offa was the first to stamp his coins with the title "rex
totius Anglorum patriae" -- "king of all the land of the English".

Today, the words DEI GRATIA still remind us that the Queen is our sovereign
through the grace of God, much as U.S. currency reminds us of the motto of
those who mint it: IN GOD WE TRUST.  There is no truth to the rumor that
they modified this slogan from an earlier one, "in gold we trust", when they
went off the gold standard in 1933, hoping that the public wouldn't notice.

Certainly the public don't seem to have noticed this blatantly religious
assertion on currency issued by a government that is constitutionally bound
to avoid religious affiliation at all costs.  If they have noticed, they
haven't protested very much about it.  But perhaps nobody reads what it says
on coins.

Back in the 8th century, King Offa wanted a pretty design to embellish his
coinage, and the mint at Canterbury (seat of the Archbishopric) copied an
elaborate set of curlicues from an Arabic dinar.  These little squiggles
actually read: "There is no God but one, and Mohammed is his prophet."
Clearly King Offa didn't notice, and I suppose the public didn't, either.

The Faith that the current sovereign defends is of course the Protestant
Anglican one sponsored by Henry VIII.  This is a great irony, since the
title Defender of the Faith was first bestowed on Henry by Pope Leo X for
his authorship of a pamphlet attacking the Protestant Lutheran "heresy".
But that was in 1521, long before Henry decided he wanted a divorce.

In my time, school religious observance in England was never controversial.
The brief hymn, prayer, and Bible reading were technically a Protestant
ceremony, and the thirty or so Catholics out of the school's 620 pupils went
off into a classroom during this time.  I never found out what they did
there.  I don't think we even had any Jewish students.  Life can be much
easier with a culturally heterogeneous population.  It isn't that the
minorities you do have are so small that their voice is never heard.  It
isn't a matter of sweeping small amounts of discrimination under the rug.
Rather, a very small minority does not present itself as a threat to the
majority, so the majority has far less reason to fear the minority or to put
it down in any way.  And minority members, recognizing how few they are, can
see the unreasonableness of demanding special provisions for themselves.

In recent times, the greatest cause of civil unrest in Britain has been
race.  Unlike the U.S., this is a relatively new problem for Britain.  It
was never a serious issue until widespread immigration swelled the ranks of
minority groups, and increased unemployment caused native-born Britons to
see the immigrants as "taking away their jobs".  Religion has not been a
serious source of contention in Great Britain for a couple of centuries,
though the sound of crackling flames and rolling heads was far from unknown
in earlier times.

Ireland is a different story, yet the roots of that conflict show all too
clearly that the cause was never truly a religious one, but the attempts of
one group to dominate another.  History has shown the remarkable facility of
religion as a tool for rationalizing, even encouraging, acts of aggression.
If people are deluded into thinking simplistically that their God approves
of everything they do and disapproves of their competitors on principle,
their attention is diverted from examining issues of true moral rightness.

Most Western Europeans are surprised to hear such a strident voice of raw
religion in American politics today.  It smacks of a return to earlier, less
rational times, or at least to less rational parts of the world such as the
Middle East.  But the role of religion in American life is well established,
and for good historical reasons.

The community at Plymouth was not the earliest European settlement of North
America, but it's the one best remembered today -- rather than the earlier,
more commercially oriented one at Jamestown, for example.  We are told that
the Pilgrims (whose name says it all) came to America in search of
"religious freedom".  It would be a great mistake to misinterpret this
phrase.  "Religious freedom" ought to mean the freedom of any individual to
worship the God of his choice, or not to worship, if he so chooses.  The
Pilgrims came to America, not to escape religious intolerance, but to escape
the particular brand of religious intolerance that prevented them from
worshipping as they chose in Europe.  As often happens in human conflict,
they began as losers in a game; and they solved their difficulty by changing
the rules of the game so that they would be on the winning side, instead of
taking a broader view and giving up the game altogether so that there would
be no losers.  The Pilgrims did not leave religious intolerance behind.
They brought their own noose of religious intolerance right along with them
-- a necessary piece of equipment for playing the game -- and they used it
several times, most notoriously in Salem, at a time when much of Western
Europe had outgrown its hysterical fear of witches.

The surprising strength of religious fundamentalism in America owes a lot to
its roots in earlier settlers, but this alone does not explain why it
persists so strongly today.  To my mind, the reason for that persistence is
that the history of America is, first, one of colonists exiled from their
origins; and secondly, one of danger.

The pioneer who leaves his home and community to strike out on his own is
stepping into a very uncertain future, especially if he is cut off so that
there can be no turning back.  His life in the new land may be harder than
in the old; but whatever that life is like, even if it is materially better,
it will always be different.  Change is unsettling in itself, and people
compensate for it by clinging even more strongly to whatever is familiar.
Some customs and ways of life can persist in a colony for far longer than in
the native land.  One of these is speech.  In many ways the speech of
Americans is closer to British speech of the past than modern British speech
is.  British speech has changed more.  Religion is like speech in that you
can carry it with you wherever you go.  It is not surprising to find the
same conservatism practiced in American religion as in American speech: a
stronger adherence to more rigid creeds.

The influence of danger, hardship, and conflict on American religious faith
must not be underestimated.  The history of America is very much one of
conflict: against the British and the Spanish, the North or the South,
against hostile natives both red and white on a lawless frontier.  Later
there were the Japanese, the Germans, and the Russians.  And it is very much
one of hardship: of immigrant groups in cities, or farmers eking out a
living in small communities with only their neighbors for support.  In times
where survival is threatened, people turn more readily to their particular
God for support, for reassurance, or for solace when things go wrong.

In parts of the world where conflict of one kind or another has persisted,
strong religious beliefs tend to persist also.  One has only to look at the
Middle East, or the descendants of the Boers of South Africa, for examples.

Of course it can be argued that the history of Europe was not exactly free
of conflict in recent times.  Two great world wars have affected Europe even
more intimately than America.  Furthermore, American living standards this
century were generally higher than those of Europeans.  Why do we not find
religious adherence stronger in Europe than it is?

But it isn't valid to say that religious adherence overall correlates
inversely with material comfort and security.  Rather, I would say that
religious adherence rises suddenly and sharply when material comfort and
security drop so far that personal survival is threatened.  If we take the
element of poverty, while American living standards may be higher than the
European, they are also more variable.  The rich may be richer, and most
people may be better off; but over the past century (in the Depression of
the 30s, especially), the American poor were generally poorer than the poor
of Western Europe.

Furthermore, if we take the element of conflict, I'm sure the roots of the
religious difference across the Atlantic lie not in the present century, but
in the previous one.  I think a kind of hysteresis effect applies to
religious piety.  It takes several generations for attitudes to change.

In the nineteenth century, poverty was far from absent in Europe; but
overall, the standard of living was higher than in America.  It was also
largely a time of peace in Europe.  Bismarck had a bit of a squabble with
France about 1870; and Britain, among other countries, fought numerous wars.
But these were foreign wars: in the Crimea, in Africa and Egypt and suchlike
places.  They didn't have the same effect on people at home as a German bomb
dropping down their chimney, or even the fear caused when men are
conscripted into a war overseas.  Most people felt safe.  Though the
Victorian age was an age of piety, it was also an age of safety for most
people in Europe, a safety that was sapping that piety away.  The same could
not be said of America in those years.

Adherence to religion has a great deal to do with personal survival, and one
threat to personal survival is violent crime.  The crime rate in America has
always been higher than that in Europe.  While the Europe of the nineteenth
century had plenty of crime in the cities, it was somewhat confined to
certain ghetto areas.  The average Englishman, German, or Frenchman could
sleep safely in his bed.  This is quite different from the American frontier
culture where it was felt advisable to keep a shotgun on hand at all times.
And it probably isn't an accident that we see a revival of religion today at
a time when more and more people in America feel threatened by crime.

The start of the twentieth century was quickly followed by a great war, and
it was said then that "all over Europe, the lights are going out."

Since war has had a habit of recurring throughout history, the fact that
anyone said this at all only serves to emphasize the unusual prevalence of
peace for the previous hundred years -- as long as anyone could remember.

The wars and rumors of war that affected Europe in the twentieth century
have not been free of religion.  The only difference is that they weren't
usually called religions.  People in Christian countries certainly spent a
lot more time in church during wartime.  The literal worship of their
Emperor by the Japanese was nothing less than religious awe.  Across the
world in the Fatherland, another religion prevailed.  In the rational modern
world, the tenets of a religion need bolstering with rationality, and the
religion of Nazism did this with arguments about eugenics and the patent
superiority of one race over another, and the way a country's destiny is
determined by its prowess as a fighting machine.  But the Savior was still
saluted by name, with a stiffly raised right arm.  Some people still worship
him today.  When he heard the multitude clamoring for his blood, he chose to
perform his own "crucifixion" with a Walther Model 4.  His disciples caused
his remains to ascend to Heaven by dousing his body in gasoline and putting
a match to it.  But his charisma was decreased only temporarily by his
martyrdom.  It is significant that his followers are on the rise today in
what used to be East Germany, where they have been most persecuted by the
fanatics of that other great "rational" religion, Communism.

[To be concluded]

Message: 81167
Author: James Matlock
Category: Answer!
Subject: Beau on puzzle
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 02:11:24

Heh heh.  That's right.  Ain't I a stinker?
 
(That's the set of ALL natural numbers, just to be perfectly explicit.)

Message: 81168
Author: James Matlock
Category: Question?
Subject: programming
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 02:19:07

I've written a program which uses a recursive function.  For many
applications it eats up all the stack space before it can finish.
I have tried setting the stack space as large as the compiler (QuickBASIC
4.0) will allow (around 50K) under the constraints of my system.  I have
tried forcing an exit from the function (all levels) before the stack space
gets too low, but this does not reset the stack space.  A CLEAR statement
resets all numeric variables to zero and so it is impossible to re-call the
function from where it left off using its last figures.
 
I do not believe that it is practical to write a program to do what this one
is supposed to do, without using a recursive function. 
 
Any suggestions at all?

Message: 81169
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Question?
Subject: Daryl
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 02:24:09

Hey Daryl, what happened to those tapes proving that evolution is all bunk? 
You promised they'd be available nearly six months ago!

Message: 81171
Author: James Matlock
Category: Question?
Subject: logic
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 03:45:42

The Law of the Excluded Middle says that any given proposition must be
either true or false.  We might define a true proposition as one which can
be proven within a given system (i.e, given a set of axioms and some
rules to operate with), and a false proposition as one whose converse can be
proven within a given system.  It then becomes clear that the truth
or falsity of a proposition can only be decided with reference to a specific
system (set of axioms and reasoning rules).  Yet we know that, given any
consistent system, there are propositions expressible within it that are
undecidable (i.e., they cannot be proven, nor can their converse be proven).
 
On what basis, then, do we defend the Law of the Excluded Middle?  It might
be said that, given any proposition, we can construct a system where it is
true (by adding it as an axiom) or false (by adding its converse as an
axiom).  Yet, if we are going to apply the law not within a specific system,
but to the universe of possible systems, what justifies us to limit the use
of the Law of Contradiction (a proposition cannot be both true and false) to
a single system, rather than applying it to the universe of systems (where
it is clearly wrong, since any proposition can be made true or false by
constructing a system which uses it or its converse as an axiom)?

Message: 81172
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill #81133
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 08:35:12

I don't think so. Insurance men come pretty close as being con men a lot of
the time. Come to think of it, most advertizing is a con game to a degree.
                              -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 81173
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 09:05:14

Ain't it the truth!

Message: 81174
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Religion
Subject: Daryl-Xmas Pressure
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 09:06:06

>> "I suspect it's not unlike the pressure a child feels from a
>> molesting parent."   
 
> Gee, no anti-Christian bias here.  Really now, who is the one
> who is being forced to conform?
 
        It's been so long since I posted that I had to log in just to
retrieve the message.  :)
        I didn't mean to imply any anti-Christian bias, Daryl.  My
comparison with the pressure a child abuse victim feels was meant to allude
to something I felt we all could empathize with:  The sense of powerlessness
and frustration that accompanies being forced into doing something you feel
isn't right.  I can easily imagine a Jewish or Moslem (or whatever) child
feeling this way if he or she were made to feel different by refusing to
participate in a program that was clearly celebrating Christmas, rather than
"the holidays."
        Christians have plenty of opportunities to celebrate in a religious
way what they consider to be a religious holiday without forcing such
celebrations on others.
        I'll be first to admit that Christians have been called upon to give
up some of the religious aspects of Christmas.  But I also contend that such
calls were entirely justified.

Message: 81175
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Religion
Subject: Daryl-Heritage
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 09:06:28

>> "The ones that use religious Christmas carols as part of their
>> curriculum do, even if it is a subtle embrace."
 
> And therefore we must avoid it, lest we teach our children
> something about our history or our culture.  Religion is an
> important part of our history and our culture (and I am not
> just talking about Christianity here).
 
        And if you'd read on a bit you'd see I mentioned my son's school
holiday program at which more than one religion was represented in song.
        I agree that religion is an important part of our cultural heritage,
but the line between merely acquainting a student with the beliefs of any
particular religion and making that religion a part of the school's
"corporate culture" (if you will) is a fine one.  And, given our
sensibilities on religion, one that must be approached very, very carefully.

Message: 81176
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon & Minorities
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 09:06:47

> Rather, a very small minority does not present itself as a
> threat to the majority, so the majority has far less reason to
> fear the minority or to put it down in any way.  And minority
> members, recognizing how few they are, can see the
> unreasonableness of demanding special provisions for
> themselves.
 
You're kidding here, right, Gordon?  Do you mean to say majorities AREN'T at
their most vicious when they are at their strongest?  My reading of history
suggests just the opposite.
 
And are you saying that members of small minorities ARE, in fact, acting
unreasonably when they "demand special provisions for themselves?"
 
I hope I've misread you somehow.

Message: 81177
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: James-Straw Man
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 09:07:06

> I see what you mean.  BTW, wasn't the Straw Man the one who
> sang "If I only had a brain" in the Wizard of Oz?  
 
Yes he was.  And I think it's appropriate because the classic straw man
argument indicates one has come to a stall in his or her thinking.
 
> Or is this merely a clever attempt to skirt the ules?
 
You'll have to tell me, James.  I hope it's not.

Message: 81178
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Beau-Cheering Ladmo
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 09:07:28

> Big deal.  I've seen [Ladmo] get dressed.  (We go to the same
> athletic club)
 
Does he get cheers there, too?
 
> Bill: Hey, the Golden Knights don't win lots of parachuting
> contests for nothing! You should see them fly around in
> formations during freefall!
 
When we got there they were perhaps 500 feet in the air, spiraling down,
trailing smoke, corkscrew fashion.  It was lovely!

Message: 81179
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Beau/free market
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 09:25:48

The "free" market operates only to the degree that those who have a
stranglehold on any given industry allow it to operate. While there may seem
to be competition in the insurance game, just try to start a really
competitive company and see how long you last. (Sufficient capitol assumed,
of course.)
 Local newspapers are a classic example of phony freedom in the marketplace.
We have seen many efforts at competition with the Pulliam rags, only to see
them fold because of the inability to get advertising (Pulliam had all their
advertisers intimidated), or the inability to get supplies such as paper
and/or ink. These are facts that even Pulliam didn't bother to hide.

Message: 81180
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill B/used car sale
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 10:04:44

In my experiance NO ONE can hold a candle to the outright lies told by
used car salesman.  If the same lieing was done in any other field involving
the same amount of money they would have them behind bars in an instant for
fraud. ~r But with used cars it is so ingrained in the system that it is
just shrugged off.

Message: 81181
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pulliam competition
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 11:48:57

Well, it's possible that the competition wasn't sufficiently capitalized to
break into the market.  It is *also* possible that the R&G were doing a good
enough job of providing newspapers and advertising at reasonably fair rates

Message: 81182
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Arch/Soviets
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 11:50:35

Well, lessee, Rockefeller went to Moscow and made some sort of deal with the
Communist Party, and they put Gorby up as their front man.  About the same
time, Yeltsin was kicked out.
 
Now Gorby is gone, the Communist Party is out of power, and Yeltsin is in. 
Does this mean that Rockefeller was *really* dealing with Yeltsin, and the
last 7 years are part of the plot?

Message: 81183
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Wow...
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 11:54:16

So many things to talk about, but I don't have time.  I'd like to discuss
converting to a free-market economy (instead of converting *from* one, which
is all you can learn about in universities) -- especially the way the
Russians, and their neighbors are trying it.  In a conversation with a
friend, I suggested that the government "give back" everything to the people
by setting up stock companies for all government enterprises and issuing
equal shares to each individual.  You know, three or four grocery store
chains in Moscow, a couple of power plants, etc., etc.
 
I'd also like to talk about political parties in the U.S., and what is
happening with David Duke's attempt to get on the Republican ballot in
various states -- and what the party functionaries, the ACLU, and others
have to say about why he should or should not be allowed on.

Message: 81184
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon L
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 12:39:15

Very interesting posts Gordon!!!

Message: 81185
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/School
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 12:40:28

D.W. Said==>>
    Of course, I do not endorse the enforcement of participation in any
school activity that is at odds with one's personal religious beliefs (and
that includes science/biology classes).
 
Fred asks==>>
    Am I understanding correctly then that if one has merely personal
beliefs, as opposed to personal RELIGIOUS beliefs, that it's ok for the
school put one at odds with those merely personal beliefs?
 
Fred Further comments==>>
     For discussion purposes, lets say that some kid has some Personal
RELEGIOUS beliefs that include the belief that the use of punctuation
and capitalization is morally wrong and therefore that puts them at odds
with what is taught in class as "correct" English.  Should they therefore
be excused from "enforc...participation" in the English class as well
as being excused from using "proper" capitalization and punctuation in
all their other classes??

Message: 81186
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bill/Major Minor
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 23:20:51

 BB>>Do you mean to say majorities AREN'T at their most vicious when they
 BB>>are at their strongest?  My reading of history suggests just the
 BB>>opposite.

Rather than correlating the attitude of majorities to just the one factor of
their strength, I'd say that whether the majority gets vicious or not
depends on how much motivation they have for getting vicious, as well as on
how vicious they can afford to get with impunity.  The second factor says
that when the minority is smaller and the majority is larger, the majority
can afford to treat the others worse because their victims don't have much
of a voice to stop them -- which is the point you were making.

My point was that the majority needs a reason for persecuting the minority
in the first place.  Minorities don't get persecuted just because they
exist.  For example, people of German extraction are a minority in the U.S.,
but I'm not aware of any prejudice today against people with German names.
In fact, some of our biggest heroes have names like Schwartzkopf.

Minorities get persecuted because the majority somehow perceives them as a
threat.  How much of a threat they present depends on how different they are
from the majority, and in what way they're different.  It also depends on
how many of them there are.  Clearly, the larger the minority, the more
threatening they are.  So all these factors interplay in a complex manner.

On the one hand, the majority can *afford* to be more oppressive if the
minority is weaker.  On the other hand, the majority has more *reason* to
react if the minority is stronger.

Undoubtedly it makes a difference if the ratio is, say, twenty to one as
opposed to three to one.  A minority consisting of 25% of the population
does have some power to stand up for itself against discrimination.  In
Britain at the time of the Notting Hill riots (for example), the black
population must have been well under 2% of the total UK population; though
they were strongly concentrated in particular areas, of course.  The black
population was probably well under 1% a couple of decades earlier, when
there was no racial tension.  I'd suggest that there's no practical
difference between a fifty-to-one ratio and a hundred-to-one ratio in terms
of how strong the *majority* is.  Their numbers are overwhelming in both
cases.  The most significant difference is in the minority population, and
in how noticeable that minority is.

Curiously, in spite of the Irish troubles, there never seems to have been
any complaint of discrimination against Irish Catholics *in Great Britain*.
Their numbers are about 2.5%.  On the other hand, some of the worst ethnic
strife has occurred where the minority has a substantial presence: Northern
Ireland (2:1 Protestant:Catholic), Cyprus (4:1 Greeks:Turks), Lebanon (4:3
Moslem:Christian), and Croatia -- though the substantial Serbian minority
there symbolizes the threat of Serbian oppression in Yugoslavia as a whole.

Message: 81188
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bill/spec. provision
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 23:23:05

 BB>>And are you saying that members of small minorities ARE, in fact,
 BB>>acting unreasonably when they "demand special provisions for
 BB>>themselves?"

Depending on what it is they're asking, and how much the lack of it means to
them, yes, I am saying that.  It's reasonable to demand equal opportunity in
jobs, housing and so forth: in short, it's reasonable to demand that people
not take advantage of minorities simply because they *are* a minority.  I
also think it's reasonable for people in wheelchairs to ask for ramps and
elevators or other assistance to be provided in public buildings, even
though people in wheelchairs are a small minority, because it makes a huge
difference to their ability to participate in life.  Roughly, I'd take the
"inconvenience factor", multiply it by the size of the minority, and compare
that with the cost of accommodating the demand to gauge whether the demand
was reasonable or not.  It isn't reasonable for the majority to give up
microwave ovens because they endanger people with pacemakers.  It's more
reasonable just to warn the pacemaker people to stay clear of the area.

If I went to live in an Islamic country where Arabic was spoken, I would
call it unreasonable if I, as a member of a small minority, demanded that
the majority learn English to converse with me or build a Christian church
for me to attend or educate my children according to the customs they were
familiar with.  I should either adapt to the customs of that country, or get
together with other people like me to pay for facilities to our own liking.

Message: 81189
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: ZAPPED MESSAGES
Date: 01/04/92  Time: 23:53:45

     James,
     Could you possibly repost these messages as I didn't get the chance to
read them.  If you'd be accommodating in this matter I would surely consider
you an ace among men old bean.

Message: 81190
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Religion
Subject: Daryl / 81150
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 00:55:46

True.  Bob 6:66-69.

Message: 81191
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl/Silent Night
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 00:57:21

Part of the Americal culture, eh?  Where'd you hear that?

Message: 81192
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl/child abuse &
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 01:03:06

A parallel between a victim of child abuse and one who is asked to sing a
Christmas song is:  Telling your kids to beat on a hollow log in the forest
in order to convince the sun to come back.  

Falsehoods should be discovered and put aside so that growth will be
forthcoming.  I think that Peter Sellers in the part of Mr. Gardener said
that.

Message: 81193
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/81179
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 01:12:11

Part of your words came out of my mind.  I wanted to do a post expressing
those view points.  You did it very well.  Thanks.

Message: 81194
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Fred/Ann/Cars
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 01:23:55

I know something about the used car business right now as I make keys and
repair locks for forty or fifty of them.

Ten years ago the used car dealers could purchase an auto for around 2 to 3
hundred dollars.  The down payment would then be that amount and the people
could afford to get into a car fairly easy.  The ensuing (hopefully)
payments were then the profit for the dealer.  The dealers had to sell good
in order to make their profit and stay in business.  They uniformly adopted
a policy to not sell to reservation Native Americans as no repossession is
allowed there by Federal law.  They won't sell to those who come onto their
lot thumping a bible unless the 'down' gives them a profit.  They've been
cheated once too often.  They want a good employment on the applicant as
well as a few other 'qualifiers'.

Today and for the past half-year or so the units that the dealers were
paying 2 to 3 hundred for now cost  7 hundred to a thousand dollars.  The
people who need a car cannot afford that amount and the dealers are screwed.
They have to sell better than ever now.  Car sales are and have been down
for over a year.  The situation is bad.

Salesmen are literally starving and cannot live decently.  Put anyone in
that position and they will do whatever necessary to get a sale and this
goes for any capitalist industry.  It's a rough world among the working
class and it seems to be getting even more so.  -Rod

Message: 81196
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 54,944 bytes
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 01:31:07

Yep, that's what I've got in my buffer from this log-in.  Ah, old times.
I'll have to read Gordon's posts offline.