Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
July 1991 -> July 11 - 12
Apollo BBS Archive - July 11 - 12, 1991
Mail from Melissa Dee
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 17:23:31
Well, now it looks as though we will just have a reception and do the boring
wedding thing at the court house. But, it will be on Halloween, if I get my
way.
I suppose we could do a mock thing at the reception. Plans keep changing
every minute here.
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply
Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
1:Well, I made the buttons last night and delivered them to Metropophobia
2:today.
3:
4:Speaking of Halloween, I have a priests outfit but I could substitute the
5:white collar for something in neon, I suppose.
6:
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C
Message: 7535
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 16:14:55
Sorry Rod, but Doctor's (Not drugged lock smiths) state your statment is a
misleading one.
Example, One Doctor said death from smoking is put down as 'death
from smoking' or lung failure. They don't say death from 'Camels' or
the type cigarette. In this case death from marijuana is death from
'smoking' or pulmonary failure....
Also went on to explain how marijuana can make other problems worse
to a point where that kills the user.... ROOT cause however can not always
documented as the cause since it was only what triggered the killing
disease.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 7536
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Pot
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 16:27:26
Asking for proof that marijuana has not killed anyone is asking that
someone prove a negative. This is folly. To settle the question one need
only prove that marijuana HAS killed someone.
Beyond that little point is the more important question of how bad is
marijuana, especially compared to accepted forms of self-medication. The
fact that there can be such dispute over the possibility that pot might have
ever killed someone indicates that it is nowhere near as dangerous as
alcohol or tobacco. It wouldn't take much effort to find proof that
cigarettes, whiskey, or many other forms of self-medication had killed
someone.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 7537
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last Dean?
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 19:45:08
Grrrrrrr... Cigarettes do kill people, a pretty much excepted fact.
(except to militant smokers) Smoking POT has many of the 'same' poisons, so
if a lung is opened up and it is determined there was pulmonary damage, the
doctor can't very well ask the victim what he was smoking. Smoking Pot is
as bad for you as smoking tobacco type cigarettes.
It's like this... should six dumb dudes drive off the edge of the
Grand Canyon in a Ford T-Bird.... The death certificate is NOT going to
say they were killed by a Ford T-Bird. The documented deaths will be noted
as a fall from great heights with a sudden stop. Even though the T-Bird was
the platform from which they entered deaths door. Someone looking up the
history of Ford T-Birds is never going to find these DEATHS as documented
files.
Bottom line... Smoking POT or smoking cigarettes, the cause of death
might be noted in documantation as 'pulmonary failure'. I could probably
say "there is no documented proof that 'Lark' cigarettes ever killed anyone"
and get away with it. It is that same DUMB logic when someone tells you
that 'There is no documented proof POT has ever killed anyone'.
Frankly, I don't care if you choose to smoke, snort or eat these or
any drugs. Making false claims to get the young hooked by telling them it's
SAFE is a crime. This is where the drug pusher (or one plugging it) should
be shot!
Message: 7538
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: Deadly T-Birds etc.
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 22:17:02
If some dumb dude drove his T-Bird off the edge of a cliff, I sure wouldn't
say that the car killed him. I'd say he wrecked the car.
Crushed skull with avulsion of the cranium and brain. Closed fracture
of right humerus. Multiple lacerations of hands and lower extremities.
That was from the death certificate of Jayne Mansfield. We might suspect
that mosquito spray is hazardous to your health, but you'd never guess from
reading the certificate that it killed her.
Toyota Motors puts everything up front. The company has a monument in Japan
to honor the souls of people killed in Toyotas throughout the world.
I'm positive that bananas are also hazardous to your health. But I can't
prove it. I can't find a single documented case of death resulting from
eating a banana. They always put it down to something else -- "asphyxia due
to tracheal obstruction", "slipped on skin, fractured skull" or whatever.
However, great strides are being made in the USSR. They have finally
succeeded in proving that the air we breathe really *is* dangerous. "The
evidence for oxygen toxicity is overwhelming," announced Anatoly Zenotov,
professor of biochemistry at the University of Kiev. "Statistical studies
show without a doubt that 100% of people who breathe oxygen eventually die."
Message: 7539
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann on Rod
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 22:53:44
He must be doing well considering all the kids he has, eh?
Then I know some bunny rabbits that must be reaching nirvana!
*chuckle*
Message: 7540
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Drug deaths
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 05:47:00
One simple fact that Rod likes to overlook in his statements is that, while
admittedly every user of marijuana does not eventually turn to hard drugs,
it has been proven that every hard drug addict began his or her journey in
to the dismal world of drugs with marijuana.
In light of that fact, and since plenty of deaths have been attributed
directly to hard drugs, there definitely IS a connection between marijuana
and death.
Anything that alters the mind has deadly potential.
Message: 7541
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff/cause of death
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 05:50:26
I kind of doubt that any coroner would get quite so flowery in his
description as "a fall from great height with a sudden stop". The diagnosis
would be more likely to read simply "multiple traumatic injuries".
Other than that, I agree totally with your post.
Message: 7542
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Paul/Addicts
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 07:58:33
And every hard drug user has used aspirin. So ban aspirin.
Message: 7543
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: aspirin
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 08:28:46
But the majority of aspirin users do not go on to harder 'illegal'
type drugs. A higher percentage of pot users however do try harder and more
deadly 'illegal' drugs.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 7544
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: pot
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 10:04:03
So is it correlation or causation? I'd say it's a little of both.
Message: 7545
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Cliff/aspirin
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 13:01:33
But Paul's point was that hard drug user's had started with mj and gone on
to harder stuff. I was merely pointing out that they could have started with
aspirin, or even alchohol. Even alchohol ! Oh yes, that's what should be
banned next. These drug users started with Coors Light and went on to harder
drugs. Hey, I bet those drug users may have shot a gun or two and found
shooting not enough to satisfy their insane lust for greater and greater
thrills and went on to greater things. Which reminds me. When I was a
teenager and a BAC, my girlfriend was the minister's daughter (fundy
Baptist) and she suggested to me that we should try aspirin and Coke (not
Cocaine) and that it would give you quite a high. So, let's ban the
following: Guns! (Yeah!), Aspirin (boo), Coke (wet kind, boo), Coors Light
(OK, it's mostly water anyway), BAC girlfriens (bad influence on potential
atheists)
Message: 7546
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Roger's ban on drugs
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 13:18:23
Well Roger, I would like to get one thing strait. I am NOT for
banning any of what you mentioned. I think education is the way to help
people, then let them make their own choice. Laws should not be passed to
prevent people from doing STUPID things to themselves in the privacy of
their own homes. Being in jail because you did something harmfull to
yourself makes no sense to me what-so-ever. Seems to me, just being in
jail is more harmful then smoking a few joints.
However, people who PROMOTE drug use to others should be punished.
Especially those who state "They are safe", "There has never been a
documented death" and other such misleading garbage.
I can see a use for many drugs if used correctly. Someone dieing a
painful death should be allowed to take what he wants. Hell, he does not
have to worry about lung cancer if he is dieing from some other disease.
Smoking for 'fun' is just plain ""STUPID"".
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 7547
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: CLIFF
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 15:02:05
Everything you said about not being able to show marijuana as the cause of
death in a case where smoking pot DID kill someone applies just as much to
cigarettes, and yet we are able to determine when cigarette use is to
blame.
I would like to see some proof that marijuana smoke has the same toxins in
the same strengths as cigarette smoke. I wouldn't rule it out, but I suspect
that it is false. I don't smoke anything and can't stand to be around people
smoking cigarettes, but marijuana smoke doesn't make me sick when I am
exposed to it like tobacco smoke does.
I question things when I think the official line is bull. That is my job.
By questioning the 'correct' attitude toward drugs and the questionable data
that backs it up, I am not encouraging drug use. I do not use them myself
and leave it up to the individual to choose to or not. Asked my opinion I
would say "Why do it?" Saying that I must either get in line and chant the
'correct' slogans and stop questioning our pure and honest authorities or I
am a criminal sounds just a little extreme don't you think?
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 7548
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Dean
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 18:20:06
Then you go to the Library and read the medical books. I read it
out of Sandy's medical books from her drug class. I don't have the books
now. The statment was that Pot contained MANY of the same poisons that were
found in cigarettes. You argue with the author, I don't care since I don't
use the product.
If I had proof, you would still doubt it... You're a libertarian.
clif-
Message: 7549
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Kars / Automotive
Subject: Project Cuda 65
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 18:23:25
It would get HOT out... Primed the inside of my door panels the
other day... and the floor pan. The body is almost ready to shoot with the
primary color. I have car parts all over the property.....sigh
clif-
Message: 7550
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Pot
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 20:33:19
I too have also read several articles on the effects of pot and
cigarettes. Most notibly they compared the two because the
two were so much alike. Pot came out on top with the most
harmful output, partly to blame because of the lack of filters.
No, Dean, I've read stuff like this too. Pot contains some very
harmful ingredients in the smoke. If they ever legalized the
stuff, I'd say the safest way to consume it would be to mix it
with chocolate or fudge brownies.
Imagine the commercials from the companies who would make them.
Message: 7551
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Mary Jane
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 02:04:55
I have no personal ax to grind in this debate because I don't use the stuff
myself. All the same, I'm not impressed with arguments for keeping pot
illegal while alcohol and tobacco remain legal. Except for one possibility.
I am not impressed with arguments that pot is more dangerous than -- or even
*as* dangerous as -- alcohol and tobacco. The latter two drugs at least
have clear statistical links with mortality. Pot is arguable. That ought
to tell us something about the probabilities. If I were picking a course of
action based on probability of death alone, I'd sooner pick the one that was
arguable than the one that was proven.
I'm not too impressed with the possible dangers of people driving while
high. In all probability alcohol affects driving a lot worse than pot does.
And you can detect pot in the bloodstream quite readily, for longer periods
than you can alcohol. The total number of drug abusers and irresponsible
people won't change very much. The people who would drive while high are
those who drive drunk today. More than likely they're already doing so.
I am not impressed with arguments that "all" (I don't even believe "all" --
"most" would be more like it) abusers of hard drugs got started on pot.
This is "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" -- the fallacy of confusing sequence
with consequence. If A and B are statistically correlated, you have to ask
whether A *caused* B, or whether B caused A, or whether A and B both result
from a third cause, C. Or whether the connection is accidental.
People who abuse illegal drugs are usually seeking relief from something,
and are very likely to abuse not one illegal drug, but several of them.
Lots of people pop pills with alcohol. And sometimes die from it.
If they were into coke, speed, heroin, acid, angel dust, I would *expect*
them to be into pot as well. And in fact, I would expect them to have
started with it as their first *illegal* drug, because it's relatively
benign, common, cheap, and easily obtainable. Have we also asked how many
of these dopeheads abuse alcohol as well? Have we asked how many pot users
do *not* go on to abuse other illegal drugs?
We should also ask what else the pot smoker has in common with the crack
smoker and the rest of them -- and the answer is simply that all of the
drugs they use are illegal. Why do people use drugs that are not legal?
Some of them do so because they know perfectly well that "the law's an ass",
but a fair percentage of both groups will do so because they're driven to
break the law by their own need. Here is another statistical link.
If pot were legalized, I would naturally expect the number of users to go
up. I wouldn't expect the number of users of other drugs to go up, because
the additional pot users would be those who preferred to keep within the
law. We might even see a slight *decrease* in the number of people using
other illegal drugs. If they figured that pot answered their needs about as
well as some other drug, they might prefer to use the one that was legal.
I am not the slightest bit impressed by anyone who argues that pot is wrong
because it's illegal. If you ask them why it's illegal, they'll often say
"because it's wrong". That's a circular argument.
If you asked why it's *really* illegal, I'd have to ask "why are things in
general illegal?" The general answer is not because something is "wrong",
but because enough people wanted it illegal to influence a bunch of
politicians to pass a law against it. Often this is because something is
*really* wrong, such as murder, and most people wouldn't stand for it if we
didn't have laws against murder. Often it's just arbitrary, like the tax
rate. Sometimes the mere fact of agreeing on something is more important
than what you agree on. Often it's because deluded people think something
is wrong. They don't have to be right. And all too often it's because
certain people shout louder or have more clout. Frequently the third and
fourth reasons are connected, because the people with more clout can buy
more shouting and persuade more of the deluded people to agree with them.
To decide whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing if pot were
legalized, I have to do some of this weighing of probabilities that is
always necessary when you try to define reality. Without hard evidence and
a track record, there is no absolute reality; merely opinions and guesswork.
When I do this weighing of evidence, I have to ask not only what the
evidence is, but also who is presenting it, and what interest they have in
the outcome.
If they seem to be disinterested, as I am, that's one thing. If they're
solely looking out for themselves without seeking to penalize others, that's
reasonable too. If they're looking out for themselves to other people's
detriment, I'll weigh what they say accordingly. If they're simply dense,
or hysterical, I'll attach some importance to that as well.
In America today we have an enormous hysteria against "drugs". I can't
argue that drugs aren't a problem, but I will point out that people have a
knee-jerk reaction to the word "drugs", a purely emotional reaction that has
little relationship to the actual effect of any particular drug. Many
people are just too thick to tell the difference between one drug and
another. There is also a negative streak of puritanism that breeds
suspicion about anything that makes people happy, be it sex or whatever.
Presumably this comes from unhappy experiences that convince people life
wasn't *meant* to be happy. But these people make an unduly loud noise, so
I tone down their unthinking reactions to pot accordingly.
I attach far more importance to the fact that some people's economic
dominance would be threatened by burgeoning sales of hemp products. These
people have plenty of clout with politicians and plenty of influence over
what the media say -- which in turn affects the way people think. Just
thinking something's wrong or dangerous doesn't make it so. But whether
it's true or false, if a message is repeated enough times, it colors
people's "reality".
A message doesn't become any more true for being said many times over; but
that's the way people think. All of this doesn't prove that pot is right,
or safe. But it does indicate to me that there's a lot of shouting and not
much solid evidence.
I certainly can't agree with the notion that people who "promote drug use"
should be subject to prosecution. That flatly contradicts the First
Amendment. Nobody is stopping people from speaking out in *opposition* to
drugs. And if drug use is so bad, the facts ought to speak for themselves.
The only thing that worries me about pot is the evidence that heavy users
seem to sink into a kind of torpor in which they lose a great deal of
initiative and ambition. Being laid back is one thing. Falling over
backwards is quite another. Of course, I can understand why certain people
would be opposed to pot on these grounds, because people with ambition and
greed are easily manipulated into being puppets to bolster the power of the
manipuator. People who are satisfied with life and couldn't give a damn
will tell them to go jump in the lake. All the same, I question the effect
that a general loss of drive would have on a nation's vitality.
But if I were asked to vote for legalization of pot, I'd go for it. If it
doesn't work, it doesn't work; but the world won't come to an end because of
it. It certainly didn't come to an end in Alaska, where it was legal until
recently. And the results would be very interesting to watch.
Message: 7556
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Roger/7542
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 06:01:05
i mught have anticipated a response like that from you. It goes so well
with the simplistically twisted way your little brain functions. (or fails
to function, depending on the point of view of the viewer.)
Message: 7557
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 08:12:41
Hey - I went from rum and lots of coke to straight shots of Jack Daniels!
I'm bad to the bone! -=* ANN * =-
Message: 7558
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 08:15:11
... and long live Libertarians!!! -=* ANN *=-
Message: 7559
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Gordon on M.J.
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 08:27:43
Truly enjoyed your 5 posts on pot. You look at things so nice and reasonable
- no hysteria!
However, I am disappointed in your joking type posts to me about England,
taxes there, etc. etc. You are such a prolific writer - I thought for sure
I'd be able to find out about a foreign country for a change from a good
source. Now, I've lost my original post (questions) to you and have lost
your reply because the system cut me off and I don't know what # your post
was. Maybe in the future you would tell me about England OK? I guess I want
to find out if they are so different than us - political wise - restrictive
wise. -=*ANN *=-
Message: 7560
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff/Drugs
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 08:49:41
Well, I mostly agree with you, I'm afraid.
Message: 7561
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Paul/7556
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 09:03:43
And you should eat some smart pills.
Message: 7562
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann/England
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 14:20:38
Don't worry, I do intend to put some more complete answers up in the
immediate future. If you're having trouble locating your original post, it
was 76526. Mine was 76549.
"The number is... 76549. Please make a note of it. Thank you for using
AT&T."
Message: 7563
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Answer!
Subject: Rod
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 21:34:37
Re: The only reason a pot smoker may become paranoid is that smoking pot is
a crime in the eyes of the establishment.
I don't think so.
Message: 7564
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: last/felix
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 17:16:29
That's okay by me. Think what you like. Go to church, pray, worship
something. Believe what you want. It won't change anything.
Message: 7565
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Pot
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 17:21:23
Some excellent posts on drugs here (except for the lunacy group).
I've smoked pot for twenty five years and I have never had the desire to try
heroin or alcohol. By the way, from the information I have, alcohol is
harder on an individual than heroin and I believe it.
Many people have died from the killer Columbian Coffee Bean than from both
Heroin and Marijuana combined. Smoke that.
And as far as pot making someone lazy, I'd like to see either Paul, Cliff or
Thornburg keep up with me at work or play. And as for ambition, I have been
self employed for most all of my working career.
Rod
Message: 7566
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Dean/you win
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 17:23:35
I made up some buttons this week and showed them to various people. I asked
them to point out their favorites. Each of the people picked your, "Don't
Edit Reality for the sake of Simplicity. Those buttons are now at
Metropophobia.
Message: 7567
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Gordon, you 1-5
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 18:47:24
Excellent posts. Have you thought of sending that message off as an article
in some rag? It's good.
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C
Message: 4913
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Beyond...
Subject: Major Labor Pains!
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 13:08:16
I didn't want to aggravate the other discussions, so I put
this here.
What if it were true that your chances of getting past the
pearly gates were directly proportional to your frequency
of birth? If you had been *very* frequently born during life, say
at about 4MHz throughout your life, would you get to take
cuts in line? What about the poor schmucks who had only
been born twice? Would they have to wait around forever?!
Does anyone know if frequency analysis (or some suitable
analog) is mentioned in the Bible?
Message: 4914
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: last/frequency
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 17:25:53
It's not nice to not share drugs with your friends.
*=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*
Message: 76506
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Politics
Subject: Police State
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 15:59:30
The Webster's New Twentieth Century (UNABRIDGED) Dictionary states:
police state, a government that seeks to intimidate and suppress POLITICAL
opposition by means of a secret police force.
Rod was smoking something or just added what he wanted to the true
definition of 'police state'... not one of my Webster's (I have several big
ones) has the meaning Rod posted. Not even close!
Message: 76507
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Beau/name change
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 16:46:48
Will that make you and Melissa eligible for some kind of pensions?
Colonels do pretty well I bet.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 76508
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Prohiboholics Anon.
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 17:59:29
Now that Matsuda has cloned the gene, it will be much
simpler to study and screen drugs that bind to the cannabinoid
receptor. "Once you can clone the receptor, you can screen
1,000 compounds each day," observes Solomon H. Snyder of
John Hopkins University, one of the investigators who
established in the 1970s that the brain contains opiate
receptors known as endorphins. Synthetic analgesics that
arose from that discovery are now being tested in clinical
trials.
Some drug companies studied synthetic cannabinoids a decade
or more ago but gave up because of their side effects.
Pfizer, for example, experimented with levonantradol, a
compound that proved to be a potent antiemetic and analgesic
in clinical trials. But the company abandoned commercial
development of the drug because it sedated patients too
much, according to Lawrence S. Melvin, Jr., a Pfizer
pharmacologist.
Susan J. Ward, a pharmacologist at Sterling Drug, says her
company has developed a new range of compounds, known as
aminoalkylindoles, that bind strongly to cannabinoid
receptors. Sterling has also developed compounds that
prevent binding to the receptor. But it is Snyder's
impression that "none of the drug candidates have been free
from psychoactivity. They are good analgesics, but they
make you high, so they won't be developed."
With the cloning of the cannabinoid receptor, that
obstacle may vanish, Snyder says. As a molecular tool, the
clone could lead the way to subtypes of the cannabinoid
receptor. Drugs designed to affect receptor subtypes might
well have advantageous effects. According to Snyder,
Matsuda's data already provide a hint that a receptor
subtype might exist. --T.M.B.
From Scientific American, March 1991, Letters:
Misplaced Priorities?
To the Editors:
"Cannabis Comprehended." by Timothy Beardsley (("Science
and the Citizen," Scientific American, October 1990)), was
more noteworthy for the medical biases that it revealed than
for its news of recent brain physiology discoveries.
Medical technologies that have unpleasant side effects, such
as radiation therapies for cancer that cause headaches,
nausea and hair loss, are considered acceptable. Yet a drug
that makes patients "high" as its main (if not only) side
effect will not even be developed!
Are we so afraid of pleasure that we would rather let
people suffer than risk letting some of them have fun?
Wilma Keppel
Omaha, Neb.
Message: 76511
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bill #76497
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 18:30:52
Cute.
"Hippocampus" was transcribed correctly but "cannaboids"
should have been "cannabinoids."
"Cannaboids" is a brand of canned cockatoo entrails currently
being test marketed in Brooklyn.
(thanks for catching it)
Message: 76512
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/Paul/Sin
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 19:04:58
How suggestive.
Message: 76513
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: Rod / "Heathen"
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 22:57:55
I know an arrow leading to the lion arena when I see one.
Message: 76514
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul on Roger
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 23:08:42
If Roger calls us "boobs" because we believe the Bible, then perhaps
that is why he refers to himself as a "christian agnostic." Since it is
only through the Bible that Jesus is described in his fullness and divine
nature, I could see where Roger, doubting the Bible, could hesitate to come
down from the middle of the fence and embrace the Living One who calls,
"Come!"
Christ describes the fate of such that fall into this category in
Revelation 3:15-16. I certainly do not wish to see such a thing happen on
Roger, but if he denies the Lord and His Christ, then I can certainly not
be expected to bear the burden of the consequences nor the guilt that would
result in those consequences.
We are by nature rebellious and independent. When we leave the nest,
we are happy to be free from our parent's guidance. We certainly do not
wish to be told that we have another Father, and we certainly do not want to
be told that we are dependent upon Him for anything. Pride cometh before a
fall. My pride caused me to fall and crushed me. It was only in that
helpless state that I was able to understand just how helpless I indeed was.
I am not ashamed to admit that I serve God, that I believe in His Word,
that, despite my shortcomings and sinful nature, I try to live my life in
accordance with His will. And it is my faith that makes Christ's
righteousness mine, and makes my feeble attempts at obedience righteous in
my Father's sight. It's a real man who is able to get down on his knees.
Message: 76515
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on The Bird
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 23:10:44
You are certainly welcome to take HER "under your wing." Granted, I
have not had a lot of time to work with her, so she is not exactly tame.
(Not that she bites, but she is rather flighty.)
Let me know an evening that I would be able to get her over to you.
And leave directions for me in E-mail. After I picked up the monitor, I did
something with the directions I had. They most likely got tossed.
Message: 76516
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: 76470 / Roger
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 23:12:11
Yes, you must be. Although I doubt that Christ said it with a Southern
drawl, I agree with it. Being a BAC is the only way that you can truly be a
Christian.
Message: 76517
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger on Paul
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 23:16:16
Roger, EVERYONE is self-righteous to some extent. The only exception
was Jesus Christ. The sinful nature within us causes at least some pride to
leak out from time to time. But should we attempt to justify our own self-
righteousness by comparing it to another's? Or should it rather compel us
to understand our shortcomings and remind us of the true and perfect
righteousness that is given us in Christ? It's hard to pull a speck out of
someone else's eye when...well, you know (I hope you know) the rest.
Message: 76518
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Michelle & Beau
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 23:22:37
"My lover is mine and I am his;
he browses among the lilies.
Until the day breaks and the shadows flee,
turn, my lover, and be like a gazelle
or like a young stag on the rugged hills." (SS 2:16)
"Like a lily among thorns is my darling among the maidens." (SS 2:2)
Congratulations to the two of you as you enter into the lifelong
commitment of marriage. May your lives together be blessed, and may your
many experiences as husband and wife, in good times and bad, be memories to
treasure.
Message: 76519
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Answer!
Subject: BURKETT
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 02:22:31
Pushing product is the bottom line. Praise the almighty buck.
(Actually, the gallery is still open. This is an additional, albeit a bit
more commercial, venture.)
Message: 76520
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Answer!
Subject: BILL ON MARK
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 02:25:03
Boy, talk about holding a grudge. Talk about making mountains out of
molehills. So he threatens a user or two with physical harm - nobody is
perfect, 'ya know? Sheesh. Remind me never to look at YOU crosseyed!
Message: 76521
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: DARYL/SERRANO
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 02:35:04
"I see a crucifix in a jar of urine. Tell me, how much more
research..."
Using that logic one could then say, "God commanded a bear to eat
children just because they made fun of the bald head of one of his
disciples. Tell me, how much more research do I have to do to know God must
be pretty malicious?"
Of course, you'd probably say that person was closed minded for
basing an entire opinion on hearsay.
From your last, I assume you have seen the photograph. What could be
lost by making a point of looking up the article the next time you're at the
library?
Message: 76522
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill/76496
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 05:31:23
Oh right! Roger is so self-righteous in his unbelief! Such a picture of
humility and servitude! HAH!
Besides, my nose only honks about twice a year, when something or other
blooms. THe rest of the year, I have to use a mechanical horn.
Thanks for the nice words on my shoes, however, They're supposed to be
funny.
Message: 76523
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/shining
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 05:36:57
Did I create yet another typo Gordon? I MEANT sun, not sin. THe only place
where sin never shines (or rears it's ugly head) is in Jesus CHrist, and as
far as Roger is concerned, I think He (Jesus) is still waiting in the wings.
THe rest of us are just as much a mess, except for the fact that we are
forgiven and justified in Him.
Message: 76524
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question?
Subject: Daryl-what?
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 06:24:02
Re: "Being a Born Again Christian is the only way that you can truly be a
Christian"!!!! (Daryl Westfall to Roger Mann)
What in the world are U talking about? I think you offended every Christian
that was raised in a faith and belived in it! I've never heard such a
'nutsy' statement in my life. Where did you come up with that doozie? Who
ever told you that one - I'd stay away from. Satan sent him!!!! Geeze!
*>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 76525
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl #76517
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 06:36:20
Re: your ... "The sinful nature within us causes at least some pride to leak
out from time to time".
Pray tell man what is the matter with a little pride? It is inborn - you can
see it even in small children that haven't yet been taught to be prideful.
Why can't pride be a positive thing? Why must some Christians condemn just
about everything and leave nothing but a shell of themselves because
everything to them is a 'sin' - drinking, dancing, smoking, pride, cards.
I think it would be a heck of a lot simpler and enjoyable if you just took
a whip and beat yourselves and called it even! Instead of trying to find the
positive in the Bible, they only find reasons to not enjoy themselves in
this life and pick other's apart because they do. I just don't get this Born
Again Christian stuff and having to refrain from all the goodies in life.
From what I've been told about it, I'd avoid it like the plague if that is
what it means. *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 76526
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question?
Subject: Gordon on England
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 06:51:01
Could you answer some questions about your former country? I am curious to
see if we are alike in many ways or totally different.
Do the English pay more taxes than we do a year? The middle income people?
How is property priced there? High I assume, but is there any new building
going on? How often do people move?
Is England leaning more towards socialism than capitalism? What about
welfare - socialized medicine? Is there many small businesses or more large
corporations like we have here? What about prices at the supermarkets? The
same or higher/lower?
Are they obsessed with cigarette smokers - cholesterol - obesity - alcohol -
ratting on their neighbors - racism. How do they feel about not being able
to own a gun?
Is there less of such things as child abuse? (Sexually also?) Less gays?
Less AIDS? What kills the English the most - heart disease, cancer, other?
What is their life expectency? Do they show more mannors towards each other
than we do? What about the abortion issue?
It is very rare to find out about other countries from the 'horse's mouth'
so to speak and no offence intended! *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 76527
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/Paul and Roger
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 07:52:37
A very thoughtful and well-written response. Rather than the near-hysterical
response by Paul you rise the the challenge. There is no rebellion on my
part --- only the sad recognition that the faith of my childhood is based
upon empty promises with nothing behind it. A realization that we are alone,
together, in this universe. If there is comfort to give, we give it to each
other. If there is forgiveness, it is we who forgive each other. Each of us
are human and we share the common bond of humanity. More than that, we share
the common ancestry of billions of years of evolution with the rest of the
universe. We are learning not to destroy but to build, and as we build, the
universe builds becoming something we cannot know but something we have
a part in playing. So, we have a choice: we can be builders or we can be
destroyers. Let's throw off our superstitions and hatred of others and
become builders together.
Message: 76528
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Religion
Subject: 76516/Daryl
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 07:54:09
At least according to "John". What about "Matthew, Mark, and Luke" (I don't
consider Paul to be a Christian, since he subverted the young religion to
his own purposes and glory.
Message: 76529
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on Roger
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 07:54:54
True. It's just that some folks are a leetle more annoying than others.
Message: 76530
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: My Dinner with...
Subject: Apro-Cannaboids
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 08:19:19
> "Cannaboids" is a brand of canned cockatoo entrails currently
> being test marketed in Brooklyn.
Love it! Are they from Chef Boidardee?
Hey, Annie! Put those birds to work!
Message: 76531
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Rod Defines
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 08:19:46
> I'm sorry that you cannot accept Webster's Unabridged
> Dictionary's verbatim meaning of "police state". I don't have
> a problem with it.
I do. And my definition came from a Webster's Unabridged, too.
> I would imagine that all countries have their secret police
> squads ready to roll when necessary.
You might be surprised at how much we agree. Too bad you picked such an
extreme starting point.
Message: 76532
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Cliff-Rod's Def
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 08:20:11
> Rod was smoking something or just added what he wanted to the
> true definition of 'police state'... not one of my Webster's (I
> have several big ones) has the meaning Rod posted. Not even
> close!
I doubt that Rod added anything to the definition he gave. If he says it's
verbatim, I believe him. On the other hand, that he took it from a pinko
leftist commie-inspired running yellow dog dictionary cannot be in doubt.
Message: 76533
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon-Hist Lesson
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 08:20:50
> Is it recorded in the annals of King Henry I?
The puniness of American history struck me when I took some friends from
Britain to see the Indian ruins at Tuzigoot. I had told them how wondrous
these ruins are and how amazing it was that, given the supposed
technological backwardness of the people, the ruins had survived so long.
While touring the ruins I caught them snickering at one of the signs near
the entrance. I asked what was so funny. The replied, "We were married in
a church older than this."
Oh well.
Message: 76534
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Peter's A Pusher
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 08:21:25
> Pushing product is the bottom line. Praise the almighty buck.
Any Madonna trinkets for sale? (I want one of those pointy brassieres Opus
was wearing a couple weeks ago.)
Message: 76535
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Crosseyed Peter
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 08:21:51
> Remind me never to look at YOU crosseyed!
I HATE when people do that! I'm never sure which is the good eye.
Message: 76536
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul & Daryl
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 08:22:07
I wonder if we could enlist these two in the wars on drugs and gangs. If
they could be persuaded to come out in support of these two
crises-of-the-week, I'm sure drugs and gangs would start to look so bad no
one would go near either again.
I mean, look what they've done for Christianity and religion in general.
Message: 76538
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 09:55:42
How about an original poem rather than copied Bible verses for Mychele and
Beau?
Message: 76539
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Puny history
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 10:00:44
This has been bothering me too. Maybe that's why I live in a 1938 house
with a 1972 cat and drive a 1969 car. I'm thinking of rebuilding and
restoring those old round refrigerators to sell. Any takers?
Message: 76540
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Volcano watching
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 12:40:10
We must be living quite close to a volcano ourselves. If we stroll outside
our house and look around, we can find cinders like pieces of pumice.
I'm sure there's evidence that the San Francisco Peak did erupt about the
year 1100, but I wondered how anyone managed to pin it to an exact year
(1116). My question is, who was around to do the counting?
The Mayas had calendars, but they'd all gone by then. So did the Aztecs,
but I didn't think the locals in Arizona were much at keeping calendars in
1116. Maybe the date of the eruption was fixed with something mundane like
dendrochronology.
It seems highly unlikely that any Europeans were around to record the event,
but I didn't want to reject that possibility out of hand either. Doing that
would be perpetuating the myth that Christopher Columbus was the first
European to get to America, and ignoring once again the people who came here
before him.
Not forgetting the people who were already here, of course.
Oh, there are supposed to be some ancient ruins in Zimbabwe, but I don't
think anybody knows who built them. Sure wasn't Cecil Rhodes.
Message: 76541
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: BBBs
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 17:37:46
Bible-believing Boobs does not mean that all boobs are bible-believing, nor
does it mean that all bible-believers are boobs. I can talk about American
Nazis without getting you upset, can't I?
Message: 76542
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Prohiboholics Anon.
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 18:44:03
From Scientific American, December 1990:
Going to Pot
A grassroots movement touts hemp's environmental virtues
Worried about global warming? The depletion of forests?
U.S. dependence on foreign oil? World hunger? How about
the cost of bailing out savings and loan banks? A small but
vocal group of Americans is promoting a simple solution to
these problems: hemp, also known as *Cannabis Sativa*, or
marijuana.
Pot enthusiasts have lobbied for the drug's legalization
for decades--in vain. But recently they have put an
environmental spin on their pitch. They claim that the
fast-growing, hardy weed can yield more cellulose per acre
than trees; it can be woven into textiles while doing less
damage to the environment than synthetic fibers or even
cotton; its seeds, which are not psychoactive, are second in
protein content only to soybeans; and its seed oil and raw
biomass make a renewable source of fuel.
The guru of this grassroots movement is Jack Herer, a
large, hirsute Californian and admitted marijuana partaker.
"I'm smoking right now," he growled in a recent telephone
interview. Herer says he has a "pipe dream" in which people
live in homes made of hemp particleboard, read hemp
newspapers, wear hemp clothes, drive cars powered by
hemp-based methanol and even dine on hemp-seed tofu.
Five years ago Herer wrote and published a history of hemp
called *The Emperor Wears No Clothes*. The book, which
Herer says has sold more than 100,000 copies so far, is
chock-full of marijuana Americana. It notes that Thomas
Jefferson, among other forefathers, grew hemp on his farm
and that the sails and shrouds of the USS *Constitution*
were made out of the stuff, as were the original Old Glory
sewn by Betsy Ross and the first Levi jeans.
Indeed, hemp was once a major crop in the U.S., used to
make textiles, rope, paper and other products. Herer
contends it was banned in the 1930s not because of its
health risks but because it posed an economic threat to
industrialists--notably newspaper magnate William Randolph
Hearst--committed to wood and petroleum-based products. If
hemp is allowed to return, Herer says, "it could save the
planet."
Other experts say Herer's claims are a bit exaggerated.
David F. Musto, a Yale University historian of illegal
drugs, noted that Hearst campaigned in his newspapers
against all drugs, not just marijuana. Quentin Jones of the
U.S. Agricultural Research Service adds that while hemp is
certainly versatile, other plants can fulfill its verious
roles more economically.
Herer retorts that he has a standing offer of $10,000 to
anyone who can prove him wrong. He has formed two groups--
the Business Alliance for Commerce in Hemp and Help End
Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP)--to promote the cause. He also
lectures and organizes rallies across the country. In late
September he spoke at a pro-marijuana "festival" in Madison,
Wis., attended by 14,000 people.
Herer has had difficulty enlisting mainstream types in his
movement. Yet he did inspire a Kentucky attorney named
Gatewood Galbraith to enter his state's 1991 gubernatorial
race on the hemp-legalization platform. Galbraith, who has
made campaign appearances in a car powered by diesel fuel and
hemp oil, insists his candidacy is for real. He points out
that in 1983 he won more than 40,000 votes in a losing bid
to become commissioner of agriculture and that country and
western star Willie Nelson has endorsed his current bid.
"Politically," proclaims Galbraith, who shares Herer's
passion for smoking pot, "I'm right on the cutting edge."
Now about the S&L crisis. A plan devised by the Business
Alliance for Commerce in Hemp calls for legalizing
marijuana, now conservatively estimated to be a
$50-billion-a-year business, and then allowing ailing banks
to recoup their losses by investing in the trade. Call it
a joint venture.
From Scientific American, April 1991:
Hemp Hassles
To the Editors:
I enjoyed your discussion of the many nonsmoking
commercial uses of the hemp plant, alias marijuana
(("Science and the Citizen," Scientific American, December
1990)). One small point needs to be clarified, however: I
am the sole founder and national director of the Business
Alliance for Commerce in Hemp (BACH). Jack Herer is not
directly affiliated with us.
Ironically, in that same issue, "50 and 100 Years Ago"
reprinted a 1940 item about how Du Pont's first nylon plant
might replace a third of U.S. silk imports by 1942.
Farm-grown hemp fiber could, or course, have met the entire
silk demand--but it had been outlawed in 1938 at the urging
of Du Pont and other special interests.
Chris Conrad
National Director, BACH / Los Angeles, Calif.
Message: 76546
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Politics
Subject: Police State
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 19:31:18
Besides arguing against the existence of undercover police
squads, does anyone care to address my questions at the end
of #76411?
Whenever there's talk in the mainstream media of prison overcrowding,
the only solution offered is to build more prisons. The
fact that more citizens are incarcerated per capita in the
United States than in any other country is conspicuously
avoided. Frankly, this is beginning to disturb me.
We were once third behind the Soviet Union and South Africa.
Message: 76547
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill Burkett
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 20:11:07
Funny, when I read about the "Hippocampus", the exact same thing
entered my mind;
"This guy's yankin my chain, it's really a HIPPIE CAMPUS."
Well, it was worth a chuckle anyway.
Message: 76548
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Apro-76411
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 20:27:40
Well, 13% increase in prison population.{ Neet. Now adjust it to
make it a per capita increase to wash off the sensationalism.
America's population is also increasing, not just in birth rates
either. WIth this open borders policy, I'd doubt we are receiving anything
less than a few million newcomers each year from the south.
I find no evidence of sadomasochistic tendencies or policies within
the City of Phoenix. Actually, having delt with a church visitation
program, and after hearing many a story, it's my opinion that
the system bends over backwards to prevent incarcerations.
Check out the figures for education, match them with the percentage
of increasing calls to police and demand for police services. Nope,
it ain't the Government. It's the people. And the people
are winding up there with little help from the Government.
Message: 76549
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann/England (1/183)
Date: 07/11/91 Time: 21:35:28
Well, a response to all these interesting questions ought to be good for a
quite a few posts. To mollify those people who must be thinking to
themselves "Dammit, I was afraid of that!" I'll try to answer them as
concisely as I can.
Yes. I would be too.
Yes. Yes.
High. Yes. Less often.
Somewhat. What about it? -- it's still there. Not as many. What
about them? Higher.
Less so. Not as concerned.
Yes. (Probably.) No.
Yes. Heart disease.
70.2 male, 76.2 female. Often. What about it? -- like welfare and
socialized medicine, it's still there too.
Yes it is, no offence taken. [I echo British spelling of "offense".]
More CONcise means less PREcise, however, so I appreciate that this needs
elaborating.
Message: 76550
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: Petrisko/Serrano
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 01:23:31
Perhaps I will. Granted, you make a pretty good point there.
Message: 76551
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: Ann on Born Again
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 01:36:17
(Ann to Me)
> I've never heard such a 'nutsy' statement in my life. Where did you come
> up with that doozie? ...I think you offended every Christian that was
> raised in a faith and believed in it... Where did you come up with that
doozie? Who ever told you that one - I'd stay away from. Satan sent him!!!!"
"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born
of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives
birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be
born again.'"
You know who spoke those words, Ann? JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF.
Those who have faith in Christ and trust in his word ARE born again, Ann. I
don't know what your concept of 'being born again' is, but whatever it is,
it is apparently at odds with what being born again REALLY means. If the
concept of being born again offends a Christian, then that Christian really
needs to read because he doesn't understand the ABC's of his faith.
You say that the person who spoke these words is to be avoided? That he is
of Satan? Do you know that the people of Jesus' time said the same things
about him? "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow
drives out demons." Want to read his reply? Look up Matthew 12:25-37.
Message: 76552
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 01:41:47
You miss the point entirely. Being a Christian is not being miserable.
Being a MONK may be miserable, but being a Christian certainly is not. Your
"enjoying oneself" must be defined however, as well as "all the goodies in
life."
Being a Christian is not a dull experience in the least. HOWEVER, being
a Christian does mean that one recognizes that one does have to answer to
his Superior, in his words, and his actions. There are lots of ways to have
fun that don't result in STDs or hangovers. It's funny that the only people
that I have heard complain about the Christian lifestyle are those outside
of the picture. And I can testify to that, because I've been on both sides
of that picture.
Message: 76553
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: Roger/Apostle Paul
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 01:43:31
>I don't consider Paul to be a Christian, since he subverted...to his own
>purposes and glory.
How so?
Message: 76554
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill / 76536
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 01:45:18
Ooh, what a low blow. Ow, what a one two punch. Ouch, I am in pain.
Message: 76555
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Michael / 76538
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 01:49:33
Well, gee Mr. James, I'm sorry for doing something a little different
in the way of congratulations. I thought my post was very much
appropriate. I must say this is a first for me. I have never been criticised
for a congratulatory reply before - especially not from someone to whom that
blessing was not even intended.
Message: 76556
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: War!
Subject: Final
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 02:01:56
Simply amazing.
Of course, I COULD simply shut up.
But I'm not always one for giving the public what they want.
I've been accused of everything from giving Christianity a bad name to
writing lousy messages of congratulations. That's what I've always loved
about Apollo [no offense, Cliff]: It's warm homey atmosphere. One where
one can really say what he thinks without being demeaned or belittled. I
guess that's why I hang around. Either that or I'm a masochist.
A Christian masochist. What a concept.
Message: 76557
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Religion
Subject: Annie/76524
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 05:47:14
Daryl got that "nusty" statement from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself, who
is quoted in the Bible as saying "You MUST be born again."
If you can't believe Jesus, who can you believe?
Message: 76558
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 05:58:52
Keep on keeping on, brother! Just don't stop posting because the atheists,
agnostics and plain ignoramuses are after you!
By the way, I read the last chapter in the Book, and we win! Hah!
Message: 76559
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger #76527
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 07:16:31
Very good post - but you'll get a hysterical response. -=* ANN *=-
Message: 76560
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill on entrails
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 07:18:37
We got rid of our Cockatoo a year ago. No braised entrails today!
-=* ANN *=-
Message: 76561
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on BAC
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 07:31:57
I have always been confused on what a Born Again Christian is. I have heard
claims from people that told me .... they found God on the spot .... that
they came back to their religion after losing their faith for awhile .. that
they changed religions! All these said this is what is meant by being Born
Again. I even have been told that if you were a Catholic for example, was
baptised shortly after birth and raised in that faith, that you still wern't
Christian but needed to be born again to be saved. {
The words "Born Again" means to me to come back to a faith you turned your
back on for a while! -=* ANN *=-
Message: 76562
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on other
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 07:43:23
I too have been on both sides and have came to the conclusion that society
says what we should do, eat, drink more than God does!
Enjoy? I would be totally bored to death to never dance, play cards, drink
etc. To go to church again and hear boring, long sermons giving by someone
not any less of a sinner than myself is un-thinkable to me now. To read the
Bible all the time ... ugh! Not only would it be boring, but it is hard
reading and not understandable. I now hear you quoting the Bible all the
time and I remember myself doing just that and I cringe at how people must
have started avoiding me because of it. I had no mind of my own - no
personality except what I thought I should have.
I find joy in God without all of it - but I also enjoy a good belt of
whiskey and a poker game and we go dancing and raising hell on occasion.
I may even smoke a big cigar one of these days! If born again means I must
give these up .... count me out! -=* ANN *=-
Message: 76563
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on Paul
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 07:47:53
I too think Paul was a fake - just like Oral Roborts - Bakker and the ilk.
Why? Because it doesn't make sense what he said about women in the Bible
that's why. Yeah, I'll admit that hits close to home but it is still a
questionable subject. I am sure you will tell me reason as to why Paul hated
women but I can't justify it for any reason. According to him, they belonged
in their place! Doesn't sound like someone sent from God to me.
-=* ANN *=-
Message: 76564
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pauley on BA
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 07:54:13
When Jesus talked of being born again that meant shedding of the old
belief's and taking on the new - being Baptised! It didn't mean people had
to have some sort of 'on the spot revelation'. As I mentioned, I have talked
to people that claimed that being raised and believing in a religion such as
Catholic or Lutheran or Methodist ISN'T enought - that one must be born
again to reach Heaven - be a true Christian!!
-=* ANN *=-
Message: 76565
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Religion
Subject: Daryl
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 08:06:57
Re: your .... "if the concept of being born again offends a Christian, then
that Christian really needs to read because he doens't understand the ABC's
of his faith" .....That statement I find very confusing to say the least.
Here again I'm getting the opinion that BA and being a Christian are two
different things - that being JUST a Christian isn't enough! Isn't EVERY
Christian BORN AGAIN???? I think maybes if you defined the two...!
-=* ANN *=-
Message: 76566
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: News Today
Subject: Grand
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 08:10:13
I wanted to announce that old Annie is now a 'great grandma' and it is
great! We went to see and hold little Johnathon Michael last night and it
was wonderful. Not bragging of course, he IS a good looking baby.
-=* ANN *=-
Message: 76567
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Religion
Subject: Darly/Paul
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 08:39:45
As you know, Paul had a fight with Peter. Peter lost and Paul won. Most of
the stuff Christians profess are an almalgam of Hellenistic mores (look at
Paul's anti-sex stance) and Paul's interpretation.
Message: 76568
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Daryl
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 08:41:15
NO NO NO. Jesus Christ NEVER said it. It was a story written by "John"
around 100 AD to provide a metaphor for the conversion experience.
Message: 76569
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann on BAC
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 08:44:10
We had a converted Catholic in our Baptist church. Catholic conversions to
Protestantism were VERY rare, so we were extremely happy that this woman
became a Christian. So, yes, at least the Baptist church did not consider
RCC's to be "saved" (at least in 1950) I have no idea what they believe
today (thank God)
Message: 76570
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Religion
Subject: Ann/76565
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 08:47:44
Very good question. Yes, every Christian IS born again. What the BAC's want
you to do is be a Bible-Believer. The two were almost indistinguishable. If
you follow the culture, you believe the same things they do. The central
point being Bible Believer. The second church of my childhood was called
Bible Community Church because the central tenet was belief in an inerrant
Bible. (And we used to laugh at the RCC's because they believed in an
inerrant Pope)
Message: 76571
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/GG'ma
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 08:48:39
Wow ! Congratulations. Y'all must have 'em REAL young.
Message: 76572
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Daryl
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 13:06:23
Quit whining. I'm not going to feel sorry for you because you intentionally
misinterpret my messages.
Message: 76573
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 13:07:02
How can you be a Christian and have no religious beliefs?
Message: 76574
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 14:24:53
Wow, a GREAT-grandma? Congratulations! Do you have an eventual goal in
mind? I mean, you've still got plenty of time to add a few more "greats"...
Message: 76575
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Michael/76573
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 16:18:06
How indeed ? I'll let you make the appropriate conclusion.
Message: 76576
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: In search of
Subject: Dinosaurs
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 16:53:46
The following is a reprint from a "Moody, May 1983" I thought
I might share. The Author is Dr. Russell Humphreys, PhD in Physics.
He is a scientist at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque.
==================================================================
Dale A. Russel is Scientific American magazine ("The mass
Extinctions of the late Mesozoic," January 1982, pp. 58-65)
examines different explanations for the mysterious disappearance
of dinosaurs from the earth "at the end of the Mesozoic era
some 63 million years ago."
At that time "at least 15 separate families of dinosaurs,
possibly representing between 50 and 70 distinct species,
inhabited North America.
Scientists, he says, have put forward many hypotheses to account
for the abrupt disappearance. He mentions "disruptions of the
food chain both at sea and on land, a general alteration of the
environment as the sea level began to drop at the end of the
Mesozoic, a sharp rise in temperature, a fall in temperature
caused by volcanic dust in the atmosphere and so on."
Evolutionists are not agreed whether a resulting shock wave
or tidal wave or the spreading of 500 billion tons of meteorite
dust (containing iridium) forced dinosaurs off the Earth.
Some varieties of the evolutionist scientist claim sharp rises in
temperature, a fall in temperature caused by volcanic dust in the
atmosphere and so on. In contrast to all of this, the Bible implies
that dinosaurs existed in the days of Adam, Noah and Job.
It describes two of them in detail. We find evidence of men and
dinosaurs together in fossils, in worldwide legends and possibly
even in today's world.
On the fifth day, "God created the great sea monsters"
(Gen. 1:21). The Hebrew word given here as "sea monsters" is TANNIN,
often translated as "dragon":
"In that day the Lord will punish Leviathan the fleeing
serpent.....even Leviathan the twisted serpent; and He will kill the
dragon [tannin] who lives in the sea" (Isa.27:1).
So the great tannin of Genesis 1:21 seem to be a large sea-
going reptile, such as the plesioaur ("near lizards"), a long-
necked sea-swimming creature with a large body, four pad like
fins, a long tail and lots of teeth.
In the beginning these dinosaurs were part of the creation
that God called "very good": "There is the sea...and Leviathan,
which Thou hast formed to sport in it." (Psalm 104:25,26).
At that time they ate only plants (Gen. 1:30). But like all of
creation, they were affected by Adam's sin (Gen. 3 Rom. 8:19-22).
Probably then, many of them became the meat-eaters
we find in the fossils. According to Genesis 5, more than a
thousand years passed from Creation to the birth of Noah. During
that time men and other creatures multiplied rapidly (Gen. 6:1).
Possibly the dinosaurs contributed to the violence that filled the
earth (Gen. 6:11-13). Because of man's corruption, God destroyed
the human race in a flood of water so great that
"all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered"
(Gen. 7:19). This would be the flood that killed all
land animals: "Thus he blotted out every living thing
that was upon the face of the land" (Gen. 7:23).
The word translated "blotted-out" here literally means "wipe",
like wiping dirt off a dish. (2 Kings 21:13). So God physically
swept the animals off the surface of the continent.
Many of their bodies were buried in tons of mud carried downhill
by onrushing water. Organic material in the mud hardened it rapidly
like concrete and formed the fossil rocks we find today.
The only exceptions to this destruction were the sea creatures,
Noah and his family and the animals God sent to him: 'Two of every
kind shall come to you to keep them alive" (Gen. 6:20). Since
dinosaurs are among the fossils, they must have existed when the
flood started. So many pairs must have presented themselves to Noah.
Were they too big for the ark? Not if they were young dinosaurs.
Unlike mammals, reptiles never stop growing.
The longer they live the bigger they get. The large dinosaurs may
simply have been older ones, just as some men had long lives before
the flood (Gen. 5).
In any case, there was no need to take full-grown dinosaurs
aboard. Some of the stronger creatures left outside the ark fought
upstream to higher ground. Both men and dinosaurs probably found
themselves together on shrinking islands of safety.
There is interesting fossil evidence for this in the limestone bed
of the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas.
In the Cretaceous (dinosaur) layer that the river has uncovered,
trails of both human and dinosaur crisscross together. "Footprints in
Stone," produced by Films for Christ in 1973, documents excavations
of some of the trails. Dr. John D. Morris has written "Tracking
Those Incredible Dinosaurs" (Creation-Life, 1980) and included
photos, diagrams and locations of each trail. Evolutionists have
tried to explain the human footprints as "carvings."
But newer excavations in June of 1982 in the limestone shelf at the
river's edge show the same human and dinosaur trails under
undisturbed rock. These tracks, uncovered in front
of TV cameras (WFAA, Dallas), could not have been carved.
Naturally, Evolutionists don't like this evidence because their
theories have the dinosaurs going extinct about 60 million years
before man appeared. The Paluxy footprints imply that the whole
evolutionary time scale is wrong.
Dinosaurs leaving the ark after the flood would survive at least
a short time. There is biblical evidence that the patriarch Job lived
a few centuries after the flood, after Babel but before Abraham. Some
of the evidence is: Job's lifetime (Job 42:16) compared to those in
Genesis 11:10-26, a reference to the flood (Job 22:15,16) and the
lack of any reference to Abraham or his descendants. So Job should
have known about dinosaurs. Perhaps he even saw a few.
In Job 38-41 God gave him examples from creation showing His wisdom
and power. The climax in chapter 41 describes Leviathan.
In the first nine verses God asks Job 14 questions.
All of them imply that Leviathan is too powerful for
humans to catch: "No one is so fierce that he dares
to arouse him [Leviathan]; who then is he that can stand before
me [God]?"
Some scholars say that Leviathan is just a crocodile.
But even primitive tribesmen can catch crocodiles.
So Leviathan must be something much more powerful. He has
impenetrable armor scales (vv. 13,15-17), great strength
(12,22) jaws as large as doors (14), terrifying teeth (14).
He churns through the sea leaving a wake behind him (32,32). This
description fits the plesiosaurs and their kindred.
But Leviathan also breathes fire.
"His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes from his mouth"
(Job 41:21). Because of that, other scholars say that God was merely
talking about a mythical creature familiar to Job from nearby
countries.
But would God use something false to show Job true power?
I don't think so. It is more reasonable to think Leviathan was real.
It really wouldn't be hard for God to make a fire-breathing animal.
For example, Leviathan could make a burnable organic gas (like methane)
in his stomach, belch it out his mouth and strike a spark from
special teeth as hard as flint. Presto, flames.
God sums up Leviathan by saying,
"Nothing on earth is like him, one made without fear"
(Job 41:33).
God describes another creature, "Behemoth," in Job 40:15-24.
Behemoth sounds like a brontosaurus to me. Brontosaurs and their kind,
the brachiosaurs, were huge plant eating, stumpy legged, long-necked,
slow moving giants. Behemoth ate grass (v. 15), had strong muscles
(16) and sturdy bones (18). It lived in swamps (21,22) and had a tail
as big as a cedar tree (17). Some scholars want to demote
Behemoth into being a Hippopotamus. But a Hippo's tail is more like
a small rope than a cedar tree.
Behemoth was "the first of the ways of God" (v. 19), probably
because he was the biggest of God's creatures. Scientists in 1983,
found the bones of one brachiosaur, the largest ever, in Colorado.
He was about a hundred feet long abd weighed more than a hundred tons.
Leviathan as a scaly fire-breathing monster fits the description
of a dragon. Almost every ancient culture had a dragon myth. Such
legends circulated in ancient Egypt, Babylon, Canaan, Greece, Northern
Europe, China, Japan, Mexico and Peru. Many of these people had no
contact with Israel or the Old Testament. But if dinosaurs existed
at the time of Babel (Gen.11:9), parnets would tell their children
about such a marvelous animal as they scattered all over the world.
So the dragon myths apparently recall a time when men and dinosaurs
existed together.
According to scripture, the Flood was less than 5,000 years ago
(Gen. 11:10-26, and others). There is biblical as well as contemporary
evidence that the climate became much colder after the Flood. There
is geologic evidence for at least one brief "ice-age" a short time
after the fossils were laid down.
Job mentions ice and snow (6:16;9:30;24:19;37:6;38:29) and
possibly glaciers (37:10) in the presently warm Middle East.
Most of the dinosaurs probably died out after a few centuries,
being better suited to a warmer world. Some scientists suggest a few
of them have survived to this day. In 1977 the New York Daily News,
(July 21, p. 4C) printed an article about such a creature. It showed
a photo of a 30-foot, two ton carcass dredged up from the South
Pacific off New Zealand in the nets of a Japanese fishing trawler.
It had "two fins front and rear, a 5-foot neck and a 6-foot tail."
A Japanese biologist said it "looked like a plesiosaurus."
Evolutionists have difficulty accepting such evidence. But creationist
scientists have no problem with it, though they would not rest their
case on such evidence.
======================================================================
I figured I might post this to get these folks "with an open mind" a
chance to read an alternative to the evolutionary line. Of course, I
have always figured that an open mind is a hole in one's head......;-)
Comments of course, are welcomed. -Mike
Message: 76584
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Politics
Subject: Mike #76548
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 20:02:41
Thanks for your reply.
I originally took the 13% increase in U.S. prison population
as you suggested and regarded it as simply as high and as
low as it is. My concern was the continuing increase in our
already high per capita prison population--the highest in
the world. I'm afraid I didn't understand your last
paragraph. Did you mean that government policy should not be
regarded as a causal agent in this prison problem?
I'd be curious to hear from some Libertarians, too.
Message: 76585
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike/Paluxy
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 20:22:13
I'll bet you 5-to-1 that Dr. Humphreys no longer believes the Paluxy river
tracks, or any tracks in that area, to be evidence of human-dinosaur
cohabitation. It is certainly true that almost every other creationist has
backed away from the "evidence" if not actually denounced it.
As for all of the bible quotes, there are people who could find the same
information in the works of Shakespeare, Sir A.C. Doyle, or Nostradamus.
Message: 76587
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike Carter
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 20:52:28
Please use the Religion Category when posting religious crap on this board.
I suppose you swallow this pseudo-scientific clap-trap hook, line, and
sinker. Well, I suspect you do for the same reason Paul Savage has to eat
smart pills --- your brain has turned to mush listening to Pat Robertson
on the BBB cable channel.
Message: 76588
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dog
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 21:14:27
Re: Bible-believing Boobs does not mean that all boobs are bible-believing,
nor does it mean that all bible-believers are boobs.
Thank you Dog. Now I feel better.
Message: 76589
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Peaches
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 21:21:19
Re: The words "Born Again" means to me to come back to a faith you turned
your back on for a while!
To me it is speaking of a "spiritual" birth. The first time you were born
it was physical. The second (again) time you were born it is spiritual.
Someone once said, "If you are born once, you die twice. If you are born
twice, you die once. Neat huh?
Message: 76590
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Question?
Subject: Paul/Peaches
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 21:23:51
Re: Because it doesn't make sense what he said about women in the Bible
What did Paul say that you object to?
Message: 76591
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Answer!
Subject: Peaches
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 21:26:31
Re: Isn't EVERY Christian BORN AGAIN?
Yes.
Message: 76592
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Religion
Subject: last
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 21:32:57
Re: I suppose you swallow this pseudo-scientific clap-trap hook, line, and
sinker. Well, I suspect you do for the same reason Paul Savage has to eat
smart pills --- your brain has turned to mush listening to Pat Robertson
on the BBB cable channel.
Man, oh man! It sure is fun bashing all them Bible believing Christians.
I'm surprised they still stick up for what they believe in.
Message: 76593
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Politics
Subject: Prisons
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 21:51:28
Wouldn't extradition have removed the immigrant factor
mentioned above? I mean, why would the U.S. Government have
bothered to incarcerate foreign nationals?
The 1991 World Almanac says "The number of prisoners under
jurisdiction of Federal or State correction authorities at
year end 1989 reached a record 710,054." Well, it's a
record breaker, but it doesn't sound too bad. Yet, "From
1980 through 1989 there was an increase of about 115% in the
prison population." The estimated 1990 census showed a
total net increase in U.S. population of only 10.2% during
roughly the same period. "The 1989 increase meant a
nationwide need for more than 1,600 new prison bedspaces
per week." Apparently the beds themselves weren't "needed."
From Scientific American, July 1991:
Opium, Cocaine and Marijuana in American History
Over the past 200 years, Americans have twice accepted and
then vehemently rejected drugs. Understanding these
dramatic historical swings provides perspective on our
current reaction to drug use
by David F. Musto
Dramatic shifts in attitude have characterized America's
relation to drugs. During the 19th century, certain
mood-altering substances, such as opiates and cocaine, were
often regarded as compounds helpful in everyday life.
Gradually this perception of drugs changed. By the early
1900s, and until the 1940s, the country viewed these and some
other psychoactive drugs as dangerous, addictive compounds
that needed to be severely controlled. Today, after a
resurgence of a tolerant attitude toward drugs during the
1960s and 1970s, we find ourselves, again, in a period of
drug intolerance.
America's recurrent enthusiasm for recreational drugs and
subsequent campaigns for abstinence present a problem to
policymakers and to the public. Since the peaks of these
episodes are about a lifetime apart, citizens rarely have
an accurate or even a vivid recollection of the last wave of
cocaine or opiate use.
Phases of intolerance have been fueled by such fear and
anger that the record of times favorable toward drug taking
has either been erased from public memory or so distorted
that it becomes useless as a point of reference for policy
formation. During each attack on drug taking, total
denigration of the preceding, contrary mood has seemed
necessary for public welfare. Although such vigorous
rejection may have value in further reducing demand, the
long-term effect is to destroy a realistic perception of
the past and of the conflicting attitudes toward
mood-altering substances that have characterized our
national history.
The absence of knowledge concerning our earlier and
formative encounters with drugs unnecessarily impedes the
already difficult task of establishing a workable and
sustainable drug policy. An examination of the period of
drug use that peaked around 1900 and the decline that
followed it may enable us to approach the current drug
problem with more confidence and reduce the likelihood that
we will repeat past errors.
(continued)
Message: 76596
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: War!
Subject: R-Mann
Date: 07/12/91 Time: 22:31:50
You are NOT the SysOp here.. You do NOT demand what category a user
is to use. I would also request that you refrain from calling religious
talk and/or theory "religious crap"...at least on the PUBlic Board. You
have the right to your view, but let's not get nasty about it.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 76597
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Religion
Subject: Annie/Born again
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 05:22:39
Religious dogma, be it Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist or whatever, will
teach you to be faithful to the church and it's teachings. That is not what
the Bible is all about, nor is it what true Christianity is all about. To be
a Christian is to develop a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ,
the only one who died for your sins, and the only one able to assure your
eternity in God's Kingdom.
It has been well said that going into a church will make you a Christian
to about the same degree that going into a garage makes you an automobile.
"To know Him, and the power of His resurrection!" That's what makes you a
Christian, regardless of the name over the door of your church. That is what
it means to be "born again". It's really so simple that many well meaning
people miss it while they are looking for some complicated formula for
working out their own way to heaven.
Message: 76598
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike's 8
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 05:32:39
Interesting article, Mike. THanks for sharing it.
Message: 76599
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Felix/Mann
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 05:37:00
I am trying very hard to ignore his derogatory, insulting posts. They used
to be little more than silly, and I was under the impression that we were
going to stop the silliness. I will now let his idiotic, atheistic claptrap
rantings and ravings speak for themselves.
He is beginning to make even Rod Williams look almost Christlike!
Message: 76600
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Old Annie
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 06:35:13
> I wanted to announce that old Annie is now a 'great grandma'...
Gawd! You MUST be old!
Congratulations!
Message: 76601
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Apro - Prisons
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 06:35:56
> Wouldn't extradition have removed the immigrant factor
> mentioned above? I mean, why would the U.S. Government have
> bothered to incarcerate foreign nationals?
Foreign nationals who are suspect of or commit are usually deported only if
those crimes are considered minor (or if they have good connections, I
suppose). We want to punish those that commit serious offenses ourselves.
I believe this whole prison overcrowding issue to be one of fundamental
importance to our society. Our apparent desire to put each other away is
scary; it shows a deep-rooted fear of others and, since we as a society are
made up mostly of "others," a fear of ourselves.
Message: 76602
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/Rod
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 06:55:57
I am glad to see that some good comes from my ranting.
Message: 76603
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: War!
Subject: Sysop
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 07:00:11
I think you are being unreasonable. Such stuff offends me and if it had the
Religion category, I would be warned before reading it.
Message: 76604
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: War!
Subject: ROGER MANN!
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 08:14:41
If you think that "offends" you... how about this...
(POOF)... you are now in the ntom Zone...
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
P.S. Unlike Cubby SysOp, I HAVE the key.....
Message: 76605
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon on great
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 09:39:11
The only other 'great' I would like to add to my life is to be a great
artist and get paid for it! ha. *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 76606
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike/dinosaurs
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 09:54:08
Those were interesting posts and of course, it is quite possible things
happened that way. I personally cannot believe such things as the dinosaurs
were on the Ark or that the entire world was covered with water though.
And I certainly would question where he got his source of finding man and
dinosaur fossels together. If that is so, then it had to be an accident that
a dinosaur died on the spot millions of years before a man died on the same
spot!
Fact is - even science says there was a massive flood about 8 thousand years
ago and that it might have tilted the axis of the earth, thus changing the
weather that was the same all over the earth - mild - to one that had
icecapped poles and variations of temperatures.
There could have been an Ark and Noah - but he could not have gotten all the
animals into that Ark -two of each! This tells me that the earth was not
completely covered with water - that species survived other places.
I still say, that one can believe in Evolution of things and still believe
in the Biblical stories such as Noah and the Ark! *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 76607
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cat on Paul of Bible
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 09:57:45
Cat: "What did Paul say that you object to?"
I will get back to you on that one. -=*) PEACHES (*=-
Message: 76608
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 10:01:48
Re: your ... "Gawd! You MUST be old!
Replay to that...
"Gawd! I FEEL old! *>>> ROCKING CHAIR ANNIE <<<*
Message: 76609
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/last
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 10:03:45
If you did indeed put Roger in the Zone, I would venture to say you stand at
great risk of losing a member! I could be wrong but....! *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 76610
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pauley on BAC
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 10:17:32
I will admit to still being confused at what a Born AGain Christian means!
I read your post, #76597 - even printed it out and read it carefully, I
still do not understand.
You said for example ... "Churches will teach you to be faithful to the
church and it's teachings - that is not what the Bible is all about - to be
a Christian is to develop a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ
.... etc.etc."
Well isn't that why people go to church?? To read and learn the Bible? To
"Know the power of His resurrection"???? (your quote) Are you telling me
that one can go to a church all his life - believe in God and Jesus, the
Bible and still not be B.A??? How can anyone call themselves a Christain and
not know the power of His resurrection??
A sample story and question....
A person is born a Baptist for instance and is brought up in that faith. he
belives in Jesus - goes to church faithfully and leads a so called Christian
life. In fact, he knows no other lifestyle and wishes for none other. He
could be a Methodist, Catholic or Lutheran - doesn't matter. Is this person
a Born again Christian?
I have always gotten the impression from BAC that they have came back to
their lost faith. The sample man of my story had no 'revelation' - he just
was born into the faith and beleived because his parents taught him to
believe that way. Programmed if you will. Sorry, but that's fact.
Anyway, could you elaborate more on this subject. I've always been curious.
*>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 76611
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Politics
Subject: Prohiboholics Anon.
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 12:44:17
Until the 19th century, drugs had been used for millenia in
their natural form. Cocaine and morphine, for example, were
available only in coca leaves or poppy plants that were
chewed, dissolved in alcoholic beverages or taken in some
way that diluted the impact of the active agent. The advent
of organic chemistry in the 1800s changed the available
forms of these drugs. Morphine was isolated in the first
decade and cocaine by 1860; in 1874 diacetylmorphine was
sythesized from morphine (although it became better known as
heroin when the Bayer Company introduced it in 1898).
By mid-century the hypodermic syringe was perfected, and
by 1870 it had become a familiar instrument to American
physicians and patients ((see "The Origins of Hypodermic
Medication," by Norman Howard-Jones; Scientific American,
January 1971)). At the same time, the astounding growth of
the pharmaceutical industry intensified the ramifications of
these accomplishments. As the century wore on,
manufacturers grew increasingly adept at exploiting a
marketable innovation and moving it into mass production, as
well as advertising and distributing it throughout the
world.
During this time, because of a peculiarity in the U.S.
Constitution, the powerful new forms of opium and cocaine
were more readily available in America than in most nations.
Under the Constitution, individual states assumed
responsibility for health issues, such as regulation of
medical practice and the availability of pharmacological
products. In fact, America had as many laws regarding
health professions as it had states. For much of the 19th
century, many states chose to have no controls at all; their
legislatures reacted to the claims of contradictory health
care philosophies by allowing free enterprise for all
practitioners. The federal government limited its concern
to communicable diseases and the provision of health care to
the merchant marine and to government dependents.
Nations with a less restricted central government, such as
Britain and Prussia, had a single, preeminent pharmacy law
that controlled availability of dangerous drugs. In those
countries, physicians had their right to practice similarly
granted by a central authority. Therefore, when we consider
consumption of opium, opiates, coca and cocaine in
19th-century America, we are looking at an era of wide
availability and unrestrained advertising. The initial
enthusiasm for the purified substances was only slightly
affected by any substantial doubts or fear about safety,
long-term health injuries or psychological dependence.
(continued)
Message: 76613
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Politics
Subject: Prisons
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 13:36:06
The lead editorial in today's Republic just happens to
address this issue:
...The 1978 code was the Legislature's response to growing
public dissatisfaction with judicial discretion and the
clamor to get tough on crime. The Legislature responded
with a code that focused on mandatory prison sentences.
... Institute for Rational Public Policy: "In the end,
there is no certain deterrent effect, no measured
incapacitative result, no proportional just desserts....
There are merely cases processed and offenders moved along
or out of the system."
... it would appear that the code's unintended
consequences sparked a veritable explosion in the state's
prison population, along with all the costs of keeping more
and more crooks in the slammer. The Department of
Corrections budget hit $255 million this year, a 700 percent
increase since 1978, when prison spending was a paltry
$32 million. In 1980 the incarceration rate stood at 140
per 100,000 of population; last year the figure hit 369,
well above the national average of 289.
If these statistics fail to alarm, consider this: the
prison system's capacity is 14,478, and yet it currently
houses 14,943 inmates. Even with such alternative programs
as home arrest and Work furlough, the prison population is
growing by 75 inmates monthly.
If this trend continues unchecked, in 10 years the prison
population would exceed 20,000 and the DOC budget could push
past $1 billion. Surely such numbers are enough to prompt
public debate on our sentencing and corrections policies.
Moreover, criminal code revision and mandatory sentences
have been responsible for swinging the pendulum toward
prosecutorial discretion, yet with scant improvement in the
crime rate. No sensible person would suggest that violent
criminals be turned out of jail prematurely. Yet is it a
proper application of the criminal code for prosecutors to
wield mandatory sentences as a hammer, intimidating
defendents into accepting bad plea bargains rather than risk
lengthy mandatory terms((?))
The consultant's report depicts "a system gone awry," but
it fails notably in assessing the code's impact on Arizona's
crime rate. Critics of the report allege that per capita
crime is down and credit mandatory sentences. If indeed the
crime rate had been reduced, would it not be
reasonable to expect a slowing in the growth of the prison
population? Clearly, more is at work here than either the
report or the code's defenders comprehend.
What is needed is a full-fledged review of the state's
sentencing provisions and a debate on the cost-benefit
aspects of throwing more and more people into prison....
(end of Republic editorial)
If this continues, it might become more cost-effective to
instead lock up the wealth that people attempt to acquire
through criminal activities. Or is that the "solution" that
launched this disaster in the first place? Why is the
public not told of these things until they're so bad?
Does Metrocenter still have those cruising barricades?
The editorial (again) made no mention of the relation
between U.S. per capita prison population and that of other
countrys.
Message: 76616
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Question?
Subject: Bill Burkett
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 15:56:36
Does the Cub Sysop approve or disapprove of the demeaning tirade
Roger Mann directed at me personally for the 8 posts on Dinosaurs?
I think he should apologize for his tantrum.
I figured I might repost that article for its clean, scientific
and un biased commentary on "What could have been."
Yet I still find there are two sets of rules on this board.
Please clean up his act.
Message: 76617
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: The SYSOP Speaks
Subject: Last / Mike?
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 16:11:26
Hmmmmm, Roger Mann is basicly in the PHAntom Zone for that attack.
Where is there two sets of ules? I know you always feel 'picked on', but
other then toss Mr Mann into the Zone, what else do you want me to do?
I thought those 8 posts were among the best you have ever done Mike. They
attacked no one... That is why I was puzzled about Roger's retort with the
insult.
Now do you guys understand why I would just as soon not be SysOp of
this or any BBS?
Bill, take over for a few days, I think I am going to be sick!
clif-
Message: 76618
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Webster's
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 17:30:30
If you doubt the defination of police state as listed in my 1989 Webster's
Unabridged Dictionary then why not pick up some easy money, say $100.
I listed the entire meaning of police state, verbatim. But couldn't you use
that money?
Message: 76619
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/serve God
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 17:32:16
Kinda like serving a slippery eel, isn't it?
Message: 76620
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Burkett, dictionary
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 17:35:56
Yeah, well, I just put a double hex on you and now you can look forward to
spending your eternity in hell, twice.
Faithfully,
Rod
Message: 76621
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/Volcano
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 17:40:42
It was mentioned to me in the same conversation on volcano's in this part of
the west that some type of radioactive dating was used. Something about
compression and the length it took to travel through the earth. I am not
certain though and I will ask my friend if I see him before he moves back to
upstate New York. He did retire from the U.S. Forest Service and worked
those years in Arizona.
But then again, there was a Globe Gazette headline last week that claims
there was a man found alive who was born in 1092 A.D. Suppose?
Message: 76622
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cubby Sysop
Date: 07/13/91 Time: 18:46:11
is the best, most logical SYSOP of any board that I have ever been on. And
he can really smack home a point. You are appreciated, probably more than
you know.
Twilight Zone Bulletin Board command:$C
Message: 29
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Macabre
Subject: Aw, Jeez...
Date: 06/12/91 Time: 07:59:18
...not again! Why doesn't someone tell Rod Serling about second-hand smoke?
Message: 30
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Journey
Subject: Second visit
Date: 06/12/91 Time: 12:55:53
I've been here before too. I seem to remember a message asking us to put in
one and only one post. Is that still in force? If so, I shouldn't enter
another one.
So I won't.
Hm-hmm, hm-hmm...
If I knew I was going to be here, I would have thought of something
more entertaining to say.
You beat your pate, and fancy wit will come.
Knock as you will, there's nobody at home.
- Alexander Pope (Or Ben Jonson. Or somebody...)
Hm-hmm, hm-hmm...
There was a young man from Rangoon
Who always ate peas with a fork.
When they asked him why
He gave this answer
"I can't get them to stay on my knife!"
Interesting exercise in rhyme and scansion... Now I've run out of ro
Message: 31
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Bizarre
Subject: This place
Date: 06/17/91 Time: 06:21:25
This is crazy - I logged on and was posting on the main board and I
accidently disconnected myself. I logged back on and was suddenly in the
Twilight Zone - which is really nothing new with me, being in it in daily
life! In fact, just this morning I went on yet another trip to the T.Z. and
at 4:30 AM too. Got up because the dogs were barking, switched on the light
and nothing happened. Glendale was in a power failure. I spent the next hour
eating donuts, drinking coffee, staring at a candle and wondering how on
earth all these people in all those past centuries EVER got along without
electricity???? Talk about hell!! *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 32
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Bizarre
Subject: data
Date: 06/17/91 Time: 22:28:24
This is my 882nd login, caller #161104, #25 today.
Gordon, that thing about one post is in the Phantom Zone (and on the old Mr.
Sloan)
Message: 33
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Sight & Sound
Subject: HUYN
Date: 06/18/91 Time: 23:14:35
I always liked that show "The Outer Limits" better.
Message: 34
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Journey
Subject: Again!
Date: 06/21/91 Time: 20:16:52
Well, it's been just five weeks since my last visit.
Caller # 161229 (36 today)
It is now 06/21/91 20:14:05
Last on @ 06/20/91 21:55:31
Last message read was (75866)
Message range is (75652-75901)
You have logged in 1722 times
I guess not many people care to figure out when Apollo opens the door to
this place? Or is it just a 1-in-1000 chance or something?
Message: 35
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Bizarre
Subject: Why That's Not ...
Date: 07/05/91 Time: 18:40:02
Glitter! Those are *STARS*!
Is this SIG legal? I mean, will it show up on my next
breathalyzer? Do the voices in my head bother you?
Message: 36
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Dimension
Subject: data
Date: 07/09/91 Time: 10:21:49
I am caller number 161717. The Shields are down.
Message: 37
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Bizarre
Subject: I'm back
Date: 07/09/91 Time: 21:01:48
I am caller 161734.
Shields are 00%
I vote for random.
Message: 38
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Journey
Subject: So am I
Date: 07/10/91 Time: 21:17:20
I am caller number 161765, the 25th today. It is my 462nd login.
The [S]hields just fell down and hit me on the head. I am seeing stars.
Did you ever get hit on the head by half a suit of medieval armor?
The reason we all keeping slipping into this time warp has something to do
with the solar eclipse tomorrow. If there is no solar eclipse in your
reality tomorrow, you are not here. If you are here, expect the sun to
blink out at any time. Then you'll be able to see even *more* stars...
Message: 39
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Dimension
Subject:Solar Eclipse
Date: 7/13/91 Time: 5:34:34
Don't go outside during one of these. It will cause you to grow hairy
patches on your body.
Do, do drugs.
Content of this site is ©
Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.