Apollo BBS Archive

Apollo BBS Archive - July 23, 1991

Mail from Steve Albany
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 14:42:41

        Getting ready to move to Tucson and would like to see ya before we
leave. We expect to leave this Saturday, so if you can swing it, sometime
this week would be nice. let me know.

[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:Why be any different from any of my friends, just drop by any evening you 
 2:like.  If I am gone then someone here will know where I am and it usually 
 3:isn't far.
 4:
 5:Entry code is XXX

Mail from Melissa Dee
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 16:32:25

Yeah, it was good to see you.  You seemed in good spirits and the more I
think about it, the better I feel about my reading.  That was my first
public reading (outside of a poetry class which I don't think counts).
Now that I've done it, it should be easier to get myself up there again.
 
Oh, the quote of mine was "I am woman, hear me bitch".  
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:Yeah, I had fun at the store.  That was my first time at a microphone and I 
 2:didn't even know I was going to do open mike.  And I didn't know what I was 
 3:going to say either but when they announced 'open mike' and no one came 
 4:forward I thought I'd help out.  What we need is more of the same, practice.
 5:  
 6:Your poem about Head touched this girl that was next to Peter and she 
 7:exclaimed, "Do you think we went out with the same guy?"
 8:
 9:It was sure fun, wasn't it?         -Rod

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 7659
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl/Six Days
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 10:51:48

And you also subscribe to a 6000 year-old earth ?

Message: 7660
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Green Lantern
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 21:17:16

    Based upon Scripture and the evidence presented by geologists such as
Dr. Steve Austin and Dr. Gary Parker, I would say that the idea of a young
earth is more than probable.  I have no problem with the idea of the world
being more or less 6,000 years old.

Message: 7661
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: earth6000
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:34:28

If you believe that this planet has only been around its center sun 6000
times then you need to rethink that position.  6000 times is nothing in a
universal sense and we are in a universe sense, so to speak.

We are part of a vast universe and life exists in it.  Six Trillion times
for a captive body to sail around its center star isn't much either, in the
length of eternity.  Our planet wouldn't be able to make it that many times
around our sun before all things became unglued in this solar system.  I'm
almost sure there are bodies that are going so fast (relatively speaking of
course) that in one of our seconds, that body traveled 50 times or more
around its captor.  

Time is relative, it is the understanding that is important.  We are all a
part of a much larger mass of energy (just try to get away from it).  But
that is natural because the universe is energy, things in motion = energy.

Our human animal thoughts must be so pressurized, than from some entity that
is off in less dense space, that we just arent't a very progressed life
form and just perhaps that anything of flesh will not be the highest life
form attainable, let's hope not.

If a person could live a universal life, that is, being in touch, or
attempting to become one with the natural free flowing energy of the
universe and beyond, that would be great.       -Rod

Message: 7662
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl/Time
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 07:45:05

You have NO problem with a the idea of a world being more or less 6,000
years old when rocks have been dated that are 3,500,000,000 years old ?
And you say you were brainwashed before ?

Message: 7663
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Erosion
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 12:13:45

Boy, if all those mountains wore down that much in only 6,000 years, then
somebody up there must have been awfully busy with the sandpaper...

Message: 7664
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Green on rocks
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 12:35:14

Even if those rocks were dated wrong and off by 3 billion years, the earth
would still be 500 million years old. A far cry from Daryl's world of 6,000
year old er? I don't profess to know how old the earth is, but I'll bet
Daryl is wrong! Sorry Daryl! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 7665
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Gordon/last
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 12:36:05

Good one fellow. I'd like to read their answers to that one! *>>> ANN O.
<<<*

Message: 7666
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Rocks
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 18:03:54

A year and one galf ago, a team of researchers from the U.S. Government
took some samples of fossils to several well respected institutes to
have the pieces carbon-dated.
The team gathered the samples from the same area, within a few square feet
of each. Each sample was closely guarded on its journey to the labs.
M.I.T Responded that the speciment they received was 62 million years
old.
UCLA responded with 15 million.
There were three other institutions involved, one of them I think was
Lawrence Livermore labs. They were then questioned how they could
(A) Come up with a mean difference of 35 million years
(B) Assure the Government how accurate their dating methods were.
 
They were then re-tested. Amazingly they all came close, but not close
enough. The oldest maintained 62 million years, the rest of the test
sites came into the 45 million year mark. Only 17 million years.
Then the identity and age of the rocks were disclosed;
The "fossils" were from the Mount St Helens eruption.
 
Now I ask, how many of you are willing to bet your lives on some
fools in white coats who can't tell the difference between two
rocks?

Message: 7667
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 18:40:08

  I wouldn't want to bet my life the accuracy of carbon dating, not knowing
enough about it personally. If carbon dating does turn out to be worthless
however, that would not establish the veracity of creationism. If the earth
is only 6000 years old was there some purpose in creating it with obvious
signs of millions of years of erosion, earthquakes, sediment buildup, and
volcanic activity?
  See You Later,
    Dean H.

Message: 7668
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Same
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 18:54:56

Not to mention continental drift.  I would be very interested indeed to see
what evidence these two geologists, Dr. Steve Austin and Dr. Gary Parker,
presented that would actually *support* a theory of a young Earth.

Message: 7669
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: same
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:27:25

Not to mention accounting for the number of earthquakes and volcanoes we
have evidence for.

Message: 7670
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Earth
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:34:02

Celebrate, it's the Earth's birthday day after tomorrow.

Public Bulletin Board command:$X

Message: 76980
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Nothing (1 of 0)
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 01:37:07


Message: 76981
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject:  Vile whatsits
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 01:38:44

 RW>>I attack Christianity because it is the predominate religion in this
 RW>>land.  I, in all honesty see it as a vile and filthy thing that is
 RW>>corrupting our youth.

I know where you're coming from with this statement, Rod.  I get a very
clear picture of so-called "Christianity" being used to victimize you.  I
come from a different position just because I haven't been victimized by it
in the same way -- although I do see this kind of victimization going on.
But Christianity is not at fault.  People are.

I'd like to point out that there is a certain class of people -- let's call
them "molesters" (though Stephen King's Roland LeBay had another name for
them) -- who would use any convenient weapon to hand to take advantage of
others.  Religion is a convenient one because it has great power over men's
minds.  I would very much like to see a general recognition that there are
certain people who think they have a right to ride roughshod over other
people's rights, and that sometimes they associate themselves with
particular religions and use them as a tool.  But it's that particular class
of people who are our true enemies.  Those people, and stupidity.

If I have a problem with any one religion, it's with Islam.  There's a set
of beliefs absolutely cut out to encourage one bunch of people to oppress
others and hack them to pieces.  In my view it's the underlying culture of
warfare and hate that spawned the religion -- not the other way round.

Message: 76982
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Felix/authority
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 01:39:51

 FC>>Most rebellion is against some authority.  I think all rebellion is
 FC>>wrong.

This is precisely where you and I part company.  What is "authority"?

It is some person or body put in a position of power over others.

Now, why should anybody cede their freedom of choice to another?  There are
good reasons.  Sometimes it's because the "authority" has particular skills,
or talents, or knowledge that benefit those he is given authority over.
(Note: "is given".  This is a *choice*.)  Often it's because it's better and
more efficient to grant somebody the right to make clear-cut decisions, to
lead everyone else in one consistent direction, than to sink into anarchy
and confusion and get nothing achieved.  Also it's because people need a
mechanism for resolving the inevitable disputes that arise among themselves.

The role of "authority" -- be it academic, parental, governmental or
whatever -- is not only to govern, but at the same time to serve.  It is a
social contract based on fair exchange.

As we all know, "authorities" usually enjoy their authority, and often cling
to it long past the point when they are rendering true service in exchange
for the privilege of power granted to them.  When they do so, it is time for
rebellion.

Rebellion for the sake of rebellion is usually counterproductive, because
there is value in stability.  Ideally an "authority" that has outlived its
usefulness should be exchanged for another by some peacefully agreed
procedure, such as "voting".  But when authority fails to fulfill its side
of the contract in a just manner, "it is our Right, it is our Duty" to throw
it off, whatever that takes.  I doubt that many Americans could logically
disagree with that statement.

I don't suppose you yourself would, either, since you do leave the door open
for exceptions:

 FC>>There may be a few cases when I would say it is OK.

So would many Englishmen.  We had a King in England who thought that kings
had a "divine right" to rule.  We tried to convince him otherwise.  He
refused to listen.  He made war.  So we put his head on a block and chopped
it off.  We didn't do away with the institution of kings, because we found
them useful.  But we did make sure that all of the kings who followed him
were better listeners, and forgot about this "divine right" rubbish.  The
notion of "divine authority" is a subterfuge to perpetuate power.

The major point I have to make is this.  Where does "authority" come from?
How were the people of England to decide when it was time to say No to
Charles the First?  How were the people of America to decide when it was
time to say No to George the Third?  They had only their own sense of what
was right and just.  And ultimately the choice of when it is right to submit
and when it is right to rebel must be made by those who do the rebelling.
"Authority" does not reside with any divine source.  It resides within every
one of us, jointly and severally.  In that sense there is no such thing as
an "authority" outside of ourselves; merely people we choose to place in
positions of authority, or remove from those positions at our will (if we
can).  And a set of guidelines for when to do so, based on human rights,
human responsibilities, and human justice.

 FC>>I think some juvenile delinquents wear long hair like a badge of
 FC>>rebellion against their parents.  In so many words they say, "I know my
 FC>>parents dislike my long hair, but I will wear it long anyway just
 FC>>because it rankles them."

I have no doubt whatever that some of them do exactly that.  But it's also
interesting to note that human psychology doesn't change very much.  People
call teenagers rebellious, but they are really very conservative.  At this
moment I have a twelve-year-old girl in my house who is telling me what's
"in" and what's "out" in the field of music.

"Bryan Adams," she says, "is IN."  So I dig out my CD of Bryan singing
"Hearts on Fire" from 1987, and she asks me "who's THAT?"  Apparently he has
changed his style a bit in four years to conform with what's "in".  (And for
her, unlike me, four years is a third of a lifetime.)

The interesting thing, though, is her submission to authority.  It isn't the
authority of her parents, it's the authority of her peers with all this "in"
and "out" business; but it's still authority.  At this time in her life, she
has an urge to experiment with different authorities to see which one fits
her needs best.  She is also trying to share her findings with those around
her, regardless of their age.

Long hair may be simply a matter of personal taste, or it may be a badge of
group identification.  Or it may indeed be the flag of rebellion.  But how
does it get to be so?  A son grows his hair to identify with his peers.  His
parents object.  But why?  What real *need* have they to have their son cut
his hair?  Only a power need that no longer complements the boy's need to
experiment with independence.  So they criticize and attack him.  When
people are attacked, they get angry and feel like hitting back.  So their
son continues to keep his hair long as a way of hitting back, as well as
reasserting his own autonomy.  How much better if the parents were to
respect their son's need to move gradually out of the family and into a
larger world, and limit their behavioral demands to more practical things.

Message: 76986
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul the Apostle
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 01:43:44

Religious leaders in general, all those who have presented us with our
picture of God through the ages, have rendered a valuable service to Man.  I
also think we also have to understand that they in turn have enjoyed the
authority we have granted to them, because it fitted their own needs to be
leaders.  Some of them we know were corrupt and despotic, particularly in
the Middle Ages.  Religious truth can be twisted to serve evil causes.  But
that isn't what I want to harp on about tonight.  The point I want to make
is that religious truth is bound to be colored by whoever writes or teaches
it.  If the people who write it or teach it are typically (as most
"teachers" are), motivated by a high degree of power need, then the notion
of "divine authority" is bound to be overemphasized.  That's why I think
we're far better off to read between the lines of the Bible and concentrate
on the *underlying* messages it is trying to teach us about how the members
of a community can coexist in peace with one another, and on the messages of
love taught by Christ, not to take every word literally.

I see the apostle Paul as a flawed human being who had some kind of problem
with women.  Was he homosexual?  I don't know; and even if he was, being
homosexual is quite a separate matter from whether you like and respect
women or not.  It's all quite irrelevant.  But he saw *real* truth when he
wrote that wonderful passage in Corinthians.

This is his most famous writing, and justly so.  Paul is worth reading just
for that passage, whose truth is matched by its poetry.  What did he say?

He said that it makes no difference to me if I speak in tongues, if I give
away everything I have to the poor, even if I give myself to martyrdom; for
if I "have not charity, it profiteth me nothing".  It is all futile and
empty, unless I have this thing called "charity".

I myself prefer the original KJV term "charity" to the later translation,
"love", simply because "love" today has these overtones of "warm fuzziness"
and possibly sex, which has nothing to do with what Paul was talking about.
It's unfortunate that the word "charity" today suggests coins clinking into
a box, because in the 17th century it had a meaning we have lost today: a
sense of caring and human kindredship.

How could Paul recognize this truth?  Only if he himself had experienced the
contrast between that sense of emptiness and futility and the warmth of true
humanity that is a reflection of kindredship with God.  He himself was a
courageous man who was cast into prison for his faith.  Yet there must have
been times in his life when he recognized the flaws in his own attitude and
motivations; otherwise how could he have told us about the difference
between blindly following a path of things that one "ought" to do and things
that one *wants* to do to express and fulfill that "charity"?

What is the authority of the Bible?  Some time around the third or fourth
century, a convention of church officials got together and picked out, from
a plethora of holy scriptures, those that they thought deserving of church
approval.  Even today there is disagreement about whether the books of the
Apocrypha have a proper place in "the Bible" or not.  The selection was made
by Man.

Were the choosers infallible?  According to the Catholic Church, I guess so.
Is the Church infallible?  Is the Pope infallible?  According to the Church,
yes; but it's an awfully circular argument.  I have a very hard time finding
anything in Scripture that says the Pope is infallible, even in religious
matters.  "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I shall build my church," said
Jesus; and the first thing Peter did was to deny Him three times.  Peter was
a fallible human being.  I'm not grinding Peter into the dust; I'm just
pointing out that he was human.  As for any "divine authority" in later
Popes, forget it.  A few of them were so degenerate they spent their lives
screwing and hatching murder plots -- or avoiding being murdered themselves.
One faction in the Middle Ages decided they didn't like the Pope in Rome, so
they set up their own rival Pope in Avignon instead.  The whole thing was a
mockery of Christianity.  But the lesson it teaches us is that we must be
very careful when interpreting anything at all written or said by Man that
claims to represent the ultimate truth about God.

Still, that little convention of bishops in Roman times did choose to set
their seal of approval on the writings of Paul.  And in spite of his problem
with women, I'm rather glad they did.  In that same passage from
Corinthians, he spoke another great truth that gets far less attention than
it ought to.

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know
in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

In a quiet moment of intimacy, Paul admitted his own fallibility.  He told
us clearly that it is hard to know God.  "We know in part," he said; and in
the light of that statement, we must follow his clear directive to read his
other thoughts as if he were giving us his own best shot at a picture of
God; not the true picture.  Which he knew he was.

Paul did as much as any human being could be expected to, being flawed as we
all are.  And he did better than most human beings do.  He tried to be
honest with us.

In doing so, he gave us a valuable hint that we should read the rest of the
Bible in the same light of careful interpretation, remembering the
fallibility of Man.  Authority lies within ourselves.  We weren't given the
power of free thought for nothing.

Message: 76990
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 05:45:40

Re:phone solicitors, esp. computerized ones, I'm delighted that  you have so
much time to waste with them. I don't.
 As to the postal increase, I only hope that a little of it finds it's way
into my annuity. I'm falling behind inflation.
 God bless ya real good!

Message: 76991
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Religion
Subject: Daryl
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 07:46:50

First of all, I do respect your opinion, even though I disagree in part,
not all however. 
 
I think it best, under the circumstances, that you not answer my posts - you
are right, you won't change my mind one iota as it is obvious I won't change
yours. That's OK - I never did think I would change yours - but I did want
to understand why you come to the conclusions you do on the subject.
 
The reason I did not want you to quote from the Bible - I KNOW what the
Bible says - I wanted to know in YOUR words where/how/why you can read the
same thing I read and we can come to such different conclusions. 
                             *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 76992
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on Bill
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 07:55:17

You took that statement I made wrong about why I bothered to send long posts
when Bill said a lot in a few words.
I have a tendency to ramble on and repeat myself - thus making them
unecessarily long and drawn out. I admire a person with a talent of saying a
few words but saying a lot.
 
I do want to point out that I have written you many posts on this subject
and could turn around and say to you that you aren't interested in my view
point and that you are biased or that you will change a bit because of them!
So don't start crying in your beer because I dont' agree with you in
everything. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 76993
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on Rod
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 07:59:17

There isn't enough Christians on Apollo to form a prayer chain around Rod's
house, Besides, do you want to insult the man? Also, he may just call the
police. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 76994
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on Rod again
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 08:00:22

He is one of the most free thinking people you will ever meet.
                 *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 76995
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl # 76972
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 08:07:04

Of course there is a difference(s) between men and women - but that doesn't
give you license to assume because of the difference, that man is above,
better, head of, ruler of, or anything else other than another human being!
Men are stronger (some) yes, but so is a jackass! :)
 
If you don't want to be called a sexist, don't talk like one! Simple!
                           *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 76996
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 08:08:17

Go to bed! You need your sleep! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 76997
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: This board
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 08:14:00

Wow! Apollo is really jumping at this time with mucho messages. If this
keeps up, pretty soon I'll have to capture the messages to read off line.
                           *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 76998
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Religion
Subject: Daryl/Count Me Out!
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 08:27:41

> You have your own views and your own bias, and unfortunately,
> it won't let you comprehend how one can submit to the word of
> Scripture in regard to women and the church and still not be
> sexist.
 
For many years I had a policy of not getting involved in religious
discussions -- here or anyplace else.  In fact, for quite some time I had
the Religion category masked out here on Apollo.
 
I've been backsliding lately, allowing myself to reply to posts of a
religious nature.  As of now, I'm returning to my former policy.

Message: 76999
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Question?
Subject: Green Lantern
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 10:35:22

Hey, by any chance are you a Christian who doesn't have religious beliefs?
 
I've only met one person who could make that claim, so your answer to this
question should settle the issue of whether or not you're Roger Mann since
Cliff keeps refusing to clear this up.

Message: 77000
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Answer!
Subject: MJ/GL
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 10:51:03

I am not a Christian. I do not have religious beliefs.

Message: 77001
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Religion
Subject: Thad
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 10:59:37

Re: your ... "Note that in Ephesians, where Paul instructs wives in
submission and obedience to their husbands, he also instructs
husbands to love their wives, even as Christ loved the church, or
their own bodies"!
 
Pardon me, but there is a big difference in 'submission and
obedience' and loving someone!
 
Re: your... "I don't think that meant He would approve of husbands
treating their wives like some kind of domestic slave. He had
something else in mind. Remember that Christ taught that "he who
would be greatest among you, let him be your servant"!
That is a very vague statement - on one hand you imply that men are
not expected to treat their wives like slaves and then you imply it
might just be for the women's benefit if they did because that
would be making them a better person being a servant. If not, then
what do you think "He had in mind for them"?
 
We are not far in agreement on decision making - I would never have
different landscaping put in and not tell my husband or if he
didn't want it and I went ahead anyway. He wouldn't do that to me
either. But you said your wife would not do it but you didn't say
you wouldn't! -=* ANN *=-

No, I guess the Bible doesn't say "women must bear children" (your
quote) But I will post what it DOES SAY again and again ....
 
"... but by good deeds as befits women who profess religion. Let a
women learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman
to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For
Adam was formed first, then Eve and Adam was not deceived, but the
woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be
saved through bearing children if she continues in faith and love
and holiness, with modesty"!!!
 
Yes, it doesn't say she MUST bear children but it does say she will
be SAVED if she does!!
 
That Biblical quote also says OUTRIGHT that Adam was not deceived -
 yet he most certainly was - by Eve. I've had ministers tell me
that women must go through the pains of hell in childbirth because
of what she did in the garden. That is her lot in life, etc. That
is such a tasteless, offensive idea I don't want to think about it.
It is idiotic and ridiculous.

I agree that ... men are not biologically equipped to nurse a
child .... that it naturally formed that men went out in the world
and the women stayed home and raised the children ... that for the
most part, men have larger bodies and muscles, have traditionally
been assigned the tasks involving heavy physical labor.
 
For centuries that worked, but a blind man can see that times have
changed! Women give the babies bottles instead of nursing them -
cars take us to far places - modern equipment such as backhoes can
be run by women or little men - plumbers, lawyers or engineers does
not take big strong people. So who is taking care of their children
as you ask?! The baby sitter! Is that good? I don't know, probably
not, but in this day and age, it isn't automatic that it's the
woman that should stay home. A man is perfectly capable of raising
a child - changing diapers, feeding a baby, cleaning a house as a
woman is! He is just as emotionally equipped as a woman to do so -
just as women are capable emotionally of going out into the world
and making a living!
 
You said the physical differences between men and women are
especially evident and significant in athletics! Yes, I agree.
So? Does that mean she is less than men because it is a fact?

You said ... "I would also say that men seem to be generally more
competitive and aggressive than women. Considering that it is
generally men who abuse and dominate women, not the other way
around. I would say at least that points to a difference between
the sexes!"
 
I hope you know by now that I never said there is no difference
between the sexes. I admit to the differences -I just want to know
why and how those differences make a man above a woman - or that
women should keep silent in church and not get on the pulpit -and
he is always the head of the household, etc.????
 
As for abuse - it is society that instigates men do this and it is
about time it is stopped!! If you disagree with that, then you are
telling me it is in men's nature to abuse?
 
As for men dominating women ... that's not true at all - SHE lets
herself be dominated by him and it's about time that stopped also!
To be honest, in this war of the sexes that seems to be waging, it
is the women that disgust me in some cases more than the men - like
a women that sticks around after her husband beats her for the
upteenth time! Or allows him to sexually abuse them. UGH!
                          -=* ANN *=-

Message: 77005
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Religion
Subject: Thad 5 of 6
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 11:03:28

The ideal for both men and women, plus the children would be to ...
... have a farm and both do the labor on it - women giving birth of
course and going back out in the field to help. Both cooking and
taking care of the household duties and babies!! Different, yet
co-equals! Working together for home and family.
 
Of course, this is totally impractical in today's age. So, both the
parents must work in most cases. We all know the men's part here,
but lets look at the woman's life ... she gets up and feeds the
kids - takes them to the sitter - goes to work -puts in as many
hours as a man and at probably the same type of jobs -she shops for
dinner on the way home - comes home and cooks dinner -straightens
up the house and does the dishes - bathes the kiddies and puts them
to bed and gets herself ready for the next day. On the week ends
she does the laundry and heavier cleaning -and all the time looking
like she stepped out of a beauty shop!  Can't have a messed up
woman here can we?! On Fridays she collects her paycheck that might
be more or equal to her husband's but chances are it is less.
So along comes the men and tells them God says " they are the head
of the household" - "that you lady, can't preach in our church" and
that "you can never have authority over men"!! (Hmmm - I've often
wondered if this in  essence also meant their young sons? The
Chinese thought so at one time. Japanese too!)

Not only does the women have God against them, they must suffer
through the rags on the newsstand and the movies and TV --- ALL
showing her she is nothing but an airhead - a sex symbol - a toy
for man and by god she had better look good!!! The beer commercials
really get to me - the light beer commercials. They want more women
to drink beer so they show these airbrushed lovelies doing so that
have the figure of a Venus and they certainly are 'getting their
men!' Yet in reality, men that drink lots of beer, be it light or
not gets a beer belly! Women will too if they drink enough of it!
As much as I thoroughly enjoy 20/20  - it rankles me when I see
Barbara Walters looking 20 years younger than she is and there
beside her sits Hugh Downs that is not only old looking, he looks
like a beached whale! I don't really mind that, but there is
absolutely NO WOMAN on the news that looks like Hugh does, is the
equivalent. A wrinkle isn't allowed on a women, nor fat, nor age!!
Just check the news channels - all the women are perfect, some even
look like hookers off Van Buren. There is no equivalents to Ted
Koppel, Downs or David Brinkley. Speaking of David - he looks like
a corpse on TV and I cannot see where he is any great newscaster.
But really, I don't care, but it should be fair and women are
partially to blame that it isn't. Instead of just fighting to be a
newscaster, they should have fought on being able to be themselves
also!!!

Message: 77007
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Religion
Subject: Cat
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 11:06:16

Re: your ... "let me set the record straight. I do not want to
listen to women preach. They do not belong in the pulpit"!
 
Why do they not belong in the pulpit? You yourself admitted there
is no difference in souls and that Jesus died for us all.
 
You do not want to listen to a women preach? Is a woman's voice so
much worse to hear than a man's? Can she not possibly be as
inspired as a man - have the Holy Spirit dwelling within her as
much as a man? Cannot her words save souls also? If the latter be
true, isn't it your Christian duty to let her??
 
What is a pulpit? Isn't it just a piece of wood or marble that is
man-made? Isn't it what is said behind it that counts? Not by who?
 
To a small degree, I can understand what you said about head of the
household, but if I live a million years, I will not understand
this 'pulpit' thing and women. I am trying to - really!!! No one is
shedding one ounce of light on it except to tell me they believe
what Paul said and take it that it was from God. I truly am amazed
that none of you question him. Even I, when deep into the Lutheran
church - believed just about as you do - I still questioned Paul
and that was a LOOOOONG time before woman's lib. came about. *ANN*
 

Message: 77008
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 11:07:08

Your posts on authority really moved me Gordon. And as for what you
said about Paul ... you made him a human being and not some woman
hating zealot only. I still think he was that, but I now won't turn
my back on everything he wrote because of it. Thanks. -=* ANN *=-

Message: 77009
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Answer!
Subject: Gordon
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 11:39:13

Re:  Boy, that's just what we need -- *another* source of domestic
arguments!

I'm not sure if your comment is serious or sarcastic.  I keep trying to say
that I don't think it really matters how long or short one's hair is.  The
attitude of the heart is what is important.

Message: 77010
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Women 'casters
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 12:39:03

I agree with you there. For some reason, Patti Kirkpatrick sp? is being
replaced by some blond bimbo that was a Miss Arizona person way back when. I
am insulted that the powers-that-be think I will watch their substandard new
coverage if there is a good looking blond behind the desk. It does show a
sexist mentality of the folks who run Channel 12 News. 

Message: 77011
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Women
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 12:41:24

Preachers. I remember Alice Goodwin Brown of the Southboro Congregational
Church who graced our pulpit all too few times, who infused in our youth an
enthusiasm for church and learning about God that no 60 year-old old man
could do.
 
We need more women in positions of power in the church. 

Message: 77012
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Question?
Subject: last
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 15:39:26

You're a non-Christian with no religious beliefs who goes to church
regularly?

Message: 77013
Author: $ Steve MacGregor
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Differences
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 16:40:23

  I read a book recently, supposedly about linguistics, that explains a lot
of the differences between men and women.  Essentially, we speak different
languages, and this creates confusion when, for example, a woman speaks to a
man (in "womanish", if you will), and he is listening (but in "mannish"),
and hears something other than what she says.
  There are a lot of other examples of behavior, and I'd consider it much
more of a book of psychology than of linguistics.  I wish I'd had it before
I got married; it would have cleared up a lot of confusion.
  The book, by the way, is "You Just Don't Understand", by Dr Deborah
Tannen, and it's one I'd recomment for *everyone* who has any reason to deal
with the opposite sex.

  We all live in a   ....,,,,________nnhn____   yellow subroutine

Message: 77014
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon / Bible quote
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 17:15:15

You erroneously assumed and infered that Jesus mentioned the
"seventy times seven" as a figure of how many times God would
forgive our sins.
In Matthew 18:22 , it says;
"I tell you, not seven times, but seventy times seven."
If the folks who readily condemn material from the bible would
accurately quote from it, instead of adding their own words to it,
people might respect your views a little more.
In the previous verse [as always, hecklers never read things in context]
you would see that it was PETER asking Jesus how many times PETER should
forgive his brother when his brother sins against him.
 
No, it's not the bible that is corrupt, it's the folks who refuse to
listen to its truths and open their minds to a different and peaceful
way of life. 
The truly evil are our enemies, they spit hate in the name of science,
spew lies from foul mouths and put words in place of others to make
their justifications.
It's pure sickness. Don't be a part of it. 

Message: 77015
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 17:17:47

Your reply is evidence you don't think or care to engage in thoughtful
discussion. You'd rather belittle someone and spit in their face like
you always have before listening or discussing an opposing viewpoint.
 
It's truly a lie when you say you have an open mind. 
 
The same mind that shuts like a bear trap when religion is brought up.
 

Message: 77016
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl/Machines
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 17:23:03

Marketing Machine:
"Hi there. Please don't hang up. I'm BOB, and I'm here to give you
details on how to win your own home." 
 
--details--
 
MACHINE: "Please state your income:"
 
Me: "This is Agent Rudd with FBI Special Operations. We've got a log of this
call and the number it was called from. You'd save yourself a lot of
grief by calling me at 262-6151 by 7am tomorrow morning." --click--
 
Actually, I hang up the instant I hear the characteristic audio feedback
static from such machines. I have not been called more than a few times
in the last year or so anyway, since we got the unlisted number.
You can tell when they're blind dialing, they don't know who you are
or your name.
I like my wife's{response when those calls come in;
"Just say no!" -click-

Message: 77017
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann/women
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 17:48:14

I think you mya have mixed up part of Daryl's and my answer.
Even though men and women are different, in most of the ways
you have mentioned they are alike and equal, and I hadn't
mentioned that yet in any of my posts.
 Even though men do dominate and abuse women, I definitely
do not believe that they should.
  I have a somewhat different view of leadership than the
usual one you find, and I am not sure I can explain it,
words do not really suffice, and I don't have many examples
readily at hand. I will read your posts more carefully
(I make that a standard practice, to capture posts and
review them more carefully before I try to answer.)

Message: 77019
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: Ann / Agreement
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 21:44:16

     It personally does not affect me one whit that you disagree with me. 
And I hate the taste of beer, and I don't waste tears, so don't worry.

Message: 77020
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: Ann / 76993
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 21:45:25

     Ann, please get a clue.  It was sarcasm.

Message: 77021
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann on Rod
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 22:08:14

     Rod is not open-minded.  The only reason that you THINK he's open-
minded is because your closed-mindedness is closer to his closed-mindedness
than my closed-mindedness.  Nobody is really open-minded.  Everyone has
a biased, opinionated view.  It is just that some are more tolerant of other
people's views than are others.  Rod has proved, time and time again, that
if he cannot succeed in getting someone to agree with him, then he pulls out
the condescending attitude, epithets and the like.  When Rod cannot keep up
his end of an discussion, he resorts to cheap shots below the belt that have
nothing to do with promoting the exchange of intelligent ideas whatsoever. 
Rod cannot deal with the fact that people can put their faith in a Higher
Power, and rather than being open-minded and accepting that person's right
to do so, he accuses them of 'leaning on a crutch' or 'being brainwashed.' 
He mocks, he scorns, he taunts.  He does everything that a truly
free-thinking person would NOT do.  Resorting to psychological warfare and
strong-arm tactics to assert his opinions above and beyond all others is not
the mark of a free-thinker.

    To me, a free-thinker is one to whom you can discuss your views vs. his
in a rational and level-headed manner, and even though you may not change
each other's minds, you walk away knowing that this person at least took the
time to listen to your point of view, ponder it, respond to it from his
point of view in a manner that shows that he's exerted some thought into
responding assertively and yet respectfully.

    Rod does not do so.  To those with whom he agrees, he usually says
something like, "Good post."  To those with whom he disagrees, he responds
with "Your words are empty.  You are just spouting the party line.  Stop
leaning on your crutch and get a real life."  It's as simple as that.

Message: 77023
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann on "Sexism"
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 22:22:17

    I have never said that men and women are not equal.  Christ died for one
just as much as he died for the other.  He loves one as much as he loves the
other.  But He has set up a system of marital and family order which is in
accordance to His plan, which is a result of a higher intelligence that I am
not capable of comprehending.  But He says that man is to be the head of the
home.  This does not mean that the woman does not have the right to give her
opinion in all matters, and the man should certainly weigh his opinion
against that of his spouse's.  But the final decisions rest with him, and
therefore the burden is on his shoulders to make sure he makes the right
decisions.  God has told man to love his wife as Christ loved the church. 
How many men do you know of that love their wives that much?  He is telling
us that, second only to God, we are to love, honor and respect our wives in
all things, even to the point of giving one's own life to defend and protect
her.  A woman should respect her husband's God-given position as head of the
family unit INSOFAR that his actions, attitudes and decisions are not
contrary to the will of God.  In that case, she has the right to stand up
for what is right.  In the end, the Christian family unit has a structure
given by God...but every member OF that structure must subject his or her
own will to be in harmony with the God which they believe in and serve.
    My wife believes in this also, and not because of any pressure on my
behalf.  Remember, SHE was the Christian and I the unbeliever when we first
met.  My views did not become her views... Actually, her views became mine. 
And if the tables were turned, and I were her, I would feel exactly the same
way.  It's a God-given order, and it works well if it works by His will.

Message: 77024
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill / Religion
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 22:23:40

    That is fine, if you feel that you must withhold your opinions on the
subject of religion.  They have certainly not offended nor agitated me.

Message: 77025
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Religion
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:02:25

  You have done very well, and yet done very badly at the same time. You
have advanced a very strong and telling argument that the bible is full of
sexist attitudes which prevailed at the time it was written. You have also
shown rather conclusively, that religious men today cling to those attitudes
and point to their inclusion in the bible as an excuse for dragging them
down through generation after generation. Unfortunately you also made the
statement that Daryl, as a representative of this divinely-inspired-sexism,
did not have a mind of his own. That was a double tragedy because for one
thing it was a nasty and uncalled for remark, and furthermore, it opened the
door for these latter-day defenders of the keep-women-down-through-religion
movement to turn against you personally instead of having to come
up with a better argument than, 'the bible says so, and we dare not question
it.'
  Aside from the slip into personal insults, I was most impressed with your
writing on this issue. Keep up the good work.
  See You Later,
    Dean H.

Message: 77026
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/molesters
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:19:24

  Yes, there is a class of people who will use anything they can find to
exert power over others. The institutions of church and state would seem to
have been chiefly run by these people throughout human history. The state
offers certain benefits that make it an attractive idea, at least in theory.
Likewise the church offers to do similar, great things for us in the next
world. Unfortunately the bodies of authority created by both institutions
are filled with petty dictators, not so much due to accident as due to the
fact that only the petty dictator would seek the power over others which
these institutions exist only to exercise.
  See You Later,
    Dean H.

Message: 77027
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Entertainment/Movies
Subject: Gordon on Rod, & etc
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:44:05

I think I'm in love.  Great post(s).

Message: 77028
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:44:38

Now I know I'm in love.  

Message: 77029
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: News Today
Subject: Bill/former policy
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:47:08

You'll be missed.

Message: 77030
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Green Lantern
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:48:32

Hey, I think you're neat.  Your posts have always showed charming character,
at least very witty.  
                                Rod

Message: 77031
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Chad/supplement
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:51:34

Yeah, I checked out the Mormon bible and when I got to:  "If a man refuses
to pray then they are from Satan", I threw it down, ain't had call to pick
it up again.                            Rod

Message: 77032
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: News Today
Subject: Daryl/watches
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:53:46

I'll never have you repair one of my watches, unless you get rid of that
monkey wrench, then maybe.

But you gotta write a secular poem for the occasion.
                                -Rod

Message: 77033
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Head
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:55:57

Well put.

Message: 77034
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl / tears
Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:58:08

It's good to cry, sorta cleans one's emotions out.  You can't waste tears, by
the way.

Message: 77035
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Question?
Subject: Daryl
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 00:13:33

But I thought this was an open discussion board, a free exchange of ideas
and then an occasional serious debate on the issues.  Instead of a boxing
match, it is more like a game of chess with all players learning something.

How did I "strong arm" you?  Whenever I've seen you at GTs I always thought
well of you.  But yes, I do hit below the belt, verbally.  But then again
that is me.  Listen, I see a fantasy as not a bad thing unless the program
lines are skewed like all of the main religions that I've see. Hell, update.

If everyone allowed themselves to fall into Christianity, for instance then
tomorror (or late tonight) no one would have any freedoms, we'd all be in
jail, even the guards in a manner of speaking.  We need freethought, a
re-examination of everything, every last detail that is us and to come out
with a better running ship, a light ship preferably.

So, take heart, peace.

                                Rod
Christianity and Islamism are both vile and corrupt, but Islam sounds a tad
more vile although that is no excuse to excuse our vileness.  Vileness needs
to be eliminated for the health of the entire population.  We need to error
check and upgrade, reformat to efficiency and compassion.

Message: 77036
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: My Dinner with...
Subject: Dean
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 00:16:02

Welcome back.

Message: 77037
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Get-Togethers (GTs)
Subject: Everyone
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 00:19:20

Thank you, thank you, all.
Message: 77038
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Joke
Subject: Ann
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 01:02:04

You mention in a message to Thad the Bible verse which states, 'who ever
thinks they are the best are the least and shall be the servant of others',
was interesting.

What that means, according to my bible is that whoever knows they are right,
through faith in Jesus the Christ, shall be the masters of all.  Can't you
read?                   -Rod

Message: 77039
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 01:13:39

I see what I will call a flaw in your post to Chad.  By the way, I enjoyed
reading them very much.

You say that a male of the species is just as capable as a woman of raising
a child, changing the diapers, etc.  In part I agree but the part I am
having a problem with is this:

Most females are raised with dolls and they learn the mommie role in
'playing house'.  The daddies go off the work while the little girls do
their thing.  I played it when I was a kid.

And the little boys are given (gads) guns and big toy trucks and such....GI
Joe is a homosexual dude who has a problem with women and likes his men with
a military hair cut.  (That last sentence was especially for you, Ann
because I think it will make you laugh a bit or at least get a funny
expression on your face.)

Yes, you are correct, the male animal is capable of it but we are formatted
into a role by our parents, peers, teachers, and (ugh) church.

Yes, I think I could handle it but I'd go crazier much, much faster and I
think I would need Jasmine's support.

The way I see it is that both Mother and Father should create a society
where the child has ready access to both parents and not just one.

Jasmine's and my first five years were spent like this because I was a
part time leathersmith who ilked out a living and we were together.   But,
as you well know, Capitalism is demanding of its proletariat class, to say
the least, eh?

Take care Ann, you are correct in general but it would be sure nice if man
grew breasts if they found themselves in a reverse role model.  -Rod

Message: 77041
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/ponder point
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 01:44:41

I simply do not have the time to pussyfoot around.  I like to come right to
the point, the meat of the matter, so to speak, so to speak.

We could take five years to accomplish what I'd like to see in two.  Life is
too precious to screw around with words.  Let's get it done and gone so we
can see a brighter tomorrow and not one of sorrow because everyone is
restricted to the point that George III would favor.

Get it, dude?  BTW, I had a vivid dream of you this morning, (no joke).  You
were a contestant in a game show and I was watching you on tv and there was
a fancy dildo that you left, for sale, on a stand that I had.  I can't
remember it all but I was awaken by a call for a locksmith.

We are the people, but let me cut this short, read carefully the messages of
Little, Oudin and Hathaway of late.  Please...and ponder their content in
your heart without mockery of ANY sort.  

No one was mocking you but you left some snipe messages, one in particular
to Ann wherein you said something about hating beer and other weird stuff. 
Then you do the same to Bill who has been fair and just in his dealings.

Chess, anyone?

Message: 77042
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Oxygen
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 02:09:13

Some people suffer more than others just because of the jobs they are
required to do.  The more fresh oxygen molecules that find their way into
your bloodstream and brain, the more alert.  We all suffer, from time to
time a lack of rich oxygen.

If you work where there is a lot of pollution then snort a wiff of the
'miracle drug', oxygen.  It can make rockets go into space.

When I am out working on a particular hot day or a polluted day and I spy
some fresh greenery, I usually visit it or at least my nose does.  However
beware of green colored plastic plants.  Of course, with the harsh chemicals
that are added to some plants, it's a hard decision on what to do.

Don't type messages after a particular bad day because they usually end up
containing ill attempts at words.    -Rod

Message: 77043
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie/freedom
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 05:17:31

Rod Williams is "one of the most free thinking people  you will ever meet"?
Annie, you don't know what real bondage is until you have been bound by
darkness of spirit.
 Another observation might be that if his thinking is "free", he must know
what it's worth. (Nah, I wouldn't say a thing like that.) (Oh yes I  would!)

Message: 77044
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Michael on Green
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 05:23:02

 Cliff has already answered your question, Michael. By his silence on the
matter. Of course, Green Lantern is Roger Mann. Cliff will not say otherwise
because Cliff is not a liar. Not only are the similarities too obvious to
ignore, so are the circumstances under which G.L. came into being, the day
after Mann was put in the Phantom Zone, and without ever appearing in a
non-$tatus capacity before his sudden appearance as a $tatus user. The
simplest equation in Apollo history is Green Lantern = Roger Mann.

Message: 77045
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie on women
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 05:39:27

 You have made some very astute observations on the conditions today as
pertains to the role of women in society, and, for the most part, I tend to
agree with you. (Ain't that something now?)
 How about taking a look at the other side of the same coin?
 You have chosen to be the homemaker in your family rather than go into the
world to make a career out of something or other, and I feel that you have
made a very wise decision. I really think that it was God's purpose to
create a relationship betwen husband and wife that was balanced in all
respects, and that balance called for the woman to be the anchor, if you
will accept that term, in the home. In it's true light, this is not a
demeaning position, but one of the highest importance and value. A well
balanced family demands a well balanced and well kept home, a place of rest
and refuge from the cares and concerns of the world. A man spends most of
his waking hours on a job, working for a goal. What is that goal? Basically,
security and happiness. WHat better expression of that security is there
than the knowledge of a good home to return to when the day's work is done,
and a good and faithful wife there waiting for him? What better place for
children to grow and mature than a loving home, maintained by Mom, the
stable, secure, always there when you need someone, anchor of the family?
I believe with all my heart that we would not have half the problems with
young people today if it weren't for the fact that so many mothers and wives
have found it necessary to compete in the professional world and put their
careers before their responsibilities as homemakers. More problems than we
can count begin with latchkey kids.

Message: 77046
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Green
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 07:39:41

Excellent post.

Message: 77047
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: War!
Subject: Ann/Brinkley et al
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 08:09:49

> There is no equivalents to Ted Koppel, Downs or David Brinkley.
> Speaking of David - he looks like a corpse on TV and I cannot
> see where he is any great newscaster.
 
Hey!  Brinkley is one of my heroes.  Watch your mouth!
 
I have a friend, a lesbian, who used to work at the gym where Patti
Kirkpatrick works out.  Said she looked great on the stair machine.

Message: 77048
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Felix/76944
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 08:48:08

"I think all rebellion is wrong."
 
Would you like to revise that statement?  Do you think that the civil
disobedience during the 60's was *wrong* ?  Should oppressed people just be
sheep?  Passively being fleeced?  Willingly walking to the slaughterhouse?

Message: 77049
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike/77014
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 09:13:34

You asked that folks accurately quote from the Bible.  I should point out
that, when they often do, they are told that the words quoted *aren't* the
words meant, and that the passage means nothing like what it says on the
surface.
 
Children?  No, not children. It was 35-year-old *men* who were mauled (not
men and women, of course, because God is sexist)

Message: 77050
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Green #77010
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 09:30:43

Thank you Mr. Lantern for that one. It is so good to hear that someone else
notices this junk ans being sexist mentality. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 77051
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike on evil
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 09:36:58

You said .... "the truly evil are our enemies, they spit hate in the name of
science" etc. 
 
PLEEEZE don't speak of spitting Mike. I still have some of yours when you
spit on me last! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 77052
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: War!
Subject: Mike #77015
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 09:40:02

Another Bible quote that applies to you.... 
 
"He who is without sin, cast the first stone!"

Message: 77053
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question?
Subject: Daryl #77022
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 09:44:27

Have you ever thought he may be right? I don't always agree with him at all,
but I do listen to what he has to say. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 77054
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Religion
Subject: Daryle #77023
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 09:51:08

That was a lovely post and that is NOT sarcasum. If every married couple
lived that way, what a wonderful world that would be. But for me, it would
not work because I cannot believe in it nor would I want to live that way.
Who said "to thine self be true"? I also know many people who feel the same
as I do about that and most are Christians! 
There are other ways to live and not be like that or believe that is God's
will that man and women be like that and they work just as well. For you ,
your way works! I am glad you are happy. I would be miserable!
                          *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 77055
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Religion
Subject: Dean # 77025
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 10:01:40

Thank you for thinking that I did good in pointing out the Bible is full of
sexism of the day and also for pointing out that I made a nasty and uncalled
for statement to Daryl by saying he had no mind of his own. I didn't mean it
the way it sounded at all - he was spouting Biblical verses when I wanted to
hear HIS personal side of it is all I meant.
Alas, I am afraid I convinced not one of them though - they come back with
even more so called 'proof' of the way God wants things. Thanks anyway.
                          *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 77056
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question?
Subject: Rod #77038
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 10:06:08

You mean Daryl, Pauley, Mike and their ilk are our masters because they
believe??? Where is that Marijuana again? I need some! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 77057
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod #77039
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 10:07:23

EXACTLY! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 77058
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod on breasts
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 10:09:58

One time years ago I read what I thought a kinda crazy article that said a
man can nurse! That if a man lets a baby nurse on him or stimulates his
breats, a form of milk or nutriment will appear that the baby can thrive
on!!??!! Wonder how true that was? *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 77059
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pauley on Rod
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 10:14:29

Re: your ... "Another observation might be that if his thinking is "free",
he must know what it's worth."
 
Ok - so what is the price that you've paid for your way of thinking? We ALL
pay prices in one way or another. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 77060
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pauley
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 12:23:41

Regarding your nice post #77045 ... I will agree with you there
more than I care to! (grin) Truly from the bottom of my heart I
believe in the harmony of the home and always have strived for it.
I also think I made a wise decision in staying home all these years
and NEVER felt otherwise! Some of that is selfish too - I am freer
than I would be going to a job - can spend all day at my favorite
things if I wished - although, if I go overboard on that, I will
disrupt the harmony of this home! Ha. As an artist - I never had to
look for a sponsor which is the scourge of all artists that want to
sit and create! Choosing this life allowed me to be more creative!
 
I also agree about latchkey kids. Both parents working has created
all sorts of problems. The kids lose out badly. They deserve a
loving home like you mentioned.
 
I also like housework and never found it demeaning or slavery - I
especially like to cook. Tthis might come as a surprise from a
woman that you no doubt think is a 'raving, drooling at the mouth
feminist' .... I like to wait on my husband and nurture him when
he's sick or down! I will even back down many, many times when I
think I'm right just to keep that harmony!!!
Am I a contradiction??? Read on and see.......!
 
Ok - you wanted me to "look at the other side of the same coin" -
so now I'm asking you do the same ....
 
What of the women (humans) who DO NOT want to be a housewife? Hate
it - would be unhappy totally?? When I was young and being a
housewife was the thing, most of the women were unhappy in that
role. They didn't tell their husbands that, they told each other,
but there was no way out! No where was there a sympathetic ear to
listen except another woman that could not help you! Part of that
unhappiness in that role was caused by the men themselves and
society in general! Both men and women had the "she is only a
housewife' mentality! I admit to having it at one time myself. My
then husband had it worse though. He was TYPICAL! In fact - the I
love Lucy show was the norm of the time. Real funny to look at, but
not any fun at all to live like that with the husband having to be
duped so the wife can get what she wants - and him telling her all
the time 'how it is', etc. etc. This wasn't creating a home and
harmony. This was showing the world how idiotic women are - that
thrive on their emotions - that get stung if they go against their
husband's wishes and "what would they ever do without a man around"
attitude. I've always felt that if men had respected his housewife
more, less women would have wanted out of the position! If he
hadn't of enforce this 'head of the household' stuff.

As I said, women were believing half this stuff themselves and
becoming like a Lucy type because they thought that was the way it
is! Fear was in the picture also - fear of getting out on one's own
because their mother's or grandmother's never did and where were
they to go? Sure, they could get a job, but .... #1 their pay was
so low that it wasn't worth leaving the home for, muchless
supplying the woman with independence mentally or materially! .. #2
society looked down on a working woman - both men and women looked
down on them and they were suspect! ... #3 she was to keep up her
housewife duties if she was going to work - after all, more
important things first, right? #4 . the macho husband didn't want
his wife to work of course. It made him look bad, not providing for
his family and the husbands of working wives at that time, spent a
lot of time explaining why his wife was working - but NEVER that
she wanted some independence from him!!! Lordy no!
 
Husbands never refrained from their "God given right" to look at
other women - reading Playboy - commenting between each other on
some other woman's figure and having affairs! Which NONE of those
things will ... bring harmony to the home nor make their wives feel
respected nor make them feel that their role as housewife has any
merit at all! But glory, did the husbands raise hobbs when the
women started doing the very same things!!
 
I want to pause here and say that I am talking about other people,
not you. It is obvious you were/are not like that, but I tell you
it was the majority of the men that acted like this in the 50's and
MOST of them called themselves Christians too! I don't recall
knowing any Atheists at that time either. In the five years that I
was a Lutheran, 2 elders and the organist made a pass at me not to
mention the 1 regular church member!
 
In fact, men for the most part are still acting like this and they
just keep wondering why the women are turning from them  more &
more - going to work - don't want to be a housewife anymore and
some not even wanting to be mother's at all - turning to things
that the men use to do exclusively like having affairs - being
aggressive -being abusive - drinking heavily, etc. etc. Why not?
Like I said, what has being a housewife got them? It has gotten
much for me, but I am a real minority Paul. When you see what I am
saying you will understand why there isn't that little dream world
that we all long for in your post # 77045! I don't blame it all on
the men, but the most of it, yes! As I mentioned, the women might
have done all that and stayed home if the men had respected them in
thought, word and deed! But they DID NOT! I will be so bold as to
say I like the men of today more! They are MORE honest anyway and a
good part of them want to try to get along - be understanding.

I want to say that my posts to you here is in no way 'men bashing'
in the least. I told you like is was and in some instances, still
is! The women's point of view! I could write a book on women's
mistakes too, but we are not talking about that - we are talking
about what makes a home. I swear to you that I would be with my
first husband right now if he had respected my role as
housewife/mother!!! I don't believe in divorce. I know of dozens of
women that would not have left either if it were so. The women's
lib. just made women realize what their plight was and showed them a
way out.
I feel that some day new roles will be what society dictates - both
are equal - both choose the roles they want to play in this life and
they make those roles work for them with respect and understanding
on both their parts. NO MANDATORY ROLES!!! Until that day comes, we
will be at war with each other - will be playing a tug of war where
no one wins.  The old way just won't work anymore and instead of
moaning over it's demise, make the new world/society/home a better
place USING THE NEW RULES! It can be done!
 
Thanks for listening. -=* ANN *=-
 

Message: 77065
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Question?
Subject: Bill Burkett
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 17:56:01

What's happened to ; "The family oriented reading material" on this
board when you allow Rod Williams to use those words in his post
#77041.
A few months back if I had posted those words in that context, you and
the rest of these part-time censors would be wailing and screaming the
walls are falling in with such filthy language on this PUBLIC board.
 
But again you reassure us that you have no capability of being
impartial or unbiased in your scruitiny.
 
Please correct the situation.
This is a public board and my neighbors children might see that.

Message: 77066
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike 707
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 18:57:18

Rod implied this with the words "God forgives you 7 X 77".  You're right
though, I should have verified my sources.  Bad academic practice.

But the real problem was this.  I know how to do one of these :-)
But I don't know how to do a tongue in a cheek.  So nuances of meaning get
lost.

Message: 77067
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul S/Green Lantern
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 18:58:01

 PS>>ignore, so are the circumstances under which G.L. came into being, the

Oh-HO, I'd never noticed before until you posted this that "Green Lantern's"
initials are exactly the same as my own!  Just think -- people might have
been thinking that *I* was Green Lantern!

Message: 77068
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Apostle Paul
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 18:58:32

Well, thank you!  You know, I've heard several people say that "everybody
argues like crazy on Apollo, but nobody EVER changes their mind".  You've
just proved them all wrong!

Message: 77069
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Answer!
Subject: Tongue in cheek
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:25:06

    :-;

Message: 77070
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/initials
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:25:54

You'll always be Littleg to me (little g ...)

Message: 77071
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: She-bears
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:37:44

It was a real pity when those she-bears mauled and killed those senior
citizens just because they made fun of a bald head and robbed banks, raped
little kids and took drugs.  Pity.

Public Bulletin Board command:R77057

Message: 77072
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/Bibical Paul
Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:46:22

Thanks for the posts about bibical Paul.  You've made him human and I
understand him better.  -Rod

Caller # 162144 (5 today)
It is now 07/23/91  02:12:36
Last on @ 07/23/91  02:10:07
Last message read was  (77042)
Message range is (76792-77042)
You have logged in 1706 times

*=* Main Menu entered *=*

Main Menu command:U

$ Rod        Williams   02:12:35 (1200)
$ Rod        Williams   02:02:03 (1200)
$ Rod        Williams   01:36:19 (1200)
$ Rod        Williams   01:06:23 (1200)
$ Rod        Williams   00:58:40 (1200)