Apollo BBS Archive - June 7, 1990


X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 3861
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Question ?
Subject: SYSOP
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 01:42:58

What's the difference between these:
 
  (1) UP YOURS!
 
      UP Y--RS!
 
  (2) EAT SHIT!
   
      EAT S--T! or EAT $#!+
 
  (3) GO FUCK YOURSELF
 
      GO F--- YOURSELF.
 
The answer I'm looking for will be one which separates the abilty
to be offended by either phrase in the samples above. My contention
here is that removing only one, two or three letters of an "OFFENSIVE"
word isn't good enough. People aren't so stupid as to be able to make
out what the rest of it is...and if the REAL purpose is to anihilate
any possibility of being OFFENSIVE..then we must TOTALLY remove the
word or INFERENCE of the word altogether. Otherwise it's defeated
entirely and I question the validity of the whole damn mess on the
Public Sig.
                                -FANG

Message: 3862
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer !
Subject: Mike
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 02:12:51

        Go Fuck yourself.....    (Grin)  
                I know what you mean, but like you posted in another
message, you consider all users friends, but sometimes to wake them up, you
need to use a few colorful metaphors, even when you don't personally mean
it.
        All those statements you listed can be taken as very hard insults.
And sometimes you can see them as a joke...  like you 'Throwing a brick
though a window", I knew it was a joke, in jest...  but that showed me and
other users it was time for action, even if that ment standing on a street
holding a sign and smiling at the passersby.

        But the other side of the coin, is NEW users and FIRST time BBS
users don't understand!  Apollo needs new blood, and I am fearfull we have
chased away many people who thought we were just terrible people.  When you
are a hardened Apollo vet, you can take most of this stuff with a grain of
salt.  I was surprised by Miz Dee's reation to your 'Brick' statement.
However, in one post, you did get carried away with lots of color.

        I was also set back by Middleton's retort to my 'Up Yours' remark,
and he really laid it out as sexual, in finite detail.

        With Zak, I was just being careful, and will admit, "Got Balls" is
very, very weak....but where is the line drawn?
                                        continued---->

Message: 3863
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer !
Subject: Mike, part 2
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 02:26:18

        As for $#!+ and other such stuff,  I guess it just does not look as
intimidating as 'SHIT'!  Sorta a-way of saying "I'm just joking", or a milk
toast version of 'shit' that don't smell...  ????  you tell me, but people
seem less offended.

        The Idea here is to let a few more users speak, and come to some
'acceptable' agreement that will keep the PUBlic board SOMEWHAT clean even
if it don't quite get the 'Sqeaky Kleen' award.

        I would like to hear from Bill Burkett, Gary Jones, and DEE!
Just how offended are/were they?

As for Rod's post of his fantasy, Saying 'fornicate' this and that, over and
over again is like a two year old learning a new word.  He did that for
shock value and I still felt it was not PUBlic board material.  I even tried
to get him to change it, or move it to this SIG.  There has got to be a
line, and when I say you crossed it, you should fix it.... but I should
never have to say it, because you know better. It does not always take
PROFANE words to make a post with a PROFANE meaning.  This is something that
Rod and Zak do NOT understand.
        "He grabbed her by the ankles, spreading her legs out and back over
her head till it hurt, then poked away till they both came"... Not ONE
profane word in there, but non the less, I do NOT want to see that type post
on the PUBlic board... it's profane in meaning.

Message: 3864
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Warning...
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 02:36:15

        Zak is one that does this.....  If I ask him NOT to say a word on
the PUBlic board, he goes and posts a message about it on the PUBlic board
spelling it all out.  Like he dares me to do something about it.  Well,
first off, it is my board...  If you don't like it, take it to this SIG and
let's get it out and talk about it.

        I knoticed that in one of Zak's posts of the 6th (yesterday) he uses
the word 'testicle'  and this is AFTER I posted that we were to keep all
words dealing with sexual parts OFF the PUBlic board...at least to we get it
strait as to what is going to be okay and what is not.   Zak tries my
patience all the time like this..he enjoys making me upset.

        Thank you Mr Carter for bringing your POST here to the SIG where we
can let it all hang out.  I wish ZAK would take a lesson in manners!

  66311 is the post with the word 'Testicles' in it.

  After re-readin Zak's posts again, I get the idea that ZAK thinks he
should be able to say what he wants and where he wants and damn the
'sensitive' people and their rights.  Not that ZAk posts bad posts mind you.

        *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 3865
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer !
Subject: Cliff
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 09:31:45

I knew that the first time Carter talked of throwing bricks that it was in
jest.  However, he then said that anyone who did not really have the guts to
do it was a "yellow bellied"  thing that and the other.  I was only pointing
out that it would not take much for his statement of jest to ring true.  He
tends to have a fly-off-the-handle temper and THAT is what scares me about
him, not his gun.  I understand his frustration of people not coming out and
supporting their cause until it's too late but I really did feel that if
pushed, he would have been the first to throw a brick through the window.

Message: 3866
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer !
Subject: last
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 12:20:26

Actually it is my intent to get you to perhaps think that I would do
that. In reality I'd probably be the only one who didn't throw a brick
if everyone else did.
The idea behind the statements was to question everyones feelings about
their ideals and how strongly they may or may not feel about them.
It is frustrating to watch people TALK about rights and never actually
do more than just that. SOmetimes it takes getting up off your duff and
standing in the street with a sign or standing on a soapbox.
I do feel, however, that one day throwing a brick through DeConcini's
office window might not be such a bad idea. Attatched to the brick would
be a note.
The note would read;
You have a right to own a window. I have a right to own a brick.
Just because I threw it through your window doesnt justify you going
out and banning bricks. Think about it.
 
Actions often speak louder than words. It may take a shocking and 
uncivil action such as ditching a brick in a window..something I think
at this point still isn't a good idea...to really get his attention.
He's ignored the thousands and thousands of telephone calls and letters
he has received over the last few weeks. What *DO* you do with such
a "representative" of our Constitution ?

Message: 3867
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Dee on Mike
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 12:41:53

        You don't know Mike the way I do.. the people from down under have a
different sense of humor that YOU can't seem to grasp, and you think Mike
really means it!   It is all verbage, with a tinge of panic.  I do it!   I
bet you even do it!  You two seem to be going for each others jugular, when
all along, we are on the same team.   I want both you guys as friends and
users.

        Dee, you are the right ball, and Mike is the left ball and I am the
prick caught in the middle!

        Don't you just love the COSmos?

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 3868
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: $#!+
Subject: Euphemisms
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 15:07:25

        Mike, I agree with you wholeheartedly.  Even substitutions
such as "$#!+" are inappropriate in a public, open-to-all
discussion.
        In fact, in some sense, I find these cute work-arounds even
more offensive than the "real thing."  It tells me that the
author knows what he or she is writing is unacceptable for public
consumption, yet wants to say something naughty, not unlike a
two-year-old who's just learned how to make a farting noise with
his mouth.
        I think it relates back to something that excerpt Zak
uploaded said; the part about attacking ideas without attacking
the person.  An attack on one's sensibilities is an attack on the
person and contributes nothing to the discussion at hand.

Message: 3869
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Testicles
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 18:37:04

That's TEST-ICK-LEEZ, as in the fifth book of the Bible.  Next you'll be
up-in-arms about Genesis, claiming that it's a pornographic magazine.

Message: 3870
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: 3867
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 20:17:29

I'd sue for divorce

Message: 3871
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: 3868/substitutions
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 20:18:56

You know, I kind of agree with you there.  I noticed one tonight (from
cliff?) that was $hit, I think, and wondered how that passed for 'squeaky
clean'  --  even though that has always been acceptable on Apollo (at least
during my tenure).

Message: 3872
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Question ?
Subject: B-Dog last
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 21:58:49

        You noticed a '$hit' from me on the PUBlic board.  You failed to
tell me the message number so I couuld FIX it.
        Besides, Blame Miz Dee for the level of the 'Squeaky Clean'
campaign. With out her, we would not have banned such things as "Up Yours"
and other simple harmless phrases...

        UPDATE:  I found the post # 66307 and removed the word '$hit' from
the Dog story.  It was not used in a human sexual way, but to satisfy B-Dog
and Bill Burkett, I corrected my post.  You realize this  is what you are
asking for...  I also found Dean Hathaway said 'ass' in one of his posts.
tisk tisk...  By the way Bill B., did my Dog story upset you? msg 66307

        This is silly... I will shut down the PUBlic board to all out side
non-members if you guys don't get real.  The first complaints were about
personal attacks, and name calling of other users with questionable insults.
Now if we should talk about an animal..'Jack-ass' you demand deletion.

        If Zak does not remove his word 'Testicle' by morning, do you want
me to remove his $tatus? Come on, egg me on...give me the challenge.  Dee?
Dog?  Carter?  Bill?

        I won't do it, but you guys are going nuts on me.  let's do a
livable real approach.
        *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:EC

You chose Cosmos-Chatter

Subject:Censorship

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:There seems to be a lot of petty censorship going on.  Most six year olds 
 2:know more fuck words than grown-ups.
 3:
 4:It is really petty when one cannot say "ass" in a message.
 5:
 6:By the way, the Songs of Solomon in the fucking bable is lewd and just plain
 7:filthy.  No, I never fucked anyone in the ass and I don't care to.  I guess 
 8:those babical chaps really liked it though.
 9:
10:end

Edit command:S

Saving message...
The message is 3873

*=* End of the Universe Bulletin Board entered *=*

Message: 1320
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Piss on it!
Subject: this SIG?
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 07:32:55

What don't you like about this SIG, dear SYSOP ?

Message: 1321
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Last/Roger
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 09:27:26

        The heathens of Apollo wanted their own SIG... but when you saw
there were no Christians to kick in the ribs, you found it to be no fun and
quit posting.  
        
        I just don't see the need for a SIG that is not used.

clif-

Message: 1322
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: Cliff/bashing
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 16:49:32

I understand that this SIG originally was intended for the discussion
of Bob. Have you ever read that book ? I can't remember the name of it.

Message: 1323
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Originally
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 17:01:06

this SIG was going to be called thr eist SIG, but when I started to
create it, Sandy walked into the computer den and said to name it the
RGB SIG.. meaning Rod, God, Bob.  To us, this was an atheist way of poking
fun at Gods.  You can discuss and summarize all you want about what this SIG
was intended for.... but I KNOW what I created it for.

        In fact, I tossed in Mike Carter as the only Christian just for fun
to see if he could stand the heat...  Hmmmmm  maybe that is what this SIG
needs, A Christian thrown in with you lions.  Oh Mike, You are needed again.

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 1324
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: last
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 20:00:41

     So when are you going to put an atheist in the Christian sig?  Or don't
you play fair?

Message: 1325
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Shut Up Already!
Subject: Zak weenie
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 01:02:18

Figuratively speaking, Cliff is the ** MIGHTY APOLLO SYSOP ** and is
the CREATOR of this SIG. He can do with it as he damn well pleases.
And now, a much needed exasperation is required to loosen the bolt of
lightning God shoved up my rear on the Public Sig.
...
HEY ALL YOU FAKE HEATHEN SCUM BAG LOLLIPOP SUCK-OFFS...TAKE YOUR
PRIMADONNA SEXUAL SENSITIVITY AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR COLLECTIVELY
GLORIFIED SHIT HOLES AND SMOKE IT IN YOUR TONISLECTOMY.
 
We now resume to dignified well being.
 
Now what's with this biz of dropping me into the lions den again?
 
                -FANG

Message: 1326
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Mike on last
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 02:38:52

        This SIG is not subjected to 'Sqeaky Kleen' rules.

        And Mike, if a lion tries to eat you, it will barf its guts out from
the bad taste.... so don't worry, you are safe!

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 1327
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: LAST FEW
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 03:07:33

yawn.

Message: 1328
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Question?
Subject: Piss, etc
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 09:36:16

So, which sigs is profanity acceptable, partially acceptable and forbidden. 
I think that using the word "testicles" may be appropriate for some debates
(althought I can't think of a subject off hand).
I'm just getting a bit confused.  I thought the LAT sig was a free board,
then I am told it is not.  I thought then that only the x-rated sig was
allowed to have swear words and in this sig and the creative sig both
subjects (Headass and Piss on it) contain swear words.  I don't care; I am
the last person on here to be offended by any cursing.  I just would like
the rules to be consistant.

Message: 1329
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Shut Up Already!
Subject: Miz Pee, err, Dee
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 12:26:49

"HEADASS" is meant to be pronounced; "HE-A-DASS".
It's your scum-baggit rearward searching mind that WANTS it to
be something else.
 
Your fixation and pre-occupation with assholes tends to 
bend your thinking toward expecting everthing to somehow realate, rectally.
 
Now, go play with your cucumber.

Message: 1330
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Expired Soul
Subject: Petrisko
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 12:28:13

Go back to sleep, ye yucca snorting coward.

Message: 1331
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Dee...
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 13:01:04

        I too would like the rules to be more consistant.  The COSmos SIG is
the SIG that I have decreed that anything can go.   It is a SIG, not a
private club.  I select who get's access there from the requests I get.

        The LATe night SIG is in EVERY $tatus users profile.  But, like late
night TV and not PRIME Time TV, we have a compromise. It can be SUGGESTIVE
like late night TV is...and till I get a complaint to the contrary, I leave
it alone.  I did not SCOLD you miz Dee, just made you aware of the facts, as
your posts can get pretty steamy.  he he he

        The DEVil's SIG (this place), well, it is like a private club almost
with really only the hard core users of Apollo in it.  If Rod Williams is
not offended, or anyone else..  I am in approval to let you guys make of it
what you want.

        The FILm SIG...  Since Apollo is MOSTly an adult SIG and there are
adult movies...I see no reason why we only have to talk about G-rated
movies.  As long as the talk has to do with the movie or film, and is not
dirty talk for the sake of shock value, I have NO problem with that and have
not had any complaints otherwise on that SIG.

        I as SysOp, am trying to give something to everyone, at different
levels.  This is real life and people are different.  Zak wants the people
who are offended, not to have such a place as 'Sqeaky Kleen'.  UNFAIR!

Message: 1332
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 14:36:33

  I think Cliff goes out of his way to provide a suitable forum for every
kind of discussion. I thank him for that. I understood that this SIG would
be wide open in content from the beginning. It happens to be the only one I
belong to which is.
  See You Later,
     Dean H.

Message: 1333
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Dean
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 17:18:35

        Thanks Dean...  Did you want on the COSmos SIG?  I was not even
aware you were not there till just now and I looked you up and sure
enough...you wasn't!

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 1334
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Testicles
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 20:23:03

Join my church, the Church of the Ranting Canine.  part of being a member is
the surgical implantation of a third testicle.  This is a 50% increase and a
*very* good deal.

Message: 1335
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Religion
Subject: last/testicles
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 20:26:54

Oh, yeah, if you join the Church of the SubGenius, they'll only give you a
third nostril.

How's the sniffing, Peter?

Message: 1336
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Hi, ya all
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 23:13:59

FACTOID (First in a series)
      Did you know that God, Jehovah, likes nothing better than to suck
elephant cocks.  It is quite true that He finds them most satisfying as He
can easily handle the 2 to 3 quarts of elephant cum.

FACTOID # 2
      Between little Lard Jesus and God, God wins in the blow-job
department as He has a softer beard plus due to His apparent age, his teeth
have long since fallen out.  But Jesus is no amateur as He can suck with the
best of them.

FACTOID # 3
      God, knowing full well what He was doing, created AIDS while
butt-fucking Jesus, Gabriel and Michael.  Satan would have nothing to do
with it and that is why, to this very day, they do not get along.

FACTOID # 4
      Did you know that Jesus' cock measures (when hard) a full 18 inches
long?  That is why Jesus never 'womanized' aside from the fact that he is
homosexual but instead was able to give himself some really heavenly
blow jobs.

Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 66280
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gary Jones
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 05:18:49

 Gary, this whole thing about the constitution came about because of a
simple statement I made a few days ago that was turned around to mean
something the "turner" knew very well I never meant.
 Mike Middleton, the pretender to the throne of Biblical rewriters, made the
statement that the constitution is a document intended to be amended and
interpreted to meet the needs of present day problems, a concept with which
I fully agree, by the way.
 Not one to miss a golden opportunity, and referring NOT to the
constitution, but to past statements and positions of his, I came back with
the simple statement that his position on he constitution and the Bible seem
to be the same. (If you have been following his wild-eyed theories about
being Christs and sin-bearing, you will know what I meant.)
 Now my statement has been turned around, I think by ROger Mann, to mean
what I never said, namely that I think that the Constitution is
God-inspired. (A rather strange statement coming from a person who
apparently does not believe that even the Bible is God-inspired.)
 I hope this clears up any misunderstanding, since I have no intention of
pursuing the thing any further. 

Message: 66281
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann/fear
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 05:22:25

"Do you have an answer as to why this country fears socialized medicine?"
 "This country" doesn't fear it, Ann. THe American Medical Society (the
doctor's union) fears it, since it will remove the high profit motive for
"practicing" physicians, and allow their greed to be hung out for everybody
to see.
 This is yet another application of the golden rule. Them that has the gold,
rules. The AMA is one of the strongest lobbies in congress.
 How's that for an answer for ya?

Message: 66282
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 05:27:43

 If you consider a 22 wheel gun a weapon,I have a weapon. Aside from that, I
had a 25 auto that I sold, and a 32 caliber deer rifle (antique).
 I used to teach hunter safety classes back east, but that was years ago.
(Eons, actually) and I could use some refreshing, for sure.
 The 38 sounds pretty good. Does Sandy like her 380 better, or what?
 Let me see what the time and money situation is after we get moved and
settled, and I'll see what I can come up with. Hopefully both should be a
little freer then. Thanks for the info. I WILL get back to you.
Paul

Message: 66283
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: socialize medicine
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 07:20:31

It seems that the Canadian form of socialized medicine is a success. Perhaps
we could look at that model. Rejection of socialized medicine out of hand
is not a reasonable approach.    

Message: 66284
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: bill of rights
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 07:22:58

The second amendment to the constitution could be revoked at any time the
Congress and 3/4? of the states vote to do so. Perhaps we should start
a drive ? (Just joking). Actually, the whole constitution could be replace
if a constitutional convention were to be called. And it seems that we came
perilously close recently. Can't remember the issue, tho.

Message: 66285
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: registration
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 07:26:53

I find it amusing that people don't consider it an infringement of their
freedoms to register a car and find it an infringement to register a gun.
I think that every gun owner should be forced to take a safety course in
which they are trained in the safe use of their weapon. After passing a
test, they would be duly registered so that communists could seize their
guns any time they chose to do so.                                       
 
The argument that criminals wouldn't register guns is as bogus as that 
criminals wouldn't register stolen cars. Hell, criminals probably break
a lot of laws --- should we repeal them because criminals don't obey them.
Get real !

Message: 66286
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: mcdonalds
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 07:30:11

Yes, Big Macs have probably caused more deaths than all the handguns put
together in the US. 

Message: 66287
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul Savage
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 07:31:37

So you DON'T think the Constitution is divinely inspired ??? I still haven't
seen a post to that effect.

Message: 66288
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Medicine
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 08:19:58

  I pay for my own insurance, partly through a payroll deduction and partly
through the basic benefits I get from my employer. That is part of my pay
for work done. Under that I get medical care of my choice and nobody is
coerced into paying for it on my behalf. The appeal of socialized medicine
is that it will be something for nothing, and that it will penalize the
medical profession for their expensive care in the past. Give these two
things a little thought. There is no free lunch and the person who will be
repairing you when your health is threatened is the last person in the world
you want to turn into a disgusted, mediocre, assembly line worker who is
under the thumb of beaurocrats.
  Sure, you can get a cut tended to by anybody. Slaves could probably do
that. I want a doctor who knows that there is no guarantee that anyone will
use his services at all unless he earns their trust and proves that he is
worth his pay every time he works.
  See You Later,
    Dean H.

Message: 66289
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Bill Of Rights
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 08:30:35

  The founding fathers rightly saw the 2nd Amendment as the cornerstone of
the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself. It is the enforcement
clause. Without it, the voice of the people means nothing in determining
the affairs of government. Kings of old and dictators of all time have known
that governments rule with the consent of the people, but rendering them
defenseless forces them to consent beyond the meaning of the word.
   When a person or group tells you that your right to own a weapon is a
threat to them, even though you have done nothing to justify such a
statement, you have to ask yourself, "What is it that they want to do that
they can not do as long as I am armed?"
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 66290
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Registration
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 08:59:17

  Auto registration is a form of taxation and control over commerce. When
applied to gun ownership it is nothing but an infringement of the right of
ownership. Mike M. compared speed limits on fast cars with banning guns.
A speed limit is a safety provision, comparable to a law against shooting
wildly in a populated area, it is not the equivalent of a gun ban.
   Roger dismisses the fact that gun laws have no effect on criminals as
irrelevant. This points out something gun owners should keep in mind about
the opposition. It is you, the responsible gun owner, who is the real target
of their efforts to ban guns. They know that the criminal will not be
deterred, and they know that a person who would be irresponsible
enough to harm others would likewise disregard such laws. Gun laws can only
affect the law abiding. We have decades of experience to prove that beyond a
shadow of a doubt, so do not be misled as to what those who fear the
law-abiding gun owner really desire.
  See You Later,
    Dean H.

Message: 66291
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Testing
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 09:13:27

  I posted a message a while back in which I criticized drug testing and
said that safety concerns would be much better addressed by performance
testing and that workplace drug testing is nothing but back-door search and
seizure imposed by government blackmail. The following piece arrived
yesterday in the new issue of Reason:
   URINE OR YOU'RE OUT   by Jacob Sullum
   Advocates of workplace drug testing make their strongest arguments where
safety is involved. Nobody, they say, would want pilots, bus drivers, or
air-traffic controllers operating under the influence.
   A new alternative to urinalysis better addresses pubic-safety concerns
without invading employee's privacy. It directly measures
impairment-regardless of its cause-rather than simply picking up traces of
illegal drugs.
   The system, which resembles a video game, measures hand-eye coordination
and reaction time, comparing them to the subject's performance on an
earlier, baseline test. It takes only a few minutes to run, and it detects
impairment due to alcohol, prescription drugs, fatigue, and other factors
that do not turn up on conventional drug tests.
   Urinalysis, by contrast, does not show impairment; it only indicates
whether the subject has ingested certain illegal drugs. Traces of such
substances linger in the urine long after the effects have worn off-in the
case of marijuana, for weeks or months.


Message: 66292
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: Testing
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 09:20:33

   The new test, called Factor One, was developed by Systems Technology Inc.
of Hawthorne, California, and is marketed by Performance Factors Inc. of
Emeryville, California. Three California transportation companies have begun
to use Factor One to test drivers and shipcrew members.
   Don Harrison, general manager of Old Town Trolley Tours in San Diego,
told the New York Times that the test has been well received by the
company's employees. "I think most of them like the idea the we're judging
them on their performance rather than on what they might have been doing a
couple of nights ago," he said. "I like it because it's practical."
   Factor One is based on a system developed by the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration in the 1960s during research for the Skylab program.
The Air Force has used the system, known as the critical tracking test, to
investigate the ability of pilots to control damaged aircraft. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration has successfully used CTT to detect
drunk drivers.
   So why has the federal government been pushing imprecise and needlessly
intrusive drug tests instead? Ask Bill Bennett.

   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 66293
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul on 22
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 09:47:10

        A 22 is a weapon... and can be just as deadly as a 38

        Sandy has several 38 wheel guns.. she is not selling the one she
uses, but one of the extra weapons she somehow acquired. Sandy likes the 380
as well, but that is for personal protection when a big bulky gun just won't
do.  (sounds just terrible, don't it)

        Sandy as an instructer has several weapons for teaching aids.

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 66294
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: War!
Subject: SYSOP
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 10:56:51

I'll ask you to read message 66277 and 66278 and tell me
they don't fall under the same window for harassment for sexual
innuendo.
Unlike certain parties, I wont repeat the offending lines, making me
look hypocritical. 
I'd like a public harassment for Rod Williams like I got to be sure thngs
are EQUAL for every user and not just a few VOCAL ones.
Since the Sex police on here only arrest my messages, it'll be a cold
day in hell before I relent.

Message: 66295
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean on socialized
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 11:29:09

Well, you sure made it sound bleak and your probably right. I would not
think that having socialized medicine would put the regular doctors and
specialist out of busines. Why? Because I think most people would still go
to their reg. doctors and dentists. But we need something from which to
choose. My husband, being a vet can go to the V.A. for treatments,
operations, etc. and not pay a penny. Granted, he would not be getting as
good of treatments as he would with a reg. doc. or attention, but he at
least has the choice. This service should be offered to everyone whether
they are vets or not. All the times I have went to a doctor over the years,
I would have choose a socialized type because I did not need speciality
treatment or operations. But if it was serious, I would go to my reg.
doctor. Do you see my point? It just isn't right that a long term illness
should ruin people's lives because of the formitable doctors and hospital
fees - medicine! A person works hard for what the get materially and then it
is wiped out with one bout of cancer if the person lives or dies!! Their
families in some cases end up on the streets. Why not put some money into a
type of socialize medicine instead of the waste it's going to now for the
most part? Doesn't England have some type of it for example? Has it ruined
their country - the rest of the doctors? Doesn't Canada also? Australia?
Maybe socialized med. isn't the answer, but it's obvious something is needed
with our longivity rising all the time. Do you have any answers as to what
we can do about this? -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 66296
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff L. on hospital
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 11:41:42

Boy have I heard that from so many people - about them waiting while
bleeding or in pain, but 'dat ole paper work gotta be filled out first'! You
could give birth in the hall if you don't have that paper work done! 
One time my husband broke his arm in the afternoon - (he didn't know it for
sure) - but that night at 2:AM the pain was great and I took him to the
local emergency hospital. We waited for two hours before they even saw him.
It was obvious to the nurse at the station he was in a lot of pain. I made
out the paper work at that time. What got me, there was NO OTHER patients at
that time of night - doctors and nurses walking all over the place, yet they
couldn't take him/wouldn't take him in right away. Finally they got to him -
spent a little under an hour with him and that included a cast and the bill
was close to $2,000! I can't remember what the medication costs were
anymore, but they were formidable. I know this was an emergency service, but
$2,000????? On top of that, they put the cast on too tight, he had to have
it replaced three days later. They didn't charge for this but we had to wait
a couple more hours for them to get around to him and his hand was purple
from lack of blood. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 66297
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Today's paper
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 11:50:32

In this mornings Repulsive - in the letters to the editor section was one
written by a David Lambert that I found said a lot about all these little
freedoms of ours the keep getting eroded! The headline of this article
read: "Seat-belt law constrains personal liberties"! It went on to say --
--- "In her May 30 letter Martha Lisanti made a telling point by drawing
"The comparison between the confinement of seat-belt use vs. the
confinement of a wheelchair. It's a good argument, which along with
several other good arguments, ought to convince any intelligent person to
use their seat belts and to require others in their car to do the same.
But it missed the 'loss of freedom' point entirely. A key and fundamental
idea behind our Constitution and its concept of appropriate government
function and power is our freedom must simultaneously enhance our freedom
to an equal or greater degree! For example, drunken drivers endanger us
all and that very real danger reduces our freedom to use our vehicles and
roads. One might try to argue that laws inhibiting the right to drink and
drive inhibit the drunken driver's freedoms. But the vast majority of us
are willing to give up our freedom to drive intoxicated in order to
minimize the danger from other drunken drivers. Laws against drunk
driving clearly serve to enhance our freedoms more then they infringe on
them. But the seat belt law does no such thing! My seat belt usage has
absolutely no measurable effect on your safety or any of your freedoms.
Your freedom is not enhanced by my use of a seat belt. Nor is your
freedom enhanced by a law requiring that usage. Hence the law is an
infringement on freedom. The same can be said of many other existing and

Message: 66298
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cont.
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 11:54:54

proposed laws which nibble away at our personal freedoms without any pay
back. In fact, the continuing erosion of our freedom is a much greater
threat than any of the problems addressed by the legislation.:
 
I wrote out this article in it's entirety. I thought it said it like it is!
                             -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 66299
Author: Hans Glans
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Socialized medicine
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 12:11:43

You tax those that aren't sick to pay for those that are...If I don't have
medical bills, should I have to pay those of another?
 
as for the paper work, I am sure that if the "i"s weren't dotted, and the
"t"s weren't crossed, and something went wrong on the treatment, you would
be the first to sue saying you didn't properly give consent. With 29 million
dollar judgements within the realm of possibility, they must cover their
rumps.

s

Message: 66300
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: War!
Subject: Anatomy
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 13:09:25

        Users will keep sexual anatomy references OFF this PUBlic board.
I am a little fed up with everyone pointing fingers at everyone else!  
You INTELLIGENT users surly can express yourselves with out the sexual
innuendos and slams.   Me included!


                                sigh, clif-

Message: 66301
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: Tip!
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 13:10:59

        You $tatus users I hope realize that NON-$tatus users can NOT see
posts with the '$tatus users only' category.

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 66302
Author: $ Steve MacGregor
Category: Politics
Subject: Ann/Seat Belts
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 15:01:24

   But in one way, someone else's not wearing a seat belt *does* affect me
where it hurts the most -- in the wallet.
   If you don't want to wear your seat belt, you're going to get *really*
hurt if you're in an accident.  Your medical expenses will be much greater
than if you wore the belt.  Your insurance -- or the insurance of the driver
at fault -- will pay more.  That raises the insurance company's expenses. 
They have to get more income to cover the expense.  They have to keep
premiums up to get the income.
   Now if they'd just pass a law saying that if you're at fault in an
accident, you -- or your insurance company -- are responsible for damages to
the other vehicle, and to all passengers who were wearing seat belts.  Those
not wearing belts -- or their insurance companies -- are responsible in that
case.
   An insurance company could charge less for people who wear seat belts,
and would put in clause saying that they don't pay *anything* to you if
you're not wearing a seat belt.
   This way, much of the expense that we now see in insurance rates would
simply move to people involved in accidents who don't wear seat belts.  And
it's all voluntary, because you wouldn't have to wear the seat belt if you
didn't want to.  Just be *very* careful, because it'll come out of your
pocket, unless you get the extra-cost insurance for unbelted passengers.

#(O,O)#  Hoot!

Message: 66303
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Ann
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 16:16:46

  Socialized medicine doesn't drive every doctor out of the system, only the
best. Look at the beauracracy and cost-shifting going on under our partially
socialized system and then imagine it as a forced system in which everyone
is told exactly what to do. Steve M. is right in pointing out that medical
costs are so high now because we are paying for risks other people choose to
take.
  Take a closer look at all those countries with socialized medicine and you
will see that the doctors who were innovators and exceptional have probably
Hm-.a\bVFuT85\c|d away. A competitive health industry reaches a certain
point in development and then stagnates immediately when it becomes
socialized. It can drag on at that same level indefinately, but it can not
advance significantly because that requires independent brain power, the
very thing that socialization degrades and drives out.
   You can get cheap clinical care out of it, but at what cost? Without the
constraints placed on medicine in America by socialization of costs and
unreasonable assessments of liability you would see not only better, but
cheaper, health care here. If you want something to work like it should, get
   Do we really want to create another monopoly like the post office, which
private business could easily outperform, but is not allowed to compete
with?w{
   See You Later,
       Dean H.

Message: 66304
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: gun registration
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 16:38:32

Let's take the case of the mentally unstable person who purchased a gun
in downtown Phoenix not too long ago and blew his brains out in front of
his neighbors. Now, here was a case where such a person should not be 
allowed to buy a gun. It is unlikely that such a person would not have
been able to get a gun unless it was extremely easy for him to do so, since
he was also retarded. 
 
This is much like the bar-tender who, if he sees someone obviously very 
drunk should not sell that person any liquor. I should think that a gun
seller, if he sees someone trying to buy a gun who is obviously unstable
or otherwise exhibiting characteristics that mark him as person that 
shouldn't have access to a gun, to allow a cooling off period. At least
a period in which the fellow could be checked out for mental illness or
a criminal record.

Message: 66305
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: seat belts
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 16:43:43

agreed. Seat belt law like pool fence law is a bad law. I don't like
gov't getting another way to get me, even tho I use my  seatbelt in
my truck and car. I will NOT , however, use those lapbelts in the back.

Message: 66306
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: health costs
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 16:47:46

There is a problem of cost, though. I heard Koop speak at the N. Scottsdale
Memorial Hospital dedication about this crisis. He mentioned to the doctors
there that we need to come up with a way to control skyrocketing medical
costs, otherwise, he thinks that socialized medicine will be the result.
We can see some of that sentiment here on this board. I am not a proponent
of socialized medicine, but I do think that health-care costs have risen
out of control.
 
My company, for example, has me paying more of my health insurance. It
used to be a fully paid benefit. The reason --- higher costs !

Message: 66307
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Politics
Subject: Steve M on S belts
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 17:20:50

        The Insurance company HAS not lowered insurance where seat belt laws
were passed.   The Arizona Insurance network has said they 'Might' lower
rates if there are LESS accidents.  If the dog hadn't stopped to Poop, it
'Might' have caught the rabbit!  But it didn't happen.....

        Allowing insurance companies out of their liability because someone
was NOT wearing a belt and was not even at fault is a pretty sad reward for
getting slightly cheaper insurance.  Next thing is you will have to prove is
you were wearing a seat belt in an accident.  Besiteb1=5=A1:!=:I
thrown clear of an rolling, tumbling vehicle were saved from certain death,
had they had on their seat belt.  The choice should be YOURS, not some
legislature!

        Don't get me wrong, Seat-Belts do help in many accidents, but that
should fall under EDUCATION and not more laws and less freedom.

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 66308
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Politics
Subject: Criminal record
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 17:48:48

        Yes, criminals should not have weapons...  but that is the problem,
he can get them anyway from anywhere or make one himself.  I made guns and
cannons that really shot when I was a kid for crying out loud.  A LAW is not
going to stop the criminal...the underground is vast!  I am not lilly white
and have delt with the underground in my past, and NEVER had any trouble
buying guns where I was not suppose to have one... it is a JOKE!  The ONLY
people that won't have guns are the good guys that FOLLOW the law to the
letter.  You good people are being duped that such laws will stop bad
guys... hell, they won't even slow them down. GET REAL!
        
        MOST of the weapons I now have were NOT bought over a counter. I
prefer USED guns as they can't lead anyone out to confiscate them to me.
When you buy a NEW weapon now, there is paper work and you need to show your
drivers licence.....  Is that enough?  Not according to idiots out there who
want your name in the computer and on all sorts of lists so the bad guys
will know where to steal them from. Or, Heaven forbid, a government gone bad
knocking on your door.

        *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 66309
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: CLIFF/66301
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 18:33:58

Yes, I just re-remembered that not too long ago.  I'm sure that it will come
in handy.
 
Daryl

Message: 66310
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Apollo Sysop
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 20:05:53

     Thanks for changing message 66238.  Everyone:  It originally said "Got
-----?  Give me a call."  Cliff changed it to "Got bats?"  Cliff, what is
your problem with the word '-----'?
 
[Note:  this message, like the original, has been updated as of the eve of
June 6.  The word in question describes sperical objects.]

Message: 66311
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: more
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 20:29:14

     Oh, I see that Apollo is now starting to censor messages for the
tiniest things.  There is a difference between objecting to something (which
is fine) and objecting to it and having it destroyed (which is blatant
censorship).
     I can understand not allowing a few basic dirty words, such as the 7
dirty words George Carlin refers to in one of his comedy routines.  But to
censor lesser slang phrases is going overboard.  Is Apollo turning into the
Ark?  I hope not.  If so, lord help us.
     My message specifically says "Got -----?  Give me a call."  Now those
of you who pull your hair out at such an outlandish 'sexual reference' think
about this for one second.  What am I saying?  I'm saying, obviously, that
you should give me a call if you're up to the challenge of what I had
proposed.  (I am, by the way, serious about the TV thing.)  I merely used
words that were crisp and happened to rhyme.  Whether or not somebody has
testicles is not the literal meaning.
     What is more important is that people keep their self-righteousness in
check.  When you think of the words '@$$' and 'b@!!,' does it really send
chills of horror down your spine?  Or, perhaps, are you objecting because
you have nothing better to do?  Are you looking for something to get upset
about?  Maybe you should go elsewhere.  For me, I do not feel that most
writing is enriched through the use of slang words, but if people use it,
why should I let it bug me?  I have better things to think about.
     Instead of pulling your hair out over nothing, go comb it and get the
$%&* on with life.

Message: 66314
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Question?
Subject: Peter Petrisko
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 20:52:14

The other day as I came out of a theatre and went to get into my car, I
noticed a pamphlet on my windshield.  It was an "important update" on the
"Fugitive Pope."  As I read through this tract, which apparently blamed
every evil in the world on Catholics, I assumed that it was an atheist joke,
some sort of pseudo-religion similar to the Church of the Subgenious.  I
mean, I couldn't imagine anyone seriously asserting that the Pope was a
poison gas salesman during WW II, or that the picture showing George Bush
kissing a nun, with the caption "He's one of them," was intended to be taken
seriously.  Evidently it was.  There was an 800 number, belonging to a
24-hour "counciling line" of Tony Alamo's Music Square Church.  I told them
that I had assumed it to be a joke, at which point they became annoyed and
asked me why.  I said, because it's a collection of absurdities, a tissue of
lies from cover to cover.  "Prove it," was the response.  Ever hear of this
outfit?

Message: 66315
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Question?
Subject: Zak
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 20:56:57

Public access?
 
Only if I get to do a segment called "Shut Your Face."  In this segment, I
interview various intellectual types, listening politely for a while, and
then abruptly becoming hostile, saying "Shut your face."  At this point, the
person will confusedly ask "What?"  at which time I will fly off the handle
and throw a psychotic tantrum, preferably ending with some beefy security
guards dragging the astonished victim off camera.

Message: 66316
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 22:01:57

That sounds good.  Who do we get for intellectual?

Message: 66317
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rules for Rationals
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 22:02:15

     The following is a book excerpt titled "Rules for Rationals."  It
discusses the problems in having arguments and some good rules of thumb for
when you get into them.  I think you will enjoy it.

Message: 66318
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: RfR
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 22:03:57

                          RULES FOR RATIONALS
[from _The Psychology of the Psychic_ by David Marks and Richard Kammann]

     Having confronted so many varieties of rationalization we wondered,
almost whimsicially, if we could construct a set of rules for rationals. 
While very few people can be scientists, and very few really want to be,
anybody can be rational if he wants to.
     The art of doubt can be fun, like having the only pin at a balloon
party.  But it is important to make a distinction between confronting an
idea and confronting a person.  It is one thing to show that an idea is
wrong and quite another to show that a person is wrong.  The object is
never to win, only to learn.  When you win, you lose.
     For some unknown reason a lot of people have got it into their heads
that they have to "be right" in order to be lovable, respectable, and
happy.  And yet who is more lovable and worthy of our respect than the
person who says, "Say, you're absolutely right.  Fancy that, all my life I
have believed just the opposite, and I was completely wrong."  This is a
person with real self-confidence, with humility, with flexibility.  For him
it is more important to learn the truth of things than to appear to be
right.
     For a rational person, no idea is sacrosanct or above challenge,
including his own ideas.  For him, "being right" is a posturing game, and a
serious source of human frustration and confusion.  The rational person
finds it equally amusing to discover that his opinions and views are right
or wrong.
     When two rational people sit down to talk, they have a wonderful
freedom to play with ideas.  One can offer a proposition, while the other
can be the devil's advocate who tries to destroy it.  In the middle, they
can switch roles.  Or they can jointly brainstorm an idea to see how far
they can push it.
     When a rational person meets a rationalizing person, he finds
discussion to be a waste of time, because it is not a learning opportunity,
except to learn how this person carries out his rationalizations.  Having
no interest "being right" or in causing useless upset and distress, the
rational person drops the discussion.
     
     1.  *If-what-then-what*  Many beliefs are stated in such vague terms
that even the author doesn't know what they mean.  They are judged on their
esthetic merits, like a painting.  To bring a belief down to earth you can
ask what it predicts, what it means in terms of if-what-then-what.  For
example, a person offers the opinion that we have hardly begun to grasp the
possibilities of cosmic consciousness.  You ask what he means, and get
another string of words you don't understand.  So then you might say, if I
have cosmic consciousness, how will my life be different?

     2.  *Disprovability*  This is another way of stating rule 1.  Instead
of repeating if-what-then-what, you may need to shift gears and ask, what
piece of evidence would make your theory incorrect?  For example, the
believer says, lots of people have mental telepathy.  You can startle his
logic by asking, what kind of evidence would make him change his mind. 
Since he has only thought in terms of positive cases, this will add a new
dimension to the discussion.

     3.  *The Burden of Proof*  The burden of proof is on the believer.  A
person asks, why are you so skeptical about UFOs.  It is easy to fall into
the trap of trying to give reasons why UFOs are impobable.  The best answer
is, why do you *believe* in UFOs?

     4.  *Alternative Thinking*  When evidence is presented, you may ask
(or just wonder) if there is any explanation that could produce the same
results.  For example, the advocate says, modern medicine has increased our
life expectancy from thiry-five years to seventy years.  You could ask if
anything else could have done it, even if you don't have a hypothesis, like
diet, sanitation, housing, immunity, etc.  *Alternative thinking is your
most creative tool.*

     5.  *Missing Negative Cases*  This rule has three applications.
     a.  Probablility Matches.  One needs to count all
possible events including negative cases to see how often a result might
occur by chance in the long run.
     b.  Sometimes negative cases are ruled out by an escape clause.  For
example, the reason that UFOs are never photographed clearly is that they
always run away from cameras.  People may see them clearly, but bring out a
camera and away they go.  This is like the "negative vibes" clause in ESP
theory.
     c.  Sometimes the negative cases have been literally eliminated.  An
educator reports a survey showing that senior students all love high
school, overlooking the fact that all the drop-outs were not interviewed. 
The story is told of a British officer who proposed to add armor plates to
certain sections of Royal Air Force planes during World War II.  He
presented a diagram showing the regions with a high density of gunnery
scars after combat missions.  But Winston Churchill said maybe he should
put the armor everywhere else because he had only studied the planes which
came back.

     6.  *Personal Observation*  What a person has observed in his personal
clinical experience is no evidence for his belief.  Unless he has at least
kept a written tally of positive and negative cases, you can reasonably
assume he is giving his subjectrive validations.

     7.  *Testimonials*  The worst kind of evidence for a belief about
human nature comes from people's experience of themselves.  We recently met
a man who claimed that the key to giving up smoking was simple will power,
which he had demonstrated himself.  As the story went on, it turned out
that he had developed a chronic chest complaint that got worse, and his
doctor told him that if he didn't quit smoking he would soon die.  Above
all, remember the Forer effect--fortune tellers (even in plain clothes or
white coats) always seem to be right.

     8.  *Sources*  It is always helpful to find out where a person got his
ideas.  This may turn out to be completely frivolous source like a
newspaper or a TV program.  If the source sounds more credible than that,
you may decide it's worth looking up.  But you can always apply the
short-cut rule--if the believer can't make a plausible case himself, forget
his sources.

     9.  *Emotional Commitment*  If the person advocating an idea is
committed to it emotionally, if he cannot consider being wrong in a
matter-of-fact style, then you are wasting your time for two reasons. 
First, your questions are threatening his personal beliefs for no good
purpose (unless he is doing public harm).  Second, you can reasonably
assume that his theory is false.  Of course, this is not inevitably so. 
But it is unlikely that an emotionally committed person has weighed his
evidence pro and con.  He is advocating a belief that feels good to him.

    10.  *The Ad Hominem Technique*  The Latin phrase means "to the man." 
It has many variations.  First, a believer may hold certain authorities to
be infallible, and quote their opinions as evidence.  Second, he may try to
place contrary believers into a category of bad people and thus reject
their arguments out of hand.  Third, he may turn against you, accusing you
of bad motives or stupidity.  All of these arguments are fallacious, and it
is not only important to recognize them, but also not to use them.  The
object is to learn, not to win.

Message: 66324
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: so-called profanity
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 23:04:53

     After writing my initial messages responding to the censoriship of my
and other users' messages, Cliff educated me about the revolution this board
has had.  I previously didn't know that some of you are that oversensitive. 
Needless to say, I went back and updated my messages, removing the foul
words and replacing them with dashes or ampersands, etc., if only to
preserve my $tatus.
     My point is this.  Those of you who are complaining about things like
"up y--rs" are simply acting foolish.  The reality of the situation is that
minor sayings like that are harmless and can be dealt with just as
effectively by ignoring them or by discouraging the person who posted the
message.  Pressuring Cliff into censoring is the wrong route -- squeaky
clean is not worth aspiring to.  Now Cliff has given a few users power to
control the expression of ideas on the most important sig on the board.  Rod
had a message zapped just because he described personal fantasies (with no
profanity).  This is absurd.
     Think about it--the people who are complaining have been around this
long while the board was not "squeaky clean."  If they didn't like it, why
didn't they leave?  Because they enjoyed the BBS anyway.  Monitoring and
censoring every little word isn't going to bring in loads of new users. Only
a handful of ultrasensitive people will be made happier.
     In any case, I think this board has taken a turn for the worse.  I
can't even write a small blurb about a TV show I want to produce without
having a problem over something as dumb as the word 'ball'.
     Zak

Message: 66325
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak W on sperical
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 23:37:40

        Yes, I see your frustration...  I had to re-word even some of my
posts and Apollo-gize as well as Miz Dee and Mr Carter.  It gets real
difficult when we blast a few users about 'Suggestive' words and then let
others get away with it.  I mean if I left it alone, I am sure that would
make Mr Carter very offended like Mr Carter left Miz Dee feeling offended,
after she was criticized for her posts..etc. Besides, you do have the COSmos
SIG where you can get away with anything. Why can't we have a 'sqeaky clean'
PUBlic board?  Do we have to be vulgar on all the boards to get our points
across?    I hardly think so.

        What is fair for one, is fair for all... I assure you Zak, you are
not being picked on in anyway.  Rod on the other hand, we pick on him all
the time...     (Joke-Joke)

        

        SysOp  sigh!    clif-

Message: 66326
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak again
Date: 06/06/90  Time: 23:51:50

Frankly, I like the PUBlic board 'Sqeaky Clean'!   If you don't like that
idea, then maybe you are on the wrong board.

        Besides, it may help me be more creative with my posts and stick to
issues by getting away from insults.  I like the challenge!

        Note:  I have no complaint with Zak as far as clean posts go, never
had one either!

                        clif-

Message: 66327
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: bread and circuses
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 00:05:49

Who do we get for an intellectual?  Hmmm...Good question.  We probably
couldn't get any REAL intellectuals to waste their time, so why don't we
start with Mike Middleton?

Message: 66328
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Question?
Subject: calculus
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 00:16:36

If a first derivative is the slope of the tangent to a curve at a point, and
the second derivative is the rate of change of the first derivative. "at a
point," (or the rate of curvature of the curve "at a point"), what are the
third, fourth, etc. derivatives, in these terms?  
I have read "the automobile designer uses the third derivative in order to
test the riding quality of the car he designs, and the structural engineer
has even to go to the fourth derivative in order to measure the elasticity
of beams and the strength of columns."
Please explain this to me.  Feel free to use your own examples, but keep
them concrete and accessible to the neophyte.

Message: 66329
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak/rfr
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 00:30:04

Thanks for posting that.

Message: 66330
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Vulagirty+Tolerance
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 00:53:34

Zak; I'm actually pleased that someone else sees my point.
It's not the fact I wish to truly offend, but I feel there is a point
where rational people have to say the offended minority need just
[S]kip if they're so sensitive. It's like making the choice between
reading House & Garden and Hustler. If you don't like reading material
that may contain a couple stanza's of sexual innuendo then DONT READ IT.
 
As far as the board is concerned, there was really very little to complain
about. It was Miz dee's and Mr Burkett's extreeme sensitivity in this
area which has brought us to the current state of affairs.
 
I also must aggree with Cliff in that it might just be a better idea
to keep this board [S]queaky Klean. In fact, I'm nominating that
we change the [C]ategory list to include [S]queaky klean,
[T]iptoe thru the tulips , [M]ilk & Honey  [F]lower power, [B]less you
and [U]nited we stand naked in front of the burgeois opressors.
 
Any further posts containing negative or immoral material, material
which is destructive or anti-establishmentary will be censored.
You can bet the SEX POLICE on here will enforce the innuendo laws.
Any references to bodily anatomy, functionality, existance of same or
inferences and third generation syntatic analogies will be censored.

Message: 66331
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: War!
Subject: TOLERANCE
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 01:23:57

Let me preface this one before I go onward. 
(1) I consider everyone on this board, pro or con to my own ideas,
    adversary or not, to be like a friend. I have no enemies on Apollo.
    Never have let my disputes interfere with my interpersonal actions.
 
I have seen and will continue to see a steady decline, albeit plummet
of the general tolerance level between people everywhere. 
There are, I'm sure, several of you who could extrapolate on this to
some great extent. This recent barrage of intolerance is just a small
sample. Lets look at a wider audience for a moment...removing ourselves
from the BBS and looking at our own society as it sits festering right
now. Look at what the MOBILE and ENSCO Toxic waste soap opera has
brought out. All kinds of unrest, disputes, fights, arguments and
in the fray, stun gun crazy sheriffs and gestapo like attitudes from
law-enforcement personnel. I went to a class the other day....the Basic
hand-gun course offered by the USMA. 
There I was not just simply educated...but my suspicions confirmed. My
doubts cleared. There is by no means mistaking the Cop vs Public
attitude. In keeping with the [S]queaky Klean drive here, suffice to
say that I cannot repeat what was said concerning what the police view
John Q. Public as.
This is and should be something to be alarmed about. You sleeping
beauties out there might do good to wake up...and pitch those rosy dreams
of standing naked in front of everyone with your holier-than-thou

Message: 66332
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: cont
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 01:35:04

"Peace to all you peace loving gentle creatures" types.
I truly wish that could be. I'd rather not have to ever defend
myself. I'd rather live in a society which doesn't need a police force.
It just isn't so.
In all of this, we should keep in mind what we perceive as normal or
expected. The tolerance level reflected here might be a good barometer
of the general publics reaction to opposing viewpoints.
I've noticed a marked increase in hostility...open hostility from all
corners. The good, the bad and the ugly. 
3 Years ago it would be a rare day to see someone get cut off on the
road and have the two cars involved in a silly-buggers game of 
DARE for the next 5 miles...fingers at attention and lips working
overtime. Hostility and general lack of tolerance is a good indication
of the morale of a given group. In the case I present here, it's
not just Apollo, it's not just the Cops, Arizona or the West.
 
Intolerance breeds intolerance which is intolerable. If you scathe
intolerance towards someone for something...something that normally would
have gone by like water off a ducks back...you should expect them to
become just as intolerant..especially in view of the humanistic values
being presently accepted as the norm. 
Today, you can see a fight on the road everytime you go out, you read
about violence and the like in every media presented...just think...
it's probably going to get a lot more "intolerable".

Message: 66333
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: War!
Subject: SEX POLICE
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 01:45:09

If you have $tatus I request you read my post in the COSmos SIG.
Since it would be offensive to post the question here, I have
delt with it in the proper area.
Be forewarned...it contains material of sexually explicit phrases
and might singe your sensibilities.
 
I ** DEMAND JUSTICE ** !!!!!!!

Message: 66334
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike on last
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 02:42:01

        Mike, not ALL $tatus users have access to the COSmos...  some have
tried it only to demand their profile be cleared of access to that SIG.
This shows you, some just don't like those kind of posts...
        See you in the COSmos to talk about it.

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 66335
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger Mann
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 04:55:51

 I refuse to reduce myself to responding to questions based on statements
that have been taken completely out of context or manipulated to mean other
than what I had intended in the first place.
 Since you and your mentor, Middleton, have become so inept at mudslinging,
I suggest that you go back to your own puddle until you get some more
experience. Perhaps you could practice on each other, if you can get your
noses out of each other's backsides long enough.
 End of "conversation".

Message: 66336
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 05:02:32

 I realize the hazards of a 22. My remark was sort of tongue-in-cheek, aimed
at the expert in you and Sandy. Sort of like the Chevy owners' opinion of
Fords, I suspect that most knowledgeable gun folks would tend to look down
on the lowly 22 caliber.
 Ask Sandy to hang on to that 38 until I see what my finances look like
after we get settled and get all the things we think we will need in the
mobile home. ok?
 Paul

Message: 66337
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Steve/ seat belts
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 05:10:35

 I doubt that insurance companies will grant any discounts to people who
claim they wear seat belts.
 There is also another side to the seat belt coin. While I would not say
with assurance that my late wife would still be alive had she NOT been
wearing her seat belt, the paramedics had to cut hers off to get her out of
the car. DOA as far as I was concerned, but the highly touted medical
profession kept bodily functions working for some 25 hours, presumably so
that they could justify some $25,000 in costs.
 All of which leaves me on the fence in the seat belt debate.

Message: 66338
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff Beck
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 05:19:52

 Tony Alamo is a radical right winger who has been giving basic Christianity
a bad name for several years with his outrageous slings and arrows. Most
reasonable people, Christians included, give him the credit he is due. None.
 Unfortunately, the old axiom holds true that if you tell the same lie often
enough, you will find some who will believe it. So, just as unbelievers have
the burden of the Rod Williams' of this world, the believers must bear the
burdens of the Tony Alamos.

Message: 66339
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: RfR/Zak
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 07:34:30

Zak, thanks for entering that excellent piece. I know that the Phoenix
Skeptics are looking for articles to put in their quarterly or so
newsletter. This would be an excellent submission. Do you know Mike
Stackpole or Ted Karren ? If you don't, would you mind if I mention your
article to them for possible inclusion ?

Message: 66340
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: derivatives
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 07:40:04

The third, fourth, etc, derivatives are the rate of change of the lower
order derivative. If a curve is expressed as Kx**3, then the first
derivative of this curve is the rate of change of the curve itself, which
can be expressed a 3Kx**2, which itself is a curve. Taking the derivative
of this curve we get 6Kx, which is a straight line which says that the
tangent to the curve varies linearly according to x. Taking the derivative
of 6Kx we get 6K, which says slope of the tangent or rate of change of this
"curve" is a constant.

Message: 66341
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul Savage
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 07:42:49

Mike Middleton is not my mentor. We are friends. And I suspect that since
you refuse to answer my question in a straightforward manner that you DO
think that the Constitution is divinely inspired. 
 
I'll ignore the rest of your juvenile response.

Message: 66342
Author: Jeff Lochansky
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff L.
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 10:16:53

Sorry I havent answered any post in the last vew days, just bot my 1200 baud
modem, and had to hardwire it into my * Toy Computer * took me a couple of
days, but I'm back. Now that I've read all post you'll all get answers later
in the day.
                THE MAD MAX

Message: 66343
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 11:07:16

Re:  "Now be a good boy and read your bible and do what the good lord tells
you to so that one day, when you die, you can go to heaven."

Gee Rod, I was thinking to answer your post on the problems of the world,
and then I got to your sentence (above) and realized you were just being
sarcastic about the whole thing and had to change my reaction.

I think part of the problem with the world is people like you with their
intolerance toward others who love and worship Jesus Christ.

Message: 66344
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Medicine
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 11:09:49

Re:  "Do you have an answer as to why this country fears socialized
medicine?"

If socialized medicine is anything like that received in the military, I
can understand why people would fear it.

Message: 66345
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Glands
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 11:20:13

Re:  "You tax those that aren't sick to pay for those that are."

Isn't that kind of the definition of socialism?  You take from those who
have and redistribute to those who don't have.  It sure isn't the other way
around.  It's kind of like Robin Hood.

Message: 66346
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Steve
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 11:22:49

Re:  "An insurance company could charge less for people who wear seat belts,
and would put in clause saying that they don't pay *anything* to you if
you're not wearing a seat belt."

It sounds like a good idea to me.  I have already heard of insurance
companies who do this with alcohol. 

Message: 66347
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 11:26:38

Re:  "Socialized medicine doesn't drive every doctor out of the system, only
the best."

What no one has mentioned yet is the leading cause of high medical costs. 
It is the high insurance doctors pay to cover mistakes.  And what has caused
this insurance to be so high?  Greedy people who sue doctors for zillions
over screwing up a hangnail operation.

As a matter of fact, I think "greed" is the cause of many ills of our
society.

Message: 66348
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: last
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 12:06:41

You can bet Greed insurance will be next.

Message: 66349
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob T on Rod
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 13:16:50

Re: "I think part of the problem with the world is people like you with
their intolerance toward others who love and worship Jesus Christ."

BINGO!   By George (I mean Roger), you got it ol'boy!  You hit the
proverbial nail on the head!  Rod is 'intolerant', and becomes very hateful
and crude because of it.  He hates this world, he hates politics, he hates
life, he hates EVERYTHING.   He is just like 'Mikey' on the cereal
commercial.  And worse of all, he hates Jesus Christ!

        Too bad, I sorta like Rod, but this intolerance of his, has driven a
wedge between us, and for this I am sad.

                        clif-

Message: 66350
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: The SYSOP Speaks
Subject: Posts...
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 13:23:12

        GREAT posts guys...  We are a family here at Apollo, remember that!


*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 66351
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Answer!
Subject: Mike C/Censorship
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 15:05:17

        Well, it seems all of a sudden Ms. Dee and myself find
ourselves cast as prime villains in that most intolerable of
modern sins, intolerance.
        It's a shame that a simple plea for civility -- if only in
public -- is perverted into an argument for intolerance.
        Make no mistake about it, Mr. Carter, I have no objection to
the expression of any idea whatsoever.  I have found myself
equally repulsed by Cliff's lack of tolerance for some
expressions of atheism as I have by Rod's lack of tolerance for
the religious beliefs of others.  The same holds true for many
other issues as well.
        As I said in my rather lengthy post of the other day, it is
the uncivil expression of viewpoints to which I object.  
        To draw an analogy, it seems you would say to those who
complain about a beach strewn with garbage, "Go find another
beach!"  I, for one, appreciate Cliff's efforts to keep this
particular beach clean for all to enjoy.

Message: 66352
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Thanks, Zak!
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 15:05:52

        Thanks for posting those excerpts, Zak.  There are things
there for all of us to learn.
        And I'm sorry you seem to have come into this "squeaky
clean" thing so late.  I suspect you, too, would have objected to
some of the same posts Melissa and I did.

Message: 66353
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: $Jeff Beck
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 15:15:19

  It sounds like you want to do the Wally George Show.
    See You Later,
       Dean H.

Message: 66354
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/guns
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 15:43:06

  Did you read about the guy who went into a pawn shop and picked up a skil
saw and plugged it in. He cut his throat with it right there in the store.
This happened right here in Phoenix. You can not prevent unstable people
from harming themselves or others by controlling objects. It is impossible.
It is also a minor side stream in the argument over gun control. The real
issue is does the government have the right to infringe my right to keep and
bear arms as long as I have not given them a reason by commiting a violent
crime or being found insane. The answer is no, absolutely no. And if the law
ever says otherwise, then the law is an ass. That is one thing the
prohibitionists don't fully understand, or they wouldn't be wasting their
time. Disarming the law abiding citizen is a moral wrong which would be
resisted to the extent that it could not be carried out.
   Such a state of affairs would only serve to create a more general state
of lawlessness, as it became common practice to view the law as an evil
thing. If drug war is fun, wait till you see gun war. The policeman who is
working the street, and not a politically appointed mouthpiece, will tell
you that firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a postive thing.
When there is no such thing as an armed, law-abiding citizen because owning
a gun makes you a criminal, the police will find themselves with no allies,
except the 'security through vulnerability' crowd.
  See You Later,
     Dean H.

Message: 66355
Author: Hans Glans
Category: War!
Subject: Seat belts
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 16:12:19

Mr. MacGregor. That is a good one. Liability totally transferred because one
does not wear a seatbelt? It is ok for someone to hit me, because I did not
do something passive? I wear my seatbelt, but I don't think it would be fair
to completly penalize people for not wearing them. It's like saying a
manufacturer shouldn't be responsible for a damages because of a blowout or
f one of their tires because the person couldn't control the instability of
a vehicle with a blown out tire.
And, for your edification, judges and juries now can limit damages to a
certain degree because of the comparative negligence of someone not wearing
their seat belt. I think it should not result in damage reduction of more
than 10%, however. This is the product of a Supreme Court verdict.

s

Message: 66356
Author: Hans Glans
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Language
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 16:15:21

 Unfortunatly, language such as that in question has become the common
tongue of our country. Those alarmed at children reading obscenity should
hear children some time. They are more obscene than many adults. And they
understand most of what it means. When I was in 3rd grade, I moved from one
school to another. I was treated with many words I didn't know. For
instance, one kid asked me if I knew what a "screw" was. I said, "yeah, it
holds things together".

Message: 66357
Author: Hans Glans
Category: Answer!
Subject: Robbin' Hoods
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 16:19:56

I don't believe in forced charity. The government will always find someone
who needs your money more than you, either for real, or imagined needs.
I think charity should be left up to the individual. Charities now don't do
near as well as they would if we were not forced by beauocracy to contribute
to others. One out of ten people is completly on the dole, with many others
on at least partly. Being humanistic is great, but supporting a poor woman
who chooses to have many children is ridiculous.
Socialized medicine is like that. I may never father a children and face the
costs incurred by that act. I don't think I should be made to force someone
elses decision for or against. I also don't think I should pay a smoker's
medical bills. Large amounts of budgets go for two self-inflicted aliments.
 

Message: 66358
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Politics
Subject: Laws for safety (sic
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 16:56:57

        Someone MIGHT buy a gun and blow his brains out, so let's punish
everyone.  Never mind that a person may suddenly find himself in danger only
to have the police tell you they can ONLY help after 'your murder' has been
committed, and then find you can't even buy a gun until six days later.
(assuming now he does not know how to buy a gun from the underground)

         Someone might buy a gallon of gasoline and douse themselves and
set themselves on fire.  Oh My GOD!  Let's have a six day waiting period
before you can buy gas, and only after an extensive police search of your
records.  Why, they may even want to make a Molotov cocktail, and really put
someone though a painful death.  Better yet, why don't we outlaw Gasoline
altogether.  (This paragraph makes about as much sense as all those anti-gun
lobbyists.)

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 66359
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Woman's gun
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 17:12:54

        I was asked about a gun for a woman, so let me give a very brief
answer here that may help others, from a mistake I see to many times.

        To often the MALE buys the gun for the female. The male will pick
out a big gun for himself (4inch and up)  "Me MAN, me get BIG Gun"
Then he picks out 'A cute little one' for the "Little woman"...
        WRONG!   WRONG...WRONG!   those little two inch 38s that seem so
cute and popular KICK like a MULE!   You need weapon mass to absorb the
energy. 

        Anyone NOT believeing this, feel free to see me, and we can go out
and shoot a two inch 38 and a 4 inch 38 using the same ammo.. BIG
difference...  If you MUST have a gun for personal protection, make sure it
is one you can handle, and get some training in weapon law and use of said
weapon.   Give me a call if you need help.

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*  only trying to help and keep you safe.

Message: 66360
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill B on poor Cliff
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 17:35:56

        Hey, I have also been repulsed by my own lack of tolerance for some
expressions of atheism.  I plead guilty Bill.... get a rope?

        I feel most users agree that the PUBlic board, the SHOW CASE of
Apollo, needs to be kept 'Squeaky Clean'..... even if I am not sure what
'Squeaky Clean' is.


        We would like more $tatus users on Apollo, but I fear we drive too
many away, always sounding like a WAR board, then a bunch of friends who
get over zealous in our posted debates.  I agree with Bill Burkett!
And for you hard core Apolloites, you know there are SIGs where you can let
it all hang out.  

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=* poof *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Maybe Hans Glans and Mad Max will become $tatus users... if we don't
frighten them away....  yes?  no?  others?

Message: 66361
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: RfR
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 18:24:29

I object to the assertion that propositions made by those with an emotional
involvement should be rejected on that basis.  Everyone feels emotionally
about things.  Humans are essentially creatures of emotion, not intellect. 
If you don't think that scientists have a similar regard for relativity that
Christians have for the Trinity, then you haven't been observing people very
objectively.
I'm sure that the author of Rules for RAtionality has an emotional interest
in being rational and of propounding rationality.

Message: 66362
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: War!
Subject: Bill Burkett
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 18:28:04

I am repulsed by your lack of tolerance for the intolerance of others.

Message: 66363
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/derivatives
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 18:33:21

Well, if I wanted to sit there and spout 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order derivatives
for simple functions I could have done it myself.  What I wanted to know,
was how third and fourth...order derivatives are used; concrete
applications, meaningful and not trivial.
 
Also, it is my understanding that the 1st derivative is the limit of the
change in y relative to a change in x as the change in x approaches zero: in
other words, the slope of the curve "at a point".
It is my understanding that the second derivative measures the rate of
change of the curve "at a point", because if you have a first order
derivative at a point P, and another at Q, the average rate of curvature
over this segment is the angle of the second tangent minus the angle of the
first tangent, with this quantity over the length of the segment PQ.  The
second order derivative then, is the limit of this as the length of PQ
approaches zero.
 
Feel free to correct me if this is wrong, but make sure you understand
exactly what I'm saying before you jump in with a refutation, please.

Message: 66364
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: dean/guns
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 21:03:03

I am not suggesting banning guns, I'm just suggesting that criminals
and mental patients shouldn't be allowed to buy them. If you are
not a mental patient or a criminal, you have nothing to worry about.
I'll tell you what I see happening. The majority of Americans are
going to get fed up with the "no way, no how" attitude of certain
gun owners, and instead of allowing for reasonable restrictions on
gun ownership, they will vote in draconian measures that no one
is going to like.

Message: 66365
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: jeff/refutation
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 21:06:18

Refutation ? What refutation. I was just trying to answer your question.

Message: 66366
Author: Jeff Lochansky
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Soci}ialized medicin
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 21:38:58

Yes I'm back and I can dispute every point made against socialized medicine,
because I dealt with it for apx. 19 years. So I'm talking firsthand
experience, not rumors. For one german doctor are every bit as good as any
other doctor in the world. Again socialized medicine is confused with
communism. It has nothing to do with it . The word socialized is derived
from the word society and you can check that in the dictionary. so when you
talk socialized you are talking about something that benefits ALL of
society,not just the individual. As for competive medicine, I know for a
fact that german doctors drive mercedes benz to, and not because of
kickbacks. Doctors in germany are well compensated for their services. Even
here in the  US the government sets a limit on how much a doctor can charge
for a certain service. As I stated before, in earlier post, my payroll
deductions in germany were, percentage wise, the same as in the US.I with my
medical insurance, unemployment ins., social security ins., and federal
taxes in germany equalt the payroll deduction in the US. Now to speak of
service. The service I received through socialized med. in germany is
excellent. Let me just state some of the basic benefits you receive:
total medical costs   almost free except for certain token payments ( most
token payment no more than a $1.
total dental  completly free, any kind of dental work you need.( including
dentures, root canals, just about anything you can think of)
optical almost totaly free the doctor visit is free and you have a set
amount you can spent on glasses. (the government is by far not cheap with
its alowance)        PART 1

Message: 66367
Author: Jeff Lochansky
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: socializedMedicine
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 21:50:06

Lets look into medical expenses for a moment. If you needed open heart
surgery, you would receive it, even if it had to be done in the US. You have
NO deductible or copayment.As a comparison to med. care to a VA hospital,
there is a 100% difference. I am not complaining about the VA, I go there
for most of my needs.I cant think of any real drawbacks. And an other point,
the government does not tell you which DR to visit, that is totally up to
you. The only requirement is that you stay with that DR of your choice for a
minimum 3 month, since you did make that choice. He will inturn refer you to
any specialist you might need to see, of your choice that is again. I have
never received inadequet care from a german DR, neather can I state a
felling of indiference towards me. The german ins. also covers you during
visits to other country
, for up to 1 year continuesly. I am making all these atatements from
experience, not what I've read or heard. Well thats all I've got for now,
and I'm still open for further disscusion on this suject.
 Talk to you all later
       THE MAD MAX

Message: 66368
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: War!
Subject: Roger in all his
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 22:31:37

wisdom... tell me just HOW do you stop JUST the criminal from buying a gun?
You have a waiting period and the owner/buyer is registered in the attempt
to buy a weapon.  The GOOD guy may be dead by time the law (who make
mistakes) okays the sale.   But this does not happen, but the gun owner is
now down on paper/computer/job report that he owns a gun.

        In Poland in the 30's.. people with Roger's wisdom said let's
register all gun owners...  Not much later the Germans took over Poland and
found this Gun list..  they went to all the gun owners and collected all the
guns.  How nice of Roger, but this is not the end of the story.  The Germans
lost control to the Russians...who found the same list.  But this time when
the Russians went out to collect the guns, the Polish people said, "But we
don't have any guns"    The Russians shot them ALL!   Thank you Roger for
the murder of thousands of un-armed people.   

        Roger, do you believe this law will apply to the criminal
underground?  Do you really think this would STOP a criminal from buying a
gun?

        I have been approached several times, to think about making parts
for 'out-lawed' weapons, should it come to them being banned.  If you
think I am joking you Roger, visit my airospace machine shop!

        Skill saws are ok, so is gasoline... but not protection tools.

Message: 66369
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff & Paul
Date: 06/07/90  Time: 23:36:29

You missed it a tad, Paul.  People like you and Cliff who profess to be
Christians DOES give that religion a bad name.

It is obvious to all that the both of you are intolerant bigots when it
comes to most issues.  

Cliff is so wishy-washy on most everything he says that he is considered a
joke by those who know him.

He bashes me on this squeaky-clean public board like I don't exist.  His
rules are for everyone except him.

Your brains are right where the sun don't shine.  

This board has all the marks of the ARK.     -Rod

Content of this site is © Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.