Apollo BBS Archive - June 22, 1991


Main Menu command:V

IF... Caller I.D. were available now, would you......

[A] Not Get the option, and keep current system.
[B] Get the option at $6.00 per month plus hardware.
[C] Undecided...?

Note:  The $6.00 per month is the current estimated cost.

How do you vote [A-C] or [CR] to abort:B

Poll results to date:
[A] 2    [B] 3    [C] 3

Mail from Apro Poet
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 00:02:33

Sorry to hear about your dental dementia.  Hope it all
works out well.  I think dentists are obligated to set aside
their personal lives in such situations.  It's interesting
that you had a perfectly legitimate need for cocaine but
were denied its medicinal benefits by the law.  There's an
interesting article in July's Scientific American about the
history of public policy toward drugs in America.

Start a revolution by ad?
Sounds intriguing.  Things would have to get pretty bad
before I would want to start a revolution.  The mathematics
of constructing secure clandestine networks is an equally
interesting subject.  Do you know anything about "Public Key
Cryptography"?
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:I know nothing about "Public Key Cryptography".  I was thinking of placing a
 2:small ad on the Back Page of New Times that basically says:
 3:
 4:                        Grass Roots Movement
 5:                             Smoke-in
 6:                           Patriots Square
 7:                        (time & date)
 8:
 9:This would give one some idea of the interest and if everyone has not 
10:already been brainwashed or scared to death then go from there.  The ad 
11:would be paid with cash and done under an assumed name, such as BMI (Bowel 
12:Movement, Inc.)  We want to get the shit out of society.
13:
14:Although what you mention, the "mathematics of constructing secure 
15:clandestine networks" would be very helpful.  Because once the establishment
16:gets wind of the operation they would set out to put it down fast.  
17:
18:Ads could be placed in various parts of the country several months prior to 
19:an event, giving people time for 'word of mouth' information.  But again he 
20:ads would have to be done without giving out a tracable name.  And again 
21:there would have to be enough interest.  I don't know if the time is now but
22:it seems to be getting nearer.  Look at Woodstock and see how word of mouth 
23:caused people from all over the nation to be in one place.
24:  My dental problem was interesting and a good experience over all.

Mail from Apro Poet
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 00:08:25

Oh.  Regarding future civilizations digging up our remains:
Have you ever read "Motel of the Mysteries"?  It's about
a future archeologist who digs up a motel and concludes it's
some kind of sacred religious complex.  It's a hilarious
book, one big farce.  HAHAHAHAHA

I don't know about the most recent magnetic pole reversal
but I might be able to research it pretty easily.  I wrote
a memo to myself to take a stab at it.
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:I only mentioned the 'magnetic pole reversal' on the main board in order to 
 2:try to scare a few people.  About the only thing that I can think of that 
 3:would unite the masses would be some kind of world scare.  I'd bet that the 
 4:people of the Philipines are more closely united now than at anytime since 
 5:WWII.
 6:
 7:I liked the story in the Republic about the 'Doomsday Asteroid' even though 
 8:it doesn't really change anything.  They give the odds of being killed by 
 9:one as greater than being killed in an airplane crash.  I've never heard of 
10:a death by asteroid although I've heard of thousands of deaths by airplane 
11:crashes.  How do they figure?  
12:
13:Sometimes I think the Republic looks more like the National Enquirer every 
14:day.  Oh well.

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 7470
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Rebuttal
Subject: Good stuff on C.I.D.
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 23:06:32

        Caller-I.D.   (Not "Cubic Inch Displacement")

Imagin how the Apollo ((SHIELDS)) would work.  Take a pesky user or a user
such as Jeff Beck...  Put his number in a NOCALL.LIS file and the $ystem
would tell him Apollo was closed to the public for the day.  Jeff would
think the ((SHIELDS)) were up for all and might not even catch on that the
((SHIELDS)) were up because his number was locked out.  Then take a Good
user who I know likes to use Apollo as a non-member.  I could have his
number in a GOODCALL.LIS file and the ((SHIELDS)) would drop to a low level
so he could do his mail or posts.  The options a caller-I.D. number gives a
SysOp so he can protect his system and users is awsome, yet leaving it wide
open for good BBSing by the 'good-guys'.

        I am NOT against a lock-out of your caller-I.D. number, just do not
expect me or many others to answer the phone or to even have it ring where
we have a anti-lock-out-ringer in place.  After all, it is YOU who are
calling ME...Using my phone, my hardware or getting me up from a favorite
T.V. program.  As the Callee, I feel I have as much if not MORE rights then
the Caller because s/he has involved me!

        I moved this from the PUBlic board as I felt un-at-ease posting this
info there.   I am enjoying this debate very much, and no insult was ment
when I was JOKING with Mr. Little.

Message: 7471
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Caller ID
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 23:41:59

I wonder how similar subjects would have been debated before
the invention of the telephone.  Hmm.  "Mailer ID."

  I foresee court cases involving forged phone logs.
Say, for instance, someone presents evidence that person X
phoned in a bomb threat or a false fire alarm.  Has the
evidence been constructed at the answered phone?

  Could techno-wizards inject a victim's phone number into
such a log to make it appear as if the wizard's prank were
pulled by his victim?

Message: 7472
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Kars / Automotive
Subject: Cuda....
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 02:03:01

        I have my 65 Cuda pushed up under my patio...  I am working on it
again and hope to have the body ready to paint in two weeks.  Then the 
power plant built and ready to drop in by the end of July.

        Working on my neighbors 67 440 GTX has got me wanting my toy back
together.

        By the way, anyone have a Plymouth Road Runner they want to sell...
the 383 type will do fine.   68, 69?

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif- miss my car....

X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 4867
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Quickie
Subject: Melissa
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 02:16:59

Same here.  I was just skimming this as it flashed by at 2400 baud, and I
was thinking "damn, even the Subject lines are a subtle turn-on", when up
came 4864...

Message: 4868
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Re-BuTTal
Subject: Supreme Court
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 01:35:49

Well, they did it.  They say that states can ban nude public
dancing.  I guess that means we all have to pull up our
pants while we're on Apollo.

But we can pull them back down again as soon as we log
off because then we're not in public anymore.

It also means that when the Supreme Court is in chambers
they can dance nude all they want.

Message: 4869
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Supreme Court
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:40:12

Anybody want to form a start-up to make pasties and g-strings?

X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:EA

You chose Answer !

Subject:last

Enter a line containing only an <*] to stop
 1:I'll be in the fitting department.
 2:
 3:end

Edit command:S

Saving message...
The message is 4870

Public Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 75873
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Caller ID
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 02:19:59

  >> I have nothing to hide.  My number is right there in the phone book.

So is mine.  But that isn't the point at all.  First of all, the fact that
my number is in the book doesn't mean that everybody I call gets to learn my
phone number as a result.  They have to know my *name* to find that out.
And there's no law that says I have to give it.  I'm quite entitled to make
an anonymous inquiry without having my number recorded in some database.

Paul is quite right, of course, in pointing out that unlisted numbers don't
protect you from junk phone calls, because of those autodialers that dial
every number on the exchange, listed or not.  Only an answering machine, or
a secretary, gives any kind of protection against that.  But that's far from
being the whole issue.

What advantage is there to the *public* in having a telephone number
transmitted to the recipient every time a call is made?  Clearly there are
communication advantages in having the *ability* to transmit the number
automatically, because often the recipient does want to call back.  But
whether or not he can do so should be a mutual agreement entered into with
the caller's explicit permission.  Looked at this way, Caller ID should be
an optional convenience to both parties, not a mandatory loss of control
over information that is owned by the caller.

Theoretically, identification of the calling number should cut out obscene
and harassing phone calls, or calls made for some other illegal reason.
There might be some marginal reduction, but any idea that such calls would
be eliminated is nonsense.  Telephone calls can be quickly traced even
today, but anybody who really wants to make an anonymous phone call has only
to use an anonymous phone booth.  Alternatively, I myself could use any one
of several facilities to relay calls (especially for computer connections)
that would not display my own number to the recipient.  So mandatory Caller
ID is only a drawback to people who want to make calls directly from their
*own* private phone.  There's little benefit to "public order" in it.

True, if Caller ID is the rule, you can refuse to answer your phone (and so
can Apollo) if no caller ID is displayed.  It's your right.  But I doubt
that that's a good idea, because you have no guarantee that a caller ID will
*always* be transmitted.  There might not be one on a call originating from
overseas.  And it might be a call you don't want to miss -- if only because
the caller paid a lot of money to make it!  Conversely, the presence of a
caller ID is no guarantee that the call is one you want to take.

Caller ID is very useful as an *option*.  But if its transmission is
mandatory, the *only* parties that really gain anything, in the balance, are
the telephone companies (who don't have to implement a slightly more
complicated mechanism to allow optional blocking), and enterprises that are
in the business of collecting people's phone numbers.

If such enterprises are guaranteed to record a number on *every* call, the
phone company can charge them more for Caller ID service.  It's all money.
Make no mistake, *mandatory* Caller ID is an issue of big business versus
the public.  That's why it's caused a fight in more than one state already.

All three "conventional" means of communicating with people have always
allowed you to initiate contact without necessarily allowing the other party
to "return the call".  It's an unspoken assumption about communication.  You
can visit someone in person without giving them your address where they can
visit you in return.  You can send a letter without a return address on it.
Or you can make a phone call without giving out your phone number.  Any
change in these rules violates a long-held custom.

The phrase "nothing to hide" suggests that anybody who wants to make a call
anonymously, or without giving out their number, *does* have something to
hide.  As indeed they do -- their phone number!  But they have entered into
a contract with the telephone company with the (admittedly unwritten)
understanding that their number is information that they have complete
ownership of and control over.  It is shared only with the telephone company
-- or possibly with the police and other legitimate authorities.  The number
is not a commodity to be sold to others for the profit of the telephone
company.  To do so is a violation of that unwritten understanding.  People
have a *right*, acquired through custom, to hide their telephone number from
others if they wish.

The phrase "nothing to hide" also suggests that people who do wish to hide
their number are doing something wrong.  If this is an accusation, it is
false.  There are many legitimate reasons for phone calls that are
anonymous, by number if not by name.  Celebrities are not the only people
harassed by too many callers.  Doctors and people in many lines of work with
a large public practice may use an answering service to handle their calls,
then call the client back from their private phone.  They have a right not
to have that private phone ringing at all hours of the day and night.
Ordinary individuals may be harassed by private enemies or violent ex-
husbands and boyfriends.  (Or girlfriends!)  Other people may wish to make
anonymous calls because of circumstances they feel are embarrassing --
perhaps an inquiry to a suicide or drug hotline, a sexually transmitted
disease clinic, or something of the kind.  I suppose such organizations are
discreet, but that makes no difference; I'm sure there are lots of people
(especially kids living with their parents) who would be mortally scared of
seeking help that they badly need, for fear that "somebody might call back".

Passing from the serious to the comic, suppose a guy has ordered a gift for
his wife and *doesn't* want the store to call his home for obvious reasons.
"Hello Mr. Smith, the fur coat you ordered has arrived...  oh, er, sorry --
that's *Mrs.* Smith, is it?"  And to return to the serious again, how many
people might not bother to make that "anonymous" crime tip if they had to go
to the trouble of finding a phone booth, instead of just picking up their
own phone at home?


Anonymity is a right.  And it's very much in the public interest that it
should continue to be a right.

I very much dislike any argument that seems to be saying "I never do such-
and-such, so why should I bother defending other people's right to do it?"
I suppose it's a fairly small minority of people who really have a strong
need to keep their telephone number private.  I'm equally sure that the
people who drive off-road vehicles, or climb mountains or sail regularly, or
own 500-watt stereos, or have long hair or walk around in bare feet, or
never mow their front lawns, or take ten kids all at once into a McDonald's,
are significantly in the minority.  Gun owners and dog owners are a
minority.  There are also minorities of people who *dislike* each of these
behaviors.  In every case it's possible to muster some kind of argument for
a law against the behavior.  Anonymity permits crime.  Dogs bite people and
crap in the street.  Some other activity is dangerous to others, or we "have
to" go rescue people who get into trouble doing it.  Or it's noisy or ugly
or tasteless, "a deterrent to visual amenities", and so on and so on,
blah blah blah.

Many of these arguments are very weak.  But if only 1% of the people suggest
restricting some right of others because it profits them personally...  and
if 10% of the people are the kind of jerkoffs who buy their arguments...
and if only 10% of the people are personally affected by such
restrictions...
...AND if the other 79% don't give a damn, then the jerkoffs will win every
time.  We should remember that well-known piece of prose that runs: "When
they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Catholic..."

It behooves every one of us to defend the rights and freedoms of others,
even when we are not personally affected one way or the other.  And privacy
is a very fundamental right.

Message: 75879
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Various
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 02:33:03

I also have a few comments on the Robber Barons (interesting stuff, Apro!),
and of course on child raising.  Those will have to wait for another night,
though.

But I would like to know exactly what it is Paul dislikes about Spock -- or,
to be more precise, which edition of Spock.  I have three editions kicking
around somewhere -- a 1957 edition, a 1975 edition, and a later one where he
adopted the "politically correct" nonsexist pronouns.  The only one I can
remember reading all the way through is the 1975 one, but I don't remember
anything I violently disagreed with.  Perhaps it's the vintage '57 model
that's so pernicious...

Message: 75880
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Spock
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 02:43:06

With respect to "nonsexist" language, in the 1975 edition I remember Spock
commenting that he generally referred to the child as "he", because he
needed "she" to refer to the mother.  That sounded perfectly common-sense
and logical to me.  You have to jump through hoops and write clumsy English
to write all these gender-free sentences.

Did everybody hear about this new Random House so-called "Webster's"
Dictionary, with all the latest up-to-the-minute politically correct
spellings like "womyn" (avoiding the "sexist" implications of the letters
m-e-n contained in the word "women")?  Does this kind of stuff make you puke
as well?  (What on earth do they do for the singular of the word?  How do
they avoid the sexist implications of the letters m-a-n?  Do they spell it
"womun"?  The dictionary apparently gives no solution to this mystery.) 

It's all so pointless.  As for Noah Webster, if he were alive today, he'd
turn over in his grave -- as an Irishman once said.

Come to that, how many people are getting tired of the phrase "politically
correct"?  It's been cropping up with irritating frequency the last couple
of years.  I suspect what annoys me most about it is that the political
views it refers to are sometimes far from "correct" -- at least, to my way
of thinking.

Ho-hum.  Must be in a curmudgeonly mood tonight.

Message: 75881
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Crank Calls
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 04:35:23

        Caller-ID in the test area GREATLY cut down on crank calls.
It is a fact that most such calls are done by...KIDS!  Kids hardly want to
run down to the mall and spend 25 cents per crank call, they do it right
from home.  Gordon would like these callers to have 'anonymity'... Hmmmmm
Something you want to tell us Gordon.

        Just think what a boom Caller-ID would be to BBS SysOps.  They could
find out who the users are who try to crack passwords.  Find out what users
have multiple identities, some of which are not very nice.  But then again,
MOST of this type crime would STOP!

        You know my Phone number... You use my hardware... and you don't
even want me to know who you are or your phone number?  Humph!

        Oh yea, not every one will get this service either.  Maybe some
businesses will advertize 'No Caller ID Phones' at his place of business.

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

Message: 75882
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie/education
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 05:31:07

 Why in the world are you so against high school courses in proper child
rearing, when there are so many high school kids having babies these days,
married or not, long before they are emotionally or educationally prepared
to become parents?
 Why, too, do you continue to digress from this discussion into tangents of
irrelevant, immaterial musings? Nobody has connected child abuse with any
income level of society, nor has anyone considered those events that occur
in every baby's life, such as up all night, crying, diarrhea, or whatever in
the light of abuse, nor has anyone, at least in the course of this
discussion, considered simple disciplinary spankings as abusive. (There is,
of course, a point past which a spanking becomes abusive rather than
correctional.)
 All you are doing is what you have been doing right along. Criticizing
someone else's suggestions for a possible solution without contributing one
single positive suggestion of your own. "Minding one's own business" is not
a solution. In many cases it could be contributory to the abuse itself. TO
stand by and watch a child abused and do nothing is to condone and
contribute to that abuse.
 What is your next (first) positive idea on the subject?

Message: 75883
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Gordon/Spock
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 05:46:33

 The original Spock is the one that I, and a lot of that generation, so
violently disagree with. That one abhorred any physical correction of a
child whatsoever, advocating instead a totally permissive attitude toward
child rearing, an avenue which Spock later repudiated himself as having been
a horrible mistake. Roger's two darlings aside, I'm sure that most of us who
lived through that nightmare can relate some weird tales of the totally
undisciplined monsters that "by the book" rearing produced.

Message: 75884
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pauley on abuse
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 06:25:59

Well excuuuuuuuuse me! I thought we were talking about child abuse!
 
What is my "next positive idea on the subject?" - Same as the first one - 
"Mind your own business"! And I don't mean that if you see someone outright
abusing a child, a wife, a dog or what have you, that you shouldn't do
something to stop it!! I mean leave 'mandatory' out of it and leave it out
of the schools! This world would be so much better off if people did mind
their own business. We have become a nation of 'Tattler's' on each other. I
read an article not to long ago where it more than suggested to children
to turn their parents 'in' if they knew they took drugs! 
 
                           *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 75885
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: News Today
Subject: The Repulsive
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 06:47:18

I wish there was another major newspaper in this Valley so that I could
cancel my subscription to this idiotic Republic and their yellow journalism
- thier irresponsible reporting. They over did themselves this morning with
a front page article with the headlines that say .... "Doomesday asteroid
has our number." My heart literlly lerched when I read that. I could not
believe they wrote this article on a 'maybe it'll happen'!! There is no ONE
doomesday asteroid - just a 'maybe' it's out there and 'maybe it will hit
our planet anywhere from 20 years from now to eons from now and 'maybe' it
will wipe out hundreds of miles of the earth, taking millions of people with
it!!! They just added one more unecessary thing for us to worry about -
become fanatical and paranoid about! 
I'm not saying an article couldn't be written about this subject because it
'could' happen of course and we should be prepared - like having a rocket
ready to shoot it out of the path of the earth. But it would belong in the
middle of the middle section of the paper or in the Sunday edition
somewhere, not on the front page on a Friday morning! *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Oh yeah! They also added a list of statistics that read ....
YOUR CHANCES IN FATAL THINGS... Here are estimates that have been calculated
for the risk of death from various threats for an American over a 50-yr.
period.
 
THREAT                      RISK OF DEATH
____________________________________________

Botulism                    1 in 2 million

Fireworks (fireworks???)    1 in 1 million

Tornados                    1 in 50,000

Airplane crash              1 in 20,000

Astroid Impact *               1 in 6,000

Electrocution               1 in 5,000

Firearms accident           1 in 2,000

Homicide                    1 in 300

Auto Accidents              1 in 100

Message: 75887
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: News Today
Subject: Cont.
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 12:12:52

 
THREAT                      RISK OF DEATH
____________________________________________

Old age                     1 in 1
 

Message: 75888
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Caller ID
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 12:28:11

I'd still say that crank calls are a minor problem in the universe.  We've
had a couple in Massachusetts, one in two years in Phoenix.  Both were made
by school kids, undoubtedly.  As for the "pranksters" on Apollo, I can't say
that they bother me at all.  What's a garbled name or a rude remark or two
from some anonymous person?  Lots of people spend their time online being
even MORE rude to one another under their REAL names!

Besides, if caller ID is OPTIONAL, you can still impose a requirement for it
before connecting anyone to the system.  If you want to.

No, to me it's a matter of perspective.  Anonymity allows pranks and so
forth, granted, but most of them are no big deal.  Loss of privacy, on the
other hand, IS a big deal for everybody.

Message: 75889
Author: Paul Harris
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: new stuff
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 12:43:07

Hi folks. I'm just testing a new upload utility. I finally got a
real computer! It's hard to believe I've been surviving on a
Tandy 102 all this time!
           ___________PH___________

Message: 75890
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill Burkett
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 14:33:57

P.E. doesn't "encourage an attitude towards healthy living," it's just a
bunch of sports.
 
At my high school there was a required class called "Health" which was
intended to encourage an attitude towards healthy living.  I have no
objection to this material being mandatory.

Message: 75891
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Caller Id
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 15:54:36

  Cliff's response in 75881 sums up his attitude when he implies that Gordon
must have some kind of criminal intent or he wouldn't value privacy above
petty crime detection. This 'You must have something to hide or you wouldn't
want privacy' attitude is shocking, especially from someone who goes out of
their way to go uncounted by big brother. If enough of us take this
position, it wouldn't take a decade for the last vestige of privacy to
disappear.
  See You Later,
    Dean H.

Message: 75892
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Pol. Correct
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 16:04:39

  Political correctness seems to be coming into its heyday, just as the New
World Order has. I hear about it every day now. On NPR and channel eight it
is a constant topic.
  I had always considered 'political correctness' to mean that something had
no merit, and was only being pushed politically because it could not be
reasonably advocated. I still see it that way for the most part, but it
almost sounds like the media and academic circles from which this
'correctness' originate are now ready to go public with it and carry the
banner proudly forward. Every interview I hear seems to involve first
denying that there is such a thing, and then advocating every tenet of it
anyway for the rest of the program. There is one exeption, I saw the Dean
from Yale on McNiell-Lehrer last night do the exact opposite. He said, yes
it exists, and then proceeded to tear it completely to shreds with rational
arguments against the whole and the parts of it.
  See You Later,
    Dean H.

Message: 75893
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Caller ID/
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 16:15:16

Gun Registration. What goes for Caller ID goes for Gun Registration. "You
must have something to hide or you wouldn't want to keep it secret you
own a gun"

Message: 75894
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Michael
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 17:40:53

Yeah, and who taught the health classes?  The coaches!  Those health classes
were a joke!  The even had a sex education part: one day, a film, no
discussion.  It was just the basic what a man has that a woman doesn't and
vice versa, and the different biological things that happen.  There wasn't
even anything about intercourse, condoms or any form of controception, and
of course, the standard "this is only for married heterosexual couples". 
Half the class I'm sure could have taught the coach a thing or two.  Some of
the girls probably did, having had witnessed teacher-student sexual
relationships there in other classes.  
Anyway, I think it would nice to have a exersize class, sport whatever that
you could choose from instead of being forced to take the regular PE.  I
ended up taking dance type stuff all through high school anyway, and it was
a good release for tension and nervous energy.  And there were always tons
of after school sports to be into too.  We only had to take PE freshman year
but if you couldn't graduate without a passing grade in it.  That seemed
pretty stupid.

Message: 75895
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Politics
Subject: Robber Barons
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 18:21:20

  In Chicago, the new International Working People's
Association had five thousand members, published newspapers
in five languages, organized mass demonstrations and 
parades, and through its leadership in strikes was a 
powerful influence in the twenty-two unions that made up the
Central Labor Union of Chicago.  There were differences in
theory among all these revolutionary groups, but the 
theorists were often brought together by the practical needs
of labor struggles, and there were many in the mid-1880s.
  In early 1886, the Texas & Pacific Railroad fired a leader
of the district assembly of the Knights of Labor, and this 
led to a strike which spread throughout the Southwest, tying
up traffic as far as St. Louis and Kansas City.  Nine young 
men recruited in New Orleans as marshals, brought to Texas 
to protect company property, learned about the strike and
quit their jobs, saying, "as man to man we could not 
justifiably go to work and take the bread out of our 
fellow-workingman's mouths, no matter how much we needed it
ourselves."  They were then arrested for defrauding the 
company by refusing to work, and sentenced to three months in
the Galveston county jail.
  The strikers engaged in sabotage.  A news dispatch from
Atchison, Kansas:
       At 12:45 this morning the men on guard at the 
     Missouri Pacific roundhouse were surprised by the
     appearance of 35 or 40 masked men.  The guards were
     corralled in the oil room by a detachment of the
     visitors who stood guard with pistols ... while the
     rest of them thoroughly disabled 12 locomotives which
     stood in the stalls.
In April, in East St. Louis, there was a battle between 
strikers and police.  Seven workingmen were killed,
whereupon workers burned the freight depot of the Louisville
& Nashville.  The governor declared martial law and sent in
seven hundred National Guardsmen.  With mass arrests, 
violent attacks by sheriffs and deputies, no support from 
the skilled, better-paid workers of the Railway Brotherhoods,
the strikers could not hold out.  After several months they
surrendered, and many of them were blacklisted.
  By the spring of 1886, the movement for an eight-hour day
had grown.  On May 1, the American Federation of Labor, now
five years old, called for nationwide strikes wherever the
eight-hour day was refused.  Terence Powderly, head of the
Knights of Labor, opposed the strike, saying that employers
and employees must first be educated on the eight-hour day,
but assemblies of the Knights made plans to strike.  The
grand chief of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
opposed the eight-hour day, saying "two hours less work
means two hours more loafing about the corners and two hours
more for drink," but railroad workers did not agree and
supported the eight-hour movement.
  So, 350,000 workers in 11,562 establishments all over the
country went out on strike.  In Detroit, 11,000 workers
marched in an eight-hour parade.  In New York, 25,000 formed
a torchlight procession along Broadway, headed by 3,400
members of the Bakers' Union.  In Chicago, 40,000 struck, 
and 45,000 were granted a shorter working day to prevent 
them from striking.  Every railroad in Chicago stopped
running, and most of the industries in Chicago were 
paralyzed.  The stockyards were closed down.
  A "Citizens' Committee" of businessmen met daily to map
strategy in Chicago.  The state militia had been called out,
the police were ready, and the Chicago *Mail* on May 1 asked
that Albert Parsons and August Spies, the anarchist leaders
of the International Working People's Association, be
watched.  "Keep them in view.  Hold them personally 
responsible for any trouble that occurs.  Make an example of
them if trouble occurs."
  Under the leadership of Parsons and Spies, the Central
Labor Union, with twenty-two unions, had adopted a fiery
resolution in the fall of 1885:
       Be it Resolved, That we urgently call upon the
     wage-earning class to arm itself in order to be able to
     put forth against their exploiters such an argument 
     which alone can be effective:  Violence, and further be
     it Resolved, that notwithstanding that we expect very
     little from the introduction of the eight-hour day,
     we firmly promise to assist our more backward brethren
     in this class struggle with all means and power at our
     disposal, so long as they will continue to show an open
     and resolute front to our common oppressors, the
     aristocratic vagabonds and exploiters.  Our war-cry is
     "Death to the foes of the human race."
  On May 3, a series of events took place which were to put
Parsons and Spies in exactly the position that the Chicago
*Mail* had suggested ("Make an example of them if trouble
occurs").  That day, in front of the McCormick Harvester
Works, where strikers and sympathizers fought scabs, the
police fired into a crowd of strikers, running from the
scene, wounded many of them, and killed four.  Spies,
enraged, went to the printing shop of the *Arbeiter-Zeittung*
and printed a circular in both English and German:
     Revenge!
     Workingmen, to Arms!!!
       ... You have for years endured the most abject
     humiliations; ... you have worked yourself to death ...
     your Children you have sacrificed to the factory lord
     -- in short: you have been miserable and obedient 
     slaves all these years: Why? To satisfy the insatiable
     greed, to fill the coffers of your lazy thieving 
     master?  When you ask them now to lessen your burdens,
     he sends his bloodhounds out to shoot you, kill you!
       ... To arms we call you, to arms!

Message: 75900
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 19:42:23

        The Gordon quip was a joke about him hiding anything.
But, Caller I.D. will give me MORE privacy.  Right now I have been getting
about 5 prank calls a week, some of them very late at night.  In short, I
am being bugged and have no PRIVACY to do things like ...SLEEP!  Your phone
number is already a matter of record.  Even unlisted, unpublished numbers
can be had.  I had a non-published for years and found it did NO GOOD at all
to stop prank calls.   Asking the Phone Company to TRACE calls is a joke.

        Now Dean, tell me what the GOVERNMENT will find out by me having
caller I.D.    Filling out the long form for Census takers gave away info
that the Government could not get from the Phone Company.  It gave away
personal info.....   If you want privacy so much, why do you even have a
phone? Or are you one of the few who believe no one ever listens in... like
big brother?

Message: 75901
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger on I.D.
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 19:45:08

        Well yes, I have something to hide...  My guns from the criminals
who would steal them.  The people in China had gun registration... they are
dead now.   My family in Russia is DEAD Roger...  Do you feel good about
this?  You should, it was people like you made gun registration happen
there.

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

Message: 75902
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean on Privacy
Date: 06/21/91  Time: 22:15:19

        Do you have a drivers licence?  I bet you have your S.S. number on
it?   Do you have VISA.. MasterCard?   Do you own a home in Arizona? Do your
children go to PUBLIC school? Do you have any outstanding loans on anything?
  If you answered YES on any of those questions, you are not a TRUE PRIVATE
person.  You are in the SYSTEM.

        As for your paranoia about businesses getting your number or
address, you had better never write a CHECK... as they will have all this
info.  Businesses are not going to use Caller I.D. numbers, just like MOST
don't record the check info.  Give me a break, you guys are just looking for
something to complain about.

        Where the system has been tested, the MAJORITY want it.   I will be
on the lookout for a phone system that won't ring if there is no number.
If the call comes from other then a 602 area code, then it will ring as it
will detect out - of - state - status.

        I think I will mention this to Dale at Prometheus for an option on
the 9600 C.I.D. modem...  switch selected of course.

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

Message: 75903
Author: Bob Stien
Category: Politics
Subject: saying
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 02:35:33

Have you killed your boss today?

Message: 75904
Author: Mark Adkins
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hello
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 03:07:16

Regarding caller I.D., there are two things which you might want to keep in
mind, things which I did not see in the last fifty or so messages I just
scanned.  First, if you have an unpublished phone number, you no longer can
control who knows that number (at least, under the most radical caller I.D.
programs).  Second, whoever knows your number (except in the case of
unpublished listings) can easily find out your name and your address.  Quite
frequently, if I have a number but no name (or if for some reason I wish to
know the address associated with it) I call the telephone reference section
of the Phoenix Public Library.  I give them the number, and they look it up
in a cross-reference directory.  This usually gives me the name and address
associated with the number.
 
I see that my name is no longer on the logon blacklist.  I point this out
for those individuals of slow wit who wish to impersonate me.  I logged on
using my real name because I promised the SysOp I would not call back unless
I did (or words to that effect).  I still feel that it (like my phone
number) is nobody's business, but that's life, and that's also a rule of the
board.  Well, it's been almost two months since my last visit.  Nice seeing
you all again.

Message: 75905
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie!
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 05:30:50

"Leave 'mandatory' out of it and leave it out of the schools"? That's the
same as saying "just ignore it and it will go away". Ann, there is a growing
cancer in our midst. It is called child abuse. Not discipline. Not
spankings. Not "grounding". ABUSE! Horrible, painful, debilitating,
crippling and often fatal child ABUSE! This cancer is growing every year,
not just being better reported. One of the main reasons that it has been
growing is that we have been ignoring it. Continuing to ignore it is not
going to cure it! Literally thousands of children in this country are being
deprived of their absolute right to live happy, pain-free and fear-free
lives, and your "cure" is to ignore it? You utter pure nonsense, Ann.

Message: 75906
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: News Today
Subject: Annie,again
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 05:32:30

Friday mornings are awful, aren't they?

Message: 75907
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon #75887
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 07:55:15

Those statistics are the only true ones I've seen. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 75908
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on phone
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 08:07:00

I don't know if Big Brother listens in on phone conversations, but I know
the phone company does for a fact. We have a regular service, not a business
phone because it cost more. Even though our business is run from my phone,
so is my personal calls - even more so. One time when business was at a
frantic pace and getting call after call, I TWICE answered the phone "Whitey
Oudin Construction"!! TWICE only!! I thought it sounded snazzy and cute.
Well, the next day the phone company calls to tell me that isn't allowed
because we don't pay for a business phone and if we do it one more time, the
extra cost will be added to our next bill!! I was floored that they found
out and the only way they could have would be if they listened in because
the two calls I answered with the construction co. - my kids were on the
line and I KNOW they didn't turn me in to the phone company. This is scarey.
                             *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 75909
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pauley on kids
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 08:19:12

I just said mind you own business, not ignore a problem. There is a big
difference there. You cannot make it a law to force people to go to school
or take a test or some other nonesense before they can have children - are
deemed fit to have children! That's butting your nose in where it shouldn't
be - making it mandatory! Education is another thing. We should be aware of
the problem - we should butt in if need be if we see a child abused or even
think he is being abused. We should teach our children to be good parents at
home and be a good parent ourself! We could publish articles, books on what
it means to be a good parent. All we can do is sit back and hope people will
comply - will see that there is a problem. And BTW - what should we focus on
first - the abuse of children or the abuse of the elderly?? Doesn't all of
them deserve a pain free happy life?? How about the abuse of woman too? 
 
You must be too old now to remember how it was when you were having
children. How would you have liked to have someone tell you you couldn't
have children until you proved worthy - AND - just how would you do that
since you've never had kids??? Talk about nonesense! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 75910
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pauley on paper
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 08:19:56

With the Republic, everyday is awful! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

Message: 75911
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: NewsPapers
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 08:53:53

        The Arizona Newsday at 4636 N 43rd Ave will soon be in print.
This will be a FULL service paper.....
        I believe the charter subscription will be $100.00 for a TWO YEARs
of home delivery.  You also get $200.00 in coupons for advertising.

        
        I for one do not get or buy the Republic or the Gazette of which is
not even in state owned.  I haven't for years.....

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

Message: 75912
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mark Adkins
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 09:08:24

        When you use MY hardware... It becomes MY business!

        Also, no one wishes to impersonate you.  You need to get rid of your
paranoia.

                                        SysOp

Message: 75913
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Kurds and Russians
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 11:58:28

The Kurds had plenty of guns. The Shiite Moslems had plenty of guns. The
Iraqis had plenty of guns. Do you have a helicopeter gunship ? It is quaint
that you think your puny gun is going to make any difference if the
government ever decides to quash any rebellion with physical force.

Message: 75914
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Welcome Back
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 11:59:49

Mark. 

Message: 75915
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Be Nice
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 12:01:25

Wouldn't it be better to be friendly ?

Message: 75916
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/Afghanistan
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 13:27:59

        The rebels in Afghanistan held off and won against Russian
helicopter gunships.  Quite frankly it takes more then gunships to win an
internal struggle. 

        The Moslem people have to many different factions and had no strong
SINGLE leadership to defeat the Iraq army under Saddam.  

        No use talking to you Roger, I know your feelings against human
rights and the 2nd amendment.  You probably even believe that the POLICE
will protect you from bad guys.   I know I am not going to convince you that
bad guys will NEVER register their stollen weapons.  That they will ALWAYS
be able to obtain weapons, and only the GOOD guy will suffer.

Message: 75917
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 14:53:33

  >> Caller ID will give me MORE privacy.

Yes, this is quite true.  Even if the caller is not obliged to give out his
number, he is, so to speak, obliged to give out other information: namely,
the FACT that he is choosing to withhold his number.  Before, this
information was not available.

Message: 75918
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Apro/History
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 14:54:26

  >> Henry George...  wrote a book that was published in 1879...  *Progress
  >> and Poverty* argued that the basis of wealth was land, that this was
  >> becoming monopolized...

Certainly there's some truth in this, and especially so in the United States
at that time, where the white settlers were expanding and taking over
millions of square miles of land previously unavailable to them.

However, in another respect, George was behind the times.  Somebody -- it
may have been Alvin Toffler -- noted recently that for centuries into the
past, there was some identifiable commodity that was central to the
generation of wealth, and that elite classes had fought to maintain social
systems that ensured their control over that commodity, thus maintaining
their power over the rest of the population.

In medieval times, this wealth-producing commodity was indeed land.  Hence
the elaborate feudal systems set up in medieval times to protect and defend
land, or to take it from others.  A man measured his status in land.

But by the nineteenth century, with the shift away from a purely agrarian
economy, the basis of wealth had also shifted away from land to the
ownership of capital and the means of production.  The Industrial Revolution
was only the sharply accelerated culmination of a change that had been going
on slowly for centuries.

Now the ownership of businesses and factories and control of the money
supply became all-important.  So in this respect, Henry George was a litle
out of date.  It isn't accidental that certain revolutionary ideas such as
Marxism, anarchy and so forth didn't emerge until later in the nineteenth
century.  Of course there had always been revolutions, and revolutionary
ideas, throughout history; but the particular system that these people were
railing at had not arrived in full flower until quite recently.

Toffler, or whoever it was, went on to argue that we are in the midst of yet
another change, where *information* is becoming the chief wealth-producing
commodity.  And indeed, the communication and control of information have
become more and more important over recent decades, with issues such as
ownership of copyrights, "intellectual property", Freedom of Information
acts, export of technology, the control and influence of the media, and so
forth all coming to the fore.

Personal thoughts:  All this is not to say that capital and land aren't
important today.  Of course they are.  Or, for that matter, that control of
information hasn't been important in the past.  There have always been
"state secrets", military spies, and so forth.  In a broader sense,
suppression of knowledge has always been a tool of oppression.  In the slave
states of the last century, education of blacks was discouraged or even
forbidden by law.

Back in medieval times, the Church fought attempts to publish the Bible in
English or other languages that would lay it open to the scrutiny of the
common people.  Such things were seen as "dangerous".

Information has always meant power, but much more so when it can be
leveraged directly into physical power, as it can be today with information
about technology.  But it's the *mechanization* of the means of production,
and later of information processing, that has made each of them in turn
assume far greater significance than formerly.

Today we see more and more fights going on about the control of information,
such as the pirating of software and of audio and video recordings, attempts
to control home taping, and sophisticated techniques for military and
industrial espionage.  Information alone (not just technology for processing
it) accounts for an enormous amount of business.  People pay others just to
deliver bulk information (address lists and so forth); to process bulk
information (copying, generating paychecks etc.); to collect and process
information and deliver advice based on it (various kinds of consultants);
or to generate creative ideas (advertising, writing, scientific research).

Lawyering, a huge business today, is essentially information processing plus
aggression.  When you hire a lawyer, you hire a bellicose champion who uses
his skill with words and information to do battle for you, just as in the
old days you would hire a champion to do battle with sharp steel.

We should realize the importance of information when we see so many people
and organizations all around us trying to collect it -- both private
organizations and governments.  And we should ask ourselves just what they
are doing with it, both how it might benefit us and how it can be used --
subtly or otherwise -- to control us.

We see, too, increasing privatization of information formerly in the public
domain -- notably words and phrases.  Once upon a time, if the guy next door
started manufacturing "Acme" washing machines, he didn't mind much if you
went into business selling "Acme" clothes brushes.  You weren't treading on
his toes.  Today, with businesses invading market areas quite different from
the ones they started up in, and with such factors as "name recognition"
being important, people guard their names with increasing jealousy.  Hence
Beretta's argument with Chevrolet over the latter's use of the name, even
though Pietro isn't in the car business and GM isn't in the gun business.

You'd better be careful before you call your product anything at all
beginning with "Mc", otherwise McDonald's might sue you.  And it's no good
changing the spelling to "Mac", either.  That will get the hamburger
merchant off your back, but then you'll have Apple Computer to contend with.

The English language, and its common words and phrases, used to be in the
public domain.  Today, you must avoid using certain phrases in connection
with your product.

You can't say it's "the right choice", or tell your customer "Don't leave
home without it", because now somebody else owns those phrases.  Whole
sections of our language are being fenced off for private use.  This is a
perfect parallel to the enclosure of "common" land that caused so much
protest in sixteenth-century England.

What does all this march of progress mean for the ordinary human?  Are
civilization and technology good things or bad things?  The answer is not an
unqualified one, but on the whole I would argue strongly for "good".

In the physical sense, there's little doubt that people are better off with
technology -- with more material goods, more food, more leisure, better
medical care and longer lives.  Though urban living and the ability to feed
more people on less land does lead to overcrowding, which is an enormous
drawback.  This, and the alienation in today's mass societies, allow a whole
host of problems to emerge, including increased crime.

But that leads me to the more interesting question of people's psychic and
"spiritual" wellbeing, which is more important in the long run.  To ask
whether people are "better off" is to ask if they are happier.  "Happiness"
does not depend only on material goods, but on such intangibles as freedom,
and the ability both to act and to think independently.  In this sense I
argue that civilization and technology are also, on the whole, beneficial.

"Freedom" and "independence" are things that every man or woman inherently
possesses.  We are free to do anything we choose, or think anything we
choose -- unless somebody else can stop us.  And this depends, first of all,
on whether the other person *wants* to stop us, and secondly, on whether he
is *able* to stop us.  Motivation and capability are the two factors.

Whether we choose *not* to do something solely because somebody else doesn't
*want* us to is essentially a question of ethics.  It's a crucial question,
but outside the realm of this discussion because it assumes cooperation
within a society.  Much of the history of the human race is concerned rather
with competition -- with enemies fighting rather than friends collaborating.

One significance of technology is that it changes physical capabilities.  It
constantly changes the balance of power between offense and defense.  If
it's easy to defend against a threat, the result is survival.  If it's
easier to press the threat home, the result is defeat, possibly death.  The
interest of the human race as a whole lies first of all in survival, and
therefore in keeping the advantage with the defense.

In a purely military sense, we have seen the advantage swing between offense
and defense many times.  In the days of fists alone, it was relatively more
difficult to destroy an opponent.  Stone clubs changed that if the attackers
had the advantage of surprise.  Knives and swords changed it even more.

Armor corrected that a little; and later, the stone castle gave the
advantage back to the defense.  Then gunpowder swung the balance to the
offense, and the castles passed into history.  But by the time of World War
I, firepower was so awesome that on land, defense could be assured with a
line of trenches and a hail of lead.  Then mobile armor -- tanks -- and
aircraft gave some advantage back to the offense.  Later, radar bolstered
the defense.  And so on.

SDI -- Star Wars -- is a further attempt to buttress defenses, but only
because the nuclear bomb has left the advantage so decidedly with the
offense.  Today, it is much easier to destroy -- even to destroy the entire
human race -- than to defend against such destruction.  In terms of
capability, the offense has won.

Likewise, in terms of controlling and restricting human behavior, we have
equally awesome weapons today.  They depend on the gathering and processing
of *information* about human behavior.  We have cameras and tape recorders
to record what people do and say, and satellites that can see details much
smaller than a man from several miles up.  We have instruments for gathering
and analyzing data all across the electromagnetic spectrum.  We have "lie
detectors" that really do detect lies -- some of the time.  We can't
actually tell what people are thinking, but we have hundreds of techniques
for making a pretty good guess about the way they think.

To support all of this, we have huge networks for information gathering,
based on the fact that people in complex civilizations are necessarily
interdependent in order to survive, and therefore cannot avoid such
information gathering.  Again, solely in terms of capability, the offense
has decidedly won.

But the *capability* to restrict, or even to annihilate, people, is only
half of the story.  The other half is the *motivation* to restrict people's
thinking and behavior.  And in respect of motivation, civilization and
technology have a very different story to tell.

What is a human being?  The first thought that comes to mind is a friend, a
lover, a spouse, a parent, a child, a colleague.  But this again is looking
at a society whose members are in collaboration with one another.  What of
groups who are in competition?  Is another human being just a nuisance, a
competitor for scarce resources, a fly to be swatted or a bug to be
squashed?  It's not a nice way to think about other people, but
pragmatically, it *is* the way that competitors -- enemies -- may think of
one another.  And it's in this respect that civilization and technology
change the attitudes of competitors to one another, even to those who
couldn't give a damn about other people as human beings.

If we consider land to be the paramount resource -- because it's your source
of food -- then the essential motivation is to get possession of land.  If
other people are in possession of it, the trick is to get rid of them.  You
don't care how you do it.  You can scare them off into the hills, but it's
just as easy to put the lot of them to the sword.  You might as well burn
their villages while you're at it, so that nobody who escapes is tempted to
come back.  It's no hardship to build a few new mud huts.  It doesn't take
too much longer to build a castle.  What use are people, really?

If you're a member of some barbarian tribe, the answer is "none".  You could
try to enslave the people and make them work the land for you, but in an
unorganized low-tech society you can't do that with too many of them.
They'll probably rise up and bash in your skull (as you justly deserve), and
take back their land.  Your best course of action is therefore to kill them.

If you have a "civilization", as the Romans did, you have an infrastructure
in place to deal with rebellion.  At this point it becomes profitable to
enslave people rather than annihilate them.  So you have far less motivation
to kill them out of hand.  Their lives may be miserable -- literally "a fate
worse than death" -- but at least the survival of some of them is assured.
Here we see the beginning of people themselves being valued as a resource,
rather than being discounted as a rival user of resources.  We get value
from our slaves.  But in order to do so, we must give them something in
return: namely, their lives.

If we move now to an industrial society, people become even more valuable to
us as a resource to work our factories.  It's no longer good enough to chain
them to an oar in the galleys or lacerate their backs with a whip.  It's not
their muscle power that we value.  We've replaced that with a steam engine.
We need their physical skills to operate machines and place things on
assembly lines.  To deploy these skills, we *have* to give our slaves the
freedom to move around.  We must renegotiate the contract we have with them.
We expect more from them; but they in their turn can demand more from us.

One thing we need from them is not just physical dexterity, but a modicum of
intelligence as well.  To do that, we must educate them.  In the process, we
will inevitably give them some tools to think for themselves.  Then we will
see the beginnings of thought and of mass consciousness among the common
people.  They will begin to realize that they and we are essentially no
different, except that we have more skills than they do in the manipulation
of power.  They will demand a further renegotiation.  They will go on strike
for higher wages.  But our slaves have only begun to understand their power.

Finally, if we move to a postindustrial age where wealth is generated by
information and by the ability to process information, people become even
more valuable as a resource.  Only the human being is possessed of truly
intelligent thought.  The intelligent thinker is not only valuable, but
*in*valuable as a resource.  To make use of such resources, we must value
them and pay what they are worth.

Furthermore, we must educate our slaves thoroughly to make the best use of
them.  Education in turn, and the capability of free thought, will give them
the tools to fight back at us, to insist upon their rights.  In order to be
of real use to us, they have to be just as smart as we are.  We no longer
have the same motivation to keep our slaves in ignorance, much less to
destroy them.  Education for this reason is a double-edged sword.

It's interesting to look at the "liberal" versus the "conservative" view of
education.  Both parties are interested primarily in power, and in
maintaining the ascendancy of certain elite groups over the rest of
humanity.  What they have in common is the motivation to power.  What
differentiates them is their beliefs about the best way to perpetuate it.

The "conservative" view is to emphasize *overtly* that human beings all have
free choice to make of themselves what they will (and this is true).
Covertly, the conservative notes that some human beings are more capable
than others (which is true also), and derives comfort from the fact that he
will always be superior to somebody -- in terms of capability, but
especially in terms of finances, from which he derives his status.

He bolsters this belief, secretly, by seeking to classify certain people as
"inherently" inferior, usually on grounds of heredity and race.  There is
some truth in the notion of inferiority by heredity, though not by race.

He tries to put as many people as possible into this "inferior" class by
artificially classifying certain races, groups, cultures or behaviors as
inferior.  And he tries to perpetuate the division by drawing strict lines
between the groups and making it difficult for people to move among them
(for example, by making it financially more difficult for people of the
"uneducated" class to acquire an education).

The "liberal" view is to emphasize *overtly* that human beings should all
have equal rights (and this is true).  Covertly, the liberal also notes, as
the conservative does, that some human beings are more capable than others,
and derives comfort from the fact that he will always be superior to
somebody -- in terms of capability, but especially in terms of "morality",
from which he derives his status.

The liberal bolsters his beliefs, secretly, by seeking to classify people in
general as morally flawed, and making allowances for this.  It has been well
said that the conservative thinks that "evil" is an external force present
in some people and absent in others, while the liberal thinks that "evil" is
inherent in everybody, and ought to be either excused or controlled.  Both
views, of course, are rubbish.  There is no such thing as "evil".  There is
only human nature, and things that make us happy or things that make us
unhappy.  And friends, and enemies.

But the most interesting thing about the liberal is the way he goes about
making sure that somebody will always be inferior to him.  The conservative
uses economic forces in a blunt manner that is at least honest.  The liberal
pretends to "empower" the underclasses (read educationally underprivileged),
partly by means of education, but rarely by the kind of education that
anybody can use to gain an economic advantage over anybody else.  It's all
very well to know about "black history" and "women's issues", but how does
that help a human being to succeed in a competitive environment?

Rather, the liberal idea is to bring about equality by means of "quotas".
But "quotas" are dependent upon political support to make any impact.
"Quotas" don't truly empower the individual or make him free.  All they do
is to ensure that the common person is indebted to liberal politicians for
his wellbeing.  It's a subtle form of power, but power nonetheless.

I often think of the universe in terms of gender.  Conservatism is rigid,
demanding, hierarchical, separatist -- masculine.  Liberalism is "kinder and
gentler", incorporative, egalitarian, yet with its own set of demands and
dangerously seductive -- feminine.

In the Middle Ages there were no political parties, yet the same entities
existed in the form of Church and State.  State was the Father, controlling
men's bodies.  Church ("Our Holy Mother Church") was indeed the Mother,
controlling men's minds -- looking after the poor with charity, practicing
forgiveness -- as long as you subscribed to Her beliefs.  Is the liberal
"political correctness" of today very much different from the "orthodox
religious dogma" of yesteryear?

It's no wonder that "separation of Church and State" is a key issue.  Once
you let these two points of view get in bed together, with their common
lust to power, and ordinary person doesn't stand a chance.

Education of children today, as I've said, is a two-edged sword.  On the one
hand it's in the interest of everybody to get as good an education as they
can.  In addition, people are far more useful as resources if they are
educated; so there is business interest in good education.  On the other
hand, educated and aware people are a threat to those who would control
them.  Besides which, there are political groups who seek to control
people's thinking, but in quite different ways.  It isn't surprising that
there are battles about how education should be done, or the amount of money
that ought to be allocated to it.  Education in general suffers as a result.

But on the whole, what civilization and technology have given to Man is an
environment in which people are valuable as resources, and where their value
is enhanced by their freedom to think for themselves.  It's no accident that
the Western world has attained technical superiority over the Communist
world.  Most of that superiority is based on creative thought.  And the
price of creative thought is to allow the creative thinker -- and the people
as whole -- to have their freedom.

While war has become more destructive, the impetus to destruction has
lessened.  Since other humans are valuable as resources, there is a great
motivation for the victor in a war to simply *control* a conquered people,
rather than to annihilate them.  So war is gradually, by fits and starts,
becoming obsolete among civilized people.  For the moment, we prefer instead
to compete in ways less destructive of humanity -- such as economic rivalry.

What will the future hold?  Some science fiction writers would have us think
that the ability of machines to do the work of men will liberate people to
live a life of leisure in the future.  Human psychology suggests otherwise.
Too many people seek to dominate others rather than to let them be.  When
machines can replace all functions of a human being, including that of
creative thought, the course of history may change once again to lethal
competition among humans.  Unless, by that time, we find that there really
are enough resources to go around, and learn to leave each other in peace.

Message: 75933
Author: $ Steve MacGregor
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Caller-ID/Privacy
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 16:32:33

  I'm sorry, but I still cannot understand any objections to the caller-ID
feature.  Since anyone making a call *can* prefix it with a code that keeps
the phone company from transmitting his number to the call recipient, anyone
*can* still attempt to make an anonymous call.
  If I had the feature, I would, of course, inform all my friends of it and
warn them that I do not answer anonymous calls.
  Businesses, drug hot-lines, and the like are *likely* to receive anonymous
calls, and want the calls more than they want the caller's phone number, and
you can still call them anonymously.
  Listen up!  *No* *one's* rights are violated by caller-ID!
 
=========  Pascal  #(u,u)#  Yawn!  MacProgrammer  =========

Message: 75934
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last...
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 17:51:02

        They won't listen Steve...  Gordon is posting myth and untruths
on a system that is not even installed here yet.  He fantasizes that this is
the ONLY way businesses will get his number.  Quite frankly, most of them
won't even want his number.  Maybe Gordon and Dean find it too much of a
hassle to punch in a two digit code to block their numbers.  

        You know, it's the CALLER with all the rights all of a sudden and
the callee has NO rights.   I like my privacy, and that is WHY I want the
system.... too screen out those I do not wish to talk to!

        Businesses WILL answer screened out or not....  Home owners may
choose not to answer Caller I.D. screened calls... but if you don't want
that home owner or your friend or your mother to have your number, what the
hell are you doing with their number and why are you even calling them?

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

Message: 75935
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 17:53:53

Re:  Data strongly suggests that milk must trigger some reaction in those
around the user making them want to attack.

Ah Ha!  It was the kid's fault all along!

Message: 75936
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Steve
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 17:58:54

Re:  It may be possible to build the box such that my phone won't even
bother to ring if the number is either not provided,

Anytime I get a "P", my answering machine will take the call.  I can hardly
wait.  Just think, no more salespeople in the middle of supper!

Message: 75937
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 18:03:28

Re:  I have a stone hedge around my house.

Do you have a moat and draw bridge?

Message: 75938
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Caller-ID/Privacy
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 18:21:18

Steve, I agree with everything you said in message 75933.

Message: 75939
Author: Mark Adkins
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 19:32:52

I did not claim anyone wanted to impersonate me.  I merely pointed out a
fact which would be useful to anyone who *did* wish to (and there have been
a few in the past).
 
I AGREE that if someone wants to use your hardware, you have the right to
set the rules.  Since I do not wish to obey these rules, I have NO right to
call the board.  So, I will now go away again to boards whose rules do not
chafe.

Message: 75940
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Little
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 00:21:47

Great stuff.  Regarding the commercialization of language:
don't forget the big hubbub over "Lexus" (the car versus the
database).  I've already put in a bid on the property
rights to the dollar sign character, but I think Donald
Trump beat me to it ... or outbid me, one or the other.

Remember, education is sometimes indoctrination in drag.

Public Key Cryptography may have some bearing on what you
were saying about information control = power.  It seems
that mathematics has determined that secure communications
between intelligent people is inevitable.  PKC seems to be
a fundamental parameter in infopolitics.

Message: 75941
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Politics
Subject: Robber Barons
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 00:42:06

  A meeting was called for Haymarket Square on the evening
of May 4, and about three thousand persons assembled.  It 
was a quiet meeting, and as storm clouds gathered and the
hour grew late, the crowd dwindled to a few hundred.  A
detachment of 180 policemen showed up, advanced on the
speakers' platform, ordered the crowd to disperse.  The
speaker said the meeting was almost over.  A bomb then
exploded in the midst of the police, wounding sixty-six
policemen, of whom seven later died.  The police fired into
the crowd, killing several people, wounding two hundred.
  With no evidence on who threw the bomb, the police 
arrested eight anarchist leaders in Chicago.  The Chicago
*Journal* said: "Justice should be prompt in dealing with 
the arrested anachists.  The law regarding accessories to
crime in this State is so plain that their trials will be
short."  Illinois law said that anyone inciting a murder was
guilty of that murder.  The evidence against the eight
anarchists was their ideas, their literature; none had been
at Haymarket that day except Fielden, who was speaking when 
the bomb exploded.  A jury found them guilty, and they were
sentenced to death.  Their appeals were denied; the Supreme
Court said it had no jurisdiction.
  The event aroused international excitement.  Meetings took
place in France, Holland, Russia, Italy, Spain.  In London a
meeting of protest was sponsored by George Bernard Shaw,
William Morris, and Peter Kropotkin, among others.  Shaw
had responded in his characteristic way to the turning down
of an appeal by the eight members of the Illinois Supreme
Court: "If the world must lose eight of its people, it can
better afford to lose the eight members of the Illinois
Supreme Court."
  A year after the trial, four of the convicted anarchists 
-- Albert Parsons, a printer, August Spies, an upholsterer,
Adolph Fischer, and George Engel -- were hanged.  Louis 
Lingg, a twenty-one-year-old carpenter, blew himself up in 
his cell by exploding a dynamite tube in his mouth.  Three
remained in prison.
  The executions aroused people all over the country.  There
was a funeral march of 25,000 in Chicago.  Some evidence 
came out that a man named Rudolph Schnaubelt, supposedly an
anarchist, was actually an agent of the police, an *agent
provocateur*, hired to throw the bomb and thus enable the
arrest of hundreds, the destruction of the revolutionary 
leadership in Chicago.  But to this day it has not been
discovered who threw the bomb.
  While the immediate result was a suppression of the 
radical movement, the long-term effect was to keep alive 
the class anger of many, to inspire others -- especially
young people of that generation -- to action in 
revolutionary causes.  Sixty thousand signed petitions to 
the new governor of Illinois, John Peter Altgeld, who
investigated the facts, denounced what had happened, and
pardoned the three remaining prisoners.  Year after year,
all over the country, memorial meetings for the Haymarket
martyrs were held; it is impossible to know the number of
individuals whose political awakening -- as with Emma
Goldman and Alexander Berkman, long-time revolutionary
stalwarts of the next generation -- came from the Haymarket
Affair.
  (As late as 1968, the Haymarket events were alive; in that
year a group of young radicals in Chicago blew up the
monument that had been erected to the memory of the police
who died in the explosion.  And the trial of eight leaders
of the antiwar movement in Chicago around that time evoked,
in the press, in meetings, and in literature, the memory of
the first "Chicago Eight," on trial for their ideas.)
  After Haymarket, class conflict and violence continued,
with strikes, lockouts, blacklisting, the use of Pinkerton
detectives and police to break strikes with force, and
courts to break them by law.  During a strike of streetcar 
conductors on the Third Avenue Line in New York a month 
after the Haymarket Affair, police charged a crowd of
thousands, using their clubs indiscriminately: "The New York
*Sun* reported: "Men with broken scalps were crawling off in
all directions...."
  Some of the energy of resentment in late 1886 was poured 
into the electoral campaign for mayor of New York that fall.
Trade unions formed an Independent Labor party and nominated
for mayor Henry George, the radical economist, whose 
*Progress and Poverty* had been read by thousands of 
workers.  George's platform tells something about the
conditions of life for workers in New York in the 1880s.  It
demanded:
     1. that property qualifications be abolished for
        members of juries.
     2. that Grand Jurors be chosen from the lower-class as 
        well as from the upper-class, which dominated Grand
        Juries.
     3. that the police not interfere with peaceful meetings.
     4. that the sanitary inspection of buildings be enforced.
     5. that contract labor be abolished in public works.
     6. that there be equal pay for equal work for women.
     7. that the streetcars be owned by the municipal
        government.
  The democrats nominated an iron manufacturer, Abram 
Hewitt, and the Republicans nominated Theodore Roosevelt,
at a convention presided over by Elihu Root, a corporation
lawyer, with the nominating speech given by Chauncey Depew,
a railroad director.  In a campaign of coercion and bribery,
Hewitt was elected with 41 percent of the vote, George came
second with 31 percent of the vote, and Roosevelt third with
27 percent of the vote.  The New York *World* saw this as a
signal:
       The deep-voiced protest conveyed in the 67,000 votes 
     for Henry George against the combined power of both 
     political parties, of Wall Street and the business
     interests, and of the public press should be a warning
     to the community to heed the demands of Labor so far as
     they are just and reasonable....
In other cities in the country too, labor candidates ran,
polling 25,000 out of 92,000 votes in Chicago, electing a
mayor in Milwaukee, and various local officials in Fort 
Worth, Texas, Eaton, Ohio, and Leadville, Colorado.
  It seemed that the weight of Haymarket had not crushed the
labor movement.  The year 1886 became known to 
contemporaries as "the year of the great uprising of labor."
From 1881 to 1885, strikes had averaged about 500 each year,
involving perhaps 150,000 workers each year.  In 1886 there
were over 1,400 strikes, involving 500,000 workers.  John
Commons, in his *History of the Labor Movement in the United
States*, saw in that:
     ... the signs of a great movement by the class of the
     unskilled, which had finally risen in rebellion....
     The movement bore in every way the aspect of a social
     war.  A frenzied hatred of labour for capital was shown
     in every important strike....  Extreme bitterness 
     toward capital manifested itself in all the actions of
     the Knights of Labor, and wherever the leaders 
     undertook to hold it within bounds, they were generally
     discarded by their followers....

Message: 75947
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Vote
Subject: New ote
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 01:56:30

        Just in case you are one that does NOT look at the ote question
when prompted at log in.... The New ote deals with the Caller I.D.
Question.

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

Message: 75949
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Annie/abuse
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 10:08:05

 So your answer for the problem is that an ounce of cure is worth a pound of
prevention. Sounds backwards to me. You are willing to sacrifice too much on
the phony altar of "privacy", including but not limited to a significant
percentage of today's children. (Not a majority, thank God, but a
significant percentage. One percent would even be too much, and so,
significant.)

Message: 75950
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Arizona Newsday
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:14:48

I, for one, am not going to fork out $100 for a promise based upon one
issue.  If I could subscribe for a month or two, maybe.  If I give Ev $100,
I am gambling that he will still be in business in six months.  I don't want
to do that.

Message: 75951
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: TPC
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:19:44

So, the Oudin residence phone is being used as a business phone?  This is
all a regulatory an contractual matter, Ann, and I'm sure TPC found out by
noticing that your incoming/outgoing calling patterns didn't match that of a
residence so much as a residence from which a business is being run. 
Businesses place a much heavier toll, on average, on the phone network, and
TPC is allowed (obligated?) to charge more to businesses to compensate.
 
Once TPC computer flashed the red light on your phone number, it was a
simple matter for a TPC employee to call to see how the phone was being used
-- and it was answered as a business phone.  No need for "listening in" at
all.
 
I, for one, would appreciate it if Whitey would stop "ripping off" TPC by
having only a residence phone, as this action is affecting my phone bill.

Message: 75952
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Caller ID
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:20:39

Good idea, Cliff.  Answer all out-of-state calls.  Once the
anti-telephone-solicitation regulations get into place in this state, all
telephone solicitation to your home will originate from out-of-state.

Message: 75953
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gun ownership
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:23:03

It wasn't pistols and "assault weapons" that were effective against the
Soviet gunships in Afghanistan -- it was SAM launchers and the like.  Plus
the fact that, like Vietnam, "the people" were fighting for their country,
and the army were foreign mercenaries who weren't appropriately paid or
motivated.  
 
In the situation in Iraq, both sides were internal, and one was extremely
poorly armed in comparison to the other.  No motivational factors involved.

Message: 75954
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: The lawyer/champion
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:28:08

This is an interesting parallel, Gordon.  I'd say that "personal injury
attorneys" and "DUI defense lawyers" can easily be seen as hired guns, the
situation with corporate attorneys or retained attorneys isn't quite so
simple.  These people first and foremost provide legal advice, much of it
being what not to do and why not to do it.  Only at the last resort do they
don armour, mount the steed, and charge the opponent in front of the bench. 
Given that we've heard that our top Pentagon brass argues against use of the
military, one wonders if knights routinely said "Well, that duke only took a
*little* bit of the most *worthless* part of your holdings... we should send
a diplomatic emissary to deliver some strong words" or if they said "Let me
at them!  I'll tear him to shreds!"

Message: 75955
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Vote
Subject: marijuana vote
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:41:41

Interesting - more than half of Apollo's oters were for the legalization
of marijuana.

Message: 75956
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last
Date: 06/23/91  Time: 15:53:34

Unfortunately we must wait until October when the new crop will be
harvested.

On another note, I last logged on here on the 21st and my buffer shows that
there are 94,000 bytes of information for me to read.  Ouch!

Ann, if you notice the odds given for a person being killed in an airplane
crash are far less than being killed by an asteroid.  How many people have
you heard of being killed by an asteroid?  An airplane crash?  Go figure.

Perhaps the powers that be want to sell the people 'asteroid' insurance,
knowing that if a big one hit that money would be worth zilch.  Or just
perhaps the National Inquirer or The Globe bought controlling interest in
the Republic/Gazette.  Ever think of that.

It was thoughful of the Supreme Court to allow police to board and search
public transportation without cause.  Sort of reminds me of Mexico or some
other South American Countries.  Another straw added to our backs.

STOre House of Votes Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 21
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Old ote
Subject: Marijuana
Date: 06/22/91  Time: 22:39:26

Drugs... right or wrong?

[A] I am for the legalization of marijuana
[B] I am against legalization of marijuana
[C] I am undecided

Poll results:
[A] 21   [B] 13   [C] 2


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