Apollo BBS Archive - March 1989

Apollo BBS Archive - March 19, 1989


Mail from Nick Ianuzzi
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 03:40:04

Yeah, I really like Durant's. About the only evenings I'm free these days
are Sundays or Mondays. Let me know.
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:        Dean Hathaway and I will be going to the desert to test fire and 
 2:sight a few weapons.  Probably on an early Saturday morning.  Are you 
 3:interested?
 4:        Are you referring to Sunday or Monday morning, afternoon or evenings
 5:when it comes to Durants?

Mail from Nick Ianuzzi
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 03:42:53

I guess I was trying to make a feeble joke by comparing Jessica Lange
sitting in the ape's right hand, to Jesus sitting in God's right hand.
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:Thanks for enlightening me on the King Kong trip.  I'd much rather worship 
 2:Jessica Lange.  At least She has something I want and need.


Mail from Sandy SYSOP
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 18:55:31

        I do not know if Dean's idea is all that good of one. It could
back fire, you know. What if they count his anti-gun opinion -- that would
nullify his own true opinion.
        It was a sad day at the gun range today. Picked up on some more
interesting bits of information on the affects of these bills. One, is gun
smiths will be required to turn in your name and gun serial number on any
alterations that are not really necessary, like a real light trigger job
and such. This is for semi-automatics which 45's and 9mm's fall into.

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

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:        Interesting news.  Looks like the current politicians want more 
 2:control without the chance of revolution.  But there are enough guns out 
 3:there to start one.  Wonder when they will ask us to turn in our weapons?
 4:    
                            -Rod
Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 57686
Author: Louis Reukaiser  *** THIS IS ME ***
Category: Bulletins
Subject: It's Coming
Date: 03/18/89  Time: 20:24:09

        Beware the Great Depression of the Eighties is on its way.  Do not
say I didn't warn you.

Message: 57687
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Question?
Subject: I'm depressed
Date: 03/18/89  Time: 21:33:24

Why didn't Louis Reukaiser warn me?

Message: 57688
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: DRUG CHATTER
Date: 03/18/89  Time: 22:39:02

     Whoever said it is the addicts clamoring for legalization - that notion
is just plain silly.  About as silly as saying all Christians are
close-minded.  
     If the government started legalizing drugs tomorrow, that would not
send a message of "Its o.k. to do drugs now" -- that would only be true if
EVERYTHING permitted by law was obligatory.  What it boils down to is this -
This is America.  In this country, we are supposed to have the freedom of
choice.  If people choose to destroy themselves, as sad it may be, that's
their right.  Whether they choose to work themselves into the ground & end up
having a nervous breakdown, or take drugs (any drug, including alcohol) in
excess.  It's their body, and their life.  Drug use IS a victimless crime -
a "victimless crime", by definition, is a crime in which there is no
potential for filing police charges.  That is, the action (of using the
drug) only brings direct harm to the person acting.  Now, Paul mentioned the
family as "victim".  True, the user's family may go through anguish (and may
not, depending on the drug and frequency used), but that user is ultimately
responsible to him/herself, not his/her family, friends, etc.  About $10
billion was spent last year on enforcement of drug laws.  This money could
be used much more productively.  Drug users could be helped more effectively
if drugs were legal.  Case in point - if you were hooked on cocaine today,
would you seek help knowing full well you could end up under arrest?  If
cocaine was legalized, wouldn't the decision to kick the habit be that much
easier knowing you'd be getting help.  Jailing drug "offenders" isn't a
solution, and in fact only perpetuates the problem.
   If I want to do drugs in the privacy of my own home, why should the
government be able to tell me I can't?  Let's suppose for a moment -  Let's
say some wild-eyed liberal atheist congressman presented a bill that said
the Bible was dangerous to the well-being of the people, and should be
banned to PROTECT Americans.  Especially the children (which always makes
for a good emotional appeal).  Let us say further that this bill passed.
Faced with a jail sentence if caught, would you still keep and read your
Bible?  And, would you be pissed if the government started telling you what
you could & could not mentally digest (meaning the teachings in the Bible)?
You certainly wouldn't think the Bible to be dangerous, but not everyone
would agree....  And whether or not it is dangerous is not the point - the
point is - it is your right to choose.  That's what it's all about.
     You're not going to save the world by keeping drugs illegal.  Like I
said before, I'd feel safer knowing these drugs were clean - kids and adults
are going to use them regardless of the legality - each user thinks he'll
be the one who won't be caught (that's human nature).  Or won't be the one
to get the cocaine cut with draino.  If drugs were legalized, gangs wouldn't
have the $$$ or the need to carry around AK-47s.  Drugs is big business, you
know?  If drugs were legal, and a large-scale program was implemented that
basically said, "Yes, you can take so-and-so drug, but this is what will
happen" without the scare tactics now used (both in the gross exaggerations
of drug use results in some cases, and the consequences of JAIL), kids &
adults would be more prone to listen.  Illegality only makes it more worth
getting to some.  

Message: 57690
Author: Alan Finney
Category: Answer!
Subject: Crimes
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 03:28:02

"Murder should not be legalized because it involves an unwilling
participant, the murdered."
 
    I think it can safely be argued, that the victim of murder IS a willing
participant.  After all, you can't get shot if you don't stand there and
take a bullet.  Furthermore, people get what they give.  I mean, if someone
is murdered, they MUST have done something wrong to their killer.
 
I think people must be held responsible for their actions, and this
certainly includes those who are murdered because of their behavior and/or
appalling ineptitude.

Message: 57691
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann!
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 05:42:21

Your "facts" are so full of holes as to be totally ridiculous!
Families of drug abusing teenyboppers can just pick up and leave? I'm sure
that if your kid was hooked on crack that's just what you would do, right?
Send him or her off to school or the local detention center, and while they
were there, pack up, sell the house and move without leaving a forwarding
address or a trace. Sure you would!
 Legalization would eliminate the need for crime to feed the drug habit?
Like hell it would! The kids who are getting hooked on garbage now would
still get it, much the same way they get booze noe, and they would still
find ways to get the money for drugs, even though they have no visible
source of income.
 Finally, if you don't think that your and my tax dollars are going into
rehabilitation programs, you just don't know where your money is going! And,
since legalization will NOT reduce the number of addicts, neither will it
reduce the need for rehabilitation centers, nor the need for government
support of those centers. Actually, of all the drug rehab programs in
operation today, I think the only one not supported by government funds is
TeeTeen Challenge. (Which, by the way, just happens to be the most
successful, according to a government survey.)
Methinks that thou speaketh before thou thinketh the problem through.

Message: 57692
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/bigotry
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 05:45:04

Compared to your ignorance, my bigotry is as a drop in the ocean.

Message: 57693
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Rod/Tonkin
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 05:54:36

 I am well aware of the history of the USS Vincennes.
 Having spent some o my youth in the U.S. Navy, serving my country in a time
of need, (a claim I don't believe you can make.), I am also well aware of
the conditioned hatred that many enlisted military men feel toward officers,
especially theirs.
 I merely suggested that the possibility that the perpetrator COULD have
been one of the captain's own men SEEMS to have been overlooked.
 Have you ever been under military discipline? Matter of fact, have you ever
been under any discipline at all? If you have not, then you could not
understand the mindset that many military men have, a mindset that could
conceivably lead to incidents such as the car bombing.
 Of course, it is easier to just lay the blame at the feet of foreign
terrorists and let it go at that, since we don't seem to be able to do
anything about them other than lodge a complaint at the U.N. How effective!

Message: 57694
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Petrisko
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:08:48

Those have got to be the dumbest arguments for legalization I've ever heard.
It is indisputable that legalization would send a message that drug use is
morally permissible.  In addition to its other functions, the law serves as
a guide to what society regards as morally acceptable conduct.  To many
people, the distinction between legality and morality is unclear at best.

You then take on the claim that drug use is not a victimless crime because
it often leads users to break their obligations to their families.  Your
reply to this is simply to brush the argument aside.  "That user is
ultimately responsible to him/herself, not his/her family," you state.
I will admit that the question of whether and to what extent the government
should enforce family obligations is a problematical one, but your response
-- to simply deny that such obligations exist -- is disingenuous and
unsatisfactory.

You then claim that legalization would make it easier for addicts to seek
treatment.  They are, you claim, reluctant to seek treatment because they
fear punishment.  I would like to see you offer some empirical evidence to
support this claim.  In any case, I don't believe that rehabilitation
centers typically turn their clients over the the police, so if addicts do
have this fear, it is entirely unwarranted.

You then imply that doing drugs is the moral equivalent of reading the
Bible.  That is ludicrous.  Surely you are not so doltish that you cannot
distinguish between reading a book and injecting or ingesting substances
that impairs the mind.  (If that is what you are claiming, then why not
just argue that drug abuse is protected by the First Amendment?)  It is a
clever metaphor (by your standards, anyway) but a worthless one:  Drug use
is no more equivalent to reading the Bible than it is equivalent to murder.

I am not sure whether drugs should be legalized.  But your pro-legalization
arguments make the most convincing case I've yet heard against legailzation.

Message: 57696
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/discipline
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:27:25

        Yes, I was in the boy scouts.

Message: 57697
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/Drugs
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:34:26

        It would be more safe for children to steal pot from their parents
than alcohol.  The effects of alcohol are more damanging than marihuana.  If
the child cannot find alcohol or pot then, because of the basic desire to
get smashed after duress, the child will then get out the paint thinner,
glue or something from the medicine cabinet.  Do you doubt this Paul?
        Humans have been using substances that makes them 'high' since
pre-historic times.
                                Rod

Message: 57698
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/Tonkin
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:43:10

        I think you missed my point.  The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a U.S.
Government-CIA operation that blamed the Viet Cong/Communists for war
activity against the Americans in the waters I mentioned.  It was done so
our then President could dupe the American people into going along with the
U.S. bombing of Cambodia.  It was all a lie.
        When someone catches another in a direct lie, thereafter his words
are taken with a grain of salt.
        My point was and is, Perhaps the American CIA bombed the Captains
Van in order to have an excuse to remove the Iranian students from this
nation.                         -Rod

P.S.  I am not saying this is what happened but I wouldn't shut the door on
the possibility either.  

Hello, Mildred Stuckstedd
Is your name correct:Yes

Caller # 135777 (9 today)
It is now 03/19/89  09:56:26
Message range is (57446-57698)

Message: 57699
Author: Mildred Stuckstedd  ***THIS IS ME***
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: DRUGS
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:57:53

        What if the entire family took drugs?  What if they were a wealthy
family and did not need to steal?  Who would the victims be?  

First name:JAMES
Last name:TARANTO
Send mail to James Taranto:Yes

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:        Hi sweetie.  Louis Reukaiser and I are currently having an sexual 
 2:encounter of the third kind.  He's is much too busy to inform you of any 
 3:major shift in our ecomony as he is now shifting just below my belly button 
 4:at this precise moment.

Message: 57699
Author: Mildred Stuckstedd  ***THIS IS ME ***
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: DRUGS
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:57:53

        What if the entire family took drugs?  What if they were a wealthy
family and did not need to steal?  Who would the victims be?  

Message: 57700
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/drugs
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 11:41:01

Your just like Daryl - lots of talk and no answers. 

You can bet your sweet 'Bippy' that if one of my little teeny boppers were
on hard drugs they'd go to a dentention center and if they wouldn't take
them, then we'd throw them out on the street! When I married my husband, my
oldest daughter (16) came to live with us a few months later, She was on
speed and it was ruining her life. My husband took her over - said she was
most welcome to our house hold IF she got off drugs and made an effort. She
didn't until he was ready to litterly throw her out on the street. She must
have thought it over, because she gave them up! SHE - not us was responsible
for herself. At that age, it's time to start taking over one's life. On the
other hand, we also eventually got my 14 year old son - we LET him grow his
marijuana in secluded places in our big yard. The stipulations were - he
only used it at home - did not sell or give it away and if he was caught and
put in a home - it was his problem! That we would lie like hell and say we
didn't know he had the stuff growing. The outcome --- he had more fun
fussing over those plants than he ever did smoking them - he had more
respect for us because we didn't sit there with booze in our hands and
telling him how awful grass was. (Which it isn't!) If we hadn't of done
this, we knew perfectly well he'd still get it some place - go other places
to smoke it and would probably still grow it too. He never did really get
in to it - wasn't using it at all by the time he was 16 and got married at
17 and now has 4 kids and none of them are into drugs of anykind including
himself. True story. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 57701
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Peter/your drug post
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 11:44:06

Those were great! -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 57702
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Petrisko
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 13:26:07

By the way, I went to Tower Records this afternoon, and they did not have
The Journal of Inflammable Tots.

Message: 57703
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: JT
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 16:53:52

     I never said doing drugs was the moral equivalent of reading the Bible.
What I was doing was drawing a parallel - If I want to read the Bible in my
home, that is my right.  If I want to take drugs, that should also be my
right.  Why should the government be allowed to come in my home, and tell me
what I can and cannot put in my body?  I would only be "hurting" myself, and
not treading on anyone else's rights.  Right?
     As far as family obligations go, I never denied such obligations
existed.  I'm just saying such obligations shouldn't be legislated.  Take
care of yourself, take care of your own.
  
     BTW - the mag should be appearing in a Tower near you this week or
next.

Message: 57704
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Petrisko
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 17:22:04

Your "parallel" between drugs and the Bible is absurd.  In the first place,
no one is claiming that drugs should be illegal because the government has
unrestrained power to regulate people's behavior in their own homes.  You
seem to be adopting a Westfallian argument:  either everything you do in
your home is legal, or nothing is.  Of course, one would then ask, why
shouldn't I be able to commit murder or rape, provided I do it in the
privacy of my own home?  Also, the use of drugs in one's home is only a
small subset of the behavior that is proscribed by drug laws.  Even if you
had offered a valid argument, would this imply that since Bibles may be sold
commercially, drugs should be also? That since Bible-reading on public buses
is legal, so should pot-smoking? That since one may read the Bible and then
go out for a drive, it should likewise be permissible to shoot up heroin
before driving?

I accurately characterized your statement about family obligation, and your
further clarification has done nothing to change this.  You replied to the
argument that drug abuse is not a victimless crime because drug abusers
neglect their family obligations by simply brushing aside the question of
family obligations.  If you don't believe the person who is betrayed is a
victim, then you do not believe, in any meaningful sense, that the betrayer
had an obligation.

Message: 57705
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Heaven
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 19:49:44

Re:  "I have a question for you BoB.  Do you think that you would enjoy
Heaven as much just knowing there are a certain percentage of the population
that is being tormented for ever?  Just curious."

I suppose that is a valid question.  I look at it this way.  Since I'm not
sure what exactly heaven will be like, what we will do, what we will know,
etc, and since I do believe it will be perfect, I think I will enjoy it
thoroughly.  I have total confidence in God to do the right thing.  What God
will do with the people who deny his Son, I will leave up to him.  There are
members of my family who have rejected God and his Son.  I have worked to
try to show them the truth.  I feel bad about their attitude.  Every man
will have his chance to do what is right.  When a person knows what is right
and still chooses to do wrong, its on their head.  I won't take a guilt trip
for another who choose to do wrong.

Message: 57706
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Nick
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 19:52:07

Re:  "The open
container laws in Arizona are vague on these points"

There arn't any "open container" laws in Arizona unless they have just been
passed.

Message: 57707
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 20:02:53

Re:  "a hard look as Amsterdam"

How does Amsterdam control DWI's?  Is there some kind of test to determine
if someone is high on pot?

Message: 57708
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 21:44:42

Everyone rides bicycles.

Message: 57709
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Michael/Scuze Me?
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 22:13:32

I would hardly endeavor to call myself righteous [Ps 143:2]. To do that
would be, well, would be self-righteous! *grin*

Message: 57710
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/57657
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 22:21:53

Tormented forever, tormented forever   Eternal punishment,
tormented forever   

Message: 57711
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/3 Points
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 22:36:21

1. The families can choose to leave this obviously debilitated fellow
   family member alone to suffer by himself. Well, if you have absolutely
   no sense of family unity or no hint of conscience whatsoever, perhaps
   you could indeed do just that. For me to do something like that to a
   family member involved in drugs (that is, leave) would cause serious
   scars on my conscience for the rest of my life. I cannot speak for you,
   or how your conscience would play upon you in such a situation, but
   judging by your post, you consider leaving a drug-dependent family
   member, indirectly crying out for help, out in the cold, as a a viable
   "solution."
 
2. Drug programs are around because of the illegal status of street drugs?
   Then what are all these prescription-drug addicts doing in these same
   rehabilitation centers? The drugs that they are taking are perfectly
   legal, and were probably prescribed to them by their own doctor. So, you
   assume that legalizing narcotics will make this all go away? Fuzzy logic
   at best.
 
3. Did I actually see you call the drug addict a VICTIM? Yes, indeed I did!
   Certainly he is a victim (most likely) by his own bad decision) BUT HE IS
   A VICTIM NONETHELESS. Which blows a gaping hole in your (and Rod's)
   "conclusion" that the selling and abuse of narcotics is a victimless
   crime.
                    ....NEXT?

Message: 57712
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/U Asked 4 It
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 22:48:12

Q. Would legalizing drugs put the drug dealers, big and small, out of
business?
 
A. NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. In fact, if nothing else, it will
   merely shift the drug selling into the hands of the free enterprise
   system. Drugs would be easier to obtain than ever before. The dealers
   would no longer be underground types. With the legitimization of narcotic
   drugs, the "dealers" would be above-ground, "respectable" businessmen and
   salespeople. You see, anyone that is involved in the selling of any
   item to the public is called a dealer. By opening up my record business,
   I am going to become a dealer. In a greatly different business, yes, but
   still a dealer. So, in keeping with the wording of your question, the
   legalization of narcotic drugs would not eliminate dealers (big or small)
   from the marketplace.
 
2. Would legalization save the nation money? I doubt it. More money will
   be needed to beef up the law enforcement agencies to prepare for the
   increased amount of drug-related disturbances that are to be expected.
   Not everyone is going to be "turning on" and "feeling groovy." Some are
   going to be "stringing out," "whacking out," and "spacing out." Deny it
   all you want, but in the same breath, deny the high percentage of
   narcotic drug usage in those arrested for criminal offenses of all sorts.
 
3. Would imports stop? Nope. Tropical climes are still the best for growing.

Message: 57713
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 03/20/89  Time: 00:35:32

        Don't forget, the United States Government made ready many drug
rehab centers for the vets returning from Viet Namn.  There were not needed
as the drugs were no longer needed by the majority.  Drug usuage, tobacco
and alcohol included, goes up during times of stress.
        I would say that the correct answer to the drug problem this nation
faces is to work on eliminating the cause of the stress.  Drug usuage will
abate itself.
        In the mean time the drug war should soon be called off before we
all go broke.  The alcohol prohibition was not won and neither will this one
be.                                     Rod

Message: 57714
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: BOB/Answer
Date: 03/20/89  Time: 00:38:50

        I can't really comment much on your message except perhaps to say
that what you perceive to be truth may not in fact be truth.  How did you
come into Christianity, the Eastern Religion?  Why believe in something that
originated half a world away?  Bob has open arms.  And I must point out that
Bobra is quite a looker and well, our heaven promises much more.  -Rod

Message: 57715
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob/Holland
Date: 03/20/89  Time: 00:40:28

        I will have to do some research on that subject.  I'll get back to
you.  Do their auto tires have wooden wheels?

Rod, God & Bob Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 216
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Rod/mushrooms
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 11:53:06

Tell me what effect the 'magic mushrooms' have on a person. For some
reason that's one thing I've wanted to try - but am too chicken. I've heard
you see God/angels/ the answers to the universe etc. True? -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 217
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Rod/mushrooms
Date: 03/19/89  Time: 17:07:36

     I've heard they give you the runs.  True?  -=*) PETER (*=-

Message: 218
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Mushrooms
Date: 03/20/89  Time: 00:48:33

        I liked LSD better than mushrooms.  With that drug one can perceive
the oneness of the universe.  It is hard to describe but it is like you are
there and you've always been there in the eternal NOW.  One needs not
physical talking to know the feeling of another.  Everyone is related and a
part of everything else.  Colors are great too and you can hear the spaces
between the notes when listening to a song.
        I've had mushrooms about three or four times.  I just throbbed and
it was more of a physical trip to me.  But some people really like them a
lot.  Oh yeah, they usually make me laugh really a lot and over the
smallest incident.  
        I have been to some pretty far out places on LSD though but I don't
know if acid is still made the way it was in the sixties.  Perhaps someone
here knows?                             -Rod

Message: 219
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: ACID
Date: 03/20/89  Time: 01:01:26

        I took it the first time in 1968 after reading a Look Magazine
article about a reporter who went to San Francisco and documented his trip
on that substance.  It made me really curious.  
        I was a junior executive in the credit department of a large New
Orleans wholesale hardware house.  I was third man and was told I would be
the credit manager in about 16 years.  Anyway, I was tired of the routine of
knocking my brains out for naught.  I wanted to do things differently.  So I
started hearing about what was happening in San Francisco.  The year was
1967 and the Summer of Love had just ended.
        One day while sitting at my desk a long haired, bearded male in
blue jeans and an open shirt with beads hanging about his neck walked
through our office and to me he looked like, 'FREEDOM' in the flesh.
        Here I was looking at a clock waiting for FIVE to hit and here he
was so flowing that I wanted to rip off my tie and join him.
        In the coming weeks I kept my ears open for more news of what was
happening in California.  I quit going to the barber but I still shaved.  I
bought weird buttons to wear on my suit and the first one said, "ALL BOSES
ARE SMUCKS", the second said, "GRAPE NUTS IS A VENERAL DISEASE" and the
third, "FLY UNITED" and it had a picture of two birds mating in mid-air.
        Then this guy, Professor Timothy Leary started making news and his
motto was, "TURN ON - TUNE IN - DROP OUT.  He was into LSD.  Then this girl
I had met showed up at my place one evening with two BLUE FLATS, which was a
type of LSD.  She convinced me easily that we should take it together so we
checked into a Holiday Inn on Airline Highway and dropped it. (to be cont.)