Apollo BBS Archive - March 1989

Apollo BBS Archive - March 8, 1989



Mail from Nick Ianuzzi
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 03:08:54

It would likely be a big mistake for Christian to get married at this stage
of her life. It would only serve to complicate things, and I really don't
see what would change in her relationship with Victor by doing so.

What is it that you are considering writing?
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:        Both Jasmine and I agree with your feelings concerning Christian.
 2:
 3:        Although I do not appeal to red-necked Christians or not much to the
 4:intellectuals, I do have a voice with the common man on the street.  I 
 5:would like to present a better view of the world with a logical way to 
 6:achieve a better end.  What we have now sucks.  Although I am not a 
 7:Communist or Socialist, I am certainally not a Capitalist.  All three 
 8:systems suck the big one.  
 9:        Actually I don't know what I want to write, I just want to write 
10:with a clear head.  I spend my peak energy doing work for others and that 
11:leaves little left over for thought.

Mail from Ann Oudin
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 09:13:01

Dear Roddy - can you be encouraged to log onto Apollo a tad bit more than
you do? Cliff IS REALLY seriously thinking of turning it off because of lack
of use by the users - plus, it seems the negativity from Paul and I think
Daryl is making him depressed. Paul does do his best to try to make Cliff
look like a fool. I guess right now Cliff is going through a depresive mood
and just may do it! I know how he feels to a certain extent becauses JT has
made me at times want to quit Apollo, but thanks to your advice, I over came
good old JT! Ha. Anyway - do your best. I knows yo can dos it Massa Rod mah
man! heh heh. -=*) ANN (*=-
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:        Are you Afro Poet?  Okay, I will do my best although after a day of 
 2:locks, I have little energy remaining.  But I will try.
 3:See ya.
 4:                                        Rod

Mail from Bob Thornburg
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 16:03:09

Number 3 - Poor choice of words on my part.  Let me rephrase that.  I claim
Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.  He is God.  I know that is very concise
but I think you know what I mean.  I know you and I do not agree on
spiritual things, but I would like to think we could still be friends.  OK?
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:That's a big O-K-A-Y.  Tis easy.        -Rod

The outer COSmos Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 2892
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Sandy
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 03:24:46

Man's search for the "fountain of youth," as you put it, has as its goal the
prolongation of not just life itself, but of the quality of life up until
the time of death.

Many of the age-related changes that you see in nursing home patients are
the result of abuse. Decades of ingesting fat and cholesterol laden foods
destroys the arteries, resulting in heart disease and stroke.

America is slowly becoming an older nation. Research must continue on ways
to prolong the quality of life, and the public must begin following sensible
diet and exercise routines. The health care system will collapse under the
weight of the nursing home burden if we do not.

Message: 2893
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Sandy/#2886
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 09:57:58

Boy, are you right on that one! The statistics say we are living longer, but
ONLY because of modern medicine and triple by-pass surgery etc. My mother in
law is a perfect example of extended life - when she was 76, her heart went
bad and she was near death. She had a valve put in her heart and here she is
now 82 years old. She has had 6 years in essense added to her life she would
had not had a few years ago. BUT - has it helped her? NO!!! Has she taken
advantage of those extra years? NO!!! The rest of her body is still old and
infirm. She hasn't learned anything in those years - hasn't made her life
any better or anyone else's either. In fact, she has used those 6 extra
years to sit around and wait for death! She is also showing classic examples
of real old age - nastiness/meaness - forgetfulness - she is in pain all the
time and is so frightened of dying that she really does nothing for fear
she'll cause a heart attack or something. She won't go anywhere - fear
again! She doesn't read or even watch TV - heaven forbid she learn something
new because her attitude is 'what the heck - I won't be here long, so what's
the use'! My husband's grand mother was the same - lived to 96 years old -
but the last ten years of her life was spent in a nursing home - just
sitting and drooling, her mind completely gone, yet modern medicine was
keeping her alive. For what? Of course I know that there is people out there
that will and do take advantage of the extra years medicine can give them,
but I still say they are the small minority - not the norm. I only hope when
my time comes, I will except it as part of life - not the enemy.
                             -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 2894
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Daryl/old folks
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 10:16:25

I really admire you for going to those places and talking to them. You are
quite un-selfish to do such a thing - but I can't! 
I do not agree with your statements about their kids not taking care of them
themselves or coming to see them. At least in part. It is one thing to
change a babies diaper and to change a full grown adult's diaper! A lot of
people with good intentions of taking care of their aged parents, have in
the long run, had to give it up simply because they couldn't properly. Some
of these old people need special care/equipment to keep them alive or full
time care. What is a couple that both work to make ends meet and havn't got
the extra money to hire a full time nurse going to do? If they have kids and
the woman stays home to care for the parent, isn't the kids going to suffer
from lack of attention? How about the strain on the marriage itself? I'm not
talking about caring for an old person that has a chance to get well either.
Usually in nine times out of ten, the old person brings disharmony into a
household by their inconsideration and crankyness - sometimes just plain
meaness. They'd reather you wait on them instead of doing what they can for
themselves. As far as going to see them in these nursing homes - after a
while it gets pretty boring going there and not even being able to
communicate with someone you love just sitting there drooling or ranting or
raving as is sometimes the case. It takes it's toll on a person mentally.
You can feel so helpless. The old folks don't make this any easier either
and will do nothing if they can talk, but talk about all their aches and
pains. They arn't interested in their children's lives - only in themselves.
I've seen it so much. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 2895
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Daryl/#2888
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 10:30:15

I liked that post and agree - know where your coming from and when you said
"it's best to dwell on blessings - for mental health"  - I couldn't agree
more! In fact, that really hit home because I have been somewhat depressed
just discussing this 'old age' subject in detail on the board. Of course, I
fear being like these people we are talking about, but I do not know what my
fate is and shouldn't let it effect my 'living life to the fullest' today! I
will go along with believing that if a person keeps active mentally - keeps
on learning right up to the end - that just may not happen to them! No
matter what shape their body might be in. I know SO many people in their 60s
that are fine and healthy - yet they stopped leaning somewhere in the past
like the 40s or 50s and are stuck mentally in that era. Why? I don't know.
There are so many things interesting out there to be learned. In fact - life
is way too short to learn even a fraction of them unfortunately. -=*) ANN
(*=-

Message: 2896
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Nick/health
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 10:33:52

That is only true to a point! For one thing, what is life with out quality?
Who wants it? Also, if a person does all the right things such as eating
properly, that doesn't mean they will live a long healthy life - because of
genes! That is the stickler here. You can only be what your genes allow you
to be in the end. How about the people that lived long and healthy right to
the end that ate all the wrong things anyway? Genes again! -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 2897
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Last
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 14:47:19

        Ann, you did bring up a good point. 
I, also, would like to see our Medical Experts agree on what is good for us
and what is not. Given time they change their opinions.
They say red meat is bad, now it is good.
They say running is good, now they say it can cause complications.
They say areobics is good, now they say it can damage parts of your body.
They say lots of fiber is good, now they say it's not.

Do not blame the majority of the people out there for abusing their bodies.
They are only following 'doctor's orders'.

Message: 2898
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Ann/Mother-in-law
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 20:48:35

        Tell her that when she dies she will go to heaven with the angels
and have eternal happiness.  Then take a train trip and push her from it.

Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 57423
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/guns
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 03:16:14

I think you're confusing fully automatic weapons with semi-automatic
weapons. Full auto weapons must be licensed by the purchaser, who undergoes
a background check and must pay a fee to register the weapon. It is my
understanding that no felony has ever been committed by the registered owner
of a full auto weapon. The gangs that you speak of are either using
illegally obtained weapons, or illegally converted semi-auto weapons. Now
what makes you think that forbidding the general public from owning these
weapons is going to stop criminals from getting their hands on them?

Message: 57424
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: guns
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 05:41:22

I have heard all the ARA arguments about "when guns are outlawed only
outlaws will have guns" and that to control the manufacture and distribution
of one type of weapon will only serve to open the door to total gun control,
and some of it may be true, but only to a degree. Certainly not to the
extreme that some fear. For one thing, we have a president and congress who
are very reluctant to institute ANY form of gun control, and if any at all
is instituted, it will be severely limited. That is good, for I certainly
have never, nor do I now advocate total control. In fact, I own a hunting
rifle and a couple of handguns, none of which will be registered, for my
personal use.
 On the other hand, the arguments that such weapons as AK-47s, Uzzis or the
like should be easily purchased by the general public as some sort of
inalienable right just doesn't hold water. To say that thay have some useful
purpose other than to kill people, or to say that tthose "bad guys" who have
them are poor shots is to fly in the face of the facts. Honest citizens and
hard working cops are getting killed with these things on a daily basis.
THere are places in this best of all possible lands where gang style
shoottouts are commonplace, and Sandy, with all due respect for your ability
with firearms, I seriously doubt that you would survive being caught in the
crossfire between two rival gangs. As to Nick's argument that laws would not
stop the bad guys from getting these weapons, I say that if their
manufacture and distribution was severely limited to only the military and
police, the gang's access would be verestricted. They gotta go guys!

Message: 57425
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Assault.1of7
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 08:46:11

  Since a lot of effort has been made to mislead people on this subject, I
will have to go into a little bit of background. To begin with, a true
assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon, this means that with a single
pull of its trigger it can fire a burst of rounds. The utility of a compact,
yet powerful weapon of this type was seen by the Germans on the eastern
front during World War Two. They were faced with mass charges of enemy
troops and the first assault rifle was their answer. Other nations soon
followed suit, and compact fully automatic rifles eventually became
standard issue for soldiers all over the world. Assault rifles are a sort
of compromise between the large ammunition capacity and high rate of fire
of a submachine gun, and the greater range and accuracy of a true battle
rifle. Automatic weapons which fire pistol ammunition, such as the 9mm Uzi,
are submachine guns, not assault rifles. Automatic weapons which fire full
power rifle ammunition, such as the Nato .30 calibers, are too bulky and
require too much bulky ammunition to be used as assault rifles and issued
to every soldier. The assault rifle uses a medium power ammunition which is
low in bulk, yet delivers greater power and accuracy than pistol ammunition.
  The AK-47 is a fully automatic assault weapon made and distributed by
the Soviet block. The '47' refers to the year 1947 and the weapon has since
been superceded by the AKS-74, which uses a smaller caliber ammunition.
The guns which have the media so worked up currently are not fully automatic
and they are not AK-47's or true assault rifles. Some of them look like
AK-47's because that is a popular look, much the same way my Dodge Aries
looked like a Mercedes.
  The sale and possession of fully automatic firearms in the United States
has been closely regulated by the Federal government since 1934. Because
the pool of legally transferable weapons of this type is limited, they are
extremely expensive. In addition, the prospective buyer must pay a $200
transfer tax in advance and then wait while a background check is run on
them. They must also agree to government stipulations about the storage of
said weapons and they are subject to surprise inspections. No legally owned
fully automatic weapon has yet been found to have been used in a crime in
the United States. In spite of this fact some states do not allow the
ownership of fully automatic weapons, and California happens to be one of
these. 
  A semi-automatic, or self-loading, firearm is one which fires one round
each time the trigger is pulled and readies itself to fire again the next
time the trigger is pulled. Clip-fed semi-automatic firearms have been
available to the American public for about ninety years now. They use a
detachable magazine, called a clip, to hold ammunition until it is loaded
into the firing chamber. It is a fact of the design of such guns that the
number of rounds which can be loaded into the gun is a function of the
clip, and not the gun itself. Any such clip can be modified or replaced
with one of larger capacity.
  The citizens of The United States in general and California in particular
have shown that they clearly do not favor disarming the law abiding as a
response to the activities of the lawless (remember proposition 15?). The
proponents of this foolish idea never give up however, and they have now
resorted to the tactic of skulking around City Halls all over America
lobbying for ordinances to do what they could not do through the voters or
their higher elected officials. Few of us choose our city council members
based on their views on gun control, and many states (including California)
have enacted 'pre-emption' laws at the state level to prevent such
misguided individuals from creating a mish-mash of differing laws from one
city to another with which to trap the unwary traveler into a jail term.
  The 'gun control lobby' is always waiting around for any event which
they can use to whip up an emotional tidal wave against the rights of
their enemy and the logical reasons behind those rights. That enemy is, of
course, the law abiding citizen. They have never supported the NRA's
position of demanding tough mandatory sentences for the use of a firearm in
a crime, because the criminal is simply not their target.
  The recent attacks against Californians who own semi-automatic rifles
began largely with the actions of certain mad men who gunned down defense-
less people. The fact that they were known criminals and mad-men who had
not been dealt with by the criminal justice system properly was ignored,
as usual, and we were told that it was the fact that they didn't have to
reload the guns very often that lead to these killings. In case there is
anyone out there who doesn't see this clearly, it was their depravity
and desire to murder defenseless people which brought this about. Under
those circumstances any weapon would have served well enough, whether it
was a car, a bomb, or a conventional shotgun. We are not talking about a
demanding task which required any speed or urgency. We are talking
about men who would go in among a crowd of defenseless people and kill
them. Are we expected to believe that having to reload or change guns more
often would have made the whole thing too much bother for them?
  Another angle of attack is the 'some guns are ok, but you don't NEED a
right to this kind of gun'. They tried this with handguns not long ago, but
seem to have given up on that for now to concentrate on getting their foot
in the door with the dreaded 'AK-47'. Two points are overlooked when this
argument is put forth. The first is the fact that these guns are not a
special breed apart from the commonly available semi-automatic rifles we
have had for decades. They are basically the same except in appearance and
would in fact serve as hunting weapons if a person so desired. The second
fact ignored in this argument is that the second amendment to the U.S.
Constitution and the similar amendments to many state constitutions
(including California's) was not enacted to protect the right of a citizen
to have a gun for hunting or target shooting. Those activities were so
basic and accepted at the time that they were to be taken for granted by
the framers of the Constitution. It was the right to defend one's self and
freedoms that the Constitutions recognized as needing protection from
government. The framers made this very clear in their other writings at
the time, and every serious study of the matter has so concluded. The idea
that a firearm should meet some spurious criteria as suitable for hunting
(according to a politician) in order to be of any legitimate use to a
citizen is totally contrary to the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
  In the only Supreme Court case which dealt with the second amendment, a
man failed to have a conviction for carrying a sawed-off shotgun overturned
because the Court ruled that it was not protected by the amendment because
it was not suitable as a MILITARY weapon. Even there the Court was proven
wrong when sawed-off shotguns became a military issue weapon for trench
warfare during World War I, but the point is that the Court understood that
it was the citizen's right to keep and bear arms suitable for defense of
themselves and their freedoms which the Bill of Rights protected. It has
been established beyond any doubt that the framers meant the body of the
people, armed with their own weapons, when they spoke of the 'militia' in
the second amendment.
  Lets take a look at the situation again from the start:
   1. Known mad-men in California commit ghastly crimes against defenseless
       people.
   2. The anti-gun lobby misleads the public into believing that the guns
       they used were of a different type (which has already been illegal
       in that state for years) and that they can be outlawed without
       affecting any 'legitimately' owned firearms.
   3. Knowing that success is unlikely with the voters or their state or
       Federal representatives they appeal to city councils and get them
       to pass banning ordinances in several cities in spite of the state's
       pre-emption law and the U.S. and California constitutions.
   4. Those ordinances, if left to stand, contain language which outlaws
       virtually all clip-fed semi-automatic weapons.

 See You Later,
   Dean H.

Message: 57432
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandy/guns
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 09:29:34

Because of the GANGS - I think that's reason enough to HAVE guns for
protection! Gangs are the most frightening thing around and think of having
to face them one of these days and without any sort of protection is even
more frightening. The police can only do so much and as long as it's not
instantainous like when the gang is threatening you - then we certainly need
something! -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 57433
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob on Apollo
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 09:31:34

I'm glad you like it here and would you please log on a little bit more than
you do? A full BBS is a BBS that won't shut down! Got it? -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 57434
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean/last 7
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 09:36:54

Good informative posts! -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 57435
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question?
Subject: Paul
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 09:40:42

Why give the police those sort of weapons? They can't use them! Heaven
forbid a cop shoot somebody even in self defence! I can see the headlines in
the Repulsive now! When a cop does shoot and/or kill someone, he's treated
like a criminal. The bleeding hearts want to put his head on the block for
shooting a human being regardless of what they have done/was doing. Right
now the criminals have more rights than the victom does. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 57436
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on Apollo
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 09:41:44

Please note dear Sysop that the board is very active - informative and NOT
negative! Just a bunch of friends bouncing around ideas. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 57437
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Answer!
Subject: Mecham/homophobia
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 11:16:34

        Mecham stated that he heard blacks use the term, and he saw nothing
wrong with it.  I HEARD him say that, unless you suggest that KTSP hired an
impersonator for their news report.  You are doing what all the other Mecham
supporters are doing and hearing only his first statement.  You totaly
ignored his second statement.
        What does homosexuals in the government have to do with AIDS?  AIDS
is spread by the HIV virus, not homosexuality.  And even if you what you
suggest is true, if AIDS is caused by homosexuality, why should you, a
heterosexual, be concerned about it?  If AIDS is a homosexual disease, you
shouldn't be worried about it.  If you are worried about getting it, that
can only mean that it is not a homosexual disease, but a just plain disease.
You seem to be holding both of the contradictory ideas in your mind at once.
Please explain how you reconcile them.
        Gary Hart's fooling around isn't what really bothered me about that
incident.  What bothered me is that he lied about it.  If he had said,
"Yeah, I did it with Donna Rice, and wow, was she great!" I would have had
more respect for him that his "Who, ME?" generated.
        I have some homosexuals for friends that I consider nice, kind,
generous, understanding.  I know some Christian heterosexuals that are
hateful, abusive, and corrupt.  Now, tell me who the REAL "good" people are
here.
     /
 /  *  /  Alan
*     *

Message: 57438
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Answer!
Subject: More
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 11:36:13

        On the other hand, I've known some homosexuals that were real jerks,
and known some Christians that I think are very fine people.  I certainly
include the Chirstians on Apollo in this category.  We may argue, but that
doesn't mean I don't like you.
        What really bothers me about homosexual bashing is that if you
substitute "black" or "Jew" or whatever for "homosexual," you would have
word-for-word a statement that might come from the KKK or the Nazis.  I
don't think black or Jew bashing is right, anymore than homosexual bashing.
        Yes, I must agree, the Bible does condem homosexuality.  I can't
really argue against "God said so" -- I'd like to debate Him on it, but he
doesn't return my phone calls.  But then, the Bible condems all
non-Christians.  "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," remember?  A lot
of women died at the hands of devout Christians obeying that Bible verse. 
If you are going to follow the Bible, follow ALL of it.  If you belive that
the Bible tells you to condem homosexuals, fine.  But don't forget, you are
commanded to kill witches, too.  If you encountered someone that you knew
was a witch, would you kill her?  Remember, the Bible tells you to.  If you
choose to let that slide, maybe you could let a few gays slide by too.  That
doesn't mean you condone it.
        Even if I had the power to stop discussion or observance of
Christianity, I wouldn't do it.  But, that doesn't make me a Chirstian.
        One of the few things in the Bible that I agree with is the Golden
Rule.

Message: 57439
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Answer!
Subject: last
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 11:37:16

I don't want anyone telling me what sexual life I may or may not have, so I
don't tell anyone else what sexual life they may or may not have.
 
     /
 /  *  /  Alan
*     *

Message: 57440
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 14:39:16

        With all due respect, Paul, I disagree with you.

Do you realize that honest citizens and cops are being killed with vehicles
on a daily basis?   We should severely limit the manufacture and
distribution of vehicles.

Just a quick question, Paul ......  If you and a friend were caught in the
midst of two rival gangs who would you prefer to have as your friend?
OR (a more likely scenario): You and your friend being confronted by a gang?
1) An unarmed friend
2) An armed friend

An instructor of mine mentioned that if he and his girlfriend were
confronted by 'bad guys' and he we was getting the $h!t kicked out of him
and his girlfriend did nothing to help him .......... she had better be in
another state when he gets out of the hospital.
I would prefer to have an enlightened individual in the ways of self-defense
accompany me. It's the smart thing to do, especially if you are taking a
midnight stroll down 'gang lane'.

Message: 57441
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 15:45:06

Log on everyday??

OK, this is my log for today:

Ummmmm,  uh,  I forgot what I was going to say.  I'll try to remember it for
tomorrows log on.

Message: 57442
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Alan
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 15:50:59

Re:  "if AIDS is caused by homosexuality, why should you, a
heterosexual, be concerned about it?"

AIDS is mainly spread by homos and drug users.  This is common knowledge.  I
wouldn't be concerned about it if they would keep it to their selves.

Message: 57443
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bob/last
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 16:51:57

        Alan is an elf and elves are known to carry the disease.
        You know how them little fairies are!

Message: 57444
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Gangs
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 18:28:22

  Gangs seem to be the current media hysteria, so it should be noted that
total gang related homicides in Phoenix during 1987 were 17 and that this
declined to 13 during 1988.
  Once again we have been propagandized into a panic over something which is
being touted as the latest epidemic. Remember how all our children were
going to be kidnapped, how we were all going to be wiped out by the AIDS
epidemic, what was it before that?
  Since these gangs prosper mainly by dealing in illegal substances should
we crack down on law abiding citizens who use prescription drugs or aspirin?
This makes every bit as much sense as harassing law abiding citizens over
their legally owned weapons in order to get back at the gangs for shooting
people with their illegal ones.
   See You Later
      Dean H.

Message: 57445
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 20:59:07

        You know too much.  No, I really haven't read all the posts because
my pager went off during your posts and I had to run to the other phone and
make a call.  Wrong number.  From what I read you said a lot and logically
so.  
        I would love to have an MX Missle in my back yard.  Any
restrictions?  Just kidding.  Good posts.

Rod, God & Bob Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 198
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 03:30:04

We are not taxed on everything "from soup to nuts." Food purchased at the
grocery store is not taxed by this state.

It is naive and ignorant to say that the government gives us nothing for the
taxes that it collects. Efficient use of revenues may not be the norm, but a
hell of a lot gets used properly.

Message: 199
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Rod/7 1/2
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 10:36:27

7 1/2 hours a week or a month? -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 200
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Nick/taxes
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 10:42:21

Sure, a hellava lot gets used properly - but most does not. Big deal! Why
arn't efficient use of revenues not the norm? If they didn't collect so
much, just perhaps what they do get would be used to the better.
Thanks for the information re: we are not taxed on food perchased at the
market. I did not know that because there is always taxes at the end of my
perchase slip - but I guess that's for sundries such as shampoo, booze,
cigarettes, etc. Right? -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 201
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Food tax
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 16:54:31

        Food is taxed right up to the point of being purchased.
Ask any farmer, repair man, transporter, packager, and distributor and
whoever else I forgot to mention.

Message: 202
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann/7 1/2
Date: 03/08/89  Time: 21:00:54

        I meant seven and a half days per week.
IER